nonniey Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 What caught my attention in this story wasn't the name change and why they are doing it it was some of the background info. To me this is (even if legal) an example of major corruption by the Justice Department. ......... The organization’s CEO, Janet Murguia, admitted as much in a video announcing the name change: “We must make sure that our name and our organization evolves along with and remains relevant to our ever changing Hispanic community.” Appealing to a broader swath of this diverse group is necessary now that the “fat years” under President Obama are gone. The Obama Justice Department made a practice of settling lawsuits against corporate defendants by requiring they make large donations to groups like La Raza. It was, in the words of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, “a scheme to funnel money to politically favored special interest groups.” In a letter sent to Attorney General Loretta Lynch in the closing days of the Obama administration, Mr. Goodlatte noted that “in just the last two years, DOJ has directed nearly $1 billion to activist groups, entirely outside of Congress’s spending and oversight authority.”............ https://www.wsj.com/articles/la-raza-finally-loses-the-race-1500229809 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 Holy ****, a BILLION dollars?!? That's almost as much as the Golden State Warriors payroll for the next three years! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 I don't have a WSJ subscription, so I can't read the article, but if the gist is that the DoJ was pressuring corporations to donate to private groups with Jesse Jackson style shakedown tactics, that's messed up. Crap like that becomes ammo for the Trumpistas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 3 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said: I don't have a WSJ subscription, so I can't read the article, but if the gist is that the DoJ was pressuring corporations to donate to private groups with Jesse Jackson style shakedown tactics, that's messed up. Crap like that becomes ammo for the Trumpistas. It's not an article, it's an Op-Ed slam piece. They're changing the name/re-branding cause it's not 1965 anymore. Here's an actual article about it. http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2017/07/14/la-raza-unidosus-whats-name/469079001/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted July 17, 2017 Author Share Posted July 17, 2017 9 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said: I don't have a WSJ subscription, so I can't read the article, but if the gist is that the DoJ was pressuring corporations to donate to private groups with Jesse Jackson style shakedown tactics, that's messed up. Crap like that becomes ammo for the Trumpistas. But it was only a Billion dollars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 Again, I can't read the WSJ content. The AZC article points to nothing more than rebranding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted July 17, 2017 Author Share Posted July 17, 2017 2 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said: Again, I can't read the WSJ content. The AZC article points to nothing more than rebranding. Like I said it was the background information that piqued my interest not the name change part. I don't have a subscription either but I was able to access the full article going through the Realclearpolitics website you be able to as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 Long story short from memory... La Raza is kind of a NAACP for Latino-American judges and lawyers dedicated to maintaining legal recourse for Latino Americans. La Raza is also the moniker of a Latino gang like the Crips. Remember when that Latino judge ruled against Trump last year for whatever and Trump complained he was the victim of racism? That led to legions of dank meme dip****s intentionally putting forth the idea that the judge was secretly a member of a vicious crime syndicate. You can connect the dots from there to this slam piece. #OBUMMER 8 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said: Again, I can't read the WSJ content. The AZC article points to nothing more than rebranding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted July 17, 2017 Author Share Posted July 17, 2017 1 minute ago, TryTheBeal! said: Long story short from memory... La Raza is kind of a NAACP for Latino-American judges and lawyers dedicated to maintaining legal recourse for Latino Americans. La Raza is also the moniker of a Latino gang like the Crips. Remember when that Latino judge ruled against Trump last year for whatever and Trump complained he was the victim of racism? That led to legions of dank meme dip****s intentionally putting forth the idea that the judge was secretly a member of a vicious crime syndicate. You can connect the dots from there to this slam piece. #OBUMMER Here is the translation from Trythebealees - Nothing to see here please move along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 4 minutes ago, nonniey said: Nothing to see here please move along. Your best post ever. This concludes the lesson for today and we're very proud of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted July 17, 2017 Author Share Posted July 17, 2017 9 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said: Your best post ever. This concludes the lesson for today and we're very proud of you. Or another accurate translation would be - Ignore that man behind the curtain. It is readily apparent given your posts that you are OK with this since it came out of the Obama Administration. Nothing that administration did can be wrong to you. You know who you remind me of? - Sean Hannity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 20 minutes ago, nonniey said: Or another accurate translation would be - Ignore that man behind the curtain. It is readily apparent given your posts that you are OK with this since it came out of the Obama Administration. Nothing that administration did can be wrong to you. You know who you remind me of? - Sean Hannity Some Americans respect their Presidents, others save their respect for pundits. Get in where you fit in, little fighter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted July 17, 2017 Author Share Posted July 17, 2017 2 hours ago, TryTheBeal! said: Some Americans respect their Presidents, others save their respect for pundits. Get in where you fit in, little fighter. I think something went over your head Sean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 a free article on the practice http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/320463-obama-era-cash-for-cronies-under-house-fire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar78 Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 to the sanctimonious posters, you sure that the Trumps, Bushes, and Reagans are clean of any sort of this stuff? When you funnel money in a quasi-legal manner to non-profits and brown people it's cronyism. If you funnel money in a quasi-legal manner to corporations headed up by white guys, you're just "pro-business". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 It is sanctimonious to point out excesses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BornaSkinsFan83 Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 Daaamn I thought nonniey was dead. Seriously. Ain't seen him in any of the other political threads. Glad you're alive buddy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 In 2014, the Justice Department settled two cases stemming from the financial crisis against Bank of America and Citigroup worth a combined $23.7 billion, $9.5 billion of which was supposed to go to so-called consumer relief. Shockingly, two of the big winners were the National Council of La Raza and the National Urban League which each scored more than a million dollars from the settlement. Under the Obama Administration agreements, a good chunk of the massive cash awards ended up being given to third party activist groups as part of the settlement. So...$9.5 billion was supposed to go to consumer "victims" and La Raza got somewhere a bit over a million, which is just more than a one hundredth of a percent. The horror! Not that I approve (far from it in fact - I am quite opposed to such a transaction), but there's just a touch of hyperbole here. Nothing like grossly overstating your case whilst lavishing effusive praise on Jeff Sessions to undermine a piece's credibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 20 minutes ago, BornaSkinsFan83 said: Daaamn I thought nonniey was dead. Seriously. Ain't seen him in any of the other political threads. Glad you're alive buddy! Hes been reduced to spamming the board with a new thread every time he reads a particularly woke op-ed. It's almost pitifully endearing. #sean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinny21 Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 1 hour ago, twa said: a free article on the practice http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/320463-obama-era-cash-for-cronies-under-house-fire Who wrote that article raises more questions for me. Here's what seems a bit less of a hit piece. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/world/national-security/sessions-prohibits-settlement-agreements-that-donate-money-to-outside-groups/2017/06/06/c0b2e700-4b02-11e7-bc1b-fddbd8359dee_story.html Its interesting, because I can kind of see what the practice was meant to do. The Volkswagen bit, for example - makes some sense. The banks having to give some money to support financial education also makes a degree of sense. I can't tell where La Raza payments fit in though. Either way, I'm guessing it's not nearly as nefarious as one side claims, though maybe not as 'clean' as the other side claims. Edit: sad that google brought up 'articles' by Heritage Foundation, National Review, Newsmax, etc. as the first hits.., I'm guessing none of them offered much about the 'other' side of the argument. To be fair, the Bloomberg article was the same, though I'm guessing it had a bit less venom than those others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 So far we've got: It's only a billion dollars Trump isnt clean either Good deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 4 minutes ago, tshile said: So far we've got: It's only a billion dollars Trump isnt clean either Good deal. We've got this and it's magically delicious...to the utmost. Legal proceedings by the government must never be used as shakedowns to enrich the coffers of any political cause, regardless of ideology. And while it is good that the Justice Department will now be headed by a man of the utmost character, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the nation will not always be so fortunate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrcunning15 Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 1 minute ago, skinny21 said: I can't tell where La Raza payments fit in though. It seems that La Raza and the National Urban league deal with affordable housing issues and consumer protection issues, so I guess that's how they fit in this whole thing. BTW these are excess funds (remaining funds after restitution is paid) so it seems as though the DOJ can arbitrarily choose what groups to distribute these funds too. I guess I would have a problem with this if it there was some proof that Obama personally profited from this, at least the DOJ didn't force the donation to O's alma mater like Governor Christie. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-justice-departments-bank-settlement-slush-fund/2016/08/31/a3b4da7a-6eec-11e6-8365-b19e428a975e_story.html?utm_term=.49f345b06a76 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinny21 Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 1 minute ago, mrcunning15 said: It seems that La Raza and the National Urban league deal with affordable housing issues and consumer protection issues, so I guess that's how they fit in this whole thing. BTW these are excess funds (remaining funds after restitution is paid) so it seems as though the DOJ can arbitrarily choose what groups to distribute these funds too. I guess I would have a problem with this if it there was some proof that Obama personally profited from this, at least the DOJ didn't force the donation to O's alma mater like Governor Christie. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-justice-departments-bank-settlement-slush-fund/2016/08/31/a3b4da7a-6eec-11e6-8365-b19e428a975e_story.html?utm_term=.49f345b06a76 Excellent, thanks for the response. So excess funds were given to groups that help battle these injustices (and therefore they're liberal groups, lol). I suppose I can see why someone would think it's a bit shady, and I'm not surprised serious GOPers take offense to helping with things like consumer protection and financial education. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 18 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said: We've got this and it's magically delicious...to the utmost. Legal proceedings by the government must never be used as shakedowns to enrich the coffers of any political cause, regardless of ideology. And while it is good that the Justice Department will now be headed by a man of the utmost character, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the nation will not always be so fortunate. Yeah i'd prefer they not funnel money to their buddies. To you it's only a billion dollars. We're just on two totally different wave lengths about what is and isn't acceptable for the government to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.