The Presidential Candidacy Dead Zone

Where have all the candidates gone?  You know, for the election of 2020?  What happened to all the inane coverage of the potential candidates to dethrone Trump, either in the Republican primaries or Main Election?  It is very early to be discussing the presidential campaign three years from now, so it would be silly to bring it up now.  Only an idiot would focus on the prospects on the rise in the Democratic and Republican parties now.

That’s the point.  Now is the time to avert your eyes.  Now is the time for the establishment politicians to snatch their bribes.  Now is the Presidential Candidacy Dead Zone.

Even though the buzz about 2020 had been ongoing for months in the wake of the Trump inauguration, the calm before the storm has arrived.  This is the Dead Zone where establishment frontrunners court their donors for millions and millions of dollars.  This is the time for self-proclaimed progressives and anti-Wall Street politicians to shed their public persona and begin a private conversation with the people who will expect favors for their political investment.

This is one of the main reasons why the Legacy Media has focused on an array of asinine topics recently.   The saber-rattling of the North Korean dictator, a misguided protest of the national anthem by NFL players, more overblown coverage of some racial divide, some librarian snubs the FLOTUS, and so on and so on.  One could hardly consider this news.  At this point, TMZ has more hard-hitting segments than the big networks.  But that is the point; they flood the airwaves with so much pseudo-news that the public gets enough of a dose of nonsense to think the system is functioning properly and acting as the Fourth Estate.

It is all smoke and mirrors to allow the politicians to slink away to mansions on Long Island and offices on Wall Street.  While purchasing access happens on both sides of the isle, the Dead Zone favors the wealthy Democrat.  Ironically, the GOP candidates have a harder time amalgamating money from what would be considered rather transparent cronyism.  The focus of this article is more on candidates who generate a persona of progressivism or pro-worker support.  Naturally, this would exclude Republicans, who rarely concern themselves with broadcasting an image of campaign finance responsibility.  Cash is considered protected speech, in their silver-spoon lives.

2013 had been a profitable year for the 2016 presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton.  While then-President Obama (who coincidentally received millions of dollars post-inauguration in 2009 to the tune of 30.0% coming from finance in his own mini-Dead Zone) was focused on slapping the wrists of bankers of the 2008 financial collapse, Clinton used her Foundation and similarly-named Global Initiative to build a pay-to-play infrastructure, under the tenuous explanation the organization was for charitable causes.  The most egregious violations were the clandestine meetings with Goldman Sachs executives in autumn of 2013, amongst other meetings with similar financial companies, for sums exceeding hundreds of thousands of dollars.  These meetings would receive little press and their transcripts would be permanently sealed and protected in the Clinton safe, except for specifically staged speeches, like the nauseatingly condescending “Proving The Case for Women Entrepreneurs,” which were designed carefully to obscure the true nature for Clinton’s presence at these organizations and also provide cover for any future investigation.

To the disgust of the Clinton family, questioning and investigation did occur in 2015 and 2016 (finally), when rapidly-ascending populist candidate Bernie Sanders pressed Hillary on her speeches and their respective outrageous costs.  His inquiries would shed light on the Dead Zone.  People began to realize how political influence is purchased when Clinton was invited to speak.  No speech is worth $200,000, $400,000, nor $600,000; this was obvious pay-to-play transfer of funds.  Clinton’s tour was exceptionally shameless, even delving into the deep pockets of various nefarious groups like the Carlyle Group and Goldman Sachs, while masquerading as charitable work for the CGI and CF.

While the clever private speaking fees comprised the signature method for buying political access in 2013, the year of 2017 will be marred with covert meetings with wealthy donors.  The Democrats have ceded to the GOP regarding the debate over “money is speech,” and are incapable of promoting any high-level candidates who do not have the backing of huge financial benefactors.  Unlike the restraint President Obama exhibited in his campaign and post-inauguration fundraising (limiting contributions by individuals to less than $50,000), the contemporary focus will be on how to funnel more money prior to the elevation of a candidate’s official declaration.

There is one potential candidate that is currently exploiting and enjoying the 2017 Dead Zone:  Kamala Harris.  She constitutes all the desired attributes that establishment string-pullers want out of a candidate:  an Idpol wet dream with a willingness to take money from anyone.  Since the DNC has asserted archaic sponsorship is paramount, and even though Sanders proved small-contribution funding can and does work in an ever-increasing Millenialized world, and even though HRC still lost even with a billion dollar bank account, Kamala has doubled down on the ancient method of courting donors to build an insurmountable warchest for her inevitable 2020 presidential bid.

Insanity is repeating failure and expecting an alternate outcome.  Lucky for Democrats, the higher leadership is insulated by sycophantic insanity.

Harris has already entered the spotlight with sketchy contribution deals in the recent past.  In July of 2017, just months into her freshman term as U.S. Senator, she was considered to be the biggest fundraiser in the Democratic Party and was found hobnobbing in the Hamptons courting a host of previous-Clinton donors just giddy about a rehash of the potential of a HRC-2.0 bid.

Also in 2013, she was involved in an exceptionally extraordinary scandal that will never play well with the pesky populist democratic socialist types.  If there was any topic to sabotage a potential candidacy from securing the left-wing and middle-class base of the Democratic Party in 2020, it would be the Mnuchin Scandal.  Never heard of it?  Yeah, Legacy Media wants you to focus on Rocket Man or NFL Kneelers.

The Mnuchin Scandal consisted of two parts.  First, Steven Mnuchin ran the bank OneWest and, among other egregious offenses, he presided over widespread coordinated foreclosure misconduct in the financial crash in the late 2000’s.  The bank would fix foreclosure auctions in their favor, improperly evict homeowners from their residences in violation of legal notifications, and evidence of document backdating was found.  (The Intercept has the best summary of the alleged corruption, if you desire more detailed background.)  Various California deputy attorneys general rightfully drafted a 22-page memo insisting on a “civil enforcement action” against Mnuchin and OneWest bank.  To the surprise of her staff, then-California-Attorney-General Kamala Harris reviewed the evidence and chose to decline prosecution, without explanation.

The second part of the Munchin affair is the revelation that he contributed to Harris’ senatorial campaign.  While it was a modest sum, one crucial detail was Kamala happened to be literally the only Democrat to whom Mnuchin subsidized that year.  It is incomprehensible why a man, who dumped a half million dollars to the Trump campaign and subsequently was awarded the nomination for the Treasury Secretary position, would find it profitable to bankroll a supposed progressive unless he was confident her allegiance was with him.  Democrat spin control tried to patch up this blotch on Harris’ record, but this constitutes just one of the many times she gave hidden passes for the worst perpetrators of the middle class.

Despite Harris’ penchant for sounding tough on banksters (and Trump) for the cameras and even establishing a “Mortgage Fraud Strike Force” in 2011, her efficacy for genuine banking reform and prosecution has been negligible.  According to the Intercept, “despite hundreds of complaints of loan modification fraud — a primary target identified by the office — it only prosecuted 10 cases in the first three years.”  With the statute of limitations expired since the collapse, most of all California-based banking fraud will go unpunished, likely due to the inaction by Ms Harris.

Understanding Kamala Harris’ donor-friendly background and disdain for campaign finance is important, because now is the time to shine a flashlight into her Candidacy Dead Zone.  This is the time when her true colors will emerge.  Well… only if we look now.   In a few months, the Dead Zone will evaporate and the midterms will retake the political coverage.

Just like in the Clinton 2013 Dead Zone, the clandestine meetings and speeches proved she had a “public and private” position regarding the wealthy elites.  What exactly are Kamala’s private activities in the coming weeks?  That’s the $64,000 question.  Sadly but understandably, the MSM has not covered any of her upcoming plans.  The very few recent articles about her are nauseating puff pieces to elevate her standing outside of California and try a doubling-down on identity politics to stimulate a national ground-swelling.  None attempt to cover her schedule and with whom she is meeting.

Thankfully, no one is falling for the claim of candidate-donor separation any more.  As Nikomi Konst recently elucidated regarding Harris’ ascendancy, “Follow the money.”  Everyone understands that large campaign contributions inevitably buy access and favors in the long run.  If the Democratic Party wants to foist up a 2020 nominee that will defeat the GOP, they will need to invest in a candidacy that is not beholden to wealthy and corporate interests.  The deals that happen now in the 2017 Presidential Candidacy Dead Zone will set the tone for the debates and arguments in the run up to Election Day.  With the Legacy Media unable to control the narrative in the nascent world of social media in 2016, they will be completely swallowed by the potential of internet exposure in the years to come.  But that won’t stop them from trying one last time.


——— Nicholas Pisca is founder of 0001D, and can be found at TwitterFacebook, and Youtube. Before you get all into a huff, he probably has less in common with you and even less with your enemies. So at least you got that.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s