Home | About | Donate

After Mulvaney Admitted Selling Access to Lobbyists in Congress, Warren Wants to Know If He's Doing the Same at CFPB


After Mulvaney Admitted Selling Access to Lobbyists in Congress, Warren Wants to Know If He's Doing the Same at CFPB

Jake Johnson, staff writer

White House budget chief Mick Mulvaney has already admitted that he sold access to lobbyists as a member of Congress, but now Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is demanding to know whether he's doing the same as acting head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), given that "almost every major decision he's made" at the agency has rewarded his campaign donors.


She knows the answer and Mulvaney is, frankly, the norm in both parties at the national level. He’s just more upfront about it. Many of the Democrats do roughly the same thing, but give speeches saying the buzzwords their shitty advisers feed them, and no one buys their bullshit. Maybe people did when Nirvana was still gigging. It’s impossible for a party as thoroughly corrupt as the Democratic Party to make Mulvaney’s actions an issue because of their own corruption. There are exceptions, of course, but any non-corrupt Democrat (going the way of the dodo) will then have to answer to the corruption in their own party, and when they dance around being honest the person will lose legitimacy in the eyes of most people watching their response. Nancy Pelosi is giving speeches about a rigged and inequitable economy. Impossible to find a worse person to do such a thing. So, Russia! Boo! Stormy Daniels! DNC lawsuit because they care about democracy (LOL!), and isn’t Trump such a bad person? Fucking ridiculous.


From the article:

“When the lobbyists pay up, they’re at the table.”

And as we all know, if you don’t have a place at the table, you’re on the menu.


I think most Democrats cringe at this point when they hear people like Mulvaney say what he said. They are aware of their own corruption, they are aware that people hate their corruption and the horrible policies that corruption leads to, and they are then forced into really uncomfortable discussions. They’d rather just pretend this isn’t endemic in this system and would just love to pay attention to other stuff. The people that feel most comfortable critiquing Mulvaney are the minority, because they are relatively less corrupt. The rest are next to worthless.


“We had a hierarchy in my office in Congress,” Mulvaney explained. “If you’re a lobbyist who never gave us money, I didn’t talk to you. If you’re a lobbyist who gave us money, I might talk to you.”

At least the Republicans say this straight out. Mainstream Dems hide this protocol. In any case, Mulvaney is just the perfect person to fill the swamp back up with.


, You total fraud. As if the selling of favors in the Swamp and beyond is not de riguer for all of you swamp creatures. Your support of the Hildebeast instead of Bernie or Jill Stein showed your colors. Enough of the fake outrage. At least he was honest.


Despite the outrage, the only punishment is for the politicians who DON’T sell access and are, for that reason, marginalized by party bosses and underhandedly squeezed out of primary campaigns.


The Mick don’t do no 'splainin. In part because he knows that his particular brand of deep venality keeps him in good stead with the “president,” so if he’s out of one position, he’ll be given another.


Such gross hypocrisy. Foreign Lobby AIPAC goon Sen Warren and all of her pathetic peers in the two Houses of Congress are willingly directed and controlled by the Israel lobby and the Wall Street Mafia. We The People of The United States are made take last place from those that are supposed to be serving us.


These people are brazenly stupid.


The Repugs do “say this straight out.” Just like Bannon did at the CPAC convention in Feb. 2017, when he announced that the-then Cabinet nominees were chosen for their ability “…to deconstruct the administrative state.” Looking “good” so far, especially at the State Dept. and the EPA.


First, I have to say I dislike Mulvaney and want all elections financed only by the public. But I’m sensing that he was not understood in this latest incident. Did I misread Mulvaney’s statement? I thought he was saying that when people he represented showed up, he went out to talk with them, without being paid. The first part of the statement, contrasting with the last, was what got him into trouble. Can someone explain what the last part meant?


Can anyone imagine Hillary Clinton in Elizabeth’s role in this encounter? Elizabeth is right on target and feisty as usual. I would even consider her as a good presidential candidate in 2020 IF she can put a good team of advisers together. I would like to see a female president and Elizabeth at times seems like a good choice in that direction.


I agree, but Elizabeth needs to temper US foreign policy and cut military spending, things I’m not so sure she’d advocate. Hard to say. I just hope she’s not a hawk like Clinton.


You would like to think there was consequences for such brazen behavior. But there is not.


She’s making Mulvaney wish they’d let her settle in as the Director of the CFPB, as it was designed for her. She only ran for office after being shut out by the GOP thinking they could prevent the CFPB.


So what else is new? What is more obvious, political bribery or US demanding denuclearization of NK while itself bristling with nukes and having used them to kill millions? Corruption and hypocrisy rule. Oligarchy is the evil.

Direct Democracy


Good read. I studied direct democracy in school. Have you read any work by Robert Dahl? He concluded there’s always room for more democracy, and that it’s more of a means than an end, considering population size. Too bad there’s no national referenda, but I don’t take for granted living in a direct democracy state like CA. Another device for more democracy that’s favorable in my opinion is having representatives chosen by lot, like the citizen assembly in ancient Athens. Compare that to the sell-out politicians today!


I agree with you and Dahl that Athenian citizens assembly is more favorable. Representatives chosen by lot is a more democratic solution than those chosen by oligarchs.

Some interesting Dahl observations:

In his book, Democracy and Its Critics (1989), Dahl clarifies his view about democracy. No modern country meets the ideal of democracy, which is as a theoretical utopia. To reach the ideal requires meeting five criteria:[10]

  1. Effective participation
    Citizens must have adequate and equal opportunities to form their preference and place questions on the public agenda and express reasons for one outcome over the other.
  2. Voting equality at the decisive stage
    Each citizen must be assured his or her judgments will be counted as equal in weights to the judgments of others.
  3. Enlightened understanding
    Citizens must enjoy ample and equal opportunities for discovering and affirming what choice would best serve their interests.
  4. Control of the agenda
    Demos or people must have the opportunity to decide what political matters actually are and what should be brought up for deliberation.
  5. Inclusiveness
    Equality must extend to all citizens within the state. Everyone has legitimate stake within the political process.

Instead, he calls politically advanced countries “polyarchies”. Polyarchies have elected officials, free and fair elections, inclusive suffrage, rights to run for office, freedom of expression, alternative information and associational autonomy. Those institutions are a major advance in that they create multiple centers of political power.[11]"

I don’t favor polyarchy, a government led by oligarchs with different views. It is preferable to one with uniform views, but I ask, aren’t they all focused on the same thing, money and power?


Probably not as ghoulishly hawkish as Hilliary, but definitely a stooge of AIPAC.  You absolutely need to check her voting record!