Month: March 2016

by William Skink

I love not having cable news, but when I am around a tv with cable, I do like to check in to see how things are being framed. Such was the case on Monday as I sat in a hospital room with my new little bundle of joy sleeping soundly in my arms, blissfully unaware the world she was just born into is going off the rails.

On MSNBC, Chris Hayes had Susan Sarandon on doing the surrogate thing for her candidate, Bernie. Sarandon is obviously very informed about the terrible candidate Hillary Clinton would be, and made her case for backing Bernie Sanders. When Hayes asked if she would support Hillary if she got the nomination, Sarandon shocked Hayes by not immediately saying yes:

The actress and activist has been a powerful surrogate for Sanders on the campaign trail over the past few months, and during an interview with MSNBC’s All In With Chris Hayes Monday night, she said she doesn’t know if she can bring herself to vote for Clinton if it comes down to it.

“I think, in certain quarters, there’s growing concern that the folks that are into Bernie Sanders have come to despise Hillary Clinton or reject Hillary Clinton and that should she be the nominee, which is as yet undetermined, they will walk away,” Hayes said.

“That’s a legitimate concern,” Sarandon replied. “Because they’re very passionate and principled.”

“But isn’t that crazy?” the host asked. “If you believe in what he believes in?”
“Yeah but she doesn’t,” Sarandon shot back. “She accepted money for all of those people. She doesn’t even want to fight for a $15 minimum wage. So these are people that have not come out before. So why would we think they’re going to come out now for her, you know?”

Pushing for a more personal response, Hayes pressed Sarandon on whether or not she would vote for Hillary and this is what Sarandon had to say:

As they continued to discuss the issue, Hayes pressed Sarandon to see the election as potentially a choice between Clinton and Trump, arguing that Sanders himself would “probably” urge his supporters to vote for her.

“I think Bernie would probably encourage people, because he doesn’t have any ego in this thing,” Sarandon told him. “But I think a lot of people are, ‘Sorry, I just can’t bring myself to [vote for Clinton].’”

“How about you personally?” Hayes asked.

“I don’t know. I’m going to see what happens,” Sarandon said.

That bit of honesty prompted Hayes to stop in his tracks. “Really?” he asked incredulously.

“Really,” Sarandon said, adding that “some people feel that Donald Trump will bring the revolution immediately if he gets in, things will really explode.” Asked if she thinks that’s “dangerous,” she replied, “It’s dangerous to think that we can continue the way we are with the militarized police force, with privatized prisons, with the death penalty, with the low minimum wage, threats to women’s rights and think you can’t do something huge to turn that around.”

After the Sarandon segment, Chris Hayes had Dan Savage on, and Savage made a point before going into his schtick to respond to Susan Sarandon with the lesser-evil trope, emphasizing that Trump would not trigger the revolution.

By now Sanders supporters know corporate media is desperately trying to bury Bernie Sanders. If you want to better understand why, this Zerohedge post connects Bernie’s consistent message to enact campaign finance reform with the corporate concern of losing millions in easy ad revenue, a revenue stream traditional media very much needs. From the link:

When a Super-PAC raises $100 million for Hillary, Jeb, et al., where does 90% of that money go? To the Corporate Media. Corporate Media gorges on political media buys every two years, and increasingly depends on this feasting on Super-PAC money for its outsized profits.

As more and more advertising dollars flow to digital media (online search, Facebook, etc.), traditional media dominated by a handful of corporate giants needs the massive influx of campaign dollars to offset its stagnating revenue model.

My source notes that there are rarely any discounts for campaign media buys–the super-PACs and candidate’s campaigns pay full pop, and typically pay in cash: no 90 days receivables for campaigns.

Political campaign buys are almost pure profit, as there is minimal sales effort required and the campaign/super-PAC is paying full freight.

Real campaign finance reform would gut Corporate Media’s profits. No wonder the Corporate Media downplays Sanders’ campaign, his personal integrity and his chances to become president.

And why do we have a deplorable media landscape?  Because Bill Clinton signed into law the telecommunication act of 1996, leading to two decades of media consolidation.

The link above goes to a Truthout piece, a news source one would hope would be less inclined to undermine its credibility in order to protect Hillary Clinton from bad press. Unfortunately journalist John Pilger dashes those hopes in a piece that calls out Truthout for trying to editorially soften his criticism of Hillary:

On March 23, CounterPunch published my article, “A World War has Begun: Break the Silence”. As has been my practice for years, I then syndicated the piece across an international network, including Truthout.com, the liberal American website. Truthout publishes some important journalism, not least Dahr Jamail’s outstanding corporate exposes.

Truthout rejected the piece because, said an editor, it had appeared on CounterPunch and had broken “guidelines”. I replied that this had never been a problem over many years and I knew of no guidelines.

My recalcitrance was then given another meaning. The article was reprieved provided I submitted to a “review” and agreed to changes and deletions made by Truthout’s “editorial committee”. The result was the softening and censoring of my criticism of Hillary Clinton, and the distancing of her from Trump.

Pilger then includes the portion of his previous piece that the editorial committee wanted excised from Pilger’s article. The intent was obvious:

The “editorial committee” clearly wanted me to water down my argument that Clinton represented a proven extreme danger to the world. Like all censorship, this was unacceptable. Maya Schenwar, who runs Truthout, wrote to me that my unwillingness to submit my work to a “process of revision” meant she had to take it off her “publication docket”. Such is the gatekeeper’s way with words.

If Clinton formally secures the nomination it will be interesting to see how the corporate media reports on the growing email scandal. Will attention be paid to Clinton’s poor judgement, prioritizing the convenience of using her personal Blackberry over little pesky nuisances like following the law and national security? Zerohedge will sure be paying attention:

At this point it’s abundantly clear that Clinton would have been far better off telling the truth from the very beginning and the fact that incremental information continues to surface certainly seems to suggest that the former First Lady fully intends to admit only what someone else can prove. That doesn’t exactly inspire much trust.

“So now we know that, contrary to her statement under oath suggesting otherwise, Hillary Clinton did not turn over all her government emails,” Tom Fitton, the head of Judicial Watch said in a statement. “We also know why Hillary Clinton falsely suggests she didn’t use clintonemail.com account prior to March, 18, 2009 — because she didn’t want Americans to know about her February 13, 2009, email that shows that she knew her Blackberry and email use was not secure.”

While we would note that there’s a bit of confirmation bias going on there (i.e. Fitton said the messages he uncovered earlier this month were proof that Clinton knew her BlackBerry wasn’t secure and now he says the new e-mails are proof that that proof was indeed proof), Fitton is probably right. Clinton most likely would rather not have been forced to admit that she and Cheryl Mills essentially tried to browbeat the NSA into figuring out how to accommodate the BlackBerrys because the very fact that they had the conversation in the first place suggests Clinton and Mills knew the devices weren’t secure.

Read the whole article for full context, but that little tidbit right there is pretty damning. But what’s lying under oath for a serial liar like Clinton? And with the looming specter of a Trump candidacy, who really believes Democrats will do anything other than rally behind this terminally flawed candidate?

I’m not sure if there has ever been a presidential candidate running for the White House while being investigated by the FBI, but if Clinton is the first, it’s not the first her campaign wants anyone to think too much about. The duel factors of having a vagina and running against the anti-Christ are the main considerations Clinton sycophants will be emphasizing once Bernie is taken care of one way or another.

by William Skink

John Engen was reelected to his 3rd term as Mayor in 2013. Getting elected three times means that Engen has a lot of support in Missoula, so if someone else wants the job they better bring their A game.

Harlan Wells, elected to represent Ward 2 last year, is so excited to run for Mayor he has already filed to run. So far, if I were to ascribe a letter grade to his efforts, I’d give Wells a D, and that’s being generous.

Harlan Wells made his first mistake when he exposed his ignorance for all to see regarding council processes after failing to get a referendum on the ballot in November for Missoulians to vote on the city’s effort to acquire its water system through eminent domain:

City councilman Harlan Wells introduced a referendum to city council to put the buyout on November’s ballot for the public to vote on. The referendum was referred to the Committee of the Whole to review at their meeting Wednesday. However, the agenda item was never present. The city council said Wells never submitted the proper ballot language for the committee to vote on.

“The constitution and the statutes require that you must allow a reasonable opportunity for public participation before any decisions are made,” said Missoula City Attorney Jim Nugent.

Another problem that will face Wells as he tries to make his case for why he deserves to be Mayor of Missoula is the fact he’s already established the worst attendance record of any council member. Not showing up regularly for the job Wells was elected to do is bad enough, but making excuses like the one below only amplifies how apparently tone deaf Wells is. From the link:

“Showing up to argue for two hours over something I’m just going to argue about on Monday night is just redundant and painful,” Wells said.

Plus, going to meetings isn’t required, according to the city clerk. And it isn’t the only way in which councilors can be effective – ward representatives also present and steer legislation, respond to constituents’ concerns and shape the the city budget.

Instead of just showing up to argue, Wells may want to consider doing some listening first. Or he could look at how Adam Hertz conducted himself while on council, conduct even I felt compelled to commend him for 2 years ago for making a tough vote that probably saved Missoula from being sued by the ACLU.

What Harlan Wells has done is to immediately transform his council position into a platform for his bid to become Mayor. When KGVO first reported Wells’ intentions to run for Mayor, Wells was quoted saying this about his reasoning for announcing so early:

“It is an announcement of an announcement because there are some legal restrictions I have to follow for the next year, but yeah let’s just say I am 99.9% sure I will be running for mayor next year.”

Wells says he’s announcing his intentions early, so that people can watch the votes at city hall carefully with a contrast in mind. He hopes the impending election may change the voting habits of the other city council members.

“By announcing that I am probably going to run for mayor, they now have to realize every action they do is going to have an opposite and equal reaction with the voters,” said Wells. “My hope is that over the next 18 months, with this looming over them, they will be more measured in their direction.”

Harlan Wells doesn’t appear to be very politically savvy. Missoulians now have 18 months to watch him make a fool out of himself if he chooses to continue with the ill-informed shenanigans he’s already pulled.

I’ll be especially curious to see how Harlan Wells spins his day job as the property development coordinator for the Missoula Housing Authority, an odd job for a conservative so concerned about city budget issues. For those who don’t know what a housing authority is, here is the wikipedia description:

A housing authority or ministry of housing is generally a governmental body that governs some aspect of the territory’s housing, often providing low rent or free apartments to qualified residents. The existence of government agencies specifically concerned with ensuring that housing is available to people living in the country is a comparatively modern development, with the first such agencies being established in U.S. cities in the 1930s, the height of the Great Depression.

A conservative who gets a paycheck funneling Federal HUD dollars to subsidize low-income housing in Missoula? I’m sure that will play well.

All that said, I do think Mayor Engen is politically vulnerable if someone who isn’t a political joke decides to counter Engen’s vision of making Missoula unrecognizable in 10 years. While I commend the Mayor for digging in to get our water back from corporate raiders, I think the proposed development that will radically alter this town is reckless when we are already facing so many critical issues that needed to be addressed yesterday.

by William Skink

Unsatisfied with selling out the Democratic Party last century, the Democratic establishment appears hellbent on driving the last nail into the coffin by nominating Hillary Clinton. Doing so will deliver the White House to Donald Trump.

With Trump will come a resurgence of organized racism unseen in this country since the civil rights movement. I don’t think Democrats are prepared, or even care to understand, why this is happening.

Locally, I understand the inclination to attack Ryan Zinke for chumming around with bigots and to wonder how beholden Sheriff Rummel is to the sovereign citizen movement in Sanders County. These alarming developments make easy fodder for political attacks, but do those attacks actually change people’s minds?

When David Duke goes on his radio show, he says audacious stuff that’s easy to spot as racist, like this:

Yesterday on his radio show, former KKK leader David Duke reiterated his praise for Donald Trump, saying that critics’ attempts to compare the GOP presidential frontrunner to Adolf Hitler will backfire and end up “rehabilitating that fellow with the mustache back there in Germany.”

He also urged listeners to continue to support Trump before the government wipes out “the European-American majority.”

There’s no way young people or working class white people could be swayed by this supremacist stuff, right?

While Democrats watch the right slide into more overt interactions with white supremacists, what they seem to missing is labor gravitating toward Trump and the possibility that young people aren’t the loyal demographic Democrats assume them to be.

For insight into that latter notion, check this piece out. From the link:

Over the past decade, liberals, along with some dogmatic centrists, have found a new dream. Instead of a socialist utopia or a free market paradise, they fantasize about a benevolent, center-left political order. Under this new order, same-sex marriages, medicinal pot, and IUDs will all be easily accessible anywhere in the country; institutional racism will wither away in the face of enlightened attitudes; and common-sense economic policies will protect both working-class living standards and economic growth.

The midwives of this new order, we’re told, will be the so-called “millennials.” As the baby boomers expire and my age cohort becomes the dominant force in American public life, they will “save politics” and end the culture wars, according to Democratic strategist Carrie Wofford. The older, whiter, more conservative base of the Republican Party will fade away. And best of all, it will all happen without a fight. We are the most diverse, tolerant, and liberal generation in American history, they say; all progressives need to do is sit tight and wait for them to become a majority of the electorate.

It’s a nice story. And like all good myths, it has an element of truth to it. We are, indeed, the most racially diverse generation in American history. We also lean further to the left than any prior generation on issues like LGBT equality, immigration, and environmental regulation. Looking at the trend lines across generations—from boomers to X-ers to the current crop of youngsters—it’s easy to understand why so many observers have convinced themselves that the arc of history bends toward progressivism.

But that optimistic gloss on the data elides a darker possibility. The same demographic shifts that would lead to a new progressive golden age could just as easily foment a right-wing populist reaction. A more racially diverse population might lean further to the left overall, but a shrinking white majority is fertile territory for a supremacist backlash.

What will happen when this generation’s overwhelming support of Bernie Sanders gets crushed by the political slime that circulates around the Clintons? Don’t assume young people will just do what you want them to do, Democrat establishment.

Regarding labor, Matt Taibbi wrote something in his Rolling Stone piece last month that should be read by every Democrat and taken seriously:

Every four years, some Democrat who’s been a lifelong friend of labor runs for president. And every four years, that Democrat gets thrown over by national labor bosses in favor of some party lifer with his signature on a half-dozen job-exporting free-trade agreements.

It’s called “transactional politics,” and the operating idea is that workers should back the winner, rather than the most union-friendly candidate.

This year, national leaders of several prominent unions went with Hillary Clinton – who, among other things, supported her husband’s efforts to pass NAFTA – over Bernie Sanders. Pissed, the rank and file in many locals revolted. In New Hampshire, for instance, a Service Employees International Union local backed Sanders despite the national union’s endorsement of Clinton, as did an International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers chapter.

Trump is already positioning himself to take advantage of the political opportunity afforded him by “transactional politics.” He regularly hammers the NAFTA deal in his speeches, applying to it his favorite word, “disaster.” And he just as regularly drags Hillary Clinton into his hypothetical tales of job-saving, talking about how she could never convince Detroit carmakers out of moving a factory to Mexico.

Unions have been abused so much by both parties in the past decades that even mentioning themes union members care about instantly grabs the attention of workers. That’s true even when it comes from Donald Trump, a man who kicked off the fourth GOP debate saying “wages [are] too high” and who had the guts to tell the Detroit News that Michigan autoworkers make too much money.

You will find union members scattered at almost all of Trump’s speeches. And there have been rumors of unions nationally considering endorsing Trump. SEIU president Mary Kay Henry even admitted in January that Trump appeals to members because of the “terrible anxiety” they feel about jobs.

“I know guys, union guys, who talk about Trump,” says Rand Wilson, an activist from the Labor for Bernie organization. “I try to tell them about Sanders, and they don’t know who he is. Or they’ve just heard he’s a socialist. Trump they’ve heard of.”

For decades now Democrats have been taking the labor vote and the youth vote for granted while selling out the party to Wall Street and billionaire meddlers like George Soros. Hillary Clinton embodies this corrupt filth, and the kids and working stiffs know it.

People also know that no matter who we elect in this country, it doesn’t much matter anymore when it comes to influencing actual policy:

Asking “[w]ho really rules?” researchers Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page argues that over the past few decades America’s political system has slowly transformed from a democracy into an oligarchy, where wealthy elites wield most power.

Using data drawn from over 1,800 different policy initiatives from 1981 to 2002, the two conclude that rich, well-connected individuals on the political scene now steer the direction of the country, regardless of or even against the will of the majority of voters.

“The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy,” they write, “while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.”

This country is at the precipice of taking a nasty plunge into overt fascism. While it might emerge from within the GOP, it wasn’t just the Republicans that got us here.

If Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton they should get their fair share of the blame for accelerating this transformation of America into a fascist idiocracy led by a raving Trump with his finger on the nuke button.

Have a nice Easter weekend.

by William Skink

I got a book in the mail yesterday, one I had been eagerly anticipating. It’s by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke and it’s titled Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism and the Politics of Identity.

Mary Poole and the rest of the moms in her book club, where the inspiration to open a resettlement office in Missoula happened, should read this book. Here’s just a snip from the introduction:

In the 1980s and 1990s, the far right witnessed a dramatic revival in Europe and America, especially among an alienated white youth and lower-income groups increasingly marginalized by new high-tech industries and the advancing integration of ethnic minorities in their communities. The fast increase of Hispanic and Third World immigration in the United States and corresponding immigration from developing countries into Western Europe has fueled fresh fears of racial inundation. The collapse of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia has led to further migrations involving Gypsies and East European nationals to Western Europe. Free-trade agreements, the collapse of traditional manufacturing industries and the export of service jobs abroad through computer communications are stimulating racism and hostility toward liberalism.

Globalization is unleashing a massive flow of capital, information, skills and personnel across national borders. The Western world is now rapidly moving through a period of far-reaching structural transformation. Borders are increasingly permeable. Skilled workers, economic migrants, refugees and asylum seekers are migrating in increasing numbers into the advanced industrial countries. The arrival there of increasing numbers of immigrant peoples confronts traditional national culture with unfamiliar customs, norms and religions. At the beginning of our new century, the very idea of the nation-state is hard-pressed by these cultural trends. A century later, liberalism and laissez-faire capitalism are again seen as the motors of unwelcome and threatening change. And once again, extremist nationalist reaction echoes folkish ideas by concentrating on defensive ideologies of race to counter threats to national and cultural identity.

This books was published in 2003, before the Neocon/Neolib consensus of perpetual war created the worst refugee crisis since WWII. The right-wing response to these conditions have returned Neo-Nazism and other forms of white supremacy to a position of cultural prominence. American politicians don’t seem to have a problem with this when it’s located in countries like Ukraine and directed at Russian speaking citizens, but when it starts bubbling up into mainstream politics via Donald Trump, watch out.

When Mary Poole’s book club is done with that book, they can read this piece by Dave Crisp about how difficult it is in Montana for poor people to get legal help:

An aging population, suicidal and homeless kids, Indian child welfare cases, rising domestic violence—Yellowstone County caregivers and advocates laid out a litany of legal troubles during a forum Wednesday.

In presentations at the Billings Access to Justice Forum at the Mansfield Health Education Center, many witnesses called for more money and more resources. For Montana residents with little money or with disabilities, legal help is too expensive and too hard to find, witnesses said.

“State funding for victims’ access to justice is critical,” said Erin Lambert, director of programs at the YWCA, which hired its own staff attorney to assist victims of domestic and sexual violence. The YWCA has served 30 victims in just the last two months, she said.

Other witnesses said legal help was needed to fight not just abusers but government bureaucrats. One witness, identified only as Vicky, said she fought a two-year battle with Medicare before obtaining a $3,000 scooter that helps her carry on daily life while coping with cerebral palsy.

“I didn’t know where to go or what to do,” she said.

Vicky was among the lucky few Montanans who get legal help through the Montana Legal Services Association, said Alison Paul, director of the association.

“They won the lottery,” she said.

If you’re poor and disabled in Montana, getting legal help is tantamount to winning the lottery. This is coming from people on the front lines in Montana who see the lack of resources and the dire need every day. For some people, especially women fleeing domestic violence, it’s a matter of life and death.

The link above is to a news story from last year reporting that, by September, Montana had already seen a record number of people killed by their domestic partners:

The number of people in Montana killed by their spouses or partners has reached a new record.

“We’re in the middle of a bad year,” Matt Dale, executive director of the Office of Victim Service at the Montana Department of Justice, told the Legislative Law & Justice Interim Committee on Tuesday.

Sixteen people have been killed in 2015 in Montana by their current or former spouses or partners, or were children killed in such incidents.

That’s the highest number since the state started tabulating such “intimate partner homicides” in 2000 — and the year’s not over.

“We still have October, November, December left, and many years it’s the final quarter, those last three months, we see actually a spike,” Dale said.

Undaunted, the do-gooders will continue their efforts. Here’s how a Missoula Current piece concludes:

Other cities in the state have contacted Soft Landing hoping to follow suit, including organizers in Helena and Bozeman. As for Missoula, Poole said, the community has stepped up to help resolve a pressing global challenge, even if the answers don’t come easily.

“We’re not talking about hundreds of refugees being placed here once,” she said. “We’re talking about a few families at a time. We’ll have the flexibility and time to figure out what the needs are, and we definitely have the excitement in our community to do this.”

Good job, ladies. I’m so glad you are helping to resolve this pressing global challenge. Who cares that our state can’t meet the current needs of our poor, our disabled, our mentally ill? Who cares that American foreign policy created this mess, and electing Hillary Clinton will make it worse? Who cares that suicides are rampant and meth is permeating our state? There are refugees to save, and thanks to the insanity of American foreign policy, saving refugees appears to be a growth industry.

by William Skink

How many anti-semites are there in America? According to Democrats, roughly half the country has anti-semetic potential. Does that seem like a crazy number? Maybe not.

How did I arrive at this number?

First, I looked at an apparent contributing factor to being anti-semetic, which is being a conspiracy theorist, and according to this Washington Post article, half of America believes in at least one conspiracy theory, defined in the article as “an explanation that makes reference to hidden, malevolent forces seeking to advance some nefarious aim. Not all conspiracy theories are untrue but they all contradict a commonly accepted explanation for the same phenomenon.”

Now that half of America has been established as possibly subscribing to anti-semetic conspiracy theories, it’s important to know which ones to be on the look out for. Luckily we have a local blogger prepared to do the difficult work of accusing someone of being anti-semetic, which Don Pogreba did in a post titled Republican Anti-Semite Files as Democrat in Missoula’s HD 99:

Mr. Strandberg has also expressed some troubling bigotry. It’s hard to overlook this post arguing that the United States is under the control of the Jewish Rothschild family, an attack the Anti-Defamation League calls a “classic Anti-Semitic myth.”

I kept the link intact so readers can read for themselves what is in the post. This is actually a subject I’m studying right now, so I won’t get into this alternate history stuff too much in this post, but it’s an area of inquiry I do think is important to examine.

If this alternate history stuff was the only anti-semetism to worry about, that would be bad enough, but sadly, there is more, like the anti-semites who for some anti-semitic reason don’t think Israel should militarily occupy Palestinian land and continue illegal settlements that pretty much the entire world agrees is a bad idea. Luckily we have honorable politicians like Hillary Clinton to tell these anti-semites behind the BDS movement what’s what:

Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton called the Israel boycott movement “alarming” in a speech Monday, characterizing activists as anti-Semitic and accusing them of “bullying” Jewish students on college campuses.

“Many of the young people here today are on the front lines of the battle to oppose the alarming Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement known as BDS,” said Clinton, speaking at the annual policy conference of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). “Particularly at a time when anti-Semitism is on the rise across the world, especially in Europe, we must repudiate all efforts to malign, isolate, and undermine Israel and the Jewish people.”

BDS is a global movement of activists looking to pressure Israel into ending its occupation of the West Bank and restoring the rights of Israel’s Arab-Palestinian citizens. Opponents of BDS activism on campus frequently accuse BDS activists of “bullying opponents into silence” or trying to “de-legitimize Israel.”

The occupation of the West Bank is about to turn 50 years old and the BDS movement has been successful in bringing pressure and unwanted attention to the racism and disproportionate use of violence used by Israel to oppress and control Palestinians. Unfortunately the concern over racism for too many Democrats stops when it comes to the demonstrable racism of the apartheid state of Israel.

Now I would like to direct readers to a lengthy post just put up at MT Cowgirl by anti-gun crusader Jonathan Hutson bringing attention to a tv show that will air (which Hutson was involved in) about Hate in America. There is some interesting information about the Lenio case that Hutson and local community members apparently hoped would become a felony trial. Here is Hutson’s opening:

In the wake of a controversial decision this month to drop the felony intimidation charge against David Joseph Lenio – a 29-year-old White Nationalist who tweeted threats last year to shoot up a grade school in Kalispell, Montana, and “put two in the head of a rabbi,” then retrieved a weapons cache – the Investigation Discovery channel will premier the next installment of “Hate in America,” which explores the growing movement of strong-man worshiping populists, nativists, and armed anti-government militants across the country through the lens of Montana’s Flathead Valley.

While promoting the show and his own involvement, Hutson also delves into Kevin Lenio’s family background by depicting Lenio’s dad as an influential banker:

On December 30, 2014, the day he arrived in Montana, Lenio tweeted several times that he felt so angry at being economically disadvantaged that he wanted to “shoot up” a grade school in Kalispell. This short-order cook and snowboarder who falsely claimed to be destitute and homeless but who is actually the son of influential banker Remos Joseph Lenio, who co-founded the private investment bank Tillerman & Co. of Grand Rapids, blames a Jewish conspiracy for his sense of being disinherited from his economic birthright. He bragged that, in retaliation for his supposed life of poverty, he could kill more people than the 20 school kids and six adults who died in the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Newtown, Connecticut in December 2012.

In that quote Lenio’s dad isn’t just mentioned by name, but a link in the original post goes to a PDF document that features Lenio’s father’s email address and phone number. Kind of creepy and a bit troubling from someone who will later depict himself as a victim:

In an opinion piece for the Flathead Beacon, a Flathead Valley newspaper owned by Maury Povitch and Connie Chung, Rabbi Francine Green Roston and I wrote: “Each of us writing this piece knows what it is to be threatened by Lenio. One of us (Francine) is one of only two Flathead Valley rabbis and has kids in the local schools. Lenio tweeted to the other of us (Jonathan) to ask where his kids go to school. Lenio crossed the line between hate speech and hate crime.”

I guess Jonathan Hutson doesn’t think bringing Lenio’s “influential banker” father into this case and spreading personal information about Lenio’s father is crossing a line.

Here are some of Hutson’s lingering questions:

Why did the justice system give David Lenio preferential treatment by releasing him into the custody of his wealthy banker dad without bail in July 2015? Why did the authorities fail to act when Lenio violated his release conditions at least 348 times in August 2015 even though 37 other Flathead County Detention Center residents had been rearrested for violating their release conditions? Why did the prosecutor and judge keep delaying the trial and finally agree to drop the felony charge of intimidation against him without any meaningful conditions? And what could be the significance of those jugs of urine in Lenio’s van? Those are topics about which I plan to write more extensively in the future.

Sure, good fodder for more writing, some of it might even turn a buck or two. With so many anti-semites in America, one could even make finding them a full time job.