Kagan Sat on Goldman Sachs Board
Solicitor General Elena Kagan previously served on an advisory board for Goldman Sachs, a position that could complicate her nomination if she is selected to fill a Supreme Court vacancy, USA Today reported Tuesday.
Kagan served on Research Advisory Council of the Goldman Sachs Global Markets Institute from 2005 to 2008, according to financial disclosures she filed with the Senate Judiciary Committee when she was nominated as Solicitor General last year. She received $10,000 stipend in 2008 for her service.
Elena Kagan: Wall Street’s SCOTUS Pick
May 10, 2010
Democrats are going gaa-gaa over Obama’s Supreme pick Elena Kagan. “Democrats praised Kagan as ‘razor sharp’ and impeccably qualified for the lifetime appointment on the nine-member bench, but Republicans promised to vigorously vet a ’surprising’ choice, noting she had never been a judge,” reports Agence France-Presse. “I have selected a nominee who I believe embodies… excellence, independence, integrity and passion for the law, and who can ultimately provide that same kind of leadership on the court,” Obama said at the White House.
Is Kagan independent? Hardly. She is a bankster operative.
Kagan sat on a Goldman Sachs advisory council between 2005 and 2008. It was her job to offer “analysis and advice to Goldman Sachs and its clients.”
Obama mouthpiece Robert Gibbs and the Justice Department are now engaged in frenetic damage control over Kagan’s Goldman connection. Kagan’s role working for the “great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity” (as Matt Taibbi described Goldman) should not be dismissed lightly. Kagan will obviously serve the interests of the banksters if she makes it to the Supreme Court (adding to the corporatist influence already well entrenched there). Republicans need to hammer Kagan on this during her confirmation hearing. But then Republicans are the right hand on the zombie One Party grocery clerk known as Congress. Difficult questions will not be asked.
But it is not merely Goldman. It’s also Kagan’s connection to Larry Summers, the former Undersecretary for International Affairs in the Clinton administration and chief economist at the notorious loan sharking and poverty creation machine, the World Bank. Summers also worked in 2006-2008 for a derivatives firm, D.E. Shaw and was paid around five million dollars.
It was Summers and his so-conspirator Robert Rubin that facilitated the destruction of the Glass-Steagall Act designed during the last Great Depression to erect a firewall between commercial and investment banking.
Robert Rubin was Treasury Secretary in the Clinton administration, a former co-chairman of the board at Goldman, and a director at Citigroup.
Rubin, Summers, and the Fed mob boss at the time, Alan Greenspan, worked with the globalist IMF in 1998 to micromanage to engineered finnacial crisis in Russia.
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin says Kagan will serve the interests of average Americans, an absurd proclamation at best. In fact, Elena Kagan is a bankster operative and she will serve the interests of Wall Street and Goldman Sachs. She was selected by the global elite specifically for this reason.
Finally, it will be nearly impossible to criticize Obama’s pick because it is rumored she is a lesbian. If you point out her Wall Street connections, you will be called homophobic the same way any criticism of Obama is deemed racist and dismissed as the hateful ravings of white supremacists.
Beyond all the banker connections, it appears Ms. Kagan was also a radical socialist. In her undergraduate thesis at Princeton entitled “To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933,” Kagan wrote: “In our own times, a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States. Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism’s glories than of socialism’s greatness.”
Once again, the words of the late Gary Allen come to mind: “If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth program, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of superrich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead it becomes the logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs. Communism, or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite.”
As the scholar Atony Sutton and others have revealed, Wall Street financed and supported every major socialist movement in the 20th century.
Do you think Republicans will grill Kagan on her radical socialist beliefs? Sure, the moment after Hell freezes over.
VIACOM/CBS WANTS YOU TO THINK IT WAS A SUMMER INTERNSHIP!!!!!!!
Elena Kagan’s Goldman Sachs “Connection”
May 10, 2010 3:02 AM
Paul Campos may be right to worry that Elena Kagan’s track record doesn’t suggest much about her judicial philosophy. And Senate inquisitors may unearth issues that some find will troubling during Kagan’s upcoming Supreme Court confirmation hearings. But we’re not even there yet and already the knives are coming out – but not from the right. It’s the left that’s going after the White House’s nominee.
Serving as a very capable kvetcher-in-chief, Salon’s Glenn Greenwald, has assembled a bill of particulars that sum up the some of the doubts heard from the left about Kagan’s suitability to replace Justice John Paul Stevens. (Greenwald has a more in-depth critique of Kagan here.
I don’t have any personal passion for or against Kagan’s nomination, but frankly, some of the complaints are, at best, borderline.
Let’s focus on the most explosive and, I think, the most ludicrous: Her supposed “connection” to Goldman Sachs. Greenwald links to Digby, who links to USA Today -gotta love those links – which notes that Kagan received $10,000 in 2008 for serving as a member of the Research Advisory Council of the Goldman Sachs Global Markets Institute. Well, as the noted constitutional scholar and former New Jersey Nets forward Derrick Coleman was wont to exclaim on occasion, whoop-de-damn-do. Fact is that the “Digby” post offers nothing in the way of evidence that points to a nefarious connection. Read a little further, though, and you’ll find the author’s real point: “I think Supreme Court confirmation battles are ideologically instructive for the nation and are one of the few times when it’s possible for people to speak at length about their philosophical worldview. Liberals have to stop running from this. Allowing the other side to define us is killing us.”
There you have it. This is really about politics and dissatisfaction with the Obama administration. Some on the lib-left would like the White House to tack far harder in their direction and they are not pleased at his political instinct to move toward the middle. That’s an argument they can have, though now it looks as if Kagan will get caught in the cross-fire.
Back to Greenwald. He also cites Sam Stein of Huffington Post. But Stein similarly brings nothing of real linterest to the table. The two reports that the HuffPo includes of the advisory council from 2005 and 2008 don’t advance the conspiracy case one inch. The entire exercise is basically a setup for an anonymous quote from someone identified as “a prominent progressive.”
“I just don’t understand why the Administration would want to makes themselves and their nominee vulnerable to the opposition at a time when American skepticism of Wall Street is at an all time high…this is like handing the Republicans the mantle of populism just for trying to oppose Kagen’s (sic) confirmation.”
Is it really?
Like Greenwald, Stein’s post makes much of the USA Today piece. But that article similarly fails to clinch the argument that Kagan crossed an ethical line. In this instance, though, the author did manage to get someone on the record-judicial nominations specialist Lee Epstein of Northwestern University Lee Epstein-opining that the Goldman Sachs word may “make things more complicated for her.”
And so it may. Goldman Sachs is radioactive for obvious reasons these days. But Kagan’s limited gig as an advisor to the now-tarnished investment house had nothing to do with creating phony CDOs or engaging in market manipulation. It was a freelance gig to supplement her day job. If anybody’s got evidence to suggest otherwise, they ought to get it into the public record.
THESE WILL BE THE TALKING POINTS….
LOOK FOR THE TALKING POINTS. SHE WAS WITH GOLDMAN SACHS FOR 5 YEARS. WHY DOES SHE NEED TO SUPPLEMENT INCOME BY WORKING AS A DIRECTOR FOR GOLDMAN SACHS? I GUESS BARNEY FRANK WAS SUPPLEMENTNG INCOME WITH HIS PEDOPHILE PROSTITUTION RING THAT WAS RUN OUT OF HIS BASEMENT!
IF IT REALLY WAS NOTHING, THEN SUBMIT ALL RECORDS. WTF, YOU WOULD BE EXPECTED TO DO THIS BEFORE GETTING A JOB AT GOLDMAN SACHS, I GUESS THEIR VETTING PROCESS IS BETTER THAN NOMINEES FOR BEING A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE.
White House’s ‘slickly-produced interview’ of Supreme Court nominee leads to charges of ‘propaganda’
‘Frustrated’ reporters get snippy about White House ‘interview’ with Kagan
By Muriel Kane
Wednesday, May 12th, 2010 — 12:29 pm
Every White House does its best to secure a positive spin on the messages it puts out. But where the Bush administration was notorious for its attempts to maintain tight control over the press pool, the Obama administration has shown an inclination to make an end run around the press entirely.
The latest example is the administration’s posting of its own video interview of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan on the White House blog, while indicating she would not be available for more formal press interviews. This led CBS News to report somewhat tartly, “While the White House seems to believe the American people deserve to hear from Kagan, it has not made her available to reporters. That prompted some consternation at today’s White House briefing.”
In recent weeks, the tension between the Obama administration and the press has become so apparent that one blogger at The Left Coaster felt a need to push back against it, writing, “The same White House press pool that let the Bush administration use them as a doormat as long as they were given access is now complaining about the Obama administration not giving them access, and hammering them for adverse coverage. … These are the same people who let the Bush administration play them like a drum and let Jeff Gannon and other nuts join their ranks with little uproar because they were afraid of Rove and Ari Fleischer.”
The Kagan matter, however, is potentially more serious than last month’s complaints about Obama ditching the press pool to attend his daughter’s soccer game. The latest fuss began when reporters learned on Tuesday that the White House had posted on its own website an interview, conducted by its official videographer Arun Chaudhary, in which Kagan spoke about her childhood, family, and career.
Story continues below…
As described by Mediaite, “From a PR standpoint, the short (3 min 22 sec), slickly-produced interview is a triumph, showcasing Kagan’s personality in a milieu of graceful camera changes and stylishly floating stills. … Journalistically, you could argue that Kagan’s feet weren’t actually held to the fire here, or even a warm pair of slippers.”
According to CBS, at Tuesday’s press briefing, one reporter asked Press Secretary Robert Gibbs,”Who did the interview? And can I have one?” After Gibbs replied that the interview was on the White House website, the reporter asked a second time if Kagan would like to do another interview and Gibbs replied, “She’s not told me that, no.”
“Tell her we’re deeply frustrated,” the reporter commented.
The CBS story did acknowledge that “it seems to be unprecedented for the nominee to be heard from at all before the confirmation hearings, other than in the initial introduction and in brief photo ops with senators.” It noted, however, that the in-house interview represents a fresh example of “the Obama administration’s policy of regularly using new media tools to go around traditional media.”
The San Francisco Examimer, however, was far blunter. Its comment on the CBS story was headed “White House bypasses press for propaganda ‘interview’ of Supreme Court nominee” and remarked sarcastically, “Isn’t that generous of them? Why bother with an independent and free press when the White House is willing to do all of their hard work for them?”
At Fox News’ “FoxNation” website, an extended excerpt from the CBS News story was posted under the even stronger headline, “Reporters Furious Over Kagan’s WH Propaganda Video.” And conservative blog Hot Air also ran with “White House issues Kagan propaganda video.”
Even when it comes to new media, access to Kagan appears to be limited. ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper grumped in a Twitter posting on Tuesday, “i went to @elenakagan but got: ‘This person has protected their tweets.’ humph.”
Tapper followed this up an hour later with a link to the White House video and the comment, “Bypassing the ‘filter’ > RT @BarackObama: Hear directly from Elena Kagan, my nominee for the United States Supreme Court.”
The White House blog on which the video appears is maintained by Jesse Lee, who worked his way up from handing out anti-Iraq War leaflets to blogging for Nancy Pelosi and then running the DNC’s 2008 rapid-response team. Now, according to whorunsgov.com, “as the online guru of the fledgling Obama White House, he is tasked with mending the occasionally contentious relationship between left-wing bloggers and Beltway politicians, harnessing the netroots reach and passion to spread the administration’s message.”
Lee has, however, been known to employ the White House blog in a manner that might be more appropriate for the netroots, as when he directly called out Fox News last fall, writing, “Last night Fox News continued its disregard for the facts in an attempt to smear the Administration’s efforts to win the Olympics for the United States. … Once again Fox News’ Glenn Beck program has shown that nothing is worthy of respect if it can be used as part of a partisan attack to boost ratings.” This was followed a month later by an unsuccessful White House attempt to ban Fox News from a round of interviews with “pay czar” Kenneth Feinberg.
Lee’s blog has also been accused by liberal bloggers of a lack of transparency. Last winter, for example, Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake noted that Lee had promoted what he described as an “objective analysis” of health care reform by an expert who was actually a paid White House consultant.
And she’s given the “Zionist Seal of Approval” by the ADL.
New York, NY, May 10, 2010 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today issued a statement in response to the President’s nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the United States Supreme Court.
Robert G. Sugarman, ADL National Chair, and Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, issued the following statement:
We congratulate Elena Kagan on her nomination to the Supreme Court. She has already served this nation with distinction in a number of capacities, most recently as Solicitor General. The granddaughter of immigrants, she has lived the American Dream (ethnic networking?), achieving one professional success after another (ethnic networking?), and serving as a role model for many in the process.
We applaud President Obama for having selected this distinguished lawyer (with no judicial experience), . With her background in academia, private practice, and government service, if confirmed, she will undoubtedly bring an important new perspective (anti-Christian, anti-Consitution, pro-Communist, pro-feminist, pro-abortion, pro-torture, ect), to the work of the Court.
Now it is the Senate’s turn to fulfill its constitutional responsibility (cowtow to Goldman Sachs and roll over for the Anti-Defamation League, AIPAC ect), to thoroughly review Ms. Kagan’s record and qualifications (Shouldn’t take long at all becauese there’s little to review). As this process moves forward, ADL will share with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee key issues they should explore (internet censorship, “hate” speech, stripping US citizens of their rights, pro-illegal immigration, anti-second amendment ect) with Ms. Kagan, as we have done with past nominees.
In considering this nomination, we urge political leaders in both parties to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities in a manner that is thoughtful and reasoned. It is our hope that the process will be civil and respectful, and will cast our American democracy in the best possible light.
At least there’s an honest liberal website which delves into the real issues.
Over the weekend, newspapers all across America announced that Elena Kagan was President Obama’s number one pick for the Supreme Court. The question that should be asked is, “Why is she President Obama’s number one pick?” It is a well-known fact that Ms. Kagan taught school at the University of Chicago Law School with President Obama and they were friends. However, American citizens should wonder: “Does her friendship with President Obama make her the best choice for the Supreme Court?” Surely, President Obama is not claiming that Ms. Kagan has the finest legal mind of any lawyer that he knows. With all that said and all the guessing games going on in Washington as to who is going to be appointed to the Supreme Court, it is fun to look at what President Obama is looking for in the next appointment to the Supreme Court. It is also important to examine why he may be considering Ms. Kagan and what we, as citizens, know about her from the press reports.
According to news articles, Ms. Kagan was born and raised in New York City on the Upper West Side of New York. Her father, Robert Kagan, was a founding partner in a real estate law firm located in Manhattan called Kagan & Lubic. Her mother, Gloria Kagan, was a schoolteacher at HunterCollege. She has two brothers, Marc Kagan and Irving Kagan, who are associated with HunterCollege. It is interesting to note that all over the blog world it is being reported that she is the cousin of Arch Neocons, Robert and Frederick Kagan. Their father, Donald Kagan, may very well be the brother of Elena’s father, Robert Kagan. So it is clearly possible he is her uncle or cousin. Donald Kagan was also a college professor at HunterCollege and now teaches at Yale. However, to date, no one in the press has been brave enough to ask these leaders of the American Neocon movement if Elena Kagan is their niece and cousin. Elena has remained silent on the issue. It is important to note that Donald Kagan was at one time a Democrat. In the sixties at CornellUniversity, he changed and became a Republican. It has often been reported that the reason he changed is that he got upset that CornellUniversity would consider having a black studies department. After that incident, Donald Kagan became one of the founding Fathers of the American Neocon Movement. It would seem that the press would want to know what Ms. Kagan’s family connections are to these members of a right wing fringe group but no one has asked. It is possible the reason why is that Robert Kagan, the son of Donald, writes for the Washington Post and is being protected by the media on this matter. The questions that need to be asked is; “What is President Obama thinking by appointing a woman to the United States Supreme Court who is kin to Arch Neocons?”, if these reports on the blogs are true. Further, if these internet statements are true, does this explain the positions Ms. Kagan is taking in her job as Solicitor General?
Since becoming Solicitor General of the United States, Ms. Kagan has taken many unpopular positions on cases before the Supreme Court that needs to be reviewed by the public. The first set of cases that comes to mind are the political prosecution cases in Alabama and Mississippi. In one of the cases, Ms. Kagan has asked that the Supreme Court not review the United States vs. Siegelman matter. This is contrary to ninety-one US Attorney Generals demanding that the Supreme Court hear the case because of all the abuses of power by the prosecuting team from the DOJ and the United States attorney’s office from the Middle District of Alabama. Clearly to ignore this matter one has to wonder about Ms. Kagan’s possible Neocon roots. The second set of cases that comes to mind are the detainee cases where Ms. Kagan is taking the Arch Neocon position that detainee’s have no rights and can be detained indefinitely. The third set of cases are the federal wire tapping cases in which Ms. Kagan apparently believes, like all good Arch Neocons, that American citizens have no rights not to be listened in on even when proper warrants have not been obtained by the government. Therefore, the question becomes, “Why is this woman considered a liberal and what is President Obama thinking when he is considering appointing her to the United Supreme Court bench?” One has to wonder if this is his position on these issues considering that prior to becoming President of the United States he was a constitutional law professor. Also on all these issues, he spoke out on the campaign trail against the position Ms. Kagan, Solicitor General is now taking under his administration. Clearly, it appears Ms. Kagan has no respect for constitutional rights and may be the most dangerous potential candidate for the bench.
Then the citizens have to think about whether Elena Kagan is some brilliant legal scholar. Is that what President Obama is after? To do that we will start by looking at her law career as a practicing lawyer. Ms. Kagan, when filling out her information sheets for solicitor general admitted she had never tried a case from start to finish. In fact, during the roughly two years that she was at Williams and Connolly, it does not look like she did much of anything except tote a few briefcases and help with a couple of motions. From there she went to the University of Chicago where she made friends with President Obama, who was another professor in her law department. She then got a position at the White House as a legal counsel to the President. The question I have is, “Why did President Bill Clinton hire her?” There is a rumor floating around that Donald Kagan recommended her. There is another rumor floating around that her former boss, Greg Craig, recommended her. Maybe President Clinton will be willing to shed some light on what she did during her term at the White House and how she got selected in the first place. Elena then started teaching again and was eventually hired as the Dean of Harvard Law School. It has been reported in several papers in the area of Harvard that she was one of the most liked professors at Harvard. However, if you read those articles you realize that she was not liked for being a scholar but was liked because she set up coffee machines in the law school so the students did not have to pay for coffee. Additionally she is famous at Harvard for providing free tampons in the bathroom for the female law students. Maybe she will expect this same service at the Supreme Court building if selected as a Justice. I could hardly believe the article when I read it but that is what the students claim. I was searching to see what this alleged Harvard scholar had done in a scholarly way when I ran across another article that was equally hilarious. This article said she was the person who came up with the idea to set up an ice-skating rink behind Harvard by turning on the water hose and letting it ice over. When I read this, I could not help but laugh thinking about the liability for the University. Nevertheless, the students were so thrilled about it that they wrote about it and how wonderful Dean Kagan happened to be. Upon careful search and review, I could only find a couple of cases that Ms. Kagan was involved in that went to the Supreme Court while she was at Harvard. I started wondering does merely teaching at Harvard and being the Dean make you one of the finest legal minds in America? I wondered when looking at Ms. Kagan’s record or should I say a lack of a legal scholar record. However, I bet she becomes very popular if she is appointed to the Supreme Court for toting coffee to the other Justice’s as they age on writing opinions, who knows. I just wonder, “Did she tote President Obama’s coffee when she worked with him at the University of Chicago and is that why he likes her?” After careful review, one has to wonder if her possible kinship to the Kagan’s is what got her this fancy job at Harvard or was it her brilliance at placing tampons in every bathroom at Harvard. After all her father had already passed away years before she got this job. So other than the Neocon Kagan’s who helped her get this job? Was it Donald Kagan who pulled the strings? How did Kagan move up the ladder with so little to show for it? That is the million dollar question and what will he want when she is on the bench?
The two cases that Ms. Kagan signed her name on but claimed she really didn’t write that went to the Supreme Court are the “Don’t Ask and Don’t Tell” case about gays in the military where she takes a far left position and the “Harvard Military Recruiter” case where she takes another far left position. In the military recruiter case, the United States Supreme Court voted nine to zero against the position that she took. Yet, now she claims that all she did was sign her name as though that will make it all better. My question is, “Why would President Obama want a woman on the Supreme Court who would sign her name on a case and then deny being very involved in it when it is before our top court?” One has to wonder if these possible Arch Neocon relatives of hers had her on these cases just to see what was happening.
The other interesting thing about Ms. Kagan is that she is alleged to be openly gay. It has been reported on numerous Harvard Campus blogs and in many newspapers across the country that she may be our first openly gay Supreme Court Judge. In fact, it is possible that if this is true, that she may become our first married gay judge if she rules on the bench on the rights to gay marriages. This is a political hot potato for President Obama in an election year. One has to wonder why he would want to open this issue up in an election year where the races across the country are going to be very close according to the polling already out on the internet. It is clear that the Republicans will beat President Obama with a gay stick on this matter or will face their religious right base at election time if they fail to stand up against her.
Further, President Obama should consider that Ms. Kagan is Jewish and there are already two Jewish Justices on the Supreme Court. For the first time in the history of the court, fifty-one percent of the population will not have a Justice of their religious preference on the bench if she is selected. It will be the first time in United States Supreme Court history that a Protestant is not sitting on the Supreme Court bench. The question the citizens should be asking is, “Why would President Obama want to appoint another Jewish person to the bench when that faith only represents 1.7% of the population?” Does he not think that the Protestants who represent 51% of the population have a right to have a representative on the United States Supreme Court?
A couple of final points that President Obama should consider is, “Do we honestly need another Judge from New York?” Look how many Judges sit on the bench that are from New York, he just appointed one approximately a year ago. Does he not think that Supreme Court Justices can come from anywhere other than New York, Chicago and California? Also, what about all the Ivy League Judges sitting on the bench, six that have graduated from Harvard and two from Yale. Do we really need another Harvard trained Judge? On the other hand, is it that President Obama is blinded by trying to help his friends get important jobs and not seeing the forest for the trees? Should our President want to hire his buddies or do what is best for his country? It is my hope that when President Obama looks at Elena Kagan he realizes that she is his good friend but that she is not the best mind in the United States for the Supreme Court. President Obama would do well to think about how President Ford came to pick Justice Stevens. President Ford said when asked about picking Justice Stevens, “I picked the best legal mind I knew in the country”. Clearly, President Obama should be looking for the best legal mind in our country during these troubled days. President Obama should tell his buddies, I love you but I am looking for the best legal mind in the country because I owe it to the citizens in the United States of America.
This is an update to my article last week on the Supreme Court. I am happy to announce that after writing this article today I have learned that President Obama has added five more candidates some of which are not Ivy League Elitist from New York or graduates from Harvard. It appears Ms. Kagan may not be the pick of the litter for the Supreme Court.
Jill Simpson is a country lawyer from Rainsville Alabama who is currently pursuing a PhD in Religion and Philosophy at the California Institute of Integral Studies. One of her areas of study is the United States Supreme Court and Religion.
am a graduate of the University of Alabama and University of Alabama Law School. I practice law in Rainsville Alabama. I believe in Justice and equality for all. I believe that government should be for the people and should be free of corruption.