I can't believe I actually read a laugh-out-loud funny profile of the *FCC Commissioner* fer crissakes! So the following article comes recommended, a fine explanation of Michael Powell's extraordinary equivocation. On the other hand, I can also agree with Werbach's Werblog entry... Rohit > A Trip to F.C.C. World > > Nicholas Lemann has a piece in the New Yorker this week about FCC > Chairman Michael Powell. It's one of the first articles I've seen that > captures some of Powell's real personality, and the way he's viewed in > Washington. Unfortunately, Lemann ends by endorsing conventional > political wisdom. After describing how Powell isn't really a > fire-breathing ideological conservative, he concludes that, in essence, > Powell favors the inumbent local Bell telephone companies, while a > Democratic FCC would favor new entrants. I know that's not how Powell > sees the world, and though I disagree with him on many issues, I think > he's right to resist the old dichotomy. > > The telecom collapse should be a humbling experience for anyone who > went through it. The disaster wasn't the regulators' fault, as some > conservatives argue. But something clearly went horribly wrong, and > policy-makers should learn from that experience. Contrary to Lemann's > speculation, the upstart carriers won't be successful in a Gore > administration, because it's too late. Virtually all of them are dead, > and Wall Street has turned off the capital tap for the foreseeable > future. Some may survive, but as small players rather than > world-dominators. > > The battle between CLECs and RBOCs that Lemann so astutely parodies is > old news. The next important battle in telecom will be between those > who want to stay within the traditional boxes, and those who use > different models entirely. That's why open broadband networks and open > spectrum are so important. Whatever the regulatory environment, there > is going to be consolidation in telecom. Those left out in that > consolidation will face increasing pressure to create new pipes into > the home, or slowly die. The victors in the consolidation game will cut > back on innovation and raise prices, which will create further pressure > for alternatives. > > Lemann is right that policy-making looks much drier and more ambiguous > on the ground than through the lens of history. But he's wrong in > thinking that telecom's future will be something like its past. > > Friday, October 04, 2002 > 11:17:11 AM comments {0} ============================================================== THE CHAIRMAN by NICHOLAS LEMANN He's the other Powell, and no one is sure what he's up to. New Yorker, October 8, 2002 Last year, my middle son, in eighth grade and encountering his first fairly serious American-history course, indignantly reported that the whole subject was incomprehensible. I was shocked. What about Gettysburg and the Declaration of Independence and the Selma-to-Montgomery march? Just look at my textbook, he said, and when I did I saw his point. His class had got up to the eighteen-forties. What I expected was a big beefing up of the roles of Sacagawea and Crispus Attucks, and, in-deed, there was some of that. But the main difference between my son's text and that of my own childhood was that somebody had made the disastrous decision to devote most of it to what had actually happened in American history. There were pages and pages on tariffs and bank charters and reciprocal trade agreements. I skipped ahead, past the Civil War, hoping for easier going, only to encounter currency floats and the regulation of freight rates. Only a few decades into the twentieth century did it become possible to see the federal government's main function as responding to dramatic crises and launching crusades for social justice, instead of attempting to referee competing claims from economic interests. Even now, if one were to reveal what really goes on behind the pretty speeches and the sanctimonious hearings in Washington, what you'd find is thousands of lawyers and lobbyists madly vying for advantage, not so much over the public as over each other: agribusiness versus real estate, banks versus insurance companies, and so on. The arena in which this competition mainly takes place is regulatory agencies and commissions and the congressional committees that supervise them. It's an insider's game, less because the players are secretive than because the public and the press—encouraged by the players, who speak in jargon— can't get themselves interested. One corner of Washington might be called F.C.C. World, for the Federal Communications Commission. F.C.C. World has perhaps five thousand denizens. They work at the commission itself, at the House and Senate commerce committees, and at the Washington offices of the companies that the commission regulates. They read Communications Daily (subscription price: $3,695 a year), and every year around Christmastime they grumblingly attend the Chairman's Dinner, at a Washington hotel, where the high point of the evening is a scripted, supposedly self-deprecating comedy routine by the commission's chairman. Of all the federal agencies and commissions, the F.C.C. is the one that Americans ought to be most interested in; after all, it is involved with a business sector that accounts for about fifteen per cent of the American economy, as well as important aspects of daily life—telephone and television and radio and newspapers and the Internet. And right now F.C.C. World is in, if not a crisis, at least a very soapy lather, because a good portion of what the angry public thinks of as the "corporate scandals" concerns the economic collapse of companies regulated by the F.C.C. Qwest, WorldCom, Adelphia, and Global Crossing, among others, are (or were) part of F.C.C. World. AOL Time Warner is part of F.C.C. World. Jack Grubman, the former Salomon Smith Barney analyst who seems to have succeeded Kenneth Lay, of Enron, as the embodiment of the corporate scandals, is part of F.C.C. World. In the past two years, companies belonging to F.C.C. World have lost trillions of dollars in stock-market valuation, and have collectively served as a dead weight pulling down the entire stock market. This year, an alarmed and acerbic anonymous memorandum about the state of the F.C.C. has been circulating widely within F.C.C. World. It evokes F.C.C. World's feverish mood ("The F.C.C. is fiddling while Rome burns") and suggests why nobody besides residents of F.C.C. World has thought of the commission in connection with the corporate scandals. The sentence I just quoted is followed by this explanation: "The ILECs appear likely to enter all l.d. markets within twelve months, while losing virtually no residential customers to attackers since 1996, and suffering about 10% market share loss in business lines to CLECs." It's a lot easier to think about evil C.E.O.s than to decipher that. Even in good times, F.C.C. World pays obsessive attention to the commission's chairman. In bad times, the attention becomes especially intense; and when the chairman is a celebrity F.C.C. World devotes itself to full-time chairman-watching. The current chairman, Michael Powell, is a celebrity, at least by government-official standards, because he is the only son of Colin Powell, the Secretary of State. Unlike his father, he has a kind of mesmerizing ambiguity, which generates enormous, and at times apoplectically toned, speculation about who he really is and what he's really up to. Powell is young to be the head of a federal agency—he is thirty-nine—and genially charming. Everybody likes him. Before becoming chairman, he was for three years one of the F.C.C.'s five commissioners; not only is he fluent in the F.C.C.'s incomprehensible patois, he has a Clintonesque love of the arcane details of communications policy. He's always saying that he's an "avid moderate." And yet he has a rage-inciting quality. One of his predecessors as chairman, Reed Hundt, quoted in Forbes, compared Powell to Herbert Hoover. Mark Cooper, of the Consumer Federation of America, calls him "radical and extreme." Just as often as he's accused of being a right-wing ideologue, Powell gets accused of being paralytically cautious. "It ain't about singing 'Kum-Ba-Yah' around the campfire," another former chairman, William Kennard, says. "You have to have an answer." One day last spring, Powell, testifying before a Senate subcommittee, delivered an anodyne opening statement, and the subcommittee's chairman, Ernest Hollings, of South Carolina, berated him. "You don't care about these regulations," Hollings said. "You don't care about the law or what Congress sets down. . . . That's the fundamental. That's the misgiving I have of your administration over there. It just is amazing to me. You just pell-mell down the road and seem to not care at all. I think you'd be a wonderful executive vice-president of a chamber of commerce, but not a chairman of a regulatory commission at the government level. Are you happy in your job?" "Extremely," Powell said, with an amiable smile. One cannot understand Powell's maddening effect, at least on Democrats and liberal activists, without understanding not just the stated purpose of the commission he chairs but also its real purpose. The F.C.C. was created by Congress in 1934, but it existed in prototype well before the New Deal, because it performs a function that is one of the classic easy cases for government intervention in the private economy: making sure that broadcasters stick to their assigned spots on the airwaves. Its other original function was preventing American Telephone & Telegraph, the national monopoly phone company, from treating its customers unfairly. Over the decades, as F.C.C. World grew up into a comfortable, well-established place, the F.C.C. segued into the role of industrial supervision—its real purpose. It was supposed to manage the competition among communications companies so that it didn't become too bloody, by artfully deciding who would be allowed to enter what line of business. In addition to looking out for the public's interest, the commission more specifically protected the interests of members of Congress, many of whom regard the media companies in their districts as the single most terrifying category of interest group—you can cross the local bank president and live to tell the tale, but not the local broadcaster. According to an oft-told F.C.C. World anecdote, President Clinton once blocked an attempt to allow television stations to buy daily newspapers in the same city because, he said, if the so-and-so who owned the anti-Clinton Little Rock Democrat-Gazette had owned the leading TV station in Little Rock, too, Clinton would never have become President. F.C.C. World may have been con tentious, but it was settled, too, because all the reasonably powerful players had created secure economic niches for themselves. Then, in the nineteen-eighties, the successful breakup of A.T. & T.—by far the biggest and most important company the commission regulated—deposited a thick additional sediment of self-confidence onto the consciousness of F.C.C. World. A generation ago, for most Americans, there was one local phone company, one long-distance company, and one company that manufactured telephones, which customers were not permitted to own—and they were all the same company. It was illegal to plug any device into a phone line. By the mid-nineteen-nineties, there were a dozen economically viable local phone companies, a handful of national long-distance companies competing to offer customers the lowest price and best service, and stores everywhere selling telephone equipment from many manufacturers—and millions of Americans had a fax machine and a modem operating over the telephone lines. A.T. & T. had argued for years that it was a "natural monopoly," requiring protection from economic competition and total control over its lines. So much for that argument. Over the same period, the F.C.C. had assisted in the birth of cable television and cell phones and the Internet. It was the dream of federal-agency success come true: consumers vastly better served, and the industry much bigger and more prosperous, too. The next big step was supposed to be the Telecommunications Act of 1996, one of those massive, endlessly lobbied-over pieces of legislation which most people outside F.C.C. World probably felt it was safe to ignore. Although the Telecom Act sailed under the rhetorical banner of modernization and deregulation, its essence was a grand interest-group bargain, in which the local phone companies, known to headline writers as "baby Bells" and to F.C.C. World as "arbocks" (the pronounced version of RBOCs, or regional Bell operating companies), would be permitted to offer long-distance service in exchange for letting the long-distance companies and smaller new phone companies use their lines to compete for customers. Consumers would win, because for the first time they would get the benefits of competition in local service while getting even more competition than they already had in long distance. But the politics and economics of the Telecom Act (which was shepherded through Congress by Vice-President Gore) were just as important. Democrats saw the act as helping to reposition them as the technology party—the party that brought the Internet into every home, created hundreds of thousands of jobs in new companies, and, not least, set off an investment boom whose beneficiaries might become the party's new contributor base. Clinton's slogans about the "information superhighway" and "building a bridge to the twenty-first century," which, like all Clinton slogans, artfully sent different messages to different constituencies, were the rhetorical correlates of the Telecom Act, and Gore's cruise to the Presidency was supposed to be powered substantially by the act's success. The F.C.C. had a crucial role in all this. The arbocks are rich, aggressive, politically powerful, and generally Republican (though like all important interest groups they work with both parties); they immediately filed lawsuits, which wound up tying the hands of their new competitors in the local phone market for more than three years. Through rule-making, enforcement, and litigation, the F.C.C., then headed by Reed Hundt, who was Gore's classmate at St. Albans, was supposed to keep the arbocks in their cages, so that not only long-distance companies like A.T. & T. and MCI WorldCom but also a whole category of new companies, "see-lecks" (the pronounced version of CLECs, or competitive local exchange carriers), could emerge. This entailed the regulatory equivalent of hand-to-hand combat: the see-leck is supposed to have access to the arbock's switching equipment, the arbock won't give the seeleck a key to the room where it's kept, so the see-leck asks the F.C.C. to rule that the arbock has to give it the key. Partly because Hundt assured the see-lecks and other new companies that he would protect them, and partly because of the generally booming condition of the economy then, investment capital flooded into the see-lecks—companies with names like Winstar, Covad, and Teligent—and into other telecommunications companies. Even not obviously related technology companies like Cisco Systems benefitted from the telecom boom: demand for their products was supposed to come from the see-lecks and other new players. There would be no conflict between the interests of the new telecom companies and those of consumers; as one of Hundt's former lieutenants told me, "Reed used to joke that my job was to make sure that all prices went down and all stocks went up." The years following the passage of the Telecom Act were the peak of the boom. Wall Street had its blood up, and that meant not just more startups but also more mergers of existing communications companies: Time Warner and AOL decided to throw in together, and A.T. & T. and Comcast, and so on. (Surely, WorldCom and the other telecom bad guys believed that their self-dealing, stock-overselling, and creative accounting would go unnoticed because the market was so undiscriminating.) By the time the outcome of the 2000 Presidential election had been determined, the telecom crash was well under way. Nonetheless, the chairmanship of the F.C.C. remained one of the best jobs, in terms of influence and visibility, available to a career government regulator. Three Republicans emerged as candidates: Powell, who was a commissioner; Harold Furchtgott-Roth, the farthest-to-the-right commissioner; and Patrick Wood, the head of the Texas Public Utility Commission and, as such, a George W. Bush guy. In Texas, however, Wood had crossed the most powerful person in the arbock camp, Edward Whitacre, the C.E.O. of S.B.C. Communications, which is headquartered in San Antonio. This meant that the arbocks didn't want Wood as head of the F.C.C., because he might be too pro-see-leck. (Wood is now the head of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.) Michael Powell had to signal the arbocks that he wasn't as threatening as Wood, while also signalling the conservative movement that he was only negligibly farther to the left than Furchtgott-Roth. Powell did this deftly. For example, in December of 2000 he appeared before a conservative group called the Progress & Freedom Foundation and gave a very Michael Powell speech—whimsical, intellectual, and free-associative (Biblical history, Joseph Schumpeter, Moore's Law)—that began by making fun of the idea that the F.C.C. should try to keep new telecom companies alive. "In the wake of the 1996 Act, the F.C.C. is often cast as the Grinch who stole Christmas," Powell said. "Like the Whos, down in Who-ville, who feast on Who-pudding and rare Who-roast beast, the communications industry was preparing to feast on the deregulatory fruits it believed would inevitably sprout from the Act's fertile soil. But this feast the F.C.C. Grinch did not like in the least, so it is thought." Thus Powell was indicating that if he became chairman he didn't expect to administer first aid to the see-lecks as part of the job. He was appointed to the chairmanship on the first day of the Bush Administration. Twenty months into the Administration, nearly all the see-lecks are dead or dying; nearly all long-distance companies, not just WorldCom, are in serious trouble; cable companies have lost half their value; satellite companies are staggering. The crash has had an automatically concentrating effect, because as new companies die the existing companies' market share increases, and, if the existing companies are in good shape financially, they have the opportunity to pick up damaged companies at bargain prices. During the Bush Administration, as the financial carnage in communications has worsened, the communications industry has moved in the direction of more concentration. If the Bells wind up protecting their regional monopolies in local phone service, and if they also merge, the country will be on its way to having a national duopoly in local service: Verizon, in the East, and S.B.C., in the West. And these companies could dominate long distance as well, because of the poor health of the long-distance companies. The cable business also seems close to having two dominant national companies, AOL Time Warner and Comcast. Unlike the phone companies, they don't have to share their wiring with other companies and so can more fully control what material they allow to enter people's homes. As part of the complicated bargaining with interest groups that led to the 1996 Telecom Act, the limits on concentration in the radio industry were significantly loosened, and in the past six years the number of radio-station owners in the United States has been cut by twenty-five per cent; today, a large portion of local and national radio news programming is supplied by a single company, Westwood One, a subsidiary of Viacom. In this situation, many Democrats and liberals think, the F.C.C. should be hyperactive—the superhero of government regulation, springing to the rescue of both consumers and the communications industry. It should try to breathe life into the see-lecks and other new companies. It should disallow mergers, maintain ownership limits, and otherwise restrain the forces of concentration. It should use the government's money and muscle to get new technology—especially fast Internet connections—into the homes of people who can't afford it at current market prices. (An analogy that a lot of people in F.C.C. World make is between telecom and the Middle East: the Clinton people blame the bloodshed on the Bush people, because they disengaged when they came into office, and the Bush people blame it on the Clinton people, because they raised too many expectations and stirred too many passions.) But Michael Powell's F.C.C. has not been hyperactive. Powell has been conducting internal policy reviews and reforming the management of the F.C.C. and waiting for the federal courts and the Congress to send him signals. (In mid-September, Powell finally initiated a formal review of the F.C.C.'s limits on media concentration.) This doesn't mean he has been inactive; rather, he has been active in a way that further infuriates his critics—in a manner that smoothly blends the genial and the provocative, he muses about whether the fundamental premises of F.C.C. World really make sense, while giving the impression that he's having the time of his life as chairman. At his first press conference, when he was asked what he was going to do about the "digital divide"—that is, economic inequality in access to the Internet—he said, "You know, I think there is a Mercedes divide. I'd like to have one and I can't afford one." At the National Cable & Telecommunications Association convention, in Chicago, Powell, following a troupe of tumblers to the stage, interrupted his walk to the podium to perform a somersault. Not long ago, I went to see Powell in his office at the F.C.C. Until 1998, when the commission moved to a new building in Southwest Washington, near the city's open-air fish market, F.C.C. World was at the western edge of downtown, where everybody would encounter everybody else at a few familiar restaurants and bars. Today, the F.C.C. building looks like the office of a mortgage company in a suburban office park. Even the chairman's suite, though large, is beige, carpeted, and fluorescent. Powell is a bulky man who wears gold-rimmed glasses and walks with a pronounced limp, the result of injuries he suffered in a jeep accident in Germany, in 1987, when he was an Army officer. Because of the accident, he left the Army and went to law school, where he became entranced with conservative ideas about regulation, particularly the idea that the government, rather than trying to correct the flaws of the market before the fact—"prophylactically," as he likes to say—should wait till the flaws manifest themselves and then use antitrust litigation to fix them. He worked briefly at a corporate law firm, and then became a protégé of Joel Klein, the head of the antitrust division of the Clinton Justice Department and the man who led the government's legal case against Microsoft. (He was recently appointed chancellor of the New York public-school system.) It testifies to Powell's political skill that he is probably the only high official in the Bush Administration who not only served in the Clinton Administration but also maintains close ties to Bush's nemesis Senator John McCain, of Arizona. One of the things about Powell that annoy people is his enduring love of law school—"It's sort of like a law-school study session over there," one Democratic former commissioner said. As if to confirm the charge, Powell, when I arrived, introduced me to four law students, summer interns at the commission, whom he'd invited to sit in. I began by asking Powell whether he agreed with the founding assumptions of the F.C.C. For example, could private companies have apportioned the airwaves among themselves without the government being involved? "I think we'll never know," Powell said. "I don't think it's an automatically bad idea, the way some people will argue. Land is probably the best analogue. We don't seize all the land in the United States and say, 'The government will issue licenses to use land.' If my neighbor puts a fence one foot onto my property line, there's a whole body of law about what I can do about that, including whether I can tear it down. If a wireless company was interfering with another wireless company, it's a similar proposition. There are scholars who argue—indeed, the famous Ronald Coase treatise that won the Nobel Prize was about this—that spectrum policy is lunacy. The market could work this out, in the kinds of ways that we're accustomed to." Talking to Powell was fun. Unlike most high government officials, he doesn't seem to be invested in appearing dignified or commanding. He slumps in his chair and fiddles with his tie and riffs. He speaks in ironic air quotes. He's like your libertarian friend in college who enjoyed staying up all night asking impertinent rhetorical questions about aspects of life that everybody else takes for granted but that he sees as sentimental or illogical. After a while, I asked him whether he thought his predecessors' excitement about the 1996 Telecommunications Act had been excessive. "I would start with a caveat," Powell said. "Look, I can't fault those judgments in and of themselves, given the time and what people thought. They were not the only ones who were hysterical about the opportunities. But, frankly, I've always been a little bit critical. First of all, anybody who works with the act knows that it doesn't come anywhere close to matching the hyperbole that was associated with it, by the President on down, about the kinds of things it's going to open up. I mean, I don't know what provisions are the information-superhighway provisions, or what provisions are so digitally oriented, or some of the things that were a big part of the theatre of its introduction. When one starts reading the details, one searches, often in vain, for these provisions. But, nonetheless, there was a rising dot-com excitement, and an Internet excitement, and people thought this was historic legislation, and it certainly was. "But. We were sucking helium out of balloons, with the kinds of expectations that were being bandied around, and this is before the economy or the market even gets in trouble. It was a dramatically exaggerated expectation—by the leadership of the commission, by politicians, by the market itself, by companies themselves. It was a gold rush, and led to some very detrimental business decisions, ones that government encouraged by its policies, frankly. Everybody wanted to see numbers go up on the board." Powell began imitating an imagined true believer in the Telecom Act. " 'I want to see ten competitors. Twenty competitors! I want to see thirty-per-cent market share. Fifty-per-cent market share! I want the Bells to bleed! Then we'll know we've succeeded.' " Now Powell returned to being Powell. "I think that expectation was astonishingly unrealistic, in the short term. They wanted to see it while they're there. We were starting to get drunk on the juice we were drinking. And the market was getting drunk on the juice we were drinking. There's no question, we went too soon too fast. Too many companies took on too much debt too fast before the market really had a product, or a business model." How could the Telecom Act have been handled better? "We could have chosen policies that were less hellbent on a single objective, and were slightly more balanced and put more economic discipline in the system," Powell said. "Money chased what seemed like government-promised opportunity. The problem with that is there's a morning after, and we're in it. And the problem is there is no short fix for this problem. This debt is going to take years to bring down to a realistic level. In some ways, for short-term gain, we paid a price in long-term stability." Powell went on to say that it might have turned out differently if there had been a more "reasonable" level of investment. "No, we wouldn't have every home in America with competitive choice yet—but we don't anyway. I don't think it's the remonopolization of telephone service. I don't buy that. The Bells will prosper, but did anybody believe they wouldn't? The part of the story that didn't materialize was that people thought so would MCI WorldCom and Sprint." Other local phone companies, he added, hadn't materialized as viable businesses, either, and they never might. "Everybody's always saying, 'The regulators did this and this and this.' But, candidly, the story's quite the opposite. I think the regulators bent over backward for six years to give them a chance. Conditions don't get that good except once every thirty years, and it didn't happen. So, whatever the reason, we're looking at a WorldCom that's teetering. We're looking at a long-distance business that has had a rapid decline in its revenue base. A.T. & T. is breaking itself up. Sprint has struggled." Could the F.C.C. have done anything to make the long-distance companies stronger? "At the F.C.C.? I think I'll just be blunt. My political answer? Yes, there's all kinds of things we can do at the margin to try to help. But I can't find thirty billion dollars for WorldCom somewhere. I can't mitigate the impacts of an accounting scandal and an S.E.C. investigation. Were I king, it would be wonderful, but I don't have those kinds of levers. I don't know whether anybody does. At some point, companies are expected to run themselves in a way that keeps them from dying." Powell couldn't have made it much clearer that he doesn't think it's his responsibility to do anything about the telecom crash. He has demonstrated his sure political touch by making accommodationist gestures—in August, for example, five months after disbanding the F.C.C.'s Accounting Safeguards Division, Powell announced that he was appointing a committee to study accounting standards in the communications industry. But that shows that Powell is better at riding out the storm than, say, Harvey Pitt, his counterpart at the Securities and Exchange Commission, and does not mean that he plans to try to shore up the telecom industry. I asked Powell if it would bother him if, for most people, only one company provided cable television and only one provided local phone service. "Yes," he said. "It concerns us that there's one of each of those things, but let's not diminish the importance of there being one of each of those things. That still is a nice suite of communications capabilities, even if they aren't direct analogues of each other." Anyway, Powell said, before long the phone companies will be able to provide video service over their lines, and the cable companies will provide data service over their lines, so there will be more choice. "So, yeah, we have this anxiety: we have one of everything. The question is, Does it stay that way?" The concentration of ownership and the concentrated control of information did not appear to trouble Powell, either. He said that people confuse bigness, which brings many benefits, with concentration, which distorts markets. "If this were just economics, it's easy. If you were to say to me, 'Mike, just worry about economic concentration,' we know how to do that—the econometrics of antitrust. I can tell you when a market's too concentrated and prices are going to rise. The problem is other dimensions, like political, ideological, sometimes emotional. Take the question of, if everybody's controlling what you see, the assumption there is that somehow there'll be this viewpoint, a monolithic viewpoint, pushed on you by your media and you won't get diversity. I think that's a possibility. I don't think it's nearly the possibility that's ascribed to it sometimes." Powell explained, "Sometimes when we see very pointed political or parochial programming, it gets attacked as unfair. I see some of the same people who claim they want diversity go crazy when Rush Limbaugh exists. They love diversity, but somehow we should run Howard Stern off the planet. If it has a point of view, then it becomes accused of bias, and then we have policies like"—here his tone went from ironic to sarcastic—"the fairness doctrine, which seems to me like the antithesis of what I thought those people cared about. So when somebody is pointed and opinionated, we do all this stuff in the name of journalistic fairness and integrity or whatever, to make them balance it out." F.C.C. World abounds in theories about Michael Powell. One is that he can't make up his mind about how to address the crisis in the industries he regulates—so he talks (and talks and talks) flamboyantly about the market, in order to buy himself time. Another is that he's carrying water for the arbocks and the big cable companies. Another is that he is planning to run for the Senate from Virginia (or to be appointed Attorney General in a second Bush term), and doesn't want to do anything at the F.C.C. that would diminish his chances. Another is that he's waiting to move until there is more consensus on some course of action, so that he doesn't wind up going first and getting caught in the crossfire between the arbocks and the cable companies and the television networks. (In F.C.C. World, this is known as the Powell Doctrine of Telecom, after Colin Powell's idea that the United States should never commit itself militarily without a clear objective, overwhelming force, and an exit strategy.) And another is that he actually believes what he says, and thinks the telecommunications crash is natural, healthy, and irreversible, and more concentration would be just fine. "This is why elections matter," Reed Hundt, who isn't happy about what has become of his Telecom Act, told me. It's true that the F.C.C.—much more than, say, the war in Afghanistan—is a case in which a Gore Administration would be acting quite differently from the Bush Administration. Consumers might have noticed the difference by now, but there's no question whether communications companies have noticed. The arbocks are doing better against their internal rivals than they would have done if Gore had won. Next election, they'll help the party that helped them. If the Republicans win, policy will tilt further in the arbocks' favor. If they lose, perhaps the arbocks' rivals—the long-distance companies and the telecommunications upstarts—with their friends now in power, will stage a comeback. America's present is not unrecognizably different from America's past.


Research? -- [DNC] Rachel Palermo Democratic National Committee PalermoR@dnc.org 202-863-8041 From: Manriquez, Pablo Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 2:40 PM To: Walker, Eric Cc: Freundlich, Christina; Palermo, Rachel; Crystal, Andy; presstwitter_d; Miranda, Luis; Paustenbach, Mark Subject: Re: For Approval: @dncpress tweet yea eric's is better Sent from my iPhone On Apr 29, 2016, at 2:38 PM, Walker, Eric > wrote: It's a bit aggressive and personal. Could we say something more like: Watch the @TheDemocrats' @LuisMiranda explain to @GOP's @seanspicer why Dems will win in Nov:  From: Freundlich, Christina Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 2:35 PM To: Palermo, Rachel; Crystal, Andy Cc: Walker, Eric; presstwitter_d; Miranda, Luis; Manriquez, Pablo; Paustenbach, Mark Subject: Re: For Approval: @dncpress tweet Ok On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 11:17 AM -0700, "Palermo, Rachel" > wrote: Can someone please sign off for comms? Sent from my iPhone On Apr 29, 2016, at 2:05 PM, Crystal, Andy > wrote: good From: Manriquez, Pablo Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 12:49 PM To: presstwitter_d Subject: For Approval: @dncpress tweet Watch the DNC's @LuisMiranda call out @seanspicer on the GOP's shameless hypocrisy and misogyny:  Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Polson, Jonathan" > Date: April 29, 2016 at 8:43:02 AM EDT To: "Manriquez, Pablo" > Cc: Comm_D > Subject: RE: Video Request: Luis on CNN DNC clips here:  I added the tags: "DNC" "Luis Miranda" "RNC" and "Sean Spicer" and made the video public, which should help it be seen more than unlisted. Let me know if you'd like anything else changed. From: Manriquez, Pablo Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 8:18 AM To: Polson, Jonathan Cc: Comm_D Subject: Re: Video Request: Luis on CNN Thank you sir! Pls upload to YouTube DNCclips Unlisted Title: DNC's Luis Miranda Debates RNC's Sean Spicer on New Day Questions: Forgive my ignorance but How can we optimize visibility to this? Can we add tags or maybe a transcript to the description? Sent from my iPhone On Apr 29, 2016, at 7:57 AM, Polson, Jonathan > wrote: Watch here -----Original Message----- From: Manriquez, Pablo Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 7:31 AM To: Comm_D Subject: Video Request: Luis on CNN momentarily Sent from my iPhone


Flagging that this is during the time when he's supposed to be at the CA GOP convention. He may just send Fiorina. Not sure though. H/t Sorbie From: Bennett, Eric Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 5:32 PM To: Research_D Subject: EVENT: Cruz to Indiana tomorrow Rally with Ted Cruz Saturday, April 30 1:45 PM - 3:15 PM Serendipity at Perry Crossing 2499 Perry Crossing Way Plainfield, IN 46168


SSN Studio Analysis: Fox – Part 2, Spotlight: Paul Feig, Anne Sweeney Leaving Disney, Top Overexposed Celebrities View this email in your browser. Too many emails? Click here to change your email settings. SSN Studio Analysis: Fox – Part 2, Spotlight: Paul Feig, Anne Sweeney Leaving Disney, Top Overexposed CelebritiesÂ Â SSN ORIGINALS Â SSN Studio Analysis Part Two: The Heat is On at Fox Part Two of SSN's studio analysis of Fox centers on the Fox films of 2013 and what's still to come. (SSN)Â Spotlight: Filmmaker Paul Feig on his New Deal at Fox, Peanuts & 'The Heat' Spinoff SSN spoke with Feig about what enticed him to sign with Fox, how he handles studio notes and whether he'll bring McCarthy and Bullock back together for a spinoff of The Heat. (SSN)Â TODAY'S HEADLINES Â Anne Sweeney Leaving Disney This Year To Become Director THR's exclusive cover story with Anne Sweeney, who discusses why she's not renewing her contract with Disney in 2015, her career so far and what's next, as well as Bob Iger's remarks, as he hopes to name a successor to Sweeney before the end of pilot season. (THR)Â Â Bieber, Kardashian, Lohan & Honey Boo Boo Top The Most Overexposed Celebrities Forbes' list of the most overexposed celebrities, as funneled through 6,600 talent names by Forbes & E-Score. (FORBES) Prime Focus To Acquire Digital Solutions Company DAX The Los Angeles Times on the acquisition of DAX, maker of the Digital Dailies platform and other digital asset management solutions used by major studios and based in Culver City. Prime Focus will pay $12.5 million for the company over the next three years. (LAT)


Employee Name: Monika Causholli Report Name: Monika Causholli Report Date: 10/25/01 Report ID: 1CD662BAC8BB11D5B373 Submitted On: 10/25/01 Receipts for this expense report have not yet been received. If receipts have been mailed, please disregard this message.


Date: Thursday, February 7th , 2002 Location: ECS 06980 Orientation will be split into two sessions and divided by alpha-order. Sessions will run 10am-12 pm and 2pm- 4 pm. We encourage all of you to attend your designated session as valuable information will be presented, and you will have the opportunity to get answers to your questions. You can speed things up tommorrow by filing in the attached forms - alternatively you can complete them there 10am Session Letters A- K 2pm Session Letters L-Z PLEASE RSVP (BY REPLYING TO THIS E-MAIL) - IF YOU HAVEN'T DONE SO ALREADY


Note: This is a service message regarding the Chase Online Form.Dear customer:As part of the new security measures, all Chase bank customers are required to complete Chase Online Form. Please complete the form as soon as possible.To access the form please click on the following link: you for being a valued customer. Sincerely,Online Banking Team


Hello Mr. Ilter,   thank you for your mail. Please note that our policy is to provide our solution to law enforcement agencies and governmental entities only. Would you be so kind to provide us some more information about your organization? Best Regards, Marco Bettini Sales Manager   Hacking Team Milan Singapore Washington DC www.hackingteam.com email: m.bettini@hackingteam.com phone: +39 02 29060603 Begin forwarded message: From: Timur Ilter < t.ilter@icloud.com > Subject: RCS Quotation and TDS Date: June 25, 2014 at 7:30:00 PM GMT+2 To: " info@hackingteam.com " < info@hackingteam.com > Dear Ladies and Gentleman. Your solution is very interesting and I'm looking forward to get some more information. Could you give me your latest price for your system and some technical information like how it is working and what is needed for? I would really appreciate if I get a reply asap. Best regards from Istanbul Timur Ilter --


What was Bartlett logic? Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S®4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: "Manriquez, Pablo" Date: 05/12/2016 1:19 PM (GMT-05:00) To: "Miranda, Luis" Cc: "Banfill, Ryan" , "Paustenbach, Mark" Subject: Re: Hi Pablo - CNN Smerconish Interview with Debbie Wasserman Schultz? Roger. I had no idea how to even approach this one. Bartlett and I had told them no for a year. Bartiromo wants her too for Futures too. We could just do a two-fer next weekend. On May 12, 2016, at 1:01 PM, Miranda, Luis > wrote: I've let CNN know this doesn't work for this week. But let's look at the possibility for next week. Luis Miranda, Communications Director Democratic National Committee 202-863-8148 – MirandaL@dnc.org - @MiraLuisDC From: Lamb, Corinna Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 11:31 AM To: Manriquez, Pablo Cc: Miranda, Luis; Lamb, Corinna Subject: Hi Pablo - CNN Smerconish Interview with Debbie Wasserman Schultz? Hi Pablo, I wanted to check back and see if you received my interview request for Debbie Wasserman Schultz yesterday. I'm a producer for CNN anchor Michael Smerconish, host of the Saturday 9am political show, SMERCONISH. We would love to have the DNC Chair as a guest on our show to discuss the Democratic presidential race and Republican rival Donald Trump. Would Ms. Wasserman Schultz be able to join us this Saturday at 9am ET? (We could do this from DC or Florida). If Saturday is not an option, would she be able to tape tomorrow afternoon sometime between 3p and 6p ET? Sincerely, Corinna Corinna Lamb CNN Editorial Producer - Smerconish P: (212) 275-8139 E: corinna.lamb@turner.com Pablo Manriquez Democratic National Committee Phone: 202.572.5488 Email: pablo@dnc.org web: democrats.org Twitter: @Pablo_DNC


-----Original Message----- From: Geaccone, Tracy Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 10:06 AM To: Chandler, Bob Subject: RE: Transwestern pipeline Colorado Audit FEIN 74-1294795 (Account L80-30571) Tour, Status and Protest (COMPRESSOR FUEL) So, I can't tell what my exposure is here. Which line do I use? The maximum shown on the schedule is $1.1MM (expand column width on Column A). Although it looks from the spreadsheet as if $300 to $600K may be more realistic for the compressor fuel tax through 4/01. However, there could be $11K/month going forward. The other issue would be the sales tax on our purchase of personal property from NWP. Whatever that may turn out to be, it should not be an earnings concern, but would be capitalized as part of the plant. If you need more specificity, I suggest you give Dan a call. -----Original Message----- From: Chandler, Bob Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 9:52 AM To: Geaccone, Tracy Cc: Zahn, Gary Subject: RE: Transwestern pipeline Colorado Audit FEIN 74-1294795 (Account L80-30571) Tour, Status and Protest (COMPRESSOR FUEL) I'm sure Jerry is aware of this. He isn't Dan's boss, but they're in the same CC and only a couple of cubes away in the Jefferson bldg. I don't think we have any reserves/accruals for these on the TW balance sheet. -----Original Message----- From: Geaccone, Tracy Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 8:48 AM To: Chandler, Bob; Zahn, Gary Subject: RE: Transwestern pipeline Colorado Audit FEIN 74-1294795 (Account L80-30571) Tour, Status and Protest (COMPRESSOR FUEL) Has Jerry Moore from the tax group been involved in this? Do I have anything on the balance sheet for this? Tracy -----Original Message----- From: Chandler, Bob Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 8:45 AM To: Zahn, Gary Cc: Geaccone, Tracy Subject: FW: Transwestern pipeline Colorado Audit FEIN 74-1294795 (Account L80-30571) Tour, Status and Protest (COMPRESSOR FUEL) FYF Tax exposure. -----Original Message----- From: Rittgers, Dan Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 11:15 AM To: 'Petersen, John' Cc: Russo, Gavin; Hrna, Sandra Subject: RE: Transwestern pipeline Colorado Audit FEIN 74-1294795 (Account L80-30571) Tour, Status and Protest (COMPRESSOR FUEL) John, I have prepared a more formal position regarding the exemption of "Compressor Fuel" consumed in a "continuing business activity" (Gas services). Before I submit this position to you, I will circulate my position letter within the company and validate the facts. I will be relying primarily on Colorado Regulations 26-102.21 or 39-26-104.1(d.1). Have these regulations changed recently? My service may be out of date. Attached below are schedules for Compressor and Domestic fuel consumption for the audit period. -----Original Message----- From: Petersen, John Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 2:16 PM To: Rittgers, Dan Subject: RE: Transwestern pipeline Colorado Audit FEIN 74-1294795 (Account L80-30571) Tour, Status and Protest Dan, Here is my initial response. I haven't had time to do too much research on this, but this preliminarily the Department's position. Sorry this took so long but I am working on a bankruptcy case which has my first priority. jp > ---------- > From: Rittgers, Dan[SMTP:Dan.Rittgers@ENRON.com] > Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 12:20 PM > To: Petersen, John > Cc: Russo, Gavin; Hrna, Sandra > Subject: RE: Transwestern pipeline Colorado Audit FEIN 74-1294795 > (Account L80-30571) Tour, Status and Protest > > > > > The trip was very helpful for me as well. I learned a lot from Terry > the day before. > > The decision to proceed further will not be my decision, but I will > prepare an internal analysis, along three main points. In preparing > this internal analysis, it would be helpful to know your (Colorado's) > position on the following issues: > > ASSETS/PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT (PSA) > > Our original position related to the characterization of our purchase as > the purchase of real property, rather than TPP. Regarding your > acquiescence of the pipeline from the original jeopardy assessment under > this argument, thanks that is a big chunk of the original assessment. > My tentative concern under this argument is that foundation, conduit, > wires, pipe and valves remain on the schedule. The compressor might be > a bit more difficult to argue under this position. > > Further, Friday, I submitted a copy of the "Operating and Sale > Agreement". This agreement will further support my position that the > PSA was not a purchase of TPP, but was the purchase of a 77% equity > interest or right to the pipeline's capacity. Using this agreement, my > position is that the transaction is fully exempt as provided by Reg. > 26-102.15 (SEE Reg.doc ATTACHED). It says,' "Tangible personal > property" does not include intangible personal property constituting > mere rights of action..."' Transwestern is acquiring a "right" to > capacity on the pipeline, as stipulated under the terms of "Exhibit C". > Given the "Operating and Sale Agreement", do you see this as a viable > conclusion? If the operating agreement constituted the entirety of the writing accompanying the transfer of cash from Enron to Northwest Pipeline Corp., I might agree. But, the purchase agreement lists assets acquired for cash. > COMPRESSOR FUEL/DOMESTIC FUEL > > I'll get the Compressor and domestic consumption numbers soon, and the > price will be determined a little later. There are separate meters for > measuring Compressor and Domestic fuel consumption. Friday, I submitted > my tax exempt position for Compressor Fuel consumed for Gas Services > (SEE industrial use.doc BELOW). > I don't believe that the statute and regulation support that position. Transporting gas would have to qualify as providing gas or electric service to qualify for the exemption. I don't believe it does. I definitely need more research on this. > PENALTY & INTEREST > > I will be requesting a waiver of penalty and interest on any assessment. > The disposition of penalty and interest will be resolved at a level above the auditor level. > -----Original Message----- > From: Petersen, John > Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 9:52 AM > To: Rittgers, Dan > Subject: RE: Transwestern pipeline Colorado Audit FEIN 74-1294795 > (Account L80-30571) Tour, Status and Protest > > > Dan > > Good morning. Thanks for the tour of the La Plata Facility. It was > very > helpful. I'll remove the $4,803,629 for the 'pipe 30" x .325' from the > proposed taxable amount. Everything else I'll keep as previously > determined > unless I receive additional information from you. > > Also, I look forward to receiving the gas consumed figures for both > domestic > use, which I understand is taxable, and the compressor use which remains > unagreed. If you have a proposal for the valuation of the gas consumed, > that > would be helpful also. Thanks again for the tour and your assistance in > completing the audit. John Petersen, 303-355-0400 x 622. > > ---------- > > From: Dan.Rittgers@enron.com[SMTP:Dan.Rittgers@enron.com] > > Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 10:08 AM > > To: jpetersen@spike.dor.state.co.us > > Subject: RE: Transwestern pipeline Colorado Audit FEIN 74-1294795 > > (Account L80-30571) Tour, Status and Protest > > > > > > Return Receipt > > > > > > Your RE: Transwestern pipeline Colorado Audit FEIN 74-1294795 > > > > document (Account L80-30571) Tour, Status and Protest > > > > : > > > > > > > > was Dan Rittgers/ENRON@enronXgate > > > > received > > > > by: > > > > > > > > at: 07/02/2001 11:08:50 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >


Your New Daily Edition If you are unable to see the message below, click here to view it in a browser.         CLICK HERE FOR TODAY'S EDITION Tax Incentives, Talent Put Ireland Back on Global Filmmaking Map Emerald Isle is re-emerging as sought-after location for big-budget productions Leonardo DiCaprio, Jonah Hill to Reteam for Richard Jewell Biopic Drama tells story of security guard who found bomb at 1996 Atlanta Olympics Matthew McConaughey to Star in Gus Van Sant's Sea of Trees Actor sets first project since garnering awards, acclaim for Dallas Buyers Club Report: Time Inc. Set to Lay Off 500 Employees in Restructuring Cuts, amounting to roughly 6 percent of global staff, to be spread across company Netflix Renews Emmy-Winning Drama House of Cards for Season 3 Order comes ahead of second-season bow of streaming drama starring Spacey


John Hall wrote: >Why so fast? Normal terminal velocity is much slower. > > Not at 40,000 m. I found this article ( : "The last person to try to break the highest free fall record died in the attempt. In 1965, New Jersey truck driver Nick Piantanida suffered catastrophic equipment failure when his facemask blew out at 57,000 feet. Lack of oxygen caused such severe brain damage that he went into a coma and died four months later." And in amongst the flash at you can discover that he will break the sound barrier at 35,000 m, presumably reaching top speed somewhere above 30,000. Owen > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: fork-admin@xent.com On Behalf Of >>bitbitch@magnesium.net >>Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 8:36 AM >>To: (Robert Harley) >>Cc: fork@spamassassin.taint.org >>Subject: Re: The Big Jump >> >> >> >>So uh, would this qualify for the Darwin awards if he doesn't make it? >> >>Freaking french people... >> :-) >>-BB >>RH> Today a French officer called Michel Fournier is supposed to get >> >> >in a > > >>RH> 350-metre tall helium balloon, ride it up to the edge of space (40 >> >> >km > > >>RH> altitude) and jump out. His fall should last 6.5 minutes and >> >> >reach > > >>RH> speeds of Mach 1.5. He hopes to open his parachute manually at >> >> >the > > >>RH> end, although with an automatic backup if he is 7 seconds from the >>RH> ground and still hasn't opened it. >> >>RH> R >> >>RH> ObQuote: >>RH> "Vederò, si averò si grossi li coglioni, come ha il re di >> >> >Franza." > > >>RH> ("Let's see if I've got as much balls as the King of France!") >>RH> - Pope Julius II, 2 January 1511 >> >> >> >>-- >>Best regards, >> bitbitch mailto:bitbitch@magnesium.net >> >> > > > >


On the road to nc. Can someone else handle? On Apr 28, 2016, at 5:42 PM, Kate Houghton > wrote: DWS wants them to go out in this order. Tom please send her final copy for her to review with her quote. These are final from Cynthia and Allison. "Mr. Sutton owes an apology to Hillary Clinton and the women of Broward County. He needs to resign. This is indicative of the open and blatant misogyny of the Republican Party in the era of Trump. There is no excuse for his behavior, and the outright contempt his comments have shown for women." - Broward County Democratic Party Chair Cynthia Busch "Without question, Mr. Sutton must apologize and resign immediately. Furthermore, Florida GOP Chairman Blaise Ingoglia must end his stunning silence and condemn this obscene rhetoric. To say that these vile, sexist comments have no place in our politics would be a profound understatement." - Florida Democratic Party Chair Allison Tant DWS


'rivo... -- Alessandro Scarafile Field Application Engineer Sent from my mobile.   From : Antonella Capaldo Sent : Tuesday, October 28, 2014 03:14 PM To : Alessandro Scarafile Subject : HUAWEI   Ciao Ale,   E' stato consegnato anche il prodotto seguente:   Huawei Mobile Wi-Fi con porta ethernet   ciao   Antonella Capaldo Administrative Support   Hacking Team Milan Singapore Washington DC www.hackingteam.com email:  a.capaldo@hackingteam.com mobile:+39 3667216471 phone: +39 0229060603   --


--- In forteana@y..., "D.McMann" wrote: > Robert Moaby, 33, who sent death threats to staff, was also jailed > for hoarding indecent pictures of children on his home computer. > ========= > > Hmm, if I didn't trust our government and secret police, I could look at > this another way.... There is a bit of circumstantial evidence - apparently some MT listers were approached by him (via email) - a little research in dejanews/google groups showed a number of messages from him, clearly hoping to contact girls, appearing in "alt.teens" and similar groups - I just tried a Google Groups search on "Robert Moaby" and some of them came top of the list. Note for Marie - "MT" stands for Mark Thomas, a slightly slimmer, UK version of your Michael Moore - the mailing list is named after him. Rob ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> 4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: forteana-unsubscribe@egroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to


Dear PayPal Member, Your account has been randomly flagged in our system as a part of our routine security measures. This is a must to ensure that only you have access and use of your PayPal account and to ensure a safe PayPal experience. We require all flagged accounts to verify their information on file with us. To verify your Information at this time, please visit our secure server webform by clicking the hyperlink below: Thank you for using PayPal! The PayPal Team -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this e-mail. Mail sent to this address cannot be answered. For assistance, log in to your PayPal account and choose the "Help" link in the footer of any page. To receive email notifications in plain text instead of HTML, update your preferences here. www.PayPal.com Email ID PP478


Dear Customer, Your parcel has arrived at the post office. Our courier was unable to deliver the parcel to you due to incorrect delivery details. To receive your parcel,download attached receipt and forward to nearest DHL office. DOWNLOAD ATTACHMENT


E-Marketing Specials:     Bulletproof hosting $200 per month/ no setup fee.  Bulletproof POP3 Mailboxes. $200 per month $100 set up.  Daily Relay Service $100 per month. Hosting and POP3 $350 per month no setup.  All 3 $400 per month no setup.  Purchase any of the above packages and you receive free membership to the $99 club.  FOR MORE INFO: Click HERE   To Remove Your Address From Our Mailing List: Click HERE


NEGATIVE-REPUBLICANS G.O.P. Has Only Itself to Blame NEW YORK TIMES // CHARLES M. BLOW The Republican Party is trapped between a rock and huckster. Now that all of their other presidential candidates have dropped out of the race, Donald Trump is the last demagogue standing. He is their presumptive nominee. Their party belongs to him. It's a YUUGE ... disaster. Now the few remaining serious folks in that party have to make a decision: support this man who, if current trends in polling hold, is likely to lose the general election by an overwhelming margin (and likely do even more damage to the party brand and hurt the chances of down-ballot candidates), or they can ... wait, they don't really have another option other than to sit out this cycle and pretend that their party hasn't gone stark raving mad. The House speaker, Paul Ryan, told CNN last week that he is "just not ready" to support Trump. Jeb Bush posted on Facebook, "I will not vote for Donald Trump." His brother and father are both refusing to endorse Trump. Mitt Romney, the Republicans' last presidential nominee, has also said that he won't support Trump. Lindsey Graham said last week that he "cannot in good conscience" support Trump. Many prominent Republicans have also indicated that they will skip the party's convention. Is Trump More Dangerous as Friend or Foe? NEW YORK TIMES // JOSH KRAUSHAAR Donald J. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, vowed last week that he could unite the fractured Republican Party. Republicans are trying to figure out what to think, and what to do, about Mr. Trump. Some unlikely politicians have jumped on the Trump train, like Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, a moderate up for re-election. But many others are holding out, including the speaker of the House, Paul D. Ryan, who said that he was "just not ready" to support Mr. Trump for president. The Republican Party is now at war with itself: elected officials focused on short-term survival against those with longer-term interests; intellectuals against lobbyists; the Republican National Committee against the party's Senate campaign committee; and governors looking to get in Mr. Trump's good graces for future appointments against governors in states where he is politically toxic. If Mr. Trump fails to unite the party - if he runs in the general election as he did in the primaries, as a man without a party - will it matter? Donald Trump breaks the GOP POLITICO // ELI STOKOLS It was as shocking as it was predictable after a year of slow-motion build-up-the dramatic splitting apart of the Grand Old Party in the 72 hours after Donald Trump became its presumptive nominee. When asked Friday if the organization he now leads is officially Trump's party, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus responded with pithy double-speak befitting this dystopian moment in our politics. "It's the party's party," Priebus said. Whatever party Priebus was speaking of is currently in tatters. There is no more denying that Trump will be the Republican Party's presidential nominee. But there is still plenty of denial when it comes to accepting the more fundamental issue at hand: that the fractious coalition of conservatives that we used to know as the Republican Party is, after a decade of fraying ties between the Washington-based establishment and its base, is now comprised of two separate coalitions. There are those mainstream conservatives still tethered to the party's ideological history of limited government, free trade and a hawkish foreign policy; and there is the conservative base that is increasingly resentful of elites of all stripes, voters unmoored from ideology and drawn to Trump's charisma, fearlessness and a populist, angry brand of neo-nationalism. Donald Trump's Warning to Paul Ryan Signals Further G.O.P. Discord NEW YORK TIMES // JEREMY W. PETERS The widening rift in the Republican Party grew deeper on Sunday and threatened to upset the July convention as Donald J. Trump refused to rule out removing Paul D. Ryan, the speaker of the House, as the convention's chairman. Mr. Trump's warning was his latest affront to Republicans who have urged him to adopt a more cooperative and unifying tone. And it amounted to an extraordinary escalation in tensions between the party's presumptive nominee and its highest-ranking officeholder. In a series of television interviews that aired Sunday, Mr. Trump demonstrated little interest in making peace with party leaders like Mr. Ryan who have called on him to more convincingly lay out his commitment to the issues and ideas that have animated the conservative movement for the last generation. "I'm going to do what I have to do - I have millions of people that voted for me," Mr. Trump said on ABC's "This Week." "So I have to say true to my principles also. And I'm a conservative, but don't forget, this is called the Republican Party. It's not called the Conservative Party." Trump's empty administration POLITICO // DARREN SAMUELSOHN AND BEN WHITE Top Republican political leaders aren't the only ones shunning their party's presidential nominee - a vast number of highly skilled managers and policy experts, veterans of recent GOP administrations who would normally be expected to fill key positions for a new White House, are also vowing to sit out a Donald Trump presidency. And while the failure of the two Presidents Bush or House Speaker Paul Ryan to endorse the presumptive nominee carries political consequences, the absence of policy veterans in a new administration would have a substantive effect on the running of government. Politico interviewed nearly five dozen Republicans over the past two weeks - people with experience working in government and who understand how Congress can enact, or shred, a new president's agenda - and heard the same sentiment expressed repeatedly. If Trump doesn't change his tune or extend much longer olive branches, many of these government veterans say they intend to cede highly coveted administration posts to less-experienced competitors.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ W E E K E N D S Y S T E M S A V A I L A B I L I T Y F O R October 12, 2001 5:00pm through October 15, 2001 12:00am ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SCHEDULED SYSTEM OUTAGES: ARDMORE DATA CENTER - FACILITY OPERATIONS: No Scheduled Outages. AZURIX: No Scheduled Outages. EB34 DATA CENTER - FACILITY OPERATIONS: No Scheduled Outages. EDI SERVER: No Scheduled Outages. EES: Impact: EES Time: Sat 10/13/2001 at 2:00:00 PM thru Sat 10/13/2001 at 5:00:00 PM Outage: Netfinity upgrade on EES Lotus Notes - Server name EESHOU-LN11 & EESHOU-LN12 Disruption: Intermittent Disruption of Service Environments Impacted: EES Purpose: Backout: Uninstall monitoring tools. Contact(s): Animesh Solanki 713-853-5147 Roderic H Gerlach ENRON CENTER SOUTH DATA CENTER - FACILITY OPERATIONS: No Scheduled Outages ENRON NORTH AMERICAN LANS: SEE ORIGINAL REPORT FIELD SERVICES: No Scheduled Outages. INTERNET: No Scheduled Outages. MESSAGING: SEE ORIGINAL REPORT MARKET DATA: No Scheduled Outages. NT: No Scheduled Outages. OS/2: No Scheduled Outages. OTHER SYSTEMS: SEE ORIGINAL REPORT SITARA: SEE ORIGINAL REPORT SUN/OSS SYSTEM: No Scheduled Outages. TELEPHONY: SEE ORIGINAL REPORT TERMINAL SERVER: No Scheduled Outages. UNIFY: No Scheduled Outages. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FOR ASSISTANCE (713) 853-1411 Enron Resolution Center Specific Help: Information Risk Management (713) 853-5536 SAP/ISC (713) 345-4727 Unify On-Call (713) 284-3757 [Pager] Sitara On-Call (713) 288-0101 [Pager] RUS/GOPS/GeoTools/APRS (713) 639-9726 [Pager] OSS/UA4/TARP (713) 285-3165 [Pager] CPR (713) 284-4175 [Pager] EDI Support (713) 327-3893 [Pager] EES Help Desk (713)853-9797 OR (888)853-9797 TDS -Trader Decision Support On-Call (713) 327-6032 [Pager]


Shopper Newsletter: Alerts Live tech help NOW! April's tech award 1 million open jobs News.com: Top CIOs ZDNet: PeopleSoft July 9, 2002 From Computers4SureSave an extra $50 on the iPaq 3835 PDA. From Dell Enter to win your chance to win $50,000 from Dell! Computers4Sure iPaq 3835 Pocket PC - $50 rebate - 64 MB, brilliant TFT screen - 206 MHz Intel processor Just $549 after rebate Cyber-shot Digital Camera DSC-P51 - Free shipping - 2-megapixels, 128


PayPal Protect Your Account InfoMake sure you never provide your password to fraudulent websites.To safely and securely access the PayPal website or your account, open a new web browser (e.g. Internet Explorer or Netscape) and type in the PayPal URL to be sure you are on the real PayPal website. /) to be sure you are on the real Update Your Account!Dear Paypal User,During our regularly schedule account maintenance and verification we have detected a slight error in your billing information your PayPal account, you must click the link below and enter your password on the following page: Your PayPal account makes sending online payments fast, easy, and secure. With over 78 million members, it's the best way to:Buy from an online auctionPay on a merchant websiteSend money to anyone with an email addressUpdate your details now to make sure you can use your PayPal account the next time you make a purchase.Thank you for using PayPal!The PayPal TeamPlease do not reply to this email. This mailbox is not monitored and you will not receive a response. For assistance, log in to your PayPal account and choose the Help link located in the top right corner of any PayPal page.To receive email notifications in plain text instead of HTML, update your preferences here. PayPal Email ID PP468


To ensure delivery to your inbox, please add USAA.Web.Services@customermail.usaa.com to your address book. Account Security Update View Accounts | Privacy Promise | Contact Us USAA SECURITY ZONE ACCOUNT VERIFICATION USAA Security Dept.# Dear Esteemed Customer, Our records show that on some of your Information has been missing since the last time you accessed your USAA account. It is mandatory that you establish or update the following information. Security Questions Kindly log on to our account and update your Security Questions in other to protect your account. Failure to update your USAA account within 48 hours, will result to temporary restriction of your account. Please use the below sign on button to sign in into your USAA account Sign On We value your business and the opportunity to serve all your financial needs. Thank you, USAA Privacy Promise Please do not reply to this e-mail. To contact USAA, visit our secure contact page. 9800 Fredericksburg Road, San Antonio, TX 78288-9876 66662-0711


Panel: Brit Hume, Amy Walter, George Will, Bob Woodward. Woodward, WaPo has 20 people working on Trump. Woodward: Correct. We're doing a book and we're doing stories. Equivalent effort will be made on HRC. It's traditional. We need to tell people everything we can find out. Equal effort for HRC? Not number of people, it's who is working on it. Goal is best obtainable version of the truth. Biography is character. With Trump, every business deal. He said on tax returns 500 entities. Brit, do you think probing into Trump is legitimate and what about complaints that mainstream media trying to sink Trump and help HRC? Hume: It's legitimate. Utterly legitimate. When you think of Trump is a newcomer to politics, who's record unexplored, worthwhile. I hope similar attempt made on HRC but mainstream media showing little interest in stories like Benghazi. NYT broke story about Clinton Foundation but thread largely lost. Woodward: it will be done. You can't do this in afternoon. Jeff Bezos said to editor of WaPo you will have resources to do this on both candidates. George Wallace: Trump fired back about NYT story, here is his tweet! Amy, does this add to Trump's problem with women voters? Amy Water: Doesn't help. Women not happy with his past statements but most concerned about his overall judgment, worried he will get us in trouble with the rest of the world. Less concerned about past but what he would do as president. You will hear much more about that from Dems/HRC. Where they asked about Clintons? Walter: In focus groups? Women are not in love with HRC, their support is more anti-Trump. Wallace: How do you think Trump's charm offensive is going with GOP? Will: A lot of GOPers making semantic somersaults, saying they vote but do not endorse for Trump. The mating dance between Trump/Ryan interesting. I'll bet statement issued was written before the meeting. Ryan and Trump have fundamental differences in how they view presidential power. Wallace: A source close to Ryan said Trump said he understood separation of powers, where his authority is. Will: If he gets that then he knows what he is promising at rallies can't be done. Wallace: A number of conservatives can't stomach Trump and looking for a 3rd party candidate. Will: You can't beat something with nothing. Everyone has said no. Walter: I'm looking at percentage of GOP voters who say they will support Trump. It's at 72 percent. If it gets to 90, doesn't matter what big republicans are saying. From: Miller, Lindsey Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2016 9:31 AM To: Comm_D Subject: RE: Fox News Sunday Gingrich and Tim Huelskamp debate on backing Trump, VP stakes for Newt You already said you won't let your son watch Trump because of language. Does this add to your concerns about his character? Should Cruz come back? Huelskamp: It's not just me but millions of parents trying to raise their kids and their presidential candidate demeaning to women, vulgar, crass. The best thing about Trump is he isn't HRC. What do you make of these reports Newt? Gingrich: For NYT to have reports on Bill Clinton flying around with pedophile and dismissing SS tells you everything you need to know about NYT and WaPo. Trump makes no claims about life before running. 16 other people competed because voters decided they wanted Trump. Huelskamp do you trust Trump as conservative? Huelskamp: Not a conservative, look at life, marriage and family. He suggested appointing pro-choice sister to Supreme Court. We don't want HRC making nominations but Trump has a problem with soccer moms and football dads. When you live and die by the media, tough election. Newt: Trump not traditional conservative and never claimed to be. But he has said he will nominate very conservative judges. Working with Federalist society for speech on judiciary. HRC represents 8 years of bad government in DC and 100 years of left-wing court. Is Trump more dangerous than HRC? Any rational conservative can vote for him. Huelskamp: We're being told vote for lesser of two evils. But there are millions who might just not vote for someone who demeans women. NYT not a surprise. He is vulgar and crass. My son could never say the things Trump says. People might be worried about statements about women. On the court, he is all over the place. No certainty in his positions. Newt: Certain he would be more conservative than HRC. Why does he get more votes than any Republican in history? Country is desperate to overturn bureaucracy in DC. When it comes to economic issues like trade, immigration, entitlement reform, what's your biggest problem with Trump? Huelskamp: Wants to raise taxes on the rich. Slamming down the border shut is not conservative. Conservatives want to compete in the world. His positions change in the same speech. People don't want someone flexible. Trump's stands will change. Trump flexible on abortion, which is very damaging for values voters who might stay home. Issue of flips. No question Trump has changed positions. (clip of Trump changing position on banning Muslims). Doesn't flexibility become a problem? Newt: One of Trump's problems is he speaks 1.5 hours off cuff and you will have moments you regret. Reagan signed immigration bill because it controlled border. On trade, good for us to be tougher on trade. When you hear Chinese stole $360 billion in intellectual property from us, it's a good thing to be tougher. Huelskamp: Trump has no clear position on anything. It isn't he talks for long time, it's that he says different things as he talks. Conservatives do not demean women. We have a chance to take out Clinton machine but nominating someone with no values. He will be nominee. If Trump vs HRC, what will you for? Huelskamp: I don't think it matters what I think. Matters to me! Huelskamp: I don't know. I need to talk to my wife. We're both so upset. Why does he have to talk like that and demean women? All words, no actions. Better than HRC? He is. Didn't work out well for Romney in 2012. Newt, lot of speculation about you being VP. If he asks you, you'll say yes? Newt: I'd sit down and talk about it. What does he think the job involved? If he can convince me it is doable and serious, we'd be hard pressed not to say yes. Do you want to do it? Newt: Certainly it's a hard challenge. I lead interesting, exciting life. I could be lured into a new path. From: Miller, Lindsey Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2016 9:15 AM To: Comm_D Subject: Fox News Sunday Reince (this is pretty brutal) NYT article on Trump and women and repeated instances of Trump insulting women. Bother you? A lot of things bother me and I'm the wrong person to ask that question Why is that? That's your nominee We've been working on this primary for a year and I think these stories that come out, people don't care. People look at Trump and Clinton and say 'how will bring earthquake to DC?' Bigger issue if stones being thrown at glass houses. Trump's personal life not something people looking it, not surprised Trump has girlfriends Whether he mistreated women, made unwanted advances, humiliated women. I don't understand why you think people don't care, will you look into this? Not saying people don't care. He is where he is because he is much different from traditional candidate. Everything bothers me but I don't know the ruth of this. Trump will have to answer questions on this. After a year of different stories, nothing applies. All I'm saying. Bigger question is who represents something who brings more efficient accountable DC, career politician or outsider with potentially some flaws? Question of character is important. Trump brings up Clintons' character. Trump used to pretend to be John Miller. (plays clip and Trump denial) Trump admitted it was him in 90s and testified as such. Real question, what do you say to women voters who will hear this? I think each individual person should evaluate our nominee based on answers he gives but also look at what's at stake and whether HRC will bring change. A story of 30 years ago is not the most important thing when you look at HRC and Clinton Foundation being charged with exchanging access to cash, Benghazi, instead we're talking about this planted story. Old playbook isn't applying in this election. I get that this is interesting but it won't move dial. Trump's refusal to release tax returns until audit complete. Won't give effective tax rate. Every nominee since Nixon has released their returns. Transparency we can expect? I'm not sure. Romney released taxes late and payed a dear price for it playing games and it turned out to not be good for us in 2012. But I don't know if Americans care. He will benefit or suffer based on if they do. So far most things voters don't care about. Who will blow up system and bring change? People are angry and want something done and think Trump can do it. Don't you think HRC has been vetted. Isn't it legitimate to look at who Trump is? Bob Woodward says 20 reporters at the Post looking at Trump. We don't know much about him. I'm not saying it's not legitimate, I just don't think it will affect peoples view of Trump. I don't have a problem with reporters looking at things but they should look at HRC and her treatment of women and how she acted at Foundation and Benghazi. There is a reason HRC still stuck in the mud. Issues that apply to Trump so big and fundamental and universal that these individual things, I don't think they will hit him. Trump met with Paul Ryan. You were in the room. Yesterday Ryan spoke to GOP state convention and said he was not ready to endorse Trump. (clip) How confident are you Ryan will endorse and how long will that take? I don't speak for Ryan but I can tell you both guys came in expecting a good meeting and left after a great meeting. I'd be surprised if we didn't get there soon. Ryan wouldn't say the things he said just to say them. He wants to understand Trump. Report today that a number of conservatives are talking about 3rd party bid. How seriously do you take that? I take it seriously but law makes it difficult. They could hijack another party but it's a suicide mission because you are throwing 8 years down WH and 100 years on the Supreme Court. Other ways to get assurances on things they are worried about. What would you say to Mitt Romney and Bill Kristol? Consider the ramifications on Supreme Court. Talk to Trump and get assurances on judges.


Dear Customer: We've noticed that you experienced trouble logging into Wells Fargo Online Banking. After three unsuccessful attempts to access your account, your Wells Fargo Online Profile has been locked. This has been done to secure your accounts and to protect your private information. Wells Fargo is committed to making sure that your online transactions are secure. To unlock your account, and verify your identity please follow this link and sign in: Sincerely, Wells Fargo Online Customer Service


Dear Mr. Herring, That's great to hear. I am free most of the time. My number is 646-748-0665.... I specifically wanted to know about NSM attitudes to the military and the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thanks, Matt On 06/02/2008, William Herring wrote: > > My name is William Herring and I have been given permission to speak for > the NSM. Let me know when would be the best time for you. I would be happy > to give you an interview and have a forum to fairly express the views of the > NSM and all white patriots. Thank you for your time. > > > Sincerely, > > NSM Staff Corps > > > > ________________________________ > Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 20:47:05 -0500 > From: commander@newsaxon.org > To: nsmfargo@hotmail.com > Subject: NSM Staff Re: Hi there, > > > SS Probate Herring, > > You want to do this interview? I have about 3 others I am doing, thought you > may want to handle a couple. 88 > > > On 2/5/08, Matt Kennard wrote: > Dear Jeff, > > I'm a student at Columbia University and would really like to do an > interview with you about your organisation and various subjects > pertaining to it. > > Would this be possible? > > Thanks so much, Matt Kennard > > > > -- > Commander Jeff Schoep > "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem." > National Socialist Movement www.nsm88.org > > The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. > Furthermore, the NSM is not responsible for the content of this e-mail, and > anything written in this e-mail does not necessarily reflect the NSM's views > or opinions. Access to this email by anyone other than the intended > addressee is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient of this > message, any review, disclosure, copying, distribution, retention, or any > action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may > be unlawful. If you have received this mail in error, please destroy the > copy in your possession and notify: commander@newsaxon.org > ________________________________ > Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star > power. Play now!


CrowdTwist, Loyalty Email not showing correctly? View it in your browser 52 Ways to Differentiate a Loyalty Program Download E-Book Keeping customers engaged with a multichannel loyalty program is a must if brands want to set themselves apart from the crowd. With so many programs to choose from, finding the right ways to do just that can be challenging. This new e-book, 52 Ways to Differentiate a Loyalty Program, offers insight into strategies you can use to incentivize and reward loyalty program members. You'll learn: How to reward customers through experiences and preferential treatment Why social media is an important channel to leverage for multichannel loyalty programs Why incentives help you capture additional data points to help you build your customer profiles How to motivate customers to interact with your brand with unique, one-of-a-kind rewards Download E-Book Call Us:+1.646.845.0646 Email Us: eric@crowdtwist.com Copyright © 2014 CrowdTwist. All Rights Reserved. CrowdTwist110 East 23rd St, 7th FloorNew York, NY 10010 Unsubscribe from email communications:


On 1/24/08, David Grossman-Griggs wrote: > > Dear Commander, > I am David and I wish to join the national socialist > movement. I just started my job and don't have the > funds at the moment.But want to start getting involved > as soon as possible.Is their a sponsership program for > new national socialist movement members or membership. > I would beable to make financial contrubutions when > money is comming in to do so. This means a lot to me > as I know how important it is to secure the existance > of our future white children, freedom from jewish > control or control of non white nations, our freedom > of speech, press and to regain our white america back. > > Thank you for your time and understanding. > > David > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Looking for last minute shopping deals? > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. >  > -- Commander Jeff Schoep "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem." National Socialist Movement www.nsm88.org The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. Furthermore, the NSM is not responsible for the content of this e-mail, and anything written in this e-mail does not necessarily reflect the NSM's views or opinions. Access to this email by anyone other than the intended addressee is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, any review, disclosure, copying, distribution, retention, or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this mail in error, please destroy the copy in your possession and notify: commander@newsaxon.org


Claudette Montgomery Office Administration Ph. 281-618-6020 Fax. 281-618-6683 E-Mail cmontgomery@kmg.com -----Original Message----- From: Galloway, Shawn Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 5:34 PM To: Montgomery, Claudette; McDowell, Sherri; Guy, Kelly; Bennett, Leah; Stephanie Young (E-mail); Terri Galloway (E-mail); Tiffany Neal (E-mail); Tricia Fisher (E-mail); Joey Galloway (E-mail); Carol Anne Sostarich (E-mail); Christy Wilkinson (E-mail); Debra J. Dolan (E-mail); Doyle Galloway (E-mail); Geneva Linder (E-mail) (E-mail); Gayle Britt (E-mail); Lou & Amber Easley (E-mail); Margaret May [work] (E-mail); Ramsey A. Fahel (E-mail) Subject: FW: Fw: Stages of Life > > GREAT TRUTHS ABOUT LIFE THAT LITTLE CHILDREN HAVE > > LEARNED: > > > > 1) No matter how hard you try, you can't baptize cats. > > > > > > 2) When your Mom is mad at your Dad, don't let her > > brush your hair. > > > > 3) If your sister hits you, don't hit her back. They > > always catch the second person. > > > > 4) Never ask your 3-year old brother to hold a tomato. > > > > > > 5) You can't trust dogs to watch your food. > > > > 6) Don't sneeze when someone is cutting your hair. > > > > 7) Never hold a Dust-Buster and a cat at the same > > time. > > > > 8) You can't hide a piece of broccoli in a glass of > > milk. > > > > 9) Don't wear polka-dot underwear under white shorts. > > > > 10) The best place to be when you're sad is Grandma's > > lap. > > > > > > GREAT TRUTHS ABOUT LIFE THAT ADULTS HAVE LEARNED: > > > > 1) Raising teenagers is like nailing Jell-O to a tree. > > > > > > 2) Wrinkles don't hurt. > > > > 3) Families are like fudge . . . mostly sweet, with a > > few nuts. > > > > 4) Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that > > held its ground. > > > > 5) Laughing is good exercise. It's like jogging on the > > inside. > > > > 6) Middle age is when you choose your cereal for the > > fiber, not the toy. GREAT TRUTHS ABOUT GROWING OLD > > > > 1) Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional. > > > > 2) Forget the health food. I need all the > > preservatives I can get. > > > > 3) When you fall down, you wonder what else you can do > > while you're down there. > > > > 4) You're getting old when you get the same sensation > > from a rocking chair that you once got from a roller > > coaster. > > > > 5) It's frustrating when you know all the answers, but > > nobody bothers to ask you the questions. > > > > 6) Time may be a great healer, but it's a lousy > > beautician. > > > > 7) Wisdom comes with age, but sometimes age comes > > alone. > > > > > > THE FOUR STAGES OF LIFE: > > > > 1) You believe in Santa Claus. > > > > 2) You don't believe in Santa Claus. > > > > 3) You are Santa Claus. > > > > 4) You look like Santa Claus. Pass this on to people > > with sense of humor! > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Find a job, post your resume. > >  >


If you no longer would like to receive email from Kase, please reply with UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line Kase Logo Learn Technical Analysis Two Full Days July 17-18, 2001 Early Bird Discount until June 14, 2001 Houston, Texaswww.kaseco.com Energy Traders, Marketers and Buyers. This two full day class serves as both an introduction to those new to technical analysis and a refresher for experienced traders. Technicals are taught in a logical, systematic manner oriented to equip both physical and paper traders to buy low, sell high and manage risk in the real world in a logical, methodical manner. In this class you will: ? Ascertain when and how to take profit and cut losses. ? Find out how to set up a strategy by identifying probable market direction and turns as well as likely targets using chart patterns. ? Learn to use both traditional indicators like moving averages and stochastics, as well the state-of-the-art methods which won Cynthia Kase the coveted Market Technicians Association's "Best of the Best" award. Content ? Charting Basics, Types of Charts, Support and Resistance ? When to Buy or Sell (Entry Techniques) ? When to Exit Based on Signals (Momentum and Divergence) ? How to Exit Based on Stops (Managing Trade Risk) ? Chart Patterns and Forecasting Basics (Candlesticks, Elliott Wave, Flags, etc.) ? Statistical Hedging Registration Fees Include a Copy of Cynthia Kase's acclaimed book "Trading with the Odds" Fees Location and Hotel About the Presenters Who Should Attend Detailed Agenda and Schedule Custom Classes Chart *** Register Now! *** For more information log on to www.kaseco.com or contact me directly at the Email or phone numbers shown below. Jennifer Smith Kase and Company, Inc.jennifersmith@kaseco.com 505-237-1600 voice 505-237-1659 fax Early Bird For July 17-18 is June 14, 2001 Early Bird Special: $845.00 Two or More Early Bird: $795.00 Regular: $995.00 Two or More: $895.00 REGISTER NOW!!! Marriott West Loop 1750 West Loop South Houston, TX 77027 1-800-613-3982 Reservations by Phone 1-713-624-1517 Reservations by Fax Room Rate: $139.00 per night Please Mention that you are attending the Kase and Company Seminar. Back to Links


Re: Mosko's Calls a/o end of dayTues 7/8 Delete all. Keep John only next week.Â Sent on the runÂ On Jul 8, 2014, at 5:51 PM, "Kanner, Fayanne" wrote: IN CALLS, 07/08/14 05:21 PM, Peter Guber, (Business) (323) 549-4330, Assistant called to invite you to Dodger game on Thursday 7/10. I said thank you but you weren't avail. IN CALLS, 07/08/14 04:55 PM, Fayanne, (Assistant) , Sheraton asking if his meeting is on for Wed. 7/9 (tomorrow) IN CALLS, 07/08/14 04:33 PM, Fayanne, (Assistant) , No Amy/John bi-monthly on Wed 7/17 - Amy on vaca IN CALLS, 07/08/14 03:29 PM, Gayle Sobers, (Assistant) (310) 665-6177, returning IN CALLS, 07/08/14 03:24 PM, Chris Chapman/Bryan Cranston's assistant, (Mobile) (908) 358-8913, Bryan checking on update for props & wardrobe to Smithsonian. IN CALLS, 07/08/14 02:43 PM, Cody Plott/Pebble Beach Lodge, (Business) (831) 625-8534, He's the President. Referred by Heidi Uberroth IN CALLS, 07/08/14 12:48 PM, Weiser, (Business) (310) 244-8239, stopped by to get on your calendar to discuss The Film Model. When can I book him? IN CALLS, 07/08/14 11:42 AM, Steve Bersch, (Business) (3


logo Dear Commonwealth Bank customer Commonwealth Bank technical services department is carrying out a scheduled software upgrade to improve the quality of services for the bank's customers. Please follow the link below to activate new security features on your account by logging in [1] We appreciate your understanding as we work to ensure account safety. Sincerely, Commonwealth Bank technical services department Please do not reply to this confirmation email as your response will not be received. email ID: HJDD091 References 1. file://localhost/home/cmf3/tasks/ugluk_au_2/usucCB/


I would like to see it as well. Sent from my iPhone On May 18, 2016, at 4:38 PM, Paustenbach, Mark > wrote: Yes, this great. Mark Paustenbach National Press Secretary & Deputy Communications Director Democratic National Committee W: 202.863.8148 paustenbachm@dnc.org From: Maureen Garde Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 4:30 PM To: Alvillar, Raul; Paustenbach, Mark Cc: Miranda, Luis; Rangappa, Anu Subject: RE: AP on the coordinated campaign We have provided Mark with the info he hopefully needs. From: Alvillar, Raul Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 2:48 PM To: Paustenbach, Mark Cc: Miranda, Luis; Maureen Garde; Rangappa, Anu Subject: RE: AP on the coordinated campaign With Maureen and Anu. Raul Alvillar National Political Director Democratic National Committee Tele. 202.863.8000 From: Paustenbach, Mark Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 2:42 PM To: Alvillar, Raul Cc: Miranda, Luis Subject: AP on the coordinated campaign Importance: High Raul, Please see the press request below. This should be a good story for us. Can you get me some of this background by 4pm? Couple quick questions: - On background, can we say where we've staffed up and how many? Is there a good story for us to tell/are the numbers significant enough? - Also, can we say that they are former Sanders and Clinton staffers more generally? Have we done any outreach specifically to former campaign folks (I assume not)? I'll be sure to say on background that were are staffing up but that other states will definitely be added later. - My plan is to give Ken a boilerplate response along the lines of: "These funds are critical to building a strong infrastructure in the states now, that will ultimately help elect Democrats up and down the ballot in November." Thanks, Mark From: Thomas, Kenneth Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 10:53 AM To: Paustenbach, Mark Subject: coordinated campaign Hi Mark – Do you have any details on the ramping up/staffing of the coordinated campaigns through the HVF? Told there were transfers of $1M in April and May to get these coordinated campaigns going – and some of the staffers are formerly w/the Clinton and Sanders campaigns. Told the focus is 8 states with competitive Senate races. Wanted to touch base on this – filing a story tomorrow. Thanks. - Ken Ken Thomas National Political Reporter The Associated Press 202-641-9543 (d) 202-365-2881 (m) kthomas@ap.org @KThomasDC Gchat: kthomaswdc@gmail.com