Jimmy "the Gent" Burke died in 1996.

He is believed to have killed one guy involved in the Lufthansa heist. The article notes that, as in the film, other suspects "turned up dead."

But some guys didn't get wacked. And one of them is under arrest.

Note that while five mobsters were arrested on various charges, only one of them has a Lufthansa Heist connection.

The FBI says it arrested five mobsters in pre-dawn raids on Thursday, including one connected to the 1978 Lufthansa heist at New York's John F. Kennedy Airport.

Around $5 million in cash and $1 million in jewels -- worth about $20 million today -- were netted in the robbery of a Lufthansa cargo terminal at JFK airport on Dec. 11, 1978. The heist was made famous in the 1990 film “Goodfellas.”

Federal prosecutors issued a wide-ranging indictment Thursday against five defendants, alleging murder, robbery, extortion, arson and bookmaking. One of them, Vincent Asaro, of Howard Beach in Queens, was accused of participating in the heist — one of the largest cash thefts in American history.

...

At BurkeÂ’s home, agents found human remains that were identified through DNA testing as those of Paul Katz, who disappeared in 1969 after Burke suspected him of being an informant to the police, the New York Post reports.

I guess that's the guy depicted as a rug merchant in the movie?

Corrected: Although the FoxNews headline suggested this guy was a suspect in the heist, I don't think that's true. He's suspected of being connected to it -- via the murder of Paul Katz, who was a suspect in it.

I don't know if this guy actually had anything to do with the heist, or just killing the guys who did.

Thanks to @slublog.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:45 AM | Comments (151)
Post contains 338 words, total size 2 kb.

It's important to note "and Maureen." Perhaps even Maureen's name should come first.

I didn't know the details of this until the podcast last night, but Maureen McDonnell was pretty open about her desire for pricey pretty things.

Cherchez la femme:

Maureen McDonnell hit up Williams [a pharmaceutical executive] to buy an Oscar de la Renta dress for her to wear to her husband's inauguration. She didn't ultimately wear the dress but many more grasping requests followed. The government's indictment described what followed from one of those requests:

"On or about April 13, 2011, JW accompanied Maureen McDonnell to several luxury stores in New York City, including Oscar de la Renta, Louis Vuitton, and Bergdorf Goodman. Maureen McDonnell informed JW that she needed dresses and accessories for her daughter's upcoming wedding and for her and Robert McDonnellÂ’s upcoming anniversary party. JW paid for the entire luxury shopping trip for Maureen McDonnell and spent approximately $10,999 at Oscar de la Renta, approximately $5,685 at Louis Vuitton, and approximately $2,604 at Bergdorf Goodman. As promised by Maureen McDonnell, JW was seated next to Robert McDonnell at the Union League Club event later that evening."

ABCNews has more. The requests for "gifts" was so extensive ABC could even make a Buzzfeed-style listicle out of it.

Apparently at one point Maureen noticed Williams wearing a nice watch. She inquired about its brand, and he told her it was a Rolex. She then told him he ought to buy one for her husband.

3. BLING, BLING: A CUSTOMIZED ROLEX

In August of 2011, Maureen McDonnell asked Williams to purchase a Rolex watch, bearing the engraving ’71st Governor of Virginia’ on the back, for her husband. “MAUREEN MCDONNELL told JW that she wanted JW to buy a Rolex for ROBERT MCDONNELL. JW subsequently bought a Rolex for ROBERT MCDONNELL,” the indictment reads.

Maureen McDonnell later gave the watch to her husband as a Christmas gift.

Gabe thinks they might skate on this, because the law of graft requires a quid pro quo, and the indictment doesn't seem to mention any quo. Correction: That's not what Gabe thinks. See below.

Still, it's repulsive behavior. And no one gives away a hundred thousand dollars without thinking he's going to get some consideration in return.

They did all this, and threw the governorship away (substantially dooming Ken Cuccinelli), thus betraying the people who'd worked hardest to put them in the governor's mansion.

All for some pretty baubles. They behaved like stupid animals, like magpies decorating their nests with shiny things they stole from other nests.

There Was a Quo: My bad. Gabe told me to read the indictment, and I didn't.

Chris writes:

The indictment repeatedly mentions Mr. McDonnell writing the State medical bureaucracy to consider Mr. William's products for distribution. If that's nothing, what's Nike getting from Tiger Woods?

Okay I think I misrepresented Gabe's point then. There was a quid, and there was a quo, but the government may not be able to prove the explicit agreement to exchange the one for the other -- the pro.

Posted by: Ace at 09:00 AM | Comments (257)
Post contains 519 words, total size 4 kb.

Apparently there's something called the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. It was created on the recommendation of the 9/11 panel and doesn't seem to have done much until now.

The board voted 3-2 to back the conclusions that the bulk collection of phone records is illegal and should end. But all five board members called for a series of immediate changes, such as requiring court approval for searches, reducing how long the NSA holds the data and limiting the degrees of separation analysts can stray from their initial target from three to two. Obama backed similar reforms in his speech last Friday.

The board's recommendations go farther than the advisory group President Obama created last year to review the NSA's program. But that review group also called for major changes to the bulk data collection and concluded the program has not thwarted any terror attacks.

The NSA claims that bulk collection is authorized under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which gives the government the power to collect business records that are "relevant" to a terrorism investigation. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has approved the NSA's argument, saying all U.S. phone calls are "relevant" because the agency needs the full database to map potential terrorist connections.

But the privacy board called the government's justification "circular" and "untenable."

The board's reasoning seems to track with an argument I made last summer that there are very specific categories of people that Section 215 of The PATRIOT Act allow data to be collected on. To expand that limited grant of power to an all encompassing grant to collect whatever the government wants on everyone effectively moots any concept that there is a difference between someone the government suspects is involved in a terrorist plot and everyone within in the United States.

The argument that the plans supporters make that the NSA needs to have all this data to quickly run an analysis or to spot people they didn't know they were looking for are almost certainly correct. But if they want that power, they need to go to Congress and get it. Then our elected representatives can have a debate and be held to account for their decision. To simply rely on secret judicial decisions to distort the plain meaning of the statute because it's more convenient for the executive branch is the exact opposite of how separation of powers and checks and balances are supposed to work.

This board doesn't seem to have enforcement powers but Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act is up for renewal next year. It's certainly going to be another piece of ammunition for those of us who believe in strict adherence to the law and stronger oversight of domestic intelligence programs.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:47 AM | Comments (187)
Post contains 483 words, total size 3 kb.

In the off chance you morons don’t regularly stalk the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in search of noteworthy cases, Professor Michael Mann of Penn State filed suit in 2012 against, among others, National Review and Mark Steyn for something Mark wrote and NR published on its website (full disclosure – I am an occasional contributor to several publications, including NRO’s Bench Memos). As NR’s capable lawyers have confirmed, there seems to be no case here.

But even if there was a case, who in their right mind would want Mark Steyn as a defendant? He beat the rap when hauled up in front of the Canadian Thought Police Human Rights Commission and thatÂ’s the guy they pick to bully into silence? It brings to mind the thousands of air traffic controllers who were fired for walking off the job in the middle of a labor dispute with President Reagan: Even though we have no legal case, lets try to intimidate the only president who has served as head of a labor union. He wonÂ’t know how to negotiate with a union and will buckle under the pressure! We canÂ’t lose!

This suit has echoes of a similar controversy in Australia. Four scientists who had not been persuaded by Mr. MannÂ’s hockey stick asserted thus:

The scientific community is now so polarised on the controversial issue of dangerous global warming that proper due diligence on the matter can only be achieved where competent scientific witnesses are cross-examined under oath and under the strictest rules of evidence.

I never dreamed we would be able to get Mr. Mann to actually take the stand. NRÂ’s Rich Lowry nicely summarized this line of thinking:

Usually, you donÂ’t welcome a nuisance lawsuit, because itÂ’s a nuisance. It consumes time. It costs money. But this is a different matter in light of one word: discovery.

If Mann sues us, the materials we will need to mount a full defense will be extremely wide-ranging. So if he files a complaint, we will be doing more than fighting a nuisance lawsuit; we will be embarking on a journalistic project of great interest to us and our readers.

It appears from the complaint that Mr. Mann is demanding a jury trial. He might get it yet – after 18 months of procedural absurdity the judge refused to dismiss the case. For 1^st Amendment legal observers, this is the cue to get the popcorn because there is a smack down coming. In fact, charging people to have their photo taken outside the courthouse with Mr. Steyn could be part his fundraising to cover the crushing legal costs of defending the 1^st Amendment (Mr. Steyn is being represented by different counsel than the other parties involved). I don’t know if the DC Superior Court allows cameras, but I for one would pay to watch Mr. Mann being cross examined about global cooling or global warming or climate change or climate collapse or whatever it is being called this week.

If science has proven that global warming is real, that its man’s fault, and that man can fix it, why keep the proof a secret? In 2004, a scientist trying to recreate the data behind this hockey stick and other global warming claims met a brick wall by the keeper of the data. Climatic Research Unit’s Phil Jones famously responded to the request by asking “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

So it seems that the exercise of independently verifying a scientific discovery has turned into just taking the scientistsÂ’ word for it. Because Science. And also, Shut up.

Let the discovery begin.

The 2^nd Amendment Texan writes and speaks about energy security, among other things, and has experience in both the traditional and renewable energy fields. You can follow him on Twitter: @MichaelJames357

Posted from draft by Andy

Posted by: Guest Blogger at 06:03 AM | Comments (317)
Post contains 669 words, total size 5 kb.

Happy Thursday.

Today is going to be "much warmer than yesterday" here in D.C., with the high expected to be 28 degrees Fahrenheit. Currently, it's 7 degrees, which is why there are no links in this post. I found it a little difficult to get out of bed and get moving with that frosty reception.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:48 AM | Comments (319)
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.

• Chuck Schumer Still Obsessing Over The Tea Party
  
• Conservative Group Of Actors Being Harassed By The IRS
  
• The GOP Should Probably Stay Away From Ted Nugent for A While
  
• Here Is Something Scott Walker's Reforms Could Have Prevented
  
• Bi-Partisan Reform Of Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Laws
  
• The Purpose Of Obamacare Was To Destroy The Relationship Between Employer And Employee
  
• Not Another Sundance Movie (Spoof Autoplay Video)
  
• Hacks Lack The Facts In Frack Attacks
  
• E-mails Show Cozy Relationship Between EPA and Environmental Groups
  
• Japan Tells World To Stand Up To China
  
• Why Are Fewer People Looking For Jobs
  
• Planned Parenthood Caught Covering Up Child Rape In Philadelphia
  
• What The Library Of The Future Will Look Like
  
• Eat The Press: NBC Officially Nukes The Fridge
  
• Dad Dresses Up Daughter For Famous Art Portraits
  

Posted by: Open Blogger at 05:10 AM | Comments (197)
Post contains 138 words, total size 2 kb.

Obama the Loner

One reason that relations between Congress and the House are so bad is that Obama and his staff simply aren't interested in talking to any members of Congress - much less working with them. Congress is simply of no use to Obama so he's ignoring that branch of government.

This comes from a damning assessment from veteran White House reporter Keith Koffler:

I covered both the Clinton and Bush White Houses. Routinely, with each of them, there was line of cars on the West Wing driveway belonging to members of some committee or faction of Congress that had dropped by to meet the president. If they wanted the gathering to remain below the radar, they "snuck in" the side door, and then the camera guys who were always in a position where they could see the entrance there told us about it.

With Obama, almost never. Nothing. No meetings. If you ask around on Capitol Hill, no phone calls either. Obama, expostulating about the uncooperativeness of Republicans, does nothing to get them to cooperate. It's not in his character. And then he attacks them for his own paucity of results. He's like a high school football player who never comes to practice and then whines that he's warming the bench.

Unfortunately, Obama's temperament will now have serious consequences for the nation. We'll be in a constant state of Constitutional subversion for the next three years as Obama issues edicts and bullies the private sector into doing his bidding. At any point, with some particularly outlandish act, he can kick things up to a major Constitutional crisis. It's a sad thing to see.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:33 PM | Comments (721)
Post contains 1597 words, total size 16 kb.

Huge news. But not at all unexpected.

The shocking no longer shocks.

The media will not sit idly by while Chris Christie gets away with this. Wait, what?

Gangster Government.

Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner angrily warned the chairman of Standard & Poor's parent that the rating agency would be held accountable for its 2011 decision to strip the United States of its coveted "triple-A" rating, a new court filing shows.

Harold McGraw, the chairman of McGraw-Hill Financial Inc , made the statement in a declaration filed by S&P on Monday, as it defends against the government's $5 billion fraud lawsuit over its rating practices prior to the 2008 financial crisis.

McGraw said he returned a call from Geithner on Aug. 8, 2011, three days after S&P cut the U.S. credit rating to "AA-plus," and that Geithner told him "you are accountable" for an alleged "huge error" in S&P's work.

"He said that 'you have done an enormous disservice to yourselves and to your country,'" and that S&P's conduct would be "looked at very carefully," McGraw said. "Such behavior could not occur, he said, without a response from the government."

Allah has the backstory, including the fact that S&P did include a $2 trillion error in its calculations as regard the debt and our credit-worthiness.

And what of it? People are allowed to make mistakes without "responses from the government." (S&P concedes the error but says the error does not impact their overall call on the nation's credit worthiness.)

Here's some open thread stuff.

Yesterday soothsayer brought up the Great Vowel Shift when we were talking about the evolution of the English language. So obviously that's what I spent all last night learning about.

The guy has other videos on the evolution of English. They are, if I remember the titles right, "IE to OE" (Indo-European to Old English), "Morphology of Old English," "Syntax of Old English," "Morphology of Middle English," "Syntax of Middle English," and then "Morphology of EMnE" and "Syntax of EMnE."

"EMnE" means "Early Modern English," by which they mean Shakespeare. "Middle English" means Chaucer, and Old English means Beowulf.

If you have any interest at all, I do recommend watching these videos. The first seven or so are 20 minutes long each. The last two -- on Early Modern English -- are shorter, around 13 minutes, because there's less to cover by the time we're up to Shakespeare.

grandma winger recommended The Story of English, which I haven't watched yet, but that'll be what I'm watching next.

I learned a bunch but here's what I take away from it. I'll put this below the fold. Because it's of marginal interest. Before that, though, here's a Hedgehog Eating a Dinosaur.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 03:31 PM | Comments (464)
Post contains 1919 words, total size 12 kb.

Wendy Davis penned an "open letter" which sought to rebut the disclosures about her fabricated personal narrative by employing the crafty technique of not rebutting them at all.

Dear Friend,

As our campaign has gained momentum, our opponents have gotten more and more desperate. But now they’ve stooped to a new low by attacking my family, my education, and my personal story – playing politics with the journey that has been my life.

Mine is a story about a teenage single mother who struggled to keep her young family afloat. ItÂ’s a story about a young woman who was given a precious opportunity to work her way up in the world. ItÂ’s a story about resiliency, and sacrifice, and perseverance.

And youÂ’re damn right itÂ’s a true story.

Actually, no, it's a false story, or at least specific details are false, which even one Wendy Davis acknowledged.

This is the most insidious War on Women I've seen yet: They have poor Wendy Davis attacking herself.

You know, I wanted to goof on this -- Davis goes on say this isn't about her "story," which is, you know, false, but about your stories, which hopefully are less false -- but MKH does so much of that that I really would just be copying her if I did the same.

This reminds me of Elizabeth Warren's defense of her own Gigantic Lies. Basically, she just retreats into a position that this is "My Story," and this is a personal thing, and this is a Woman Thing, and you wouldn't understand, so you just have to accept My Story even though it is all one big Gigantic Lie.

See, if it's your "story," you can claim whatever you like. Women, it seems -- and this does appear where we are as far as 21st Century Feminism is concerned -- have a special license to just make things up and not be called out on Gigantic Lies because Shut Up You H8r.

From Elizabeth Warren to Sandra Fluke to Wendy Davis to Hillary Clinton, there is this idea that it's perfectly reasonable to create a... "Composite Narrative" of your own life which includes, um, false details taken from Other Women's Personal Stories.

Usually our androcentric Male Gaze culture has called that kind of thing a "lie." As when Joe Biden claimed to have lived the poor-boy life of British politician Neil Kinnock.

But when these radical feminists due it, the claim is made that they're really "honoring" these other "stories" by weaving them into the rich tapestry of their own narrative.

Or something. I have no idea. All I know is basically progressive women are just entitled to lie about their lives. And Serious You Guys, War on Women.

Posted by: Ace at 02:22 PM | Comments (366)
Post contains 506 words, total size 3 kb.

Via Purp in the sidebar, I am posting this because it's kind of a rule that Spider News gets mainpaged.

What the hell, man?

Not real. The real spider is a tiny little thing
you can barely see, hiding in the Decoy Spider body

The article doesn't say (unless I've missed it) why they build these decoys. The only possible reason I can imagine is that there are some cuckoo-type spiders which just steal other spiders' webs -- take them over, kill or drive out the webs' actual builder -- and so smaller spiders are making big fake Spider Decoys to warn away such webjackers.

Or, even simpler: Another spider that feeds on smaller spiders, or some other insect that does so.

Or a bird.

But I just made that up. The article provides no hint that I can see of the purpose of a Fake Spider in a web. Wouldn't a Fake Spider in a web warn away prey?

Also via Purp, the Internet of Real Life Things is probably going to allow the Hacking of Real Life Things.

Explanation: Kirk, I think, nailed it:

It's just a selfie.

Dudes always try to make themselves appear bigger than they really are in selfies.

Oh My: This is from May of 2012, but it's horrifying.

Ever see Kingdom of the Spiders? That's right, with William Shatner, when he was still struggling after the cancellation of Star Trek and doing B-movies.

The last shot of that film was a whole town covered in spider's webs. Matte painting, you know-- the height of 70s special effects. (No condescension intended; I loved matte painting shots.)

Well, this isn't quite that, but it's similar.

Look at that farm. You'd think they were actually growing spiderwebs.

Oh my Lord: I didn't notice this picture.

Content warning. It involves a dog.

The dog is unharmed. But the image is still frightening.

Posted by: Ace at 01:40 PM | Comments (228)
Post contains 351 words, total size 3 kb.