"Too few people understand a really good sandwich."  - James Beard

User login

Who's online

There are currently 0 users and 35 guests online.

Welcome to iBrattleboro!

Welcome to iBrattleboro!
It's a local news source by and for the people of Brattleboro, Vermont, published continually. You can get involved in this experiment in citizen journalism by submitting meeting results, news, events, stories, reviews, how-to's, recipes, places to go, things to do, or anything else important to Brattleboro. Or, just drop by to see what others have contributed.

Find iBrattleboro on:

 Twitter YouTube

Search the Archives

Ye Olde iBrattleboro Archive

Use the pulldown to choose desired number of results.


Search the first decade
of iBrattleboro archives
at Archive-It.org
Feb 20, 2003 to Feb 6, 2013

Republicans, Russians, Democrats, Qatar - Who Is Really Running Our Country?

I was listening to talk radio last night, Shawn Hannity Show, and they were going on and on about the alleged sins of Harvey Weinstein. I did my own research on him, here it is: Mr.Harvey Weinstein, co-founder of MIRAMAX, gave campagin donations to Democrats, including UNITED STATES SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY, and Miramax is funded by people who live in the foreign country of QATAR:

 Reference: The Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law 2015, page 176, Miramax, owned by Filmyard Holdings LLC, whose investors include QATAR HOLDING LLC.

Therefore, is it legal for Mr. Harvey Weinstein to give HUGE POLITICAL CAMPAIGN FUNDS TO DEMOCRATS?

Reference: "Title 2 United States Code, Section 441e. (a) Prohibition.

 It shall be unlawful for a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make (A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election..."

 So, is this worse than, or the same as, Russians affecting the U.S. Elections, to have people from QATAR fueling money to Miramax which, by one person at Miramax, gives donations to Democratic candidates for federal office? 

Qatar - Wikipedia


Qatar officially the State of Qatar (Arabic: دولة قطر Dawlat Qatar), is a sovereign
country located in Western Asia...

 "CNN Democrats pressured to return Harvey Weinstein donations CNN - 11 hours ago UNITED STATES SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY, D-Vermont, plans to donate $5600 in campaign contributions from Harvey Weinstein to charity..."

 "Harvey Weinstein, CBE is an American film producer and film studio executive. He is best known as co-founder of Miramax, which produced several popular independent films including Pulp Fiction, Clerks, The Crying Game, and Sex, Lies and Videotape. Wikipedia"


Comments | 19

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

This all has nothing to do

This all has nothing to do with the allegations of sexual assault and sexual harassment against him.
Who he gave money to or even who has invested in his business ventures has absolutely no bearing on his current situation.
Stop trying to make irrelevant connections when they don't exist.
There are plenty of horrific things happening without making things up.



KAlden's comment sounds like a Non sequitur, in that it does not relate to the story that CrisEricson2016's posted.

KAlden accuses CrisEricson2016's of trying to refute sexual assault and sexual harassment allegations against Trump, even though ChrisEricson2016"s story did not even remotely touch on those allegations. The allegations in Ericson's story were that it is not only Republicans who are corrupt, but that Democrats also accept what amount to bribery, and benefit from foreign influence in our elections.

Ericson gave Harvey Weinstein, and Qatar-based investors in Miramax as examples. I have no idea who Harvey Weinstein is or what Miramax it, so I do not know whether or not Ericson's allegations are grounded in fact. I do know that, logically, Alden's attack on Ericson's story is off target and makes no sense.


She began her post by talking

She began her post by talking about the multiple sexual assault and harassment charges against Weinstein- and then talked immediately about his donations to Democrats and his possible ties to Quatar- implying that those 3 things were linked.somehow . My point is that they have nothing to do with each other and is a weak and unreliable way to make a point about the faults of our two party system. There was no case made for dual corruption in both parties - as is Ms. Erickson's writing style she leads with a statement that then has nothing to do with the rest of her post.
And, if you know nothing about either the allegations against Weinstein or his company you really have no context to judge my comments as an "attack". They were an opinion just like your post is an opinion.
And,not a very valid one at that. It makes no sense, logically and is off target.


Reading Ericson's story...

there is no mention of sexual misconduct, only "alleged sins," followed by allegations involving money. Perhaps ChrisEricson2016 did not write with sufficient specificity, but KAlden did not either.

A written piece which requires the reader to know the background in advance can be confusing. It is a good idea not to assume that your reader has advance knowledge of information about your subject. We do not have to be clever writers, but if we want our readers to understand the point we are trying to make, it is a good idea to mention the relevant facts.


The right wing media has been

The right wing media has been all over the story about Weinstein so - as she states she did know what the allegations were but didn't list them.
You admit in your original post that you didn't know who either Harvey Weinstein or Miramax were - yet chose to comment on something you knew nothing about.
Maybe you should know the full background of a story before you start crying'attack". No relevant fact exist in your comment- just a supposition that based on the information Ms. Ericcson copied and pasted you felt you were qualified to make a knowledgeable assessment of my post. Clearly you weren't.
I'm leaving this conversation as of now- it's starting to really bore me.


KAlden is disturbed

The confused thinking and inelegant tone speak for themselves.


" inelegant

" inelegant tone"....hahahaha..you made my day.


Glad to help

If that made your day, maybe you need to get a life.


Well, I could certainly never

Well, I could certainly never reach the pinnacle of elegant writing or tone that is so very evident in your many convoluted posts so I'll have to strive for some other example of perfection in my life.
Have an elegant day!


KAlden, sex & money are relevant connections!

KAlden, sex & money are relevant connections!
Did you listen to the radio program?
It was all about women applying for jobs
in the movie industry, only to find out that
they were expected to give sexual favors
to those with the power to hire them
for the job they thought they were applying for.


No, I would never listen to a

No, I would never listen to a show by Sean Hannity.
What does Weinstein donating money to political campaigns have to do with him offering jobs for sex? What does any possible connection of his business to Quatar have to do with him groping a woman's breast?
Allegations of sexual assault may mean that the guy involved is a creep and a deviant but that hadn't happened because he donated to Democrats.
Use some common sense and maybe start listening to reliable news .


KAlden, which news source do you consider authentic?

KAlden, which news source do you consider authentic?
In my original post, above at the top, I never stated
what Mr. Weinstein's alleged bad behavior was.
I wanted to avoid salacious gossip.
What I was trying to do was to find out any
real and valid reason why U.S. Senator Patrick
Leahy would allegedly state that he would donate
the amount of Mr. Weinstein's donation to his campaign
to a charity instead of keeping it.

Mr. Leahy would not turn away a campaign
contribution if it was a valid one; right?
So, by apparently
stating that he would donate the amount of the contribution
from Mr. Weinstein to a charity, Mr. Leahy was
essentially indicating that he did not feel comfortable
with a contribution from Mr. Weinstein.

I wanted to see if there was a reason for Mr. Leahy
not wanting to keep a contribution from Mr. Weinstein
that was NOT stated on Sean Hannity's radio show,
and the reason for that is
that Sean Hannity could be doing a cover-up for
the real reason Democrats were suddenly uncomfortable
with donations from Mr. Weinstein.

Was the real reason Mr. Leahy did not want to keep
the campaign contribution because of Mr. Weinstein's
supposed bad behaviour with women,
or was there some reason that was NOT stated on
the Sean Hannity Show?

That's what I meant by my statement,
that I did my own research.

The Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on
Media Law 2015 is a 513 page book
by Associated Press. The Shawn Hannity Show
mentioned MIRAMAX so I simply looked it up in
the book, page 175:
Miramax, owned by Flimyard Holdings LLC,
whose investors include Qatar Holding LLC.

Now, let's look at some of the news articles,
and you tell me, KAlden,
how many of these news sources do NOT meet
your personal standards?

About 87,800 results
News for patrick leahy harvey weinstein
USA TODAY Republicans and Democrats war over Harvey Weinstein donations
USA TODAY - 1 day ago
Harvey Weinstein has officially become a political liability. ... Patrick Leahy, a
Democrat from Vermont, was the first to announce Thursday he'd ...
Democrats Begin Shunning Harvey Weinstein Campaign Donations
Variety - 1 day ago
DNC, Senators No Longer Want Harvey Weinstein's Money
Vulture - 8 hours ago
Democrats Begin Shunning Harvey Weinstein Campaign Donations ...
variety.com/2017/.../harvey-weinstein-patrick-leahy-1202581995/‎Cached1 day ago ... Democrats have begun distancing themselves from Harvey Weinstein, beginning with the reelection campaign of Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)’s announcement that he would donate a $2,700 campaign contribution from Harvey Weinstein to charity.
... Other senators have followed suit ...
DNC, Senators No Longer Want Harvey Weinstein's Money - Vulture
www.vulture.com/.../harvey-weinstein-democratic-donation-senator.html‎Cached8 hours ago ... According to the Daily Beast, Vermont senator Patrick Leahy will give ... Multiple
Women Are Accusing Harvey Weinstein of Sexual Harassment ...
Senate Democrats Pledge to Give Tainted Harvey Weinstein ...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/patrick-leahy-becomes-the-first-democrat-to-give-away-his-donation-from-filmmaker-harvey-weinstein‎Cached10.05.17 4:54 PM ET. Patrick Leahy Becomes The First Democrat To Give Away
His Donation From Filmmaker Harvey Weinstein ...
Patrick Leahy to donate campaign contribution from Harvey ...
www.washingtonexaminer.com/patrick-leahy...harvey-weinstein.../2636695‎Cached1 day ago ... Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., will donate $2,700 he received from film producer
Harvey Weinstein for his reelection campaign to charity, ...
Dems Begin To Jettison Harvey Weinstein Campaign Dollars ...
deadline.com/.../harvey-weinstein-sexual-harassment-allegations-democrats-campaign-contribution-give-back-1202183423/‎Cached6 hours ago ... Dems in Washington are starting to give away Harvey Weinstein ... Patrick
Leahy's campaign said its Weinstein bucks will be given to the ...
Dem lawmakers to give Weinstein donations to charity | TheHill
thehill.com/.../354192-dem-lawmakers-to-give-weinstein-donations-to-charity‎Cached13 hours ago ... ... from Harvey Weinstein to charity following a slew of sexual harassment
allegations against the Hollywood film producer. Sens. Patrick Leahy ...
Four Democrats to donate Weinstein's political contributions - NY ...
16 hours ago ... Four Democrats will give away the donations Harvey Weinstein made ... Patrick J
Leahy of Vermont, ...

SECTION 441 (e) Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a) Prohibition. It shall be unlawful for
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of
value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a
contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or
local election; ....

So, what I was looking for was to see if the Shawn Hannity Show
was creating a smoke screen to give a reason why donations from
Mr. Weinstein might no longer be acceptable to Democrats, but not
give a technical legal reason that could hold up in a court of law.

For example, even if Mr. Weinstein got into legal trouble for
allegations of improper conduct against women applying for jobs,
would that rise to the level of illegal criminal behaviour?

If the allegations of the women were enough for Mr. Weinstein
to issue them out-of-court quick settlements to ensure his
reputation would not be spoiled, but if there were not
criminal proceedings at all, or at the time he gave donations
to Democrats, then wouldn't the Democrats have a legal right
to keep the donations to their campaign committee funds?

So, what I'm getting at, is in my original post above at the top,
I did not state what the complaints against Mr. Weinstein were,
I simply stated that I did my own research, because I was
looking past what may or may not have been a smoke-screen
by the Shawn Hannity Show, to what may or may not be the
real legal question:

If a company in the U.S.A. receives investment money from
people in a foreign country, and then one of the owners
of the company in the U.S.A. turns around and gives political
campaign contributions to candidates for federal office,
is that prohibited under Title 2 United States Code,
Section 441(e)?

That's what I want to know.


Never the Twain

The topical references of the “alleged sins of Harvey Weinstein,” as CrisEricson writes, do indeed alluded to the his sexual harassment of women over many years. While it’s true that CrisEricson steered the current media topic away from sexual harassment to questioning the legality of his Qatar related political contributions, she reconnects with the sexual harassment story by reporting that “Senator Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, plans to donate $5600 in campaign contributions from Harvey Weinstein to charity...” etc.

If any of our other readers think KAlden was indulging in a non-sequitur that "does not relate to the story that CrisEricson2016's posted," they might not know what a non-sequitur really means in an attempt to apply it to KAlden’s comments.

Non-sequitur (Merriam Webster) “a statement (such as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said. i.e., We were talking about the new restaurant when she threw in some non sequitur about her dog.

KAlden clearly was not talking about a “dog,” as it were … and clearly is on-topic.


Agreeing to Disagree

Hi all, I'm wearing my moderator hat right now. Reading this thread of comments, I'm reminded that if I delete any, someone will get mad, and if I don't, someone else will get mad. What to do?

My take on this is that KAlden's comments may or may not be germane, but it did seem as though more force was applied than was strictly necessary to quell whatever error had been introduced by CrisEricson. That's how it read to me.

Would it be possible, do you think, for us to disagree with each other with less verbal harshness? If not, why not?



Voice of moderation

Ever tried to suggest to quarreling children that there is a better way than name calling, only to be inundated by combatants responding: "S/he started it first!"

Lise asks a very good question: "Would it be possible... for us to disagree with each other with less verbal harshness?"

Part of the answer, I think, is that there is something about addressing another person via a keyboard which makes it much easier to be nasty to them than you would be if you were having the same discussion, face to face over a cup of coffee or tea. Another factor is that most of us seem to have a perceptual bias whereby we magnify personal slights directed at us, but think of our own verbal missiles as reasonable rejoinders to an unfair attack.

Even matters of science discussed on ibrattleboro have often become brawls, even though science at it best is supposed to be an impersonal quest for truth: "Please show me where my argument is incorrect so that I can correct it."

While I agree with Lise's sentiment, I do think that Lise's use of the passive voice ("but it did seem as though more force was applied than was strictly necessary to quell whatever error had been introduced by CrisEricson") is a bit confusing. It is confusing because we can only guess at what Lise is referring to when she writes: "more force was applied." Surely the unnecessary force must have been applied by someone. By KAlden? By MarkTwain? And what error was introduced by ChrisEricson?

I guess Lise is in a tricky position, wanting to say enough to make her point but not wanting to add fuel to the fire.


The thing just mentioned

I can’t even imagine why this thread required a moderator in the first place, much less the implicit power of deletion. What is happening to iBrattlboro in terms of the community of free speech and the free exercise thereof?


Vidda, thanks for reminding us about free speech!

With Vidda's reminder to us to express our free speech, I will
explain why this subject interested me in the first place (see top post above).
(1) I was driving to North Carolina to visit relatives and my brother said there was a letter waiting there for me from the office of United States Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina. I had previously expressed that there were "Russians" in my Twitter account in 2016 when I was a primary election candidate in the Democratic Primary 2016 for U.S. Senate. U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy refused to debate me in the Primary. SHAME on him!!!
Someone suggested that the tweets might be Ukrainian Russian. I did NOT
write the tweets that looked "Russian", someone hacked in and did it.

(2) At some point, I received an email from someone in Qatar, and I did the best I could to research this person, and that's how I first came across Miramax and the fact that someone in Qatar helped to fund that company.

This person was probably a cousin of the other person, a different Qatar holding company with the same last name.

I found out that there is a ruling family in Qatar, it's kind of like a Kingdom.

I generally pissed this person off by publicly posting his email to me, and he wrote back that it was private and I should remove it.

U.S. Senator Richard Burr's letter, which I finally received when I got to North Carolina - basically said that they are doing a very broad investigation with their U.S. Senate committee,
(does that mean that in a very broad investigation they even include complaints from candidates like me that "Russians" hacked my Twitter in 2016, when I am so insignificant that U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy felt comfortable totally and completely insulting the holy hell out of me by refusing to debate me in the 2016 Democratic Primary when I was a legal Democratic Primary candidate for U.S. Senate ?) -
and with the emails from the Sheik making me believe what I read in "The Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law" - that Sheiks from countries like Qatar really do invest in the motion picture industry in the United States of America -
So, I was interested in the whole debate about foreign
influences in our elections here in the U.S.A.


2016 Primary

The Vermont Secretary of State's website shows that Chris Ericson was Leahy's only opponent in the 2016 Demcratic Party's Senate Primary. My personal opinion is that if Leahy refused to debate Ericson, he was undermining democracy by suppressing full discussion of alternative ideas and proposals.

At one time it was a minority party, the Socialists, who introduced progresive ideas which we now rely on, such as Social Security. Suppressing discussion, probably because of a calculation that debates would help his opponent's primary numbers, means that Leahy put his own interests ahead of the best interests of Vermonters.


Candidate Vote Count %

Checkmark icon to designate the winner

62,249 88.6%
7,596 10.8%
Write-Ins 424 0.6%
Blanks 2,832  
Spoiled 61  
Total Votes Cast 73,162


Why did Qatar want to help Iran get American taxpayer dollars?

UPDATE! I did more research, from starting with Harvey Weinstein and Miramax, I have researched the globe because one question leads to another!


Why does the foreign country of QATAR have a good enough relationship with IRAN to want to help them get American taxpayer money put into their pockets? It takes money to make money, it takes money to drill oil to extract it, and then sell it for profit.

Iran and Qatar jointly control the world’s largest natural gas field.
Qatar shares a good relation with Iran, both being members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).
Russia, Qatar, and Iran control around 50% of the world's oil reserves.
Iran and Qatar own the South Pars / North Dome Gas-Condensate field , the world's largest gas field, having a big influence in the Irani-Qatari relation.
The world’s largest natural gas field, called North Field (Qatar) and South Pars (Iran) is between the boundaries of Qatar and Iran.


(1) QATAR Holding LLC, a foreign owned company, invests money into Miramax. Reference: The Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law 2015. Page 176: Miramax, owned by Filmyard Holdings LLC, whose investors include Qatar Holding LLC.
Qatar Holding LLC
(QH) is a global investment house established in 2006,
founded by the Qatar Investment Authority (QIA)
Qatar - Wikipedia
Qatar officially the State of Qatar (Arabic: Dawlat Qatar), is a sovereign country located in Western Asia.

(2) Miramax is owned in part, at the time, by Harvey Weinstein, so Harvey Weinstein profited in part by money from QATAR. Harvey Weinstein, is an American film producer and former film studio executive. He co-founded Miramax.
"Weinstein and his brother Bob were co-chairmen of The Weinstein Company from 2005 to 2017."

(3) Harvey Weinstein gives political campaign donation money to Democrat Barack Obama, who becomes President Barack Obama.
"Weinstein and Chapman also contributed $10,000 to President Barack Obama."

(4) President Barack Obama gives $1.7 Billion dollars to Iran.
"Why the $400 Million Wasn’t Ransom"
"The financial deal called for the U.S. to refund $1.7 billion to Tehran,
consisting of the original $400 million contract for military equipment,
plus $1.3 billion in interest."
"5 Things You Need to Know About the $400 Million America Sent to Iran"

... The financial deal called for the U.S. to refund $1.7 billion to Tehran, consisting of the original $400 million contract for military equipment, plus $1.3 billion in interest.

... President Obama declared that the U.S. was lifting the first raft of sanctions against Iran. He also stated that the U.S. would return $1.7 billion to Iran, as agreed in the negotiations at the Hague....

Harvey Weinstein also donated money to Vermont U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy who abused a woman, Cris Ericson, by refusing to debate her in the 2016 Democratic Party Primary Election when Cris Ericson was a 2016 Democratic Party Candidate for United States Senator. This is another form of abuse against women! Some people call it "the glass ceiling" keeping women from advancing up the career ladder. Some people call it blatant sexual discrimination - after all, when has U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy ever refused to debate a man running against him in the Democratic Party
Primary Election?

Cris Ericson has lived in Vermont for the
past 22 years continuously, and also lived
in Vermont when she attended Goddard College
as a teenager.
She was born in Washington, D.C.


iBrattleboro Poll

The amount of confidence I have in local (not national, not state) media to get the facts right...