Media

The Latest Lid-Ripper in Kochspiracy Journalism: Company Discovered Wrongdoing, Addressed it

|

You know who ELSE had a foreign subsidiary that legally conducted business with Iran, but then later suspended it as part of overall corporate policy to be stricter than United States law? That's right.

For weeks there have been rumors that Bloomberg Markets magazine was going to drop a damning new article detailing nefarious and hypocritical business practices by Koch Industries, the private megacorporation whose head honchos, Charles and David Koch, have for three decades been major donors to libertarian causes (including the Reason Foundation, on whose board David sits), and more recently have emerged as influential donors to Republican Party causes. So did Bloomberg deliver the goods? Here's how the article starts:

In May 2008, a unit of Koch Industries Inc., one of the world's largest privately held companies, sent Ludmila Egorova-Farines, its newly hired compliance officer and ethics manager, to investigate the management of a subsidiary in Arles in southern France. In less than a week, she discovered that the company had paid bribes to win contracts.

Because nothing says "fascism" more than spending decades fighting corporatism! Wait, what?

"I uncovered the practices within a few days," Egorova-Farines says. "They were not hidden at all."

She immediately notified her supervisors in the U.S. A week later, Wichita, Kansas-based Koch Industries dispatched an investigative team to look into her findings, Bloomberg Markets magazine reports in its November issue.

By September of that year, the researchers had found evidence of improper payments to secure contracts in six countries dating back to 2002, authorized by the business director of the company's Koch-Glitsch affiliate in France.

"Those activities constitute violations of criminal law," Koch Industries wrote in a Dec. 8, 2008, letter giving details of its findings. The letter was made public in a civil court ruling in France in September 2010; the document has never before been reported by the media.

Egorova-Farines wasn't rewarded for bringing the illicit payments to the company's attention. Her superiors removed her from the inquiry in August 2008 and fired her in June 2009, calling her incompetent, even after Koch's investigators substantiated her findings. She sued Koch-Glitsch in France for wrongful termination.

Read it for yourself; the headline (and headline-making) revelation is "Koch Brothers Flout Law With Secret Iran Sales." Here's a prebuttal of sorts from Powerline's John Hinderaker. Koch General Counsel Mark Holden responds here ("Bloomberg's substandard reporting contains major inaccuracies"). Over at FutureOfCapitalism.com, Reason columnist Ira Stoll points out, among other items of interest, that "Bloomberg itself is a private company that doesn't regularly publicly disclose its own profits, either."

More reaction (including high praise for the Bloomberg article) at The Atlantic. Reason on the Kochs here.

Update: In the original post, we failed to note that the Voodo Doll #28 drawing is Copyright 2011, Barbara Broido. We regret the oversight.

NEXT: Ken Burns on Prohibition, Drug Laws, & Unintended Consequences

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I am sure they will be running the same kind of hit piece on Warren Buffet or George Soros real soon.

    1. Remember that time you woke up with a really nasty hangover and your ball felt drained?

      1. So where is the computer you found to post from, rectal? The library? It must be hard to keep finding IP addresses.

        1. Someone needs to drain his ball more often.

        2. You really think she hasn’t been banned from the library too?

          1. Hard to ban even the mentally ill homeless from the library.

            1. THIS IS TRUE. Trust me.

            2. Isn’t that who the library is there for?

  2. The fact that she was correct about one thing is not dispositive of the rest of her job performance. I also don’t know how Koch works, but in every company I’ve worked for, if you’re going to fire someone for incompetence you usually have a paper trail to back it up.

    1. Plus, its hard to see how firing her was part of some big coverup, when they did a big followup investigation.

      I don’t suppose the article says what the Kochs did internally after their investigation? Was discipline meted out to the bribors, or were bonuses awarded?

      1. They were all given massive bonuses and as a special gift of appreciation from the Kochs, fur coats made from endangered tiger pelts sewn by orphan slave laborers in Malaysia. Or so I heard.

        1. Monocles…..how could you forget the monocles?!?!

          1. Monocles are not awarded as bonuses, since they’re part of the required Business Attire.

            1. (RTFEmployeeHandbook, noob)

      2. If they were trying to cover it up, they wouldn’t have fired her. They would have given her a promotion and a big raise so she didn’t have a reason to ever talk about it again.

        1. Exactly.

          That’s how coverups work. A fat promotion to a job with no responsibilities and a really nice office.

          Surely the Koch brothers are familiar enough with business to know that, too. If that’s what they wanted to do, they would have.

          1. Sometimes it happens that way. Sometimes it doesn’t. Never underestimate the ability of people to be petty and vindictive, even to their overall detriment.

      3. Read the response from Koch. Apparently one of the issues with this “whistle-blower” is that she delayed informing the company of the information she had gathered for almost 4 months and then provided one of the prime individuals involved in the corruption information on the investigation.

        The corporate response from Koch’s lawyer coupled with the article is interesting reading and show how just leaving out small details can drastically alter a story.

        1. Reason would never leave out facts that hurt their spiel.

        2. That would be fireable in pretty much any big corporation in the US.

    2. pretty much my thoughts, without knowing why she was fired, bringing it up is silly, and has fuckall to do with the rest of the story

      1. That, plus the fact she was fired like a year later??

        That stretches credibility that there was a cause and effect (ie, that she was fired for finding the wrong doing, instead of incompetence in other areas).

        1. Stranger things have happened, particularly if the company wants to go through the motions of documenting a pattern of non-performance. Often times that involves creating a performance improvement plan with ridiculous goals that are hard to meet. Sometimes it takes a year before the employee finally gives you an excuse to document their failure to meet the plan. It could also have been that some part of the management was supported of her, but political winds shifted later. Some of you act like you’ve never seen the political bullshit that goes on in a big company.

          Or she really could have been incompetent. I don’t know. You don’t know. The people who do know aren’t going to comment here, so why make inferences with no information?

          1. Right. I have seen this done before when setting up individuals for layoffs because they were part of an old, unfavored regime or are too expensive.

            The proper question is what were her performance reviews like before she did the investigation. If they were generally high, then chances are they stacked the deck afterwards to create a paper trail.

          2. A year is a long time for an emotional, petty and vindictive retaliation.

  3. Plus, its hard to see how firing her was part of some big coverup, when they did a big followup investigation.

    Oh I think you know that the most effective cover ups are the ones conducted in plain sight under the harsh scrutiny of media and government……err wait…what! HEALTH CARE FOR ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  4. Wait until some investigative report discovers that the Kochs made campaign donations in exchange for sketchy loans to green energy corporations with unworkable business models.

    1. Yeah! Now they’ll pay!

  5. This is really gross. Anyone who tries to get into politics for the wrong side can now expect to have the media engage in character assassination. That really is a fascist tactic.

    1. And Colbert wonders why anyone would want to donate to policitcal causes anonymously.

      1. Somebody has made a pro Gary Johnson PAC now. That’s the only way I’ll donate, so I’m just waiting for the opportunity.

    2. Oh so the Kochs aren’t crony capitalists of the worst kind, they’re victims of the mean old liberal media.

      1. Oh so the Kochs aren’t crony capitalists of the worst kind…..

        Oh they may be…but those pricks from Big Solar are really making some serious inroads.

        1. They are Democratic cronies and that is different. Don’t feed the retarded sock puppet.

      2. This crap is annoying for two reasons:

        1. First of all, this “journalist” is apparently taking them to task for finding wrongdoing at a non-US subsidiary and taking action in response.

        2. Second, fuck that shit anyway. If a company I own in fucking Bangladesh or some such place wants to trade with Iran, it fucking gets to trade with Iran, and fuck the USA if they think they can tell me it can’t. The writ of the US stops at the border. That’s the whole motherfucking reason there ARE borders. I have contempt for all attempts by the US government to extend its laws over the actions of third parties in third countries, whether it’s poker sites or this shit.

        1. Including killing people who the US gvt. says are bad guys.

    3. “Character assassination” is hyperbolic…just like the Bloomberg headline.

      For the most part, that article (I’m assuming you didn’t read it) is simply reporting a bunch of true events–the media’s job–most of them relatively old and/or boring ones. Wouldn’t an investor consider that same company’s history to be necessary information? Would it be character assassination to list every stupid thing Mel Gibson has done?

      If you’d read that article, you’d realize that it’s essentially like reading Wikipedia–a bunch of documented events with sparse analysis. The problem comes in the subjective language used to describe objective facts, such as “flouts the law” or “Koch Industries is obsessed with secrecy” and something of an obsession with their free market philosophy. Again, the Kochs do in fact believe in free markets…does that make it character assassination to focus on it?

      1. I think taking a series of benign events and stringing them together to create a false negative impression counts as character assassination, yes.

        1. Also the picking and choosing of information instead of putting out all known facts.

  6. The Bloomberg article had comments initially, although I suspect the word “Koch” at the top of it drove so many into spittle-flecked rage that they didn’t read it. No one seemed to notice stuff like this:

    Koch Industries is obsessed with secrecy, to the point that it discloses only an approximation of its annual revenue — $100 billion a year — and says nothing about its profits.

    Not only is this the norm for private companies — going public entails much greater financial disclosure — but the company that owns the very site this was posted on does the exact same thing.

    1. Mars Inc. does the same thing. A vague indication of annual sales. No public information at all on their net profit.

      “Private” means “none of your business”.

    2. I LOL’d at that line, as well. For the most part, Koch Industries is obsessed with doing business the same as everyone else. There’s even a legal concept called “trade secrets” so the government must be obsessed with it as well.

      Oops, actually the government is obsessed with it.

  7. I guess even though Mike hasn’t had anything to do with the operations over there for some time, they still haven’t quite wrung the scumbag out of their organization.

    I guess you can take the scumbag Mayor out of the company, but you can’t…aw fuck it.

    Topic Change:

    Usually I tend to discount news articles that try to directly tie intraday market moves to current news stories, but the Fed officially started to Twist the dollar into the shitter today and you can practically see gold and oil turn around right on the tape as they’re doing it. Fuckers.

    1. [snicker]

      Who could have seen that coming?

  8. Threadjack: Nine-year-old boy charged with felony for officer assault.

    http://helenair.com/news/local…..002e0.html

    1. The cops claim the mother demanded he be charged.

      In which case, I gotta cut the cops some slack here and transfer my outrage to this kid’s bitch whore mom.

      1. The mother didn’t want him to be charged. It looks like he was kind of a little bastard and his mother is a liar.

        Officer Alisha Burns, who has been working with the department for more than three years, told The Montana Standard Tuesday she responded Sept. 18 to a call of someone trespassing in the city yard.

        She didn’t find anyone in the yard, but youngsters were nearby in the skate park.

        She asked the boys to move their bicycles, which are not allowed in the skate park, off the concrete when Zingelman’s son started arguing with her.

        Officer Burns said the boy assaulted her by kicking her and that she put him into her police cruiser and took him home.

        Burns denied allegations she used a stun gun on the boy. She said there was never any mention of the weapon during her confrontation with the boy.

        “That never happened,” she said. “It wasn’t even mentioned.”

        The Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office downloaded information from the officer’s stun gun, showing the weapon

        hadn’t been fired that day, said Boulder Mayor Gary Craft.

        1. Yeah. I kinda got that feeling, too. Felony assault is a little much, but he did need a good butt whooping by his Mom.

          1. In the past the cop would have just knocked the shit out of him with the blessing of his parents. Since the cop can’t do that anymore, what choice does she have but to arrest him?

  9. You totally missed this monumental gotcha on the Kochopus from the ‘Nation’: “40 year-old letters about Social Security”
    http://www.thenation.com/artic…..l-security

    This will bring them down

  10. Matt, I think your headline is incomplete. It should be

    “The Latest Lid-Ripper in Kochspiracy Journalism: Company Discovered Wrongdoing, Addressed it, Did Some More Wrong, And Also Helps Pay My Salary”

    Hey, Koch dudes! If you didn’t break the law so often, you could afford to give Matt a raise! And, also, what’s the deal about no health insurance for Matt? Cut the dude some slack, Jack! (and Chuck and Dave).

    1. What? Matt is a tentacle of the Kochtopus? When did this happen and why hasn’t anyone ever disclosed this?

      1. STOP SPELLING MY NAME WRONG!

        1. Better hope Mr. Vanneman doesn’t retain the services of one Arthur Wolk.

          1. Careful……………………..The Kochs do not want to pay any more unnecessary legal fees.

    2. You really are a disgusting shitbag. And you are too much of a coward to even try to defend yourself.

      1. That gave me quite the chuckle.

    3. Yeah, because I totally forgot to mention that David Koch sits on our Board of Trustees in the first sentence of this blog post. Got me again, Vanneman!

      1. And the Kochs fund NOVA! Republican anti-science plot!

      2. And of course this post was written by their direct order. That is how all boards work isn’t it?

        It is not like it was a ridiculous hit piece and you took it upon yourself to expose it as such. Nope, this is all done at the evil Koch’s bidding.

      3. So what’s the deal with the Vanneman-tolerance around here, anyway?

        1. Yeah, we probably shouldn’t complain too much about who the staff tolerates. Especially those of you who were named parties…

          1. I refuse to be a member of a place that won’t ban the likes of me.

            Plus, I don’t directly insult the editors. I don’t think I even insulted Weigel, at least not while he was working here.

        2. Saint-like patience is the deal, apparently.

        3. He still owes Nick money.

          1. Owe enough, and you own the bank?

            1. Isn’t Alan Vanneman the guy that everyone knew had sex with goats, and everyone had pictures of fucking goats, but didn’t?

              Wasn’t there a huge uproar because some guy spammed “Alan Vanneman fucks goats Alan Vanneman fucks goats Alan Vanneman fucks goats Alan Vanneman fucks goats, etc” over and over or something?

              But, it was never firmly established, and ultimately debunked, the fact that Alan Vanneman fucks goats, right?

      4. Matt, your head, and your intro, made no mention of the fact that Koch fired the empolyee who brought the bribes to their attention. I find that detail pertinent. But congrats for including it in your quotation from the Bloomsberg article. And I’d ask you if you still think that French doctors are better than American ones, but I guess that would be wrong (but congrats for writing that article in the first place, and congrats to “Reason” for publishing it).

        1. I thought “The Giant Rat of Sumatra” was bad, but this one actually surpasses it in sheer ineptitude. Holmes makes no brilliant deductions, he mostly complains and breaks just as many laws as those he complains about. Watson is written as a combination atheist, sex maniac, socialist and overall boor. Mrs. Asquith can’t seem to decide whether to call her husband Henry or Herbert. The book manages to insult Winston Churchill, Cecil Rhodes, Protestants, Catholics, and anyone else that the “author” dislikes. But the biggest insult of all is to the reader’s intelligence.

        2. I thought “The Giant Rat of Sumatra” was bad, but this one actually surpasses it in sheer ineptitude. Holmes makes no brilliant deductions, he mostly complains and breaks just as many laws as those he complains about. Watson is written as a combination atheist, sex maniac, socialist and overall boor. Mrs. Asquith can’t seem to decide whether to call her husband Henry or Herbert. The book manages to insult Winston Churchill, Cecil Rhodes, Protestants, Catholics, and anyone else that the “author” dislikes. But the biggest insult of all is to the reader’s intelligence.

  11. I saw the “report” this morning.

    I think it boiled down to, “Those guys did something that we don’t approve of, maybe.”

    1. Plus, it was legal at the time, but since it’s the Koch brothers, it was a ‘loophole’.

  12. sent Ludmila Egorova-Farines, its newly hired compliance officer and ethics manager, to investigate the management of a subsidiary in Arles in southern France. In less than a week, she discovered that the company had paid bribes to win contracts.

    So they routinely conduct internal audits?

  13. crony capitalists of the worst kind

    That is to say, crony capitalists whose ultimate aims do not coincide with Tony’s.

    1. I don’t have a problem with government contracting out to corporations to achieve a public goal. The cronyism comes in when their goal is maximizing profits for those corporations.

    2. And let’s not pretend that the basic distillation of conservative-libertarian thought isn’t that maximizing profits for corporations is the same thing as doing the public good.

      1. And let’s not pretend you aren’t a totalitarian piece of shit who wants to control people’s thoughts.

  14. Mars Inc. does the same thing.

    “This past fiscal year, the Company sold some candy bars, and some other stuff. We managed to end the year in the black.”

  15. What a boring article. (The Bloomberg one.)

    1. OK, so it wasn’t just me.

  16. So what’s the deal with the Vanneman-tolerance around here, anyway?

    Ocktail-cay arties-pay.

    1. Dude, you could tell me I’d get lifetime invites to the annual Playboy mansion free cocaine party and it wouldn’t be enough.

      1. Really? OK, I’d actually agree, but only because Playboy’s going to be bankrupt and out of business in less than 5 years.

  17. Lets assume that everything about the conspiracy is right, that still does not explain how these two guys who have less wealth than either Buffet, Bill Gates, Soros, Apple computers, Google, Facebook and many more, can have more influence over America, than any one of these donors of the Democratic party.

    It really does not say much about the intelligence of the people when that is the best they can do as a conspiracy theory.

    1. yes, but though the devil has less influence on man than the Lord, he still must be battled at every turn…for eternity…lest he rise again 😉

  18. Vermont to do single-payer non-fee-for-service health care:

    http://www.kaiserhealthnews.or…..gn=emailed

    OK, I’m a little confused.

    The lefties always tell me that the health insurance system is irredeemably incompatible with decent and “just” health care, since insurers are incentivized to collect premiums and then to deny coverage for care – because the way they make money is to pocket the delta between the premiums they collect (plus investment income) and the claims they pay.

    But here Vermont is proposing to pay EACH AND EVERY SERVICE PROVIDER a flat fee per patient they are able to enroll, regardless of how much care they provide. But wouldn’t that take the “horrendous and evil” incentive system that now exists for insurers and transfer it to service providers? Wouldn’t it incent doctors to sign up as many patients as possible, and then to contrive ways to not care for those patients? Won’t it mean that the most successful doctor will be the one who manages to sign up the most healthy patients who need no care at all?

    Seriously, the last time I read an idea like this it was called the Rail Unification Plan and I thought to myself, “There you go again, Ayn – making up crazy hyperbolic shit that no one would ever do in real life, not even crazy lefties.”

    1. That is exactly what it would do. But, everyone would get equally awful service. And liberals love equality more than any other value.

    2. You’re describing capitation, which does incentivize in the way you describe. But I don’t think that’s what’s being proposed in Vermont. That article doesn’t make it clear–the law is to enable single-payer, but the details are left out. Bundling is the middle ground between capitation and fee-for-service. It pays based on expected costs for specific types of treatments.

      1. Shut up fact face

    3. I forwarded that link to our physician recruiter. I’m expecting quite the exodus of doctors from Vermont.

      1. Only the hard-working ones.

  19. A year is a long time for an emotional, petty and vindictive retaliation.

    Revenge is a dish best served cold; to lions.

    1. Oh, I dunno. I like my emotional, petty, vindictive retaliations to go on as long as I can string them out.

  20. “Bloomberg’s substandard reporting contains major inaccuracies”

    Did those bastards forget to use spellcheck again?

  21. Wouldn’t it incent doctors to sign up as many patients as possible, and then to contrive ways to not care for those patients?

    1. Actually no it wouldn’t. At least not after we purge all of the doctors with false political consciousness and ensure that all doctors are the new socialist man.

  22. Doctors are too nobly god-like to consider their own self-aggrandizement.

  23. My question about all this business is:

    A: Kochs bad!

    C: Reelect Obama!

    And what, precisely, is B supposed to be?

    1. For the political Manichaean, i suppose it doesn’t matter.

    2. Something about underpants, I believe.

  24. “Instead of paying hospitals to care for patients, let’s pay them to sign patients up to a yearly care plan and then not ever admit them.”

    The railroad to survive will be the one that manages to run no trains at all.

  25. Bloombergs makes up for all the other crap, by having all those young and attractive female presents on their business channel. Watching Bloombergs almost makes one think that the only people interested in economic and financial matters are these nubile women.

    1. Unfortunately, my cable does not have Bloomberg in HD, but in standard broadcast only, so all of their nubile broadcasters are 25% wider than they actually are in real life.

      1. If that’s not a type of fetish porn yet, it should be

        1. Must . . . not . . . Google . . . .

  26. If only everyone was as honest as Bloomberg.

  27. Watching CNBC the MSNBC Business Channel has become largely intolerable for me. If it wasn’t for Bloomberg’s channel, I would be watching Smurfs re-runs every morning.

    1. I am reduced to watching the weather channel or some Mike and Mike on ESPN. I used to be able to watch Fox News because they at least had good looking woman. But Gretchen Carlson’s hair and make up are so hideous looking and her personality is so annoying, it is unwatchable even for lustful purposes.

      1. Carlson is the walking talking personification of the Republican suburban soccer mom. Women like her are endemic where I live, and she is apparently their queen.

        1. I live in a different kind of suburb. But I can see what you are saying. I guess for a certain kind of woman, helmet hair and really heavy makeup is the height of attractiveness.

      2. TCM for me.

        Last week they showed the hilarious One Third of a Nation, an agitprop piece that comes across as a Bizarro-world version of The Fountainhead.

        Ostensibly it’s about the horrible conditions people living in 1930s tenements faced and how “slum clearance” was necessary (but they never discuss where all those people are going to live while the new buildings are being constructed), but it’s so heavy-handed that it’s a laugh and a half. Especially when the tenement building starts talking to 14-year-old Sidney Lumet.

        Apparently it’s based on a play that got its funding as part of the American Theater Project, or whichever alphabet soup New Deal agency provided funding to the stage.

  28. Let’s face it, most of y’all reflexively, almost impulsively, defended Koch and lashed out at Bloomberg and Koch employees. The basis: sloppy ad homenism.

    Most of the comments here are made without analysis. First, before one who is a friend of liberty leaps to the support of an organization which purports to be a great big friend of liberty, one should examine how the organization actually works.

    Take Sally Barnes-Soliz, a fromer employee of Koch. She says that when whe worked for Koch, here bosses and a company lawyer asked her to falsify date for a report to be submitted to a state on uncontrolled emissions of benzene.

    She refused to fudge the numbers and so testified before a federal grand jury. Koch knowingly provided the state of Texas with a false report regarding the amount of benzene its Corpus Christi, Texas oil refineries were emitting.

    Ms. Barnes-Soliz tipped off the Texas regulators that Koch had submitted a false report. After learning of this, guess what Koch did? The company reassigned her to an empty office, with no duties and no access to e-mail. She later sued them and Koch settled.

    How about Koch’s self proclaimed top two values? The values:

    Integrity and COMPLIANCE.

    lET’S NOT LIONIZE RENT SEEKING LIARS.

    1. lET’S NOT LIONIZE RENT SEEKING LIARS.

      This is Reason. Liberty second, capitalism first. Payment for service.

      1. Tony, why can’t you get it through your head that there is a profound difference between free enterprise and crony capitalism and that authentic libertarians do know the difference and are not afraid of calling Koch Industries crony capitalists.

        1. I appreciate that and would much prefer arguing with people who can figure out that distinction.

          That being said, I don’t really think there is a difference between free enterprise and crony capitalism–what’s to prevent powerful private enterprises to maximize profits via bribery and rent seeking if there’s not strong legal impediments to doing so?

          1. what’s to prevent powerful private enterprises to maximize profits via bribery and rent seeking if there’s not strong legal impediments to doing so?

            Removing the opportunity for bribery and rent-seeking at the roots, by having a limited government that lacks the resources and the plenary authority to make bribery and rent-seeking worthwhile?

          2. Tony, how is it possible that you have been trolliing Hit & Run for all this time and yet you still can’t answer or understand a core libertarian argument like the one RC Dean made here.

            I have spent copious hours talking to Marxists, and I guarantee you I could state their arguments as well or better than most of them. It isn’t hard to be intellectually honest, so why do you apparently lack the mental capacity?

    2. The company reassigned her to an empty office, with no duties and no access to e-mail.

      And she complained? Your average pub-sec union will fight like hyenas to get that for every one of their members.

      1. True.

        My point is that why are so many here so willing to play the genuflection game vis-a-vis Koch Industries? The facts do not square with the meme that Koch is some kind of John Galt society.

        The company bribes, rent seeks and lies.

  29. If an organization is truly devoted to liberty, it does not make repeated contributions to republican party politicians not named Paul, year after year after year.

    If an organization is truly devoted to liberty, it does not asseverate that one of its top two guiding principles is COMPLIANCE.

    1. -10000000

    2. Ah, I was trying to figure out your angle. So they’re not pro-Paul enough for you. Thanks.

      1. The angle? How about the facts?

    3. You understand the anti Paul bias goes back to decades old personal disagreements, right? Not saying I agree, but all that shit runs way de

  30. Sadly, Mike, I am not certain whether it is even possible in this day and age for a large company to stay in business without greasing some palms – when every competitor will happily ask the same congress-scum to cripple them. Doesn’t make it right, but it does make it unsurprising. I’d almost call it self defense.

  31. Koch Butt Boy Welch Defends Financial Masters.

    Film at 11.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.