Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a really interesting player as for DNC leak... This Anan brothers story is simply incredible
and probably hides some really nasty staff related to DNC espionage over congress members.
Notable quotes:
"... To briefly recap, our report from last week , the Awan family - which was employed by quite a number of House Democrats, had full access to highly sensitive Congressional computer systems , both on-site and remotely from Pakistan , with which they are suspected of committing a variety of crimes - including brokering classified information to hostile foreign governments. ..."
"... would frequently simply go across the street to longstanding dealership called AAA Motors and get one. ..."
"... While Imran and Abid Awan ran their car dealership in Falls Church, Va. in the early part of the decade, Drug Enforcement Agency officials a few miles away in Chantilly were learning that the Iranian-linked terrorist group frequently deployed used car dealerships in the US to launder money and fund terrorism , according to an explosive new Politico expose. - Daily Caller ..."
"... "Based on the modest way Awan was living, it is my opinion that he was sending most of his money to a group or criminal organization that could very well be connected with the Pakistani government ," said Wayne Black - a private investigator who worked in Janet Reno's Miami public corruption unit, adding " My instincts tell me Awan was probably operating a foreign intelligence gathering operation on US soil." ..."
"... In February, the Daily Caller dropped two bombshells: that the Awans were under criminal investigation after being caught accessing congressional computers without permission, and they had borrowed, laundered, and never repaid $100,000 from a shady Iraqi expat physician – Dr. Ali al-Attar , a Hezbollah-linked fugitive who led a group of other expats which regularly advised the Bush administration on their plans to invade Iraq in 2002-2003 ( source ). ..."
"... Al-Attar's license to practice medicine was revoked by the Maryland State Board of Physicians and he had to pay a $50,000 fine for unprofessional conduct, healthcare fraud, and failure to cooperate with an investigation. ..."
"... It's not clear where the dealership's money was going, because it was sued by at least five different people on all ends of a typical car business who said they were stiffed. ..."
"... CIA didn't pay the security deposit, rent or taxes for its building, it didn't pay wholesalers who provided cars, and it sold broken cars to people and then refused to honor the warranties, the lawsuits say . ..."
"... Moreover, when the Awans' shady car dealership ran into money troubles, Florida Congressman Theo Deutch began paying a monthly salary to a man who had threatened to sue the Awans . ..."
"... The brothers had numerous additional sources of income, all of which seemed to disappear. While they were supposedly working for the House, the brothers were running a car dealership full-time that didn't pay its vendors, and after one -- Rao Abbas -- threatened to sue them, he began receiving a paycheck from Rep. Theodore Deutch (D-FL), who like Wasserman Schultz represents Florida. - Daily Caller ..."
"... " It was in the garage. They recycled cabinets and lined them along the walls. They left in a huge hurry," the Marine said. " It looks like government-issued equipment. We turned that stuff over ." ..."
"... If the Awans cut a deal , one might speculate that a liberal prosecutor and a DNC-friendly court might be conducting a dog-and-pony show. For months, rumors swirled that brother of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), assistant U.S. Attorney Steve Wasserman was handling the prosecution - however court filings reveal that assistant U.S. Attorney Michael J. Marando is handling the case. Marando is married to JoAnna Wasserman - an employee of the U.S. Holocaust Museum in D.C. ..."
"... While the notion that Imran Awan cut a deal based on his name vanishing from the court calendar, Federal prosecutors certainly have enough evidence against the Awan clan to put them away for a long time. Perhaps they've decided they like the outside of a prison cell better than the alternative. ..."
Luke Rosiak of The Daily Caller pointed out a mysterious twist in the case of Pakistani national and long-time DNC IT contractor,
Imran Awan - who was arrested in July at Dulles Airport while trying to flee the country after having wired nearly $300,000 to Pakistan
.
Awan's court date on four counts related to bank fraud, which had already been reschedule twice, has disappeared from the docket
altogether:
Which begs the question - did Imran Awan cut a deal with Federal prosecutors?
Of note - Imran's wife, Hina Alvi - who had fled to Pakistan in March with the Awan children,
struck a deal with federal prosecutors in September to return to the U.S. and face charges. One wonders why Alvi would willingly
leave the relative security of her family in Pakistan to face arraignment in the United States?
To briefly recap, our
report from last week , the Awan family - which was employed by quite a number of House Democrats, had full access to highly
sensitive Congressional computer systems , both on-site and remotely from Pakistan , with which they are suspected of committing
a variety of crimes - including brokering classified information to hostile foreign governments.
Of note, the Awans had access to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence - whose members have top secret clearance
and are looking into Russian election interference.
The Pakistani nationals also operated a shady used car dealership in Falls Church, VA operating under the title "CIA" which Luke
Rosiak of The Daily Caller reported has all the signs of a money laundering operation .
On its Facebook page, CIA's "staff" were fake personalities such as "James Falls O'Brien," whose photo was taken from a
hairstyle mode l catalog, and "Jade Julia," whose image came from a web page called "Beautiful Girls Wallpaper."
If a customer showed up looking to buy a car from Cars International A, often referred to as CIA, Abid Awan -- who was managing
partner of the dealership while also earning $160,000 handling IT for House Democrats -- would frequently simply go across the
street to longstanding dealership called AAA Motors and get one.
While Imran and Abid Awan ran their car dealership in Falls Church, Va. in the early part of the decade, Drug Enforcement Agency
officials a few miles away in Chantilly were learning that the Iranian-linked terrorist group frequently deployed used car dealerships
in the US to launder money and fund terrorism , according to an explosive new
Politico
expose. -
Daily Caller
"Based on the modest way Awan was living, it is my opinion that he was sending most of his money to a group or criminal organization
that could very well be connected with the Pakistani government ," said Wayne Black - a private investigator who worked in Janet
Reno's Miami public corruption unit, adding " My instincts tell me Awan was probably operating a foreign intelligence gathering operation
on US soil."
The money which the Awans borrowed was moved from Ali Al-Attar through accounts intended for Fairfax County real estate. Both
Imran Awan and Khattak -- who also put up $200,000 in cash as an investor in CIA -- had realtors licenses.
Dr. Ali al-Attar
Al-Attar's license to practice medicine was revoked by the Maryland State Board of Physicians and he had to pay a $50,000 fine
for unprofessional conduct, healthcare fraud, and failure to cooperate with an investigation.
It's not clear where the dealership's money was going, because it was sued by at least five different people on all ends of
a typical car business who said they were stiffed.
CIA didn't pay the security deposit, rent or taxes for its building, it didn't pay wholesalers who provided cars, and it sold
broken cars to people and then refused to honor the warranties,
the lawsuits say .
Moreover, when the Awans' shady car dealership ran into money troubles, Florida Congressman Theo Deutch began paying a monthly
salary to a man who had threatened to sue the Awans .
The brothers had numerous additional sources of income, all of which seemed to disappear. While they were supposedly working
for the House, the brothers were running a car dealership full-time that didn't pay its vendors, and after one -- Rao Abbas --
threatened to sue them, he began receiving a paycheck from Rep. Theodore Deutch (D-FL), who like Wasserman Schultz represents
Florida. - Daily Caller
The Awans were also turned into the Navy Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) by two renters occupying a home they owned , after
they found "wireless routers, hard drives that look like they tried to destro y, laptops, [and] a lot of brand new expensive toner"
in the garage.
Speaking on the condition of anonymity over concerns for his wife's naval career, the former Marine told the Daily Caller:
" It was in the garage. They recycled cabinets and lined them along the walls. They left in a huge hurry," the Marine said.
" It looks like government-issued equipment. We turned that stuff over ."
If the Awans cut a deal , one might speculate that a liberal prosecutor and a DNC-friendly court might be conducting a dog-and-pony
show. For months, rumors swirled that brother of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), assistant U.S. Attorney Steve Wasserman was
handling the prosecution - however court filings reveal that assistant U.S. Attorney Michael J. Marando is handling the case. Marando
is married to JoAnna Wasserman - an employee of the U.S. Holocaust Museum in
D.C.
While JoAnna Wasserman shares a maiden name with Debbie Wasserman Schultz, her parents are named Mark and Donna, while Debbie
Wasserman Shultz's parents are Larry and Ann Wasserman. Plus, if there's any relation, JoAnna Wasserman got all of the family's good
genetics.
While the notion that Imran Awan cut a deal based on his name vanishing from the court calendar, Federal prosecutors certainly
have enough evidence against the Awan clan to put them away for a long time. Perhaps they've decided they like the outside of a prison
cell better than the alternative.
"... It should be Clinton-Gate not Russia-Gate. It seems that once again, as with late 02 and into 03, the populace has been hoodwinked into believing government falseness--as with the non-existent WMD and invasion of Iraq. ..."
It's very difficult to get the head wrapped around the Mueller investigation as a contrivance to avoid going after Clinton, which
shows a corrupted intelligence service working for political ends and saving the Democratic Party, which needs replacing. The
evidence against Clinton is much more substantial than the continuing Mueller foray into inconsequence.
If you need more on Clinton
beyond the massive email problems she had to avoid revealing how much pay money she was getting, search on the DNC convention
entirely corrupted over to her and then the Uranium One deal. Why is all this not being investigated?
It should be Clinton-Gate
not Russia-Gate. It seems that once again, as with late 02 and into 03, the populace has been hoodwinked into believing government
falseness--as with the non-existent WMD and invasion of Iraq.
It's very difficult to get the head wrapped around the Mueller investigation as a contrivance
to avoid going after Clinton, which shows a corrupted intelligence service working for
political ends and saving the Democratic Party, which needs replacing. The evidence against
Clinton is much more substantial than the continuing Mueller foray into inconsequence. If you
need more on Clinton beyond the massive email problems she had to avoid revealing how much
pay money she was getting, search on the DNC convention entirely corrupted over to her and
then the Uranium One deal. Why is all this not being investigated? It should be Clinton-Gate
not Russia-Gate. It seems that once again, as with late 02 and into 03, the populace has been
hoodwinked into believing government falseness--as with the non-existent WMD and invasion of
Iraq.
Essentially FBI has pushed Sunders under the bus and as such rigged the elections. In no way
Hillary can become candidate if she woouls have benn charged with "gross negligence". In this
sense they are criminals.
Notable quotes:
"... And so Hillary walked. Why is this suspicious? First, whether or not to indict was a decision that belonged to the Department of Justice, not Jim Comey or the FBI. His preemption of Justice Department authority was astonishing. Second, while Comey said in his statement that Hillary had been "extremely careless" with security secrets, in his first draft, Clinton was declared guilty of "gross negligence" -- the precise language in the statute to justify indictment. ..."
"... Who talked Comey into softening the language to look less than criminal? One man was FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, whose wife, Jill, a Virginia state senate candidate, received a munificent PAC contribution of $474,000 from Clinton family friend and big bundler Terry McAuliffe. ..."
"... Also urging Comey to soften the fatal phrase "gross negligence" was key FBI agent Peter Strzok. In text messages to his FBI lover Lisa Page, Strzok repeatedly vented his detestation of the "idiot" Trump. After one meeting with "Andy" (McCabe), Strzok told Page an "insurance policy" was needed to keep Trump out of the White House. ..."
"... JFK wanted to break the CIA into a million pieces and I think Trump needs to shatter the FBI into a million pieces after these latest revelations. The FBI stinks to high heaven and have for quite a long time now. They have become a highly politicized federal law enforcement agency ..."
"... If any Joe or Jane Shmo at Boeing or Lockheed-Martin had done what Hillary did he or she would have been fired and fined or jailed or both. His or hers security clearance would have been permanently revoked. So much for liberty and justice for all. ..."
"... What was the original mandate for Robert Mueller? If after all this time he has not been able to find any connection between Trump campaign and Putin then that phase of the investigation must end. The Justice Department appointed him and they should put a stop to that portion of the investigation. They can always give him a new mandate to investigate Hillary campaign's connection with Russia. These investigations should never be open ended. Lots of money is wasted and it gives the investigator an opportunity to satisfy personal vendetta. ..."
"... This connects the dots in a reasonable fashion on most of the major issues brought out by what this is: the Clinton crowd/deep state effort to "get" Trump. ..."
"... The only thing I would take exception with is to call the phony allegations of the GPS Steele dossier to be "Kremlin" based. They might have talked to Russians, but they were not acting on behalf of the Putin government when they talked. These individuals were doing no more than telling the Clinton researchers what they thought they would want to hear so that generous payments would be forthcoming. ..."
The original question the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign was to answer was a simple
one: Did he do it?
Did Trump, or officials with his knowledge, collude with Vladimir Putin's Russia to hack the
emails of John Podesta and the DNC, and leak the contents to damage Hillary Clinton and elect
Donald Trump?
A year and a half into the investigation, and, still, no "collusion" has been found. Yet the
investigation goes on, at the demand of the never-Trump media and Beltway establishment.
Hence, and understandably, suspicions have arisen.
Are the investigators after the truth, or are they after Trump?
Set aside the Trump-Putin conspiracy theory momentarily, and consider a rival explanation
for what is going down here:
That, from the outset, Director James Comey and an FBI camarilla were determined to stop
Trump and elect Hillary Clinton. Having failed, they conspired to break Trump's presidency,
overturn his mandate and bring him down.
Essential to any such project was first to block any indictment of Hillary for transmitting
national security secrets over her private email server. That first objective was achieved 18
months ago.
On July 5, 2016, Comey stepped before a stunned press corps to declare that, given the
evidence gathered by the FBI, "no reasonable prosecutor" would indict Clinton. Therefore, that
was the course he, Comey, was recommending. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, compromised by her
infamous 35-minute tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton -- to discuss golf and grandkids --
seconded Comey's decision.
And so Hillary walked. Why is this suspicious? First, whether or not to indict was a
decision that belonged to the Department of Justice, not Jim Comey or the FBI. His preemption
of Justice Department authority was astonishing. Second, while Comey said in his statement that
Hillary had been "extremely careless" with security secrets, in his first draft, Clinton was
declared guilty of "gross negligence" -- the precise language in the statute to justify
indictment.
Who talked Comey into softening the language to look less than criminal? One man was FBI
Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, whose wife, Jill, a Virginia state senate candidate, received a
munificent PAC contribution of $474,000 from Clinton family friend and big bundler Terry
McAuliffe.
Also urging Comey to soften the fatal phrase "gross negligence" was key FBI agent Peter
Strzok. In text messages to his FBI lover Lisa Page, Strzok repeatedly vented his detestation
of the "idiot" Trump. After one meeting with "Andy" (McCabe), Strzok told Page an "insurance
policy" was needed to keep Trump out of the White House.
Also, it appears Comey began drafting his exoneration statement of Hillary before the FBI
had even interviewed her. And when the FBI did, Hillary was permitted to have her lawyers
present.
One need not be a conspiracy nut to conclude the fix was in, and a pass for Hillary wired
from the get-go. Comey, McCabe, Strzok were not going to recommend an indictment that would
blow Hillary out of the water and let the Trump Tower crowd waltz into the White House.
Yet, if Special Counsel Robert Mueller cannot find any Trump collusion with the Kremlin to
tilt the outcome of the 2016 election, his investigators might have another look at the Clinton
campaign.
For there a Russian connection has been established.
Kremlin agents fabricated, faked, forged, or found the dirt on Trump that was passed to
ex-British MI6 spy Christopher Steele, and wound up in his "dirty dossier" that was distributed
to the mainstream media and the FBI to torpedo Trump.
And who hired Steele to tie Trump to Russia?
Fusion GPS, the oppo research outfit into which the DNC and Clinton campaign pumped millions
through law firm Perkins Coie.
Let's review the bidding.
The "dirty dossier," a mixture of fabrications, falsehoods and half-truths, created to
destroy Trump and make Hillary president, was the product of a British spy's collusion with
Kremlin agents.
In Dec. 26′s Washington Times, Rowan Scarborough writes that the FBI relied on this
Kremlin-Steele dossier of allegations and lies to base their decision "to open a
counterintelligence investigation (of Trump)." And press reports "cite the document's
disinformation in requests for court-approved wiretaps."
If this is true, a critical questions arises:
Has the Mueller probe been so contaminated by anti-Trump bias and reliance on Kremlin
fabrications that any indictment it brings will be suspect in the eyes of the American
people?
Director Comey has been fired. FBI No. 2 McCabe is now being retired under a cloud.
Mueller's top FBI investigator, Peter Strzok, and lover Lisa, have been discharged. And Mueller
is left to rely upon a passel of prosecutors whose common denominator appears to be that they
loathe Trump and made contributions to Hillary.
Attorney General Bobby Kennedy had his "Get Hoffa Squad" to take down Teamsters boss Jimmy
Hoffa. J. Edgar Hoover had his vendetta against Dr. Martin Luther King. Is history repeating
itself -- with the designated target of an elite FBI cabal being the President of the United
States?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That
Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
JFK wanted to break the CIA into a million pieces and I think Trump needs to shatter the FBI
into a million pieces after these latest revelations. The FBI stinks to high heaven and have
for quite a long time now. They have become a highly politicized federal law enforcement
agency who often collaborate with mortal enemies of America like the ADL and other "watchdog"
groups in addition to assuming the biases of said organizations against certain groups of
Americans.
They behave like a bunch of cowboys and police state thugs and their treatment of and
unnecessary raid on Paul Manafort's home was just the tip of the iceberg. The FBI is becoming
a clear and present danger to civil liberties.
Trump was a bit of a wild card to the establishment elites. He lived in the public spotlight
for most of his adult life, so his foibles were well known, and he had too much money to be
bought off. Mueller was given his job to make sure Trump doesn't stray too far from the
elitists program. He appears to have been cowed and is walking the straight left of center
republican line, now.
"For there a Russian connection has been established.
Kremlin agents fabricated, faked, forged, or found the dirt on Trump that was passed to
ex-British MI6 spy Christopher Steele, and wound up in his "dirty dossier" that was
distributed to the mainstream media and the FBI to torpedo Trump."
No worries -- as long as somebody can still accuse "Kremlin agents" of something, the
Establishment will be just fine.
Time for Mr. Napolitano to take his turn at the spinning wheel?
Second, while Comey said in his statement that Hillary had been "extremely careless"
with security secrets, in his first draft, Clinton was declared guilty of "gross
negligence" -- the precise language in the statute to justify indictment.
If any Joe or Jane Shmo at Boeing or Lockheed-Martin had done what Hillary did he or she
would have been fired and fined or jailed or both. His or hers security clearance would have
been permanently revoked. So much for liberty and justice for all.
What was the original mandate for Robert Mueller? If after all this time he has not been
able to find any connection between Trump campaign and Putin then that phase of the
investigation must end. The Justice Department appointed him and they should put a stop to
that portion of the investigation. They can always give him a new mandate to investigate
Hillary campaign's connection with Russia. These investigations should never be open ended.
Lots of money is wasted and it gives the investigator an opportunity to satisfy personal
vendetta.
This connects the dots in a reasonable fashion on most of the major issues brought out by
what this is: the Clinton crowd/deep state effort to "get" Trump.
The only thing I would take
exception with is to call the phony allegations of the GPS Steele dossier to be "Kremlin"
based. They might have talked to Russians, but they were not acting on behalf of the Putin
government when they talked. These individuals were doing no more than telling the Clinton
researchers what they thought they would want to hear so that generous payments would be
forthcoming.
The interests and sympathies of British government are clear form this peace:they are definitely afraid about reopening Clinton
investigation. If British government was behind Steele dossier that was a very dirty job.
Notable quotes:
"... All of it could be setting the ground for new investigations into the FBI or Democrat Hillary Clinton's actions while secretary of state - something Mr Trump himself has suggested - or perhaps even for the president to order the end of Mr Mueller's probe. ..."
In recent weeks, conservative commentators and politicians have begun arguing, with growing intensity, that Robert Mueller's investigation
into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia is the result of an intentional effort by biased investigators to undermine
the Trump presidency.
There are a number of components to the case they are presenting, from doubts about the impartiality of Mr Mueller and his team
to questions about the integrity of the FBI and the Obama-era Justice Department.
All of it could be setting the ground for new investigations into the FBI or Democrat Hillary Clinton's actions while secretary
of state - something Mr Trump himself has suggested - or perhaps even for the president to order the end of Mr Mueller's probe.
Such an action would provoke a major political crisis and could have unpredictable consequences. For Mr Trump's defenders, it
may be enough simply to mire Mr Mueller's investigation in a partisan morass. Here are some are some of the ways they're trying to
do that.
Tell-tale texts?
Peter Strzok, a senior counter-intelligence agent in the FBI and until this summer a top member of Mr Mueller's special counsel
team, has become Exhibit A of anti-Trump bias in the Russia investigation.
A Justice Department inspector general review of the FBI's handling of its 2016 election investigations unearthed text messages
between Mr Strzok and Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer who also temporarily worked on the Mueller investigation and with whom Mr Strzok was
having an extramarital affair.
Some of the messages, which were provided to reporters, showed the two had a hostility toward then-candidate Trump in 2016. Ms
Page called Mr Trump a "loathsome human" in March, as the candidate was cementing his lead in the Republican primary field. Three
months later - after Mr Trump had secured the nomination - Mr Strzok wrote that he was an "idiot" who said "bigoted nonsense".
In an August text, Mr Strzok discussed a meeting with then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe in which Ms Page apparently had mentioned
there was "no way" Mr Trump could be elected.
"I'm afraid we can't take that risk," Mr Strzok wrote. "It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're
40."
Some have theorised that the "insurance policy" in question was an FBI plan to destroy Mr Trump if he were to win. Others have
suggested that it was simply a reference to the need to continue working the Trump-Russia investigation even though his election
seemed unlikely.
"It is very sad when you look at those documents," Mr Trump said on Friday, apparently referring to the texts. "And how they've
done that is really, really disgraceful, and you have a lot of very angry people that are seeing it." He said it was a shame what
had happened to the FBI and that it would be "rebuilt".
Since the first coverage of the story, reporters have reviewed more of the Strzok-Page texts and found the two made disparaging
comments about a wide range of public figures, including Chelsea Clinton, Democrat Bernie Sanders, then-Attorney General Eric Holder,
Republican presidential candidates Ted Cruz and John Kasich, and Mrs Clinton.
"I'm worried about what happens if HRC is elected," Mr Strzok wrote, referring to Mrs Clinton by her initials.
Why it could matter: If Mr Strzok, a high-ranking member of the FBI who officially launched the initial investigation of ties
between the Trump campaign and Russia, harboured anti-Trump animus, there is the possibility it could have motivated him to influence
the investigation to the president's disadvantage.
Why it might not: Government employees are allowed to express political views as long as they don't influence their job performance.
The breadth of the Strzok-Page texts could indicate they were just gossiping lovers. Without context, Mr Strzok's "insurance" line
is vague. When Mr Mueller learned of the text this summer, Mr Strzok was removed from the independent counsel investigation and reassigned
to a human resources job.
The Clinton case
Mr Strzok also figures prominently in Republican concerns about the FBI's handling of its investigation into Hillary Clinton's
use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.
Mr Strzok took part in interviews with key Clinton aides and
reportedly was involved
in drafting the report that concluded Mrs Clinton's actions did not warrant criminal charges, including changing the description
of her handling of classified material from "grossly negligent" - which might have suggested illegal behaviour - to "extremely careless".
During the campaign Mr Trump repeatedly insisted that the Justice Department should re-open its investigation into Mrs Clinton
and, after backing away from the idea early in his presidency, has once again renewed those calls.
"High ranking FBI officials involved in the Clinton investigation were personally invested in the outcome of the election and
clearly let their strong political opinions cloud their professional judgement," Republican Congressman Bob Goodlatte said during
a House Judicial Committee hearing.
There's also the possibility that there were more communications between Ms Page and Mr Strzok about the Clinton investigation
that have yet to come to light.
"We text on that phone when we talk about Hillary because it can't be traced, you were just venting [because] you feel bad that
you're gone so much but it can't be helped right now," Ms Page wrote in one text.
Chuck Grassley, the Republican chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has said he wants more information about the use of these
"untraceable" phones.
Why it could matter: If FBI agents backed off their investigation of Mrs Clinton in 2016 it could be further evidence of bias
within the bureau that could affect its ongoing investigation into Mr Trump. If public confidence in the FBI is eroded, the ultimate
findings of Mr Mueller's probe may be cast in doubt.
Why it might not: Lest anyone forget, Mrs Clinton's candidacy was the one wounded by FBI actions in the final days of the 2016
campaign. Then-Director James Comey's announcement of new evidence in the inquiry into her private email server - perhaps prompted
by anti-Clinton leaks from the bureau's New York office - dominated the headlines and renewed concerns about the former secretary
of state. News of the ongoing Trump-Russia investigation, on the other hand, didn't emerge until well after the election.
Marital woes
When it comes to the ongoing investigations into the investigations, it's not just the actions of the principals involved that
have come under the spotlight. Spouses have figured prominently, as well.
FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, the bureau's second-in-command, is married to Jill McCabe, a paediatrician who ran as a Democrat
for a Virginia state senate seat in 2015 (before Mr McCabe was promoted to his current position). During the hotly contested race,
Ms McCabe received $467,500 in campaign contributions from a political action committee controlled by Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe,
a close political ally of the Clinton family.
Conservatives contend that this donation should have disqualified Mr McCabe from involvement in the Clinton case - and was yet
another example of possible anti-Trump bias in the FBI's Russia investigation.
"If Mr McCabe failed to avoid the appearance of a partisan conflict of interest in favour of Mrs Clinton during the presidential
election, then any participation in [the Russia] inquiry creates the exact same appearance of a partisan conflict of interest against
Mr Trump," Senator Grassley wrote in a letter to then-Director Comey in March.
Meanwhile, the wife of Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce G Ohr was
recently reported as being employed in 2016 by Fusion GPS, the political research firm that produced the dossier containing unconfirmed
allegations of Mr Trump's Russia entanglements. Mr Ohr himself
has been connected to Christopher Steele, the former British intelligence agent who collected the material for the dossier.
Fusion GPS's anti-Trump research efforts were originally funded by a Republican donor and later backed by groups associated with
the Democratic Party and the Clinton presidential campaign.
Why it matters: "Power couples" - spouses with influential, complementary political jobs - are a Washington tradition, and the
actions of one partner are often considered to reflect on the views and behaviour of the other. In Mr McCabe's case, his wife's Democratic
activism and allegiances could shed light on his political sympathies. For Mr Ohr, his marriage could have served as a conduit to
inject Democratic-funded opposition research into the Justice Department.
Why it might not: Having a political spouse is not evidence of official bias. The identity of the individuals or groups that funded
and gathered anti-Trump research and how it ended up in government hands does not necessarily have a bearing on whether the information
is valid or merits further investigation.
Follow the money
The individuals working on the Russia investigation have been billed as a "dream team" by Democrats and liberal commentators hoping
the efforts will eventually topple the Trump presidency.
Many conservatives beg to differ.
In June, as details of the special counsel hires began to emerge, conservatives noted that some of the biggest names - Andrew
Weissmann, James Quarles, Jeannie Rhee and Michael Dreeben - had given money to Democratic presidential candidates.
"Republicans are delusional if they think the special counsel is going to be fair," former Republican Speaker of the House Newt
Gingrich tweeted . "Look who he is hiring."
Ms Rhee's private law work included representing Democrats, such as Obama Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes and the
Clinton Foundation in a lawsuit brought by a conservative activist group.
Florida Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz recently travelled to Florida with Mr Trump and
said he
told the president that the independent counsel investigation was "infected with bias" against him - a view echoed in the conservative
press.
"What we've seen over the past seven months of the Mueller investigation reveals a lot about how big government can end up becoming
a threat to representative democracy," Laura Ingraham
said on her Fox News programme. "And the more we look at the web of Clinton and Obama loyalists who burrowed into Mueller's office,
the more obvious it all becomes."
Why it could matter: Political donations and legal work may be evidence of the ideological tilt of Mr Mueller's investigative
team. That he has assembled a group of lawyers that may lean to the left could mean the investigation itself is predisposed to findings
damaging to Mr Trump.
Why it might not: Investigators are adversarial by nature, and as long as Mr Mueller's team builds its cases with hard evidence,
personal political views should not matter. While political partisans may focus on staff-level appointments, the investigation will
rise and fall based on perceptions of Mr Mueller himself.
Mr Mueller's waiver
Prior to accepting the position as special counsel investigating possible Trump campaign ties to Russia, Mr Mueller requested
- and received - an "ethics waiver" for possible conflicts of interest from the US Department of Justice.
The government has confirmed the existence of the waiver but has not revealed any details, although speculation at the time was
that it had to do with Mr Mueller's work at the law firm WilmerHale, which represented former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort
- who Mr Mueller has since indicted on money-laundering charges - and the president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner.
Why it could matter: Without further information about the nature of the waiver,
some are
speculating that there is more to this request than simply routine ethical paperwork. Given that Mr Mueller is a former director
of the FBI, with ties to many of the bureau officials who are now coming under conservative scrutiny, Mr Mueller's own allegiances
are being called into question.
Why it might not: Mr Mueller is a decorated war veteran who, prior to taking the special counsel role was widely praised for his
independence and probity. He was appointed FBI head by Republican George W Bush in 2001. If Mr Mueller's waiver had explosive details
indicating clear bias, it probably would have leaked by now.
"... The letters come a week after speculation that Trump wanted Mueller fired over recent revelations that two former FBI agents, assigned to investigate the alleged collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia, had sent each other hundreds of 'anti-Trump' text messages during the campaign and election. ..."
More than 40 bipartisan former government officials and attorneys [Deep State globalists] are telling President Trump and Congress
to leave Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller alone so he can do his 'job.'
In two letters, the former U.S. attorneys and Republican and conservative officials pushed back against efforts to discredit the
special counsel investigating [alleged] Russian interference in the 2016 election.
The letters come a week after speculation that Trump wanted Mueller fired over recent revelations that two former FBI agents,
assigned to investigate the alleged collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia, had sent each other hundreds of 'anti-Trump' text
messages during the campaign and election.
"... Gessen also worried that the Russia obsession was a deadly diversion from issues that ought to matter more to those claiming to oppose Trump in the name of democracy and the common good ..."
"... Frustrated Democrats hoping to elevate their election fortunes have a resounding message for party leaders: Stop talking so much about Russia. Rank-and-file Democrats say the Russia-Trump narrative is simply a non-issue with district voters, who are much more worried about bread-and-butter economic concerns like jobs, wages and the cost of education and healthcare. ..."
Gessen felt
that the Russiagate gambit would flop, given a lack of smoking-gun evidence and sufficient
public interest, particularly among Republicans.
Gessen also worried that the Russia obsession was a deadly diversion from issues that
ought to matter more to those claiming to oppose Trump in the name of democracy and the common
good : racism, voter suppression (which may well have
elected Trump , by the way), health care, plutocracy, police- and prison-state-ism,
immigrant rights, economic exploitation and inequality, sexism and environmental ruination --
you know, stuff like that.
Some of the politically engaged populace noticed the problem early on. According to the
Washington political journal The Hill , last
summer ,
Frustrated Democrats hoping to elevate their election fortunes have a resounding
message for party leaders: Stop talking so much about Russia. Rank-and-file Democrats say the
Russia-Trump narrative is simply a non-issue with district voters, who are much more worried
about bread-and-butter economic concerns like jobs, wages and the cost of education and
healthcare.
Here we are now, half a year later, careening into a dystopian holiday season. With his
epically low approval rating of 32 percent
, the orange-tinted bad grandpa in the Oval Office has won a viciously regressive tax bill that
is widely rejected by the populace. The bill was passed by a Republican-controlled Congress
whose current
approval rating stands at 13 percent. It is a major legislative victory for the
Republicans, a party whose approval rating fell to an all-time
low of 29 percent at the end of September -- a party that tried to send a child molester to
the U.S. Senate.
The second point we want to make, relates to Mueller himself who–far from being a "stand-up fellow" with a spotless record, and
an unshakable commitment to principle–is not the exemplar people seem to think he is. In fact, his personal integrity and credibility
are greatly in doubt. Here's a little background on Mueller from former-FBI Special Agent Colleen Rowley who was named Time's Person
of the Year in 2002:
"Mueller's FBI was also severely criticized by Department of Justice Inspector Generals finding the FBI overstepped the law
improperly serving hundreds of thousands of "national security letters" to obtain private (and irrelevant) metadata on citizens,
and for infiltrating nonviolent anti-war groups under the guise of investigating "terrorism."
Comey and Mueller were complicit with implementing a form of martial law, perpetrated via secret Office of Legal Counsel memos
mainly written by John Yoo and predicated upon Yoo's singular theories of absolute "imperial" or "war presidency" powers, and
requiring Ashcroft every 90 days to renew certification of a "state of emergency."
Mueller was even okay with the CIA conducting torture programs after his own agents warned against participation. Agents were
simply instructed not to document such torture, and any "war crimes files" were made to disappear. Not only did "collect it all"
surveillance and torture programs continue, but Mueller's (and then Comey's) FBI later worked to prosecute NSA and CIA whistleblowers
who revealed these illegalities
Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He didn't speak out against torture. He didn't speak
out against unconstitutional surveillance. And he didn't tell the truth about 9/11." ("Comey and Mueller: Russia-gate's Mythical
Heroes", Colleen Rowley, Counterpunch)
Illegal spying on American citizens? Infiltration of nonviolent anti-war groups? Martial law? Torture??
This is NOT how Mueller is portrayed in the media, is it?
The fact is, Mueller is no elder statesman or paragon of virtue. He's a political assassin whose task is to take down Trump at
all cost. Unfortunately for Mueller, the credibility of his investigation is beginning to wane as conflicts of interest mount and
public confidence dwindles. After 18 months of relentless propaganda and political skullduggery, the Russia-gate fiction is beginning
to unravel.
Please, let Mueller stay to become a poster boy for borgistas. With each day, the incompetence of the CIA' and FBI' brass has
been revealing with the greater and greater clarity. They have sold out the US citizenry for personal gains.
Rod Rosenstein' role in particular should be well investigated so that his name becomes tightly connected to the "dossier" and
all its racy tales.
" there was never sufficient reason to appoint a Special Counsel. The threshold for making such an appointment should have been
probable cause, that is, deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should have shown why he thought there was 'reasonable basis to
believe that a crime had been committed.' That's what's required under the Fourth Amendment, and that's the standard that
should have been met. But Rosenstein ignored that rule because it improved the Special Counsel's chances of netting indictments.
Even so, there's no evidence that a crime has been committed. None."
-- Anti-Consttutonal activity by Rod Rosenstein = Treason.
You mean, we should have better read the New Times and WaPo instead, in order to get the "gigantic scope of the investigation?"
-- Thank you very much. But these ziocons' nests have not provided any hard facts related to the main goal of this particular
investigation. However, a true and immense value of the investigation is the exposure of the incompetence of and political manipulations
by the FBI deciders -- as well as the sausage making under Clinton leadership in the DNC kitchen.
"It should have never been started. Trump and his administration screwed themselves."
– Disagree.
The investigation is the best thing for the US. It has exposed traitors (leakers) in the US government, the corruption of the
FBI (which provided the leaks and did not investigate the allegedly hacked DNC computers and white-washed Clinton's criminal negligence),
and the spectacular incompetence of the DNC-FBI deciders (the cooperation with foreigners in order to derail the governance of
the US by the elected POTUS). Cannot wait to hear more about Awan affair (the greatest breach of the US cybersecurity under the
watch of the current FBI brass) and about the investigation of Seth Rich murder.
For those familiar with Mueller, the blunt-force approach taken toward the GSA is something of a signature of Mueller and
his heavy-handed associates like Andrew Weissmann. As I have previously written, Mueller has a controversial record in attacking
attorney-client privilege as well as harsh tactics against targets. As a U.S. attorney, he was accused of bugging an attorney-client
conversation, and as special counsel he forced (with the approval of a federal judge) the attorney of Paul Manafort to become
a witness against her own client. Weissmann's record is even more controversial, including major reversals in past prosecutions
for exceeding the scope of the criminal code or questionable ethical conduct.
Nor will any be produced either. If Trump were to drop dead tomorrow or, alternatively, decide to pack it in and go back to
running hotels, Mueller's Star Chamber Committee would close down the day after. Mueller is a tool of The Powers That Be. And
they want Trump OUT -- no matter what the cost.
"... Of course, the notion of 'reform' within the Democratic Party is an oxymoron. Its been around since Nader, when the corrupt-corporate Democrats tried to tell us that the way forward was to work within the corrupt-corporate Democratic Party and change things that way. ..."
"... And I see Steve Bannon trying to wage the fight within the Republican party that the fake-reformers in the Democrats never even tried . ie, numerous primary challenges to corrupt-corporate Democrats. ..."
"... Neither party represents any but the richest of the rich these days. Both parties lie to voters and try to pretend that they might actually give a damn about the rest of us. But the only sign of life that I see of anyone trying to fight back against this Bannon inside the Republicans. I'm not thrilled with Bannon, although he's not nearly as bad as the loony-lefties in the corrupt-corporate Democratic Party and their many satellites call him. But he's the only one putting up a fight. I just hope that maybe someone will run in primaries against the corrupt-corporate-Republicans who fake-represent the part of the map where I live. ..."
I was raised by Democrats, and used to vote for them. But these days, I think heck would
freeze over before I'd vote Democrat again. From my point of view, Bernie tried to pull them
back to sanity. But the hard core Clinton-corporate-corrupt Democrats have declared war on
any movement for reform within the Democratic Party. And there is no way that I'm voting for
any of these corrupt-corporate Democrats ever again.
Of course, the notion of 'reform' within the Democratic Party is an oxymoron. Its been
around since Nader, when the corrupt-corporate Democrats tried to tell us that the way
forward was to work within the corrupt-corporate Democratic Party and change things that way.
We saw the way the corrupt-corporate Democrats colluded and rigged the last Presidential
Primaries so that Corrupt-Corporate-Clinton was guaranteed the corrupt-corporate Democrat
nomination. That's a loud and clear message to anyone who thinks they can achieve change
within the corrupt-corporate-colluding-rigged Democratic Party.
Since I've always been anti-war, I've been forced to follow what anti-war movement there
is over to the Republicans. And I see Steve Bannon trying to wage the fight within the
Republican party that the fake-reformers in the Democrats never even tried . ie, numerous
primary challenges to corrupt-corporate Democrats. That never happened, and by 2012 I was
convinced that even the fake-reformers within the corrupt-corporate Democrats were fakes who
only wanted fund-raising but didn't really fight for reform.
Neither party represents any but the richest of the rich these days. Both parties lie to
voters and try to pretend that they might actually give a damn about the rest of us. But the
only sign of life that I see of anyone trying to fight back against this Bannon inside the
Republicans. I'm not thrilled with Bannon, although he's not nearly as bad as the
loony-lefties in the corrupt-corporate Democratic Party and their many satellites call him.
But he's the only one putting up a fight. I just hope that maybe someone will run in
primaries against the corrupt-corporate-Republicans who fake-represent the part of the map
where I live.
Neither party is on our side. The establishment in both parties is crooked and corrupt.
Someone needs to fight them. And I sure as heck won't vote for the corrupt and the crooked.
Since the Democrats are doubling down on corrupt and crooked and telling such big lies that
even Goebbels would blush, it doesn't look like I'll ever vote Dem0crat again.
Just hours after FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe delivered private testimony to the House Intelligence Committee, his boss,
FBI Director Christopher Wray, announced that the bureau's top lawyer would be leaving his post, an attempt to bring in "new blood"
to an agency whose reputation has been hopelessly compromised by revelations that agents' partisan bias may have influenced two high-profile
investigations involving President Donald Trump and his former campaign rival, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
As the
Washington Post reported, the FBI's top lawyer, James Baker, is being reassigned.
WaPo says Baker's removal is part of Wray's effort to assemble his own team of senior advisers while he tries to defuse allegations
of partisanship that have plagued the bureau in recent months.
James Baker
But reports published over the summer said Baker was "the top suspect" in an interagency leak investigation, as
we reported back in July
Three sources, with knowledge of the investigation, told Circa that Baker is the top suspect in an ongoing leak investigation,
but Circa has not been able to confirm the details of what national security information or material was allegedly leaked.
A federal law enforcement official with knowledge of ongoing internal investigations in the bureau told Circa, "the bureau
is scouring for leakers and there's been a lot of investigations."
The revelation comes as the Trump administration has ramped up efforts to contain leaks both within the White House and within
its own national security apparatus.
The news of the staff shakeup comes as Trump and his political allies have promised to "rebuild" the FBI to make it "bigger and
better than ever" following its "disgraceful" conduct over the Trump probe . Baker played a key role in the agency's handling of
major cases and policy debates in recent years, including the FBI's unsuccessful battle with Apple over the growing use of encryption
in cellphones.
Just like Clapper admitting to perjuring himself before congress and he is brought on TV to comment as if he is a decent person
instead of being thrown in prison like anyone else would be.
Yet another "national security parasite". Watt intentionally lied about wiretapping
Notable quotes:
"... "When he testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee last week, former FBI agent Clint Watts described how Russians used armies of Twitter bots to spread fake news using accounts that seem to be Midwestern swing-voter Republicans. ..."
"... In an interview Monday with NPR's Kelly McEvers, Watts, a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, says the Russian misinformation campaign didn't stop with the election of President Trump. ..."
"... One example, he says, is Trump's claim that he was wiretapped at Trump Tower by the Obama administration. "When they do that, they'll then respond to the wiretapping claim with further conspiracy theories about that claim and that just amplifies the message in the ecosystem," Watts says. ..."
"... The White House has blamed Democrats for the allegations of Russian interference in the U.S. election, saying the theory is a way to shift the blame for their election loss. ..."
"How Russian Twitter Bots Pumped Out Fake News During The 2016 Election"
Listen 4:17
'Heard on All Things Considered' by Gabe O'Connor & Avie Schneider...April 3, 2017...4:53 PM ET
"When he testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee last week, former FBI agent Clint Watts described how Russians
used armies of Twitter bots to spread fake news using accounts that seem to be Midwestern swing-voter Republicans.
"So that way whenever you're trying to socially engineer them and convince them that the information is true, it's much more
simple because you see somebody and they look exactly like you, even down to the pictures," Watts told the panel, which is investigating
Russia's role in interfering in the U.S. elections.
In an interview Monday with NPR's Kelly McEvers, Watts, a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, says
the Russian misinformation campaign didn't stop with the election of President Trump.
"If you went online today, you could see these accounts -- either bots or actual personas somewhere -- that are trying to connect
with the administration. They might broadcast stories and then follow up with another tweet that tries to gain the president's
attention, or they'll try and answer the tweets that the president puts out," Watts says.
Watts, a cybersecurity expert, says he's been tracking this sort of activity by the Russians for more than three years.
"It's a circular system. Sometimes the propaganda outlets themselves will put out false or manipulated stories. Other times,
the president will go with a conspiracy."
One example, he says, is Trump's claim that he was wiretapped at Trump Tower by the Obama administration. "When they do
that, they'll then respond to the wiretapping claim with further conspiracy theories about that claim and that just amplifies
the message in the ecosystem," Watts says.
"Every time a conspiracy is floated from the administration, it provides every outlet around the world, in fact, an opportunity
to amplify that conspiracy and to add more manipulated truths or falsehoods onto it."
Watts says the effort is being conducted by a "very diffuse network." It involves competing efforts "even amongst hackers between
different parts of Russian intelligence and propagandists -- all with general guidelines about what to pursue, but doing it at
different times and paces and rhythms."
The White House has blamed Democrats for the allegations of Russian interference in the U.S. election, saying the theory
is a way to shift the blame for their election loss.
But Watts says "it's way bigger" than that. "What was being done by nation-states in the social media influence landscape was
so much more significant than the other things that were being talked about," including the Islamic State's use of social media
to recruit followers, he says."
If FBI paid money for Steele dossier that would be a big scandal that can bury Mueller and Comey...
Notable quotes:
"... Congressional Republicans have long been suspicious of the dossier and now that it was discovered who funded, now Republicans are questioning whether the Justice Department and FBI are involved in it as well. ..."
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein refused to say on Wednesday in front of
the House Judiciary Committee, whether the FBI paid for the infamous Trump dossier,
reports The
Daily Caller . He would neither confirm nor deny the FBI's involvement in the now-disproved
dossier that started the whole Russian collusion investigation against President Trump.
Rosenstein, who was grilled by the House Judiciary Committee, suggested that he knew the
answer to the question, which was posed by Florida Rep. Ron DeSantis.
"Did the FBI pay for the dossier?" DeSantis asked.
"I'm not in a position to answer that question," Rosenstein responded.
"Do you know the answer to the question?" the Republican DeSantis followed up.
"I believe I know the answer, but the Intelligence Committee is the appropriate committee "
Rosenstein began.
DeSantis interjected to assert that the Judiciary panel has "every right to the information"
about payments for the dossier.
The Russian dossier, which was written by British spy Christopher Steele and
commissioned to do so by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee, has
been the starting point to Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian collusion
in the 2016 election.
Congressional Republicans have long been suspicious of the dossier and now that it was
discovered who funded, now Republicans are questioning whether the Justice Department and FBI are
involved in it as
well.
"'According to some reports published earlier this year, Steele and the FBI struck an
informal agreement that he would be paid to continue his investigation into Trump's ties to
Russia. It has been reported that Steele was never paid for his work, though the FBI and DOJ
have not publicly disclosed those details,' reports The Daily Caller."
CNN had reported earlier this year that Steel was already compensated for some expenses from
his work investigating Trump and trying to dig up any dirt he could on the president.
The Deputy Attorney General told the House Judiciary Committee that he saw no good cause to
fire Mueller from conducting the investigation, but many Republicans believe the whole
investigation is now wrapped up in too many overlapping conflicts of interest
Conway appeared on Jesse Watters program, Watters' World, to talk about the newly
revealed content of text messages sent between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.
When asked what she thought they meant when they said "they need to protect America from
Trump and need to have an insurance policy against his presidency," Conway tore into the
investigation's credibility.
"The fix was in against Donald Trump from the beginning, and they were pro-Hillary. We
understand that people have political views but they are expressing theirs with such animus and
such venom towards the now president of the United States they can't possibly be seen as
objective or transparent or even-handed or fair," she said.
As she spoke, the banner below Conway and Watters screamed "A COUP IN AMERICA?"
Watters proceeded to ask "how dangerous" Conway thought it was that people were "plotting
what appears to be some sort of subversion campaign" against Trump.
"It's toxic, it's lethal, and it may be fatal to the continuation of people arguing that
that matter is since behind us, he won he's the president, and the Mueller investigation is
something separate," she answered.
Conway then slammed critics for defending the integrity of the probe by alleging that Trump
is against the FBI, repeating the claim that he isn't under investigation, "we're told."
Released on Tuesday, Strzok and Page's messages referred to Trump as an "idiot" and "douche.
At one point, Strzok told Page he was considering "an insurance policy" if Trump were elected.
Page had also told Strzok that maybe he was meant to "protect the country from that menace,"
according to records reviewed by
Politico.
Watters assessed the texts as evidence of a coup, or sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of
power from the government, in America.
"The investigation into Donald Trump's campaign has been crooked from the jump. But the
scary part is we may now have proof the investigation was weaponized to destroy his presidency
for partisan political purposes and to disenfranchise millions of American voters. Now, if
that's true, we have a coup on our hands in America," he said.
It's pretty interesting fact: "Even today more than half of the
US Senators do not possess passports, meaning they have never been abroad, barring possible
trips to Canada using their driver's licenses as ID."
While you can't exclude that Russia favored Trump over Clinton and might be provided some token of support, you can't compare
Russia and Israel as for influence on the US domestic and foreign policy. And GB also have a say and connections (GB supported
Hillary and MI6 probably used dirty methods). KSA provided money to Hillary. Still there is multiple investigations of Russia
influence and none for those two players. That makes the current Russiagate current witch hunt is really scary.
The main theme of American political life right now is McCarthyism and anti-Russian hysteria
Notable quotes:
"... The American public is now experiencing mass paranoia that is called Russia-gate. Obnoxious and dangerous as this officially encouraged madness may be, it is, alas, nothing new. As from 9/11, the same kind of group hypnosis was administered from the Nation's Capital on the body politic to serve the then agenda of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, turning back civil liberties that had accrued over generations without so much as a whimper from Congress, our political elites and the country at large. ..."
"... Foreign policy issues are instrumentalized for domestic political objectives. In 2001 it was the threat of Islamist terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world attacking the American homeland. Today it is the alleged manipulation of our open political system by our enemies in the Kremlin. ..."
"... There is in the United States a significant minority of journalists and experts who have been setting out the facts on why the Russia-gate story is deeply flawed if not a fabrication from the get-go. In this small but authoritative and responsible field, Consortium News stands out for its courage and dogged fact-checking and logic-checks. Others on the side of the angels include TruthDig.com and Antiwar.com . ..."
"... Perhaps the most significant challenge to the official US intelligence story of Russian hacking released on January 6, 2017 was the forensic evidence assembled by a group of former intelligence officers with relevant technical expertise known as VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity). Their work, arguing that the attack on the DNC computers was an inside job by someone with access to the hardware rather than a remote operation by persons outside the Democratic Party hierarchy and possibly outside the United States, was published in Consortium News ("Intel Vets Challenge 'Russia Hack' Evidence") on July 24, 2017. ..."
"... The final word on Russia's electoral preferences during the October 20 show was given by the moderator, Vladimir Soloviev: "There can be no illusions. Both Trump and Clinton have a very bad attitude to Russia. What Trump said about us and Syria was no compliment at all. The main theme of American political life right now is McCarthyism and anti-Russian hysteria." ..."
"... "America is a very complex country. It does not pay to demonize it. We have to understand precisely what we like and do not like. On this planet there is no way to avoid them. Whoever becomes president of the USA, the nuclear parity forces us to negotiate and reach agreement." ..."
"... "The US has opened its doors to the most intelligent people of the world, made it attractive for them. Of course, this builds their exceptionalism. All directors, engineers, composers head there. Our problem is that we got rid of our tsar, our commissars but people are still hired hands. The top people go to the States because the pay is higher." ..."
"... How are we to understand the discrepancy between the very low marks the panelists gave the US presidential race and their favorable marks for the US as an economic and military powerhouse. It appears to result from their understanding that there is a disconnect between Washington, the presidency and what makes the economy turn over. The panelists concluded that the USA has a political leadership at the national level that is unworthy and inappropriate to its position in the world. On this point, I expect that many American readers of this essay will concur. ..."
"... Even today more than half of the US Senators do not possess passports, meaning they have never been abroad, barring possible trips to Canada using their driver's licenses as ID. ..."
"... And for those Americans who do travel abroad, the world outside US borders is all too often just an object of prestige tourism, a divertissement, where the lives of local people, their concerns and their interests do not exist on the same high plateau as American lives, concerns and interests. It is not that we are all Ugly Americans, but we are too well insulated from the travails of others and too puffed up with our own exceptionalism. ..."
"... It is not surprising that in the US foreign policy is not a self-standing intellectual pursuit on a chessboard of its own but is strictly a subset of domestic policy calculations, and in particular of partisan electoral considerations. ..."
"... As regards the Russian Federation, the ongoing hysteria over Russia-gate in particular, and over the perceived threat Russia poses to US national interests in general, risks tilting the world into nuclear war. ..."
"... JFK murder was about replacing the president elected by the people. Russia-gate has the same goal. ..."
"... As shown in this article, the American media has a long track record of misreporting key news items: ..."
"... The current cycle of fake news about Russia is definitely not a new phenomenon in the United States. ..."
"... Can someone tell the big fat cowards exercising around North Korea to please shut the hell up? Cowards make a lot of noise. When Libya was invaded there were no exercises, when Iraq was invaded there were no exercises...... when Vietnam was invaded there were no exercises.... ..."
"... It is obvious to the world that the fat cowards cannot attack a nuclear armed country. They are too yellow bellied to do anything but beat their chest like some stupid gorilla in an African jungle ..."
"... All the while the real diplomacy is going on between South Korea and China with North Korea paying close attention, I am sure. The Russian / Chinese proposal of a rail system from South Korea through North Korea and into China connecting to the connection grid of all of Asia is a far greater prospect for the peace initiative than the saber rattling presently outwardly being displayed. ..."
"... They keep raising the ante, and the North Koreans keep calling their bluff. They are made to look ridiculous as they don't have a winnable hand and the North Koreans know it. ..."
"... "American media simply were not interested in knowing what Russians were thinking since that might get in the way of their construction of what Russians should be thinking". ..."
"... Reminds me of the classic American boss's remark: "Any time I want your opinion, I'll tell you it". ..."
"... This is actually quite a neat and elegant example of the kind of deceptive language routinely used by politicians and the media. It is, of course, entirely true that no conclusive proof has surfaced. Indeed, that must follow from the equally true and indisputable fact that no proof of any kind has surfaced. Actually, nothing even vaguely resembling proof has surfaced. There is no evidence at all - not the slightest scrap. ..."
"... But by slipping in that little adjective "conclusive" the journalist manages to convey quite a strong impression that there is proof - only not quite conclusive proof. ..."
"... It is just as dishonest and cynical as Ronald Reagan's 1984 campaign remark, "I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience". ..."
"... Russiangate is concocted BS, to keep the ignorant American sheep , from understanding Israel picked the "president of the USA". ..."
"... I think at times the CIA is actually assisting the Russian security services with terror operations. I realize it doesn't make sense with Langley assisting ISIS in Syria, but that's the world we appear to have: selective cooperation. ..."
"... After Uranium One, it would make sense to assume Russia would have preferred Hitlery in the White House ..."
"... Of course they also know Hitlery is a massive warmongering Nazi terrorist, but then again, looks like Trump doesn't differ very much from her on that. ..."
"... Funny how the CIA has better intel on terrorism in Russia than the Russians do, even stranger than the RF leadership doesn't seem to question the situation what so ever. ..."
"... Got to hand it to the Americans, a couple of months ago Putin joked about RF "cells" in the USA and now the CIA hands the RF a real cell all ready to go murder some Russians. ..."
"... "German media reported on Saturday that BND covertly provided a number of journalists with information containing criticism of Russia before the data were disclosed by the agency." ..."
"The two (Trump and Clinton) cannot greet one another on stage, cannot say goodbye to one
another at the end. They barely can get out the texts that have been prepared for them by their
respective staffs. Repeating on stage what one may have said in the locker room."
"Billions of people around the world conclude with one word: Disgrace!"
- Vladimir Zhirinovsky - prominent Russian politician, leader of a major party in
parliament.
The American public is now experiencing mass paranoia that is called Russia-gate. Obnoxious
and dangerous as this officially encouraged madness may be, it is, alas, nothing new. As from
9/11, the same kind of group hypnosis was administered from the Nation's Capital on the body
politic to serve the then agenda of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, turning back civil
liberties that had accrued over generations without so much as a whimper from Congress, our
political elites and the country at large.
This time the generalized paranoia started under the nominally left of center administration
of Barack Obama in the closing months of his presidency. It has been fanned ever since by the
centrists in both Democratic and Republican parties who want to either remove from office or
politically cripple Donald Trump and his administration, that is to say, to overturn the
results at the ballot box on November 8, 2016.
Foreign policy issues are instrumentalized for domestic political objectives. In 2001 it was
the threat of Islamist terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world attacking
the American homeland. Today it is the alleged manipulation of our open political system by our
enemies in the Kremlin.
Americans are wont to forget that there is a world outside the borders of the USA and that
others follow closely what is said and written in our media, especially by our political
leadership and policy elites. They forget or do not care how the accusations and threats we
direct at other countries in our domestic political squabbling, and still more the sanctions we
impose on our ever changing list of authoritarians and other real or imagined enemies abroad
might be interpreted there and what preparations or actions might be taken by those same
enemies in self-defense, threatening not merely American interests but America's physical
survival.
In no case is this more relevant than with respect to Russia, which, I remind readers, is
the only country on earth capable of turning the entire Continental United States into ashes
within a day. In point of fact, if Russia has prepared itself for war, as the latest issue of
Newsweek magazine tells us, we have no one but our political leadership to blame for
that state of affairs. They are tone deaf to what is said in Russia. We have no concern for
Russian national interests and "red lines" as the Russians themselves define them. Our Senators
and Congressmen listen only to what our home grown pundits and academics think the Russian
interests should be if they are to fit in a world run by us. That is why the Senate can vote
98-2 in favor of making the sanctions against Russia laid down by executive order of Barack
Obama into sanctions under federal legislation as happened this past summer.
There is in the United States a significant minority of journalists and experts who have
been setting out the facts on why the Russia-gate story is deeply flawed if not a fabrication
from the get-go. In this small but authoritative and responsible field, Consortium
News stands out for its courage and dogged fact-checking and logic-checks. Others on the
side of the angels include TruthDig.com and
Antiwar.com .
The Russia-gate story has permutated over time as one or another element of the
investigation into Donald Trump's alleged collusion with the Kremlin has become more or less
promising. But the core issue has always been the allegation of Russian hacking of DNC
computers on July 5, 2016 and the hand-over of thousands of compromising documents to Wikileaks
for the purpose of discrediting putative Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and throwing the
election to Donald Trump, who had at that time nearly clinched the Republican nomination.
Perhaps the most significant challenge to the official US intelligence story of Russian
hacking released on January 6, 2017 was the forensic evidence assembled by a group of former
intelligence officers with relevant technical expertise known as VIPS (Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity). Their work, arguing that the attack on the DNC computers was an
inside job by someone with access to the hardware rather than a remote operation by persons
outside the Democratic Party hierarchy and possibly outside the United States, was published in
Consortium News ("Intel Vets Challenge 'Russia Hack' Evidence") on July 24, 2017.
The VIPS material was largely ignored by mainstream media, as might be expected. An
editorial entitled "The unchecked threat from Russia" published by The Washington Post
yesterday is a prime example of how our media bosses continue to whip up public fury against
collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin even when, by their own admission, "no
conclusive proof has surfaced."
The VIPS piece last July was based on the laws of physics, demonstrating that speed
limitations on transfer of data over the internet at the time when the crime is alleged to have
taken place rendered impossible the CIA, NSA and FBI scenario of Russian hacking In what
follows, I will introduce a very different type of evidence challenging the official US
intelligence story of Russian hacking and meddling in general, what I would call
circumstantial evidence that goes to the core issue of what the Kremlin really wanted.
Let us consider whether Mr. Putin had a motive to put his thumb on the scales in the American
presidential election.
In the U.S., that is a slam-dunk question. But that comes from our talking to ourselves in
the mirror. My evidence comes precisely from the other side of the issue: what the Kremlin
elites were saying about the US elections and their preferred candidate to win while the
campaign was still going on. I present it on a privileged basis because it is what I gathered
on my several visits to Moscow and talks with a variety of insiders close to Vladimir Putin
from September through the start of November, 2016. Moreover, there is no tampering with this
evidence on my part, because the key elements were published at the time I gathered them, well
before the US election. They appeared as incidental observations in lengthy essays dealing with
a number of subjects and would not have attracted the attention they merit today.
* * * *
Political talk shows are a very popular component of Russian television programming on all
channels, both state-run and commercial channels. They are mostly carried on prime time in the
evening but also are showing in mid-afternoon, where they have displaced soap operas and
cooking lessons as entertainment for housewives and pensioners. They are broadcast live either
to the Moscow time zone or to the Far East time zone. Given the fact that Russia extends over 9
time zones, they are also video recorded and reshown locally at prime time. In the case of the
highest quality and most watched programs produced by Vesti 24 for the Rossiya One channel,
they also are posted in their entirety and in the original Russian on youtube, and they are
accessible worldwide by anyone with a computer or tablet phone using a downloadable free
app.
I underline the importance of accessibility of these programs globally via live streaming or
podcasts on simple handheld gadgets. Russian speaking professionals in the States had every
opportunity to observe much of what I report below, except, of course, for my private
conversations with producers and panelists. But the gist of the mood in Moscow with respect to
the US elections was accessible to anyone with an interest. As you know, no one reported on it
at the time. American media simply were not interested in knowing what Russians were thinking
since that might get in the way of their construction of what Russians should be
thinking.
The panelists appearing on these different channels come from a rather small pool of Russian
legislators, including chairmen of the relevant committees of the Duma (lower house) and
Federation Council (upper house), leading journalists, think tank professors, retired military
brass. The politicians are drawn from among the most visible and colorful personalities in the
Duma parties, but also extend to Liberal parties such as Yabloko, which failed to cross the
threshold of 5% in legislative elections and received no seats in parliament.
Then there are very often a number of foreigners among panelists. In the past and at the
present, they are typically known for anti-Kremlin positions and so give the predominantly
patriotic Russian panelists an opportunity to cross swords, send off sparks and keep the
audience awake. These hostile foreigners coming from Ukraine or Poland are Russian speakers
from their childhood. The Americans or Israelis who appear are generally former Soviet citizens
who emigrated, whether before or after the fall of Communism, and speak native Russian.
"Freshness" is an especially valued commodity in this case, because there is a considerable
overlap in the names and faces appearing on these talks whatever the channel. For this there is
an objective reason: nearly all the Russian and even foreign guests live in Moscow and are
available to be invited or disinvited on short notice given that these talk programs can change
their programming if there is breaking news about which their audiences will want to hear
commentary. In my own case, I was flown in especially by the various channels who paid airfare
and hotel accommodation in Moscow as necessary on the condition that I appear only on their
shows during my stay in the city. That is to say, my expenses were covered but there was no
honorarium. I make this explicit to rebut in advance any notion that I/we outside panelists
were in any way "paid by the Kremlin" or restricted in our freedom of speech on air.
During the period under review, I appeared on both state channels, Rossiya-1 and Pervy
Kanal, as well as on the major commercial television channel, NTV. The dates and venues of my
participation in these talk shows are as follows:
September 11 – Sunday Evening with Vladimir Soloviev, Rossiya 1
September 26 - Sixty Minutes with Yevgeni Popov and Olga Skabeyeva, Rossiya 1
November 8-9 Time Will Tell.
For purposes of this essay, the pertinent appearances were on September 11 and 26. To this I
add the Sixty Minutes show of October 20 which I watched on television but which aired content
that I believe is important to this discussion.
My debut on the number one talk show in Russia, Sunday Evening with Vladimir Soloviev, on
September 11 was invaluable not so much for what was said on air but for the exchange I had
with the program's host, Vladimir Soloviev, in a five minute tête-à-tête in
the guests' lounge before the program went on air.
Soloviev obviously had not yet read his guest list, did not know who I am and stood ready to
respond to me when I walked up to him and unceremoniously put to him the question that
interested me the most: whom did he want to see win the US presidential election. He did not
hesitate, told me in no uncertain terms that he did not want to see Trump win because the man
is volatile, unpredictable and weak. Soloviev added that he and others do not expect anything
good in relations with the United States in general whoever won. He rejected the notion that
Trump's turning the Neocons out of government would be a great thing in and of itself.
As I now understand, Soloviev's resistance to the idea that Trump could be a good thing was
not just an example of Russians' prioritizing stability, the principle "better the devil you
know," meaning Hillary. During a recent chat with a Russian ambassador, someone also close to
power, I heard the conviction that the United States is like a big steamship which has its own
inertia and cannot be turned around, that presidents come and go but American foreign policy
remains the same. This view may be called cynical or realistic, depending on your taste, but it
is reflective of the thinking that comes out from many of the panelists in the talk shows as
you will find below in my quotations from the to-and-fro on air. It may also explain Soloviev's
negativism.
To appreciate what weight the opinions of Vladimir Soloviev carry, you have to consider just
who he is. That his talk show is the most professional from among numerous rival shows, that it
attracts the most important politicians and expert guests is only part of the story. What is
more to the point is that he is as close to Vladimir Putin as journalists can get.
In April, 2015 Vladimir Soloviev conducted a two hour interview with Putin that was aired on
Rossiya 1 under the title "The President." In early January 2016, the television documentary
"World Order," co-written and directed by Soloviev, set out in forceful terms Vladimir Putin's
views on American and Western attempts to stamp out Russian sovereignty that first were spoken
at the Munich Security Conference in February 2007 and have evolved and become ever more frank
since.
Soloviev has a Ph.D. in economics from the Institute of World Economics and International
Relations of the USSR Academy of Sciences. He was an active entrepreneur in the 1990s and spent
some time back then in the USA, where his activities included teaching economics at the
University of Alabama. He is fluent in English and has been an unofficial emissary of the
Kremlin to the USA at various times.
For all of these reasons, I believe it is safe to say that Vladimir Soloviev represents the
thinking of Russian elites close to their president, if not the views of Putin himself.
On September 27 , I took part in the Sixty Minutes talk show that was presented as a post
mortem of the first Trump-Clinton debate the day before. I direct attention to this show
because it demonstrates the sophistication and discernment of commentary about the United
States and its electoral process. All of this runs against the "slam-dunk" scenario based on a
cartoon-like representation of Russia and its decision makers.
The show's hosts tried hard to convey the essence of American political culture to their
audience and they did some effective research to this end. Whereas French and other Western
media devoted coverage on the day after the debates to the appearance of the American
presidential candidates and especially to Hillary (what else attracts comment from the male
world of journalism if not a lady's hair styling and sartorial choices), 'Sixty Minutes'
tweaked this aspect of the debates to find politically relevant commentary.
To make their point, presenter Yevgeny Popov came on stage in a blue suit and blue tie very
similar in coloring to Trump's, while his wife and co-presenter Olga Skabeyeva was wearing a
garment in the same red hue as Hillary. They proceeded to note that these color choices of the
candidates represented an inversion of the traditional colors of the Democratic and Republican
parties in American political tradition. And they took this a step further by declaring it to
be in line with the inversion of policies in the electoral platforms of the candidates. Hillary
had taken over the hawkish foreign policy positions of the Republicans and their
Neoconservative wing. Donald had taken over the dovish foreign policy positions normally
associated with Democrats. Moreover, Donald also had gone up against the free trade policies
that were an engrained part of Republican ideology up until now and were often rejected by
Democrats with their traditional financial backers from among labor unions. All of these
observations were essentially correct and astute as far as the campaigns went. It is curious to
hear them coming from precisely Russian journalists, when they were largely missed by West
European and American commentators.
As mentioned above, foreigners are often important to the Russian talk shows to add pepper
and salt. In this case, we were largely decorative. The lion's share of the program was shared
between the Russian politicians and journalists on the panel who very ably demonstrated in
their own persona that Russian elites were split down the middle on whether Donald Trump or
Hillary Clinton was their preferred next occupant of the Oval Office
The reasons given were not what you heard within the USA: that Trump is vulgar, that Trump
is a bigot and misogynist. Instead the Russian Trump-skeptics were saying that he is impulsive
and cannot be trusted to act with prudence if there is some mishap, some accidental event
occurring between US and Russian forces in the field, for example. They gave expression to the
cynical view that the positions occupied by Trump in the pre-election period are purely
tactical, to differentiate himself from all competitors first in his own party during the
primaries and now from Hillary. Thus, Trump could turn out to be no friend of Russia on the day
after the elections.
A direct answer to these changes came from the pro-Trump members of the panel. It was best
enunciated by the senior politician in the room, Vyacheslav Nikonov. Nikonov is a Duma member
from Putin's United Russia party, the chair of the Education Committee in the 6th Duma. He is
also chair of a government sponsored organization of Russian civil society, Russian World,
which looks after the interests of Russians and Russian culture in the diaspora abroad.
Nikonov pointed to Trump's courage and determination which scarcely suggest merely tactical
considerations driving his campaign. Said Nikonov, Trump had gone up against the entire US
political establishment, against the whole of corporate mainstream media and was winning.
Nikonov pointed to the surge in Trump poll statistics in the couple of weeks preceding the
debate. And he ticked off the 4 swing states which Trump needed to win and where his fortunes
were rising fast. Clearly his presentation was carefully prepared, not something casual and
off-the-cuff.
During the exchange of doubters and backers of Trump among the Russians, one doubter spoke
of Trump as a "non-systemic" politician. This may be loosely interpreted a meaning he is
anti-establishment. But in the Russian context it had an odious connotation, being applied to
Alexei Navalny and certain members of the American- and EU-backed Parnas political movement,
and suggesting seditious intent.
In this connection, Nikonov put an entirely different spin on who Trump is and what he
represents as an anti-establishment figure. But then again, maybe such partiality runs in the
family. Nikonov is the grandson of Molotov, one of the leading figures who staged the Russian
Revolution and governed the young Soviet state.
Who won the first Trump-Clinton debate? Here the producers of Sixty Minutes gave the final
verdict to a Vesti news analyst from a remote location whose image was projected on a
wall-sized screen. We were told that the debate was a draw: Trump had to demonstrate that he is
presidential, which he did. Clinton had to demonstrate she had the stamina to resist the
onslaught of 90 minutes with Trump and she also succeeded.
The October 20 program Evening with Vladimir Soloviev, which I watched on television from
abroad, was devoted to the third Clinton-Trump debate. My single most important conclusion from
the show was that, notwithstanding the very diverse panel, there was a bemused unanimity among
them regarding the US presidential electoral campaign: that it was deplorable. They found both
candidates to be disgraceful due to their flagrant weaknesses of character and/or records in
office, but they were also disturbed by the whole political culture. Particular attention was
devoted to the very one-sided position of the American mass media and the centrist
establishments of both parties in favor of one candidate, Hillary Clinton. When Russians and
former Russians use the terms "McCarthyism" and "managed democracy" to describe the American
political process as they did on the show, they know acutely well whereof they speak.
Though flamboyant in his language the nationalist politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky, leader of
the LDPR Party, touched on a number of core concerns that bear repeating extensively, if not in
full:
"The debates were weak. The two cannot greet one another on stage, cannot say goodbye to
one another at the end. They barely can get out the texts that have been prepared for them by
their respective staffs. Repeating on stage what one may have said in the locker room.
Billions of people around the world conclude with one word: disgrace! This is the worst
electoral campaign ever. And mostly what we see is the style of the campaign. However much
people criticize the USSR – the old fogies who ran it, one and the same, supposedly the
conscience of the world.
Now we see the same thing in the USA: the exceptional country – the country that has
bases everywhere, soldiers everywhere, is bombing everywhere in some city or other. They are
making their 'experiments.' The next experiment is to have a woman in the White House. It
will end badly.
Hillary has some kind of dependency. A passion for power – and that is dangerous for
the person who will have her finger on the nuclear button. If she wins, on November 9th the
world will be at the brink of a big war "
Zhirinovsky made no secret of his partiality for Trump, calling him "clean" and "a good man"
whereas Hillary has "blood on her hands" for the deaths of hundreds of thousands due to her
policies as Secretary of State. But then again, Zhirinovsky has made his political career over
more than 30 years precisely by making outrageous statements that run up against what the
Russian political establishment says aloud. Before Trump came along, Zhirinovsky had been the
loudest voice in Russian politics in favor of Turkey and its president Erdogan, a position
which he came to regret when the Turks shot down a Russian jet at the Syrian border, causing a
great rupture in bilateral relations.
The final word on Russia's electoral preferences during the October 20 show was given by the
moderator, Vladimir Soloviev: "There can be no illusions. Both Trump and Clinton have a very
bad attitude to Russia. What Trump said about us and Syria was no compliment at all. The main
theme of American political life right now is McCarthyism and anti-Russian hysteria."
This being Russia, one might assume that the deeply negative views of the ongoing
presidential election reflected a general hostility to the USA on the part of the presenter and
panelists. But nothing of the sort came out from their discussion. To be sure, there was the
odd outburst from Zhirinovsky, who repeated a catchy line that he has delivered at other talk
shows: essentially that the USA is eating Russia and the world's lunch given that it consumes
the best 40% of what the world produces while it itself accounts for just 20% of world GDP. But
otherwise the panelists, including Zhirinovsky, displayed informed respect and even admiration
for what the United States has achieved and represents.
The following snippets of their conversation convey this very well and do not require
attribution to one or another participant:
"America has the strongest economy, which is why people want to go there and there is a
lot for us to borrow from it. We have to learn from them, and not be shy about it."
"Yes, they created the conditions for business. In the morning you file your application.
After lunch you can open your business."
"America is a very complex country. It does not pay to demonize it. We have to understand
precisely what we like and do not like. On this planet there is no way to avoid them. Whoever
becomes president of the USA, the nuclear parity forces us to negotiate and reach
agreement."
"The US has opened its doors to the most intelligent people of the world, made it
attractive for them. Of course, this builds their exceptionalism. All directors, engineers,
composers head there. Our problem is that we got rid of our tsar, our commissars but people
are still hired hands. The top people go to the States because the pay is higher."
How are we to understand the discrepancy between the very low marks the panelists gave the
US presidential race and their favorable marks for the US as an economic and military
powerhouse. It appears to result from their understanding that there is a disconnect between
Washington, the presidency and what makes the economy turn over. The panelists concluded that
the USA has a political leadership at the national level that is unworthy and inappropriate to
its position in the world. On this point, I expect that many American readers of this essay
will concur.
* * * *
Ever since his candidacy took off in the spring of 2016, both Liberal Interventionists and
Neoconservatives have been warning that a Donald Trump presidency would mean abandonment of US
global leadership. They equated Donald's "America First" with isolationism. After all, it was
in the openly "isolationist period" of American political history just before the outbreak of
WWII that the original America First slogan first appeared.
However, isolationism never left us, even as the United States became engaged in and
eventually dominated the world after the end of the Cold War. Even today more than half of the
US Senators do not possess passports, meaning they have never been abroad, barring possible
trips to Canada using their driver's licenses as ID.
And for those Americans who do travel abroad, the world outside US borders is all too often
just an object of prestige tourism, a divertissement, where the lives of local people, their
concerns and their interests do not exist on the same high plateau as American lives,
concerns and interests. It is not that we are all Ugly Americans, but we are too well insulated
from the travails of others and too puffed up with our own exceptionalism.
It is not surprising that in the US foreign policy is not a self-standing intellectual
pursuit on a chessboard of its own but is strictly a subset of domestic policy calculations,
and in particular of partisan electoral considerations. Indeed, that is very often the case in
other countries, as well. The distinction is that the US footprint in the world is vastly
greater than that of other countries and policy decisions taken in Washington, especially in
the past 20 years of militarized foreign-policy making, spell war or peace, order or chaos in
the territories under consideration.
As regards the Russian Federation, the ongoing hysteria over Russia-gate in particular, and
over the perceived threat Russia poses to US national interests in general, risks tilting the
world into nuclear war.
It is a luxury we manifestly cannot afford to indulge ourselves.
But we all have to agree that the USA is the more infantile of all The Nations, and since
the end of the last war they have made no effort to grow up. They have created RussiaGate
where no other nation would dream up such Trivia.
JFK murder was about replacing the president elected by the people. Russia-gate has the same goal. When the
American president is enemy, you are not American
Can someone tell the big fat cowards exercising around North Korea to please shut the hell
up? Cowards make a lot of noise. When Libya was invaded there were no exercises, when Iraq
was invaded there were no exercises...... when Vietnam was invaded there were no
exercises....
It is obvious to the world that the fat cowards cannot attack a nuclear armed country.
They are too yellow bellied to do anything but beat their chest like some stupid gorilla in
an African jungle.
Please cut out the announcements of exercises after exercises, it is clogging the
airwaves. We are all tired of your stupid exercises... if you want to attack go ahead and get
your fat asses whipped like a slave running away from its masters.
Shameless cowards are now becoming highly annoying... it can be called Propaganda
terrorism. Cut that nonsense out. You cannot beat North Korea, you know it, the rest of the
world knows it. You cannot fight China or Russia, the rest of the world knows it ... so
please shut up once and for all.
You are terrorizing the airwaves with your exercise after exercise after exercise.
Practice control of the ships that are becoming a maritime hazzard to commercial ships. That
is what you need to practice.
Nobody is impressed with your over-bloated expensive war equipment which fail under war
conditions. Cut out the exercises before we start turning off our ears for your
propaganda.
YELLOW BELIED COWARDS!!!!! Go poison an innocent person or kill a child....it may make you
feel better... Big fat cowards.!
I am also very tired of the bluster . They flap their gums and taunt. Enough already . You
have made fools of yourselves in the eyes of the world .
All the while the real diplomacy is going on between South Korea and China with North Korea
paying close attention, I am sure. The Russian / Chinese proposal of a rail system from South
Korea through North Korea and into China connecting to the connection grid of all of Asia is
a far greater prospect for the peace initiative than the saber rattling presently outwardly
being displayed.
They keep raising the ante, and the North Koreans keep calling their bluff. They are made
to look ridiculous as they don't have a winnable hand and the North Koreans know it.
"American media simply were not interested in knowing what Russians were thinking since
that might get in the way of their construction of what Russians should be thinking".
Reminds me of the classic American boss's remark: "Any time I want your opinion, I'll tell you it".
The whole thing is orchestrated by the Zionist state within a state which controls not only America but most of the West -
and own the entire mainstream media. They cannot forgive Trump for wanting to make peace with Russia. Their hatred of
Christian Russia is visceral and unhinged.
'...by their own admission, "no conclusive proof has surfaced."'
This is actually quite a neat and elegant example of the kind of deceptive language
routinely used by politicians and the media. It is, of course, entirely true that no conclusive proof has surfaced. Indeed, that must
follow from the equally true and indisputable fact that no proof of any kind has surfaced.
Actually, nothing even vaguely resembling proof has surfaced. There is no evidence at all -
not the slightest scrap.
But by slipping in that little adjective "conclusive" the journalist manages to convey
quite a strong impression that there is proof - only not quite conclusive proof.
It is just as dishonest and cynical as Ronald Reagan's 1984 campaign remark, "I am not
going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience".
Russiangate is concocted BS, to keep the ignorant American sheep , from understanding
Israel picked the "president of the USA".
That American children are murdering innocent children in foreign lands, for the benefit of,
not Israel, it is just a figment of the imagination, as the USSR was, and the USA is, but the
owners of Israel, City of London, Usury bankers.
Pedophile scum!
- understanding Israel picked the "president of the USA".
The fraud is in every election district. Israel cannot afford the bussing of Liberals.
This is too large for some poor nation like Israel. You are making up "Israel", just like
Gordon Duff. It tells me you are the same as Gordon Duff.
What an excellent article. If only people who have a very small knowledge of Russia/USA
relations would bother to read this and reflect upon it, a lot of misconceptions could be
cleared up if goodwill is part of the picture.
I think at times the CIA is actually assisting the Russian security services with terror
operations. I realize it doesn't make sense with Langley assisting ISIS in Syria, but that's
the world we appear to have: selective cooperation.
I don't know if the FSB has the levels of electronics signals intelligence the US has, I
do know the US and Russia may have cooperated in raids resulting in deaths of two Caucaus
Emirates leaders in 2014-2015. I believe that group has since disbanded and members probably
blended into other terror groups.
The thing that is absolutely ridiculous is that the American media and Deep State are what
is causing this trouble. I don't know why they want to have a World War so badly, but the
only thing keeping our two countries from destruction is Vladimir Putin's hard work and good
nature, and Trump's defiance of his "staff."
These Deep State actors in the US have
hidey-holes they can run to in case of the unthinkable, but they couldn't care less about the
people of the US -- let alone Russia. Their day is coming, and they'll be praying for their
mountains to fall on them when it does.
Anyone in the US that's paying any attention at all
knows the real story on this, and none of those who do are blaming anyone in Russia. If the
day ever comes that the US Deep State takes to their bunkers, they better be prepared to stay
in there--Balrogs or no Balrogs--because those of us who manage to survive above will be
looking for their sorry azzes when they come out!!!
Just to take your comment a little further ;- get to know every plumber and builder in
your area as I am, get on a friendly basis and ask about these "Deep State actors in the US
have hidey-holes" over a pint or two.
Then I am starting a crowdfunding fund to bring in "hundreds of thousands" to pay them to
screw up their sewage facilities in their hidey-holes SO THEY CAN down in their own BS.
After Uranium One, it would make sense to assume Russia would have preferred Hitlery in
the White House - Uranium One gives Russia something they know all the details of and
something they know the US public won't take lightly, so they could easily have blackmailed Hitlery with leaking those details.
Of course they also know Hitlery is a massive warmongering Nazi terrorist, but then again,
looks like Trump doesn't differ very much from her on that.
No need for paranoia, it is a veritable American love fest at the Kremlin, RIA, etc., ever
since the CIA informed Moscow that they had "information" on an imminent attack in
Russia.
Funny how the CIA has better intel on terrorism in Russia than the Russians do, even
stranger than the RF leadership doesn't seem to question the situation what so ever.
Got to hand it to the Americans, a couple of months ago Putin joked about RF "cells" in
the USA and now the CIA hands the RF a real cell all ready to go murder some Russians.
Some people talk a good game while some people actually take action.
For those of you that have some video viewing time available , you will probably enjoy the
lecture at the National Press Club , not nearly well attended I might add for this quality
venue, of Gilbert Doctoro.
New legatum prosperity index is up: Europeans enjoy the greatest quality of life
worldwide, Russians fall into more impoverishment and low quality of life. Its no secret that, for the past 150 years, Russian's wealth, quality of life and life
expectancy is unacceptably low for European standards).
Norway, Finland,
Switzerland, Sweden, Netherlands and Denmark occupying the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th 7th and 8th
places respectively.
- low for European standards ... ) .... Norway, Finland, Switzerland,
Sweden Netherlands and Denmark
When you do copyworks, include your source. RI is not for illiterate globalist bots who
cannot read an answer. The quality of trolls is now too low. The globalists are now hiring
junk?
"German media reported on Saturday that BND covertly provided a number of journalists with
information containing criticism of Russia before the data were disclosed by the agency."
"... Comey, for his part, wrote a memo alleging Trump had asked him to drop his investigation into Flynn, an act which some say could constitute obstruction of justice and thus grounds for seeking Trump's impeachment. ..."
Comey, for his part, wrote a memo alleging Trump had asked him to drop his investigation into Flynn, an act which some say
could constitute obstruction of justice and thus grounds for seeking Trump's impeachment.
rumors
, denials, whistleblowers
,
backlash , demands, threats,
lies , bias, and
anti-bias surrounding Robert Mueller and his investigation, President Trump said Sunday
that he is not considering firing the Special Counsel.
"No, I'm not," Trump told reporters, when asked if he intended to fire Mueller, according to
Politico .
The president was returning to the White House from a weekend at the Camp David presidential
retreat.
Trump's allies complained
this weekend about the way Mueller's team went about obtaining from the presidential
transition. Mueller's spokesman Peter Carr said Sunday that the office had followed appropriate
steps to obtain the transition emails. Pro-Trump lawmakers and pundits also have accused the
special counsel's office of bias after it was revealed that two FBI officials who previously
served on Mueller's team had exchanged anti-Trump text messages.
And while Trump said "I'm not,"
Axios notes that he did criticize the fact that Mueller accessed
"many tens of thousands" of emails from the presidential transition, saying it was "not
looking good."
seth? he was the guy that stole the dnc and podesta emails (well at least the dnc emails)
and got them to julian assange. after he was murdered (well at least shot twice) on the
streets of d.c. (he actually died in a hospital; probably bears some looking into), julian
offered a reward for info on it, making many believe he was wiki's source.
seymour hersh, who followed the case closely, thinks the same, but agrees with the d.c.
police that he was just mugged, not shot by say hillary and podesta using imran awan or
something. http://archive.is/lD4BV if
so, for a lucky lady that hillary clinton has some real bad luck. but it is poetically
fitting that someone who actually killed dozens of people as a private citizen (and maybe a
million as a public servant), would be convicted in the public's eye of the one she didn't
really do.
Mueller has painted himself into a cesspool that is exploding. If he had an ounce of sense
or honor he would get the eff out before he has to start covering his own tracks. But don't
bet on Mueller doing the right thing. His pals in politics and the press have made him out to
be some kind of saint when he really is all t'aint, no saint (don't ask me what t'aint is,
ask someone else.)
Don't fire Mueller now- the cesspool is bursting at the seems and Mueller is standing
right under it.
It makes little sense to me that if Seth Rich was an idealistic young man, standing on
principle and conviction, who along with his brother contacted WikiLeaks and arranged to give
it evidence of Hillary's and Debbie's treachery against Sanders, why he would then have been
reported to be looking forward to joining the Hillary campaign staff in the Brooklyn
headquarters.
CrowdStrike (run by Shawn Henry, who is a former FBI official, promoted by Mueller), which
provided the narrative to the DNC that the "Russians did it," has never been independently
verified in their conclusions by the FBI. Or Mueller. Pull that thread and the sweater starts
to unravel.
Mueller doesn't have it in him to step aside. Therefore he needs to be indicted for
prosecutorial abuse. Slap his ass down hard. Handcuffs would be a nice touch.
Mueller didn't oppose the raid of Paul Manafort at 5 a.m. in the morning with guns drawn.
Sounds like a good law enforcement technique for the buzzard.
Congressman Tells Rod Rosenstein That James Comey BROKE THE LAW then Rosenstein Agrees! 12/13/17
Congressman Louie Gohmert brings up the fact that past FBI Director James Comey broke federal law and FBI employee policy by intentionally
leaking a memo of his conversations with President Donald Trump to a friend to then leak to the press. Deputy Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein then agrees with the Congressman.
"... House and Senate Committees are also trying to get to the bottom of a report last Monday by Fox News which revealed that recently demoted DOJ official Bruce Ohr's wife, Nellie, worked for Fusion GPS - the firm behind the Trump-Russia dossier. It was also later uncovered by internet sleuths that Nellie Ohr represented the CIA's "Open Source Works" group at a 2010 working group on organized crime, which she participated in along with her husband Bruce and Glenn Simpson, co-founder of Fusion GPS. ..."
"... Last Tuesday, FBI Deputy Director McCabe unexpectedly cancelled a scheduled testimony in front of the House Intelligence Committee -- thought to be related to the Fox report on Bruce and Nellie Ohr. Text messages between Strzok and Page were released the same day . ..."
"... Of course he won't, yet those who still support Trump will continue to perform mental gymnastics to explain why. Trump picked Sessions, just like he picked Cohn, Munchkin, Pence, etc. ..."
"... I've always been very uncomfortable with the nearly unlimited mandate afforded Special Prosecutors. Arguments that Mueller has exceeded his mandate and is now on a fishing expedition show a complete disregard for the law. Mueller is allowed to do that, just as Ken Starr was. That's the problem. Mueller hasn't done anything unlawful and nobody has seriously alleged that he has. The problem is that the law allows him to do whatever he wants. ..."
"... If by "insurance policy" Strzok meant the dossier, which was the basis for a FISA warrant, I'd say they were outside the law. ..."
"... Have you noticed that everyone with these impeccable, beyond reproach, do it by the book reputations are all really nothing more than reptilian scumbags? Comey, Mueller, McCain, Sessions....... ..."
In November. Sessions
pushed back on the need for a special counsel to investigate a salacious anti-Trump dossier
paid for in part by Hillary Clinton and the DNC, and whether or not the FBI used the largely
unverified dossier to launch the Russia investigation. Sessions told Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH)
that it would take "a factual basis that meets the standard of a special counsel," adding "You
can have your idea but sometimes we have to study what the facts are and to evaluate whether it
meets the standards it requires. I would say, 'looks like' is not enough basis to appoint a
special counsel "
A flood of GOP lawmakers along with President Trump's outside counsel Jay Sekulow have
renewed calls for a separate special counsel investigation of the Department of Justice and the
FBI amid revelations that top FBI officials
conspired to tone down former FBI Director James Comey's statement exonerating Hillary
Clinton - altering or removing key language which effectively "decriminalized" Clinton's
beahvior. The
officials implicated are former FBI Director James Comey, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe,
Peter Strzok, Strzok's supervisor E.W. "Bill" Priestap, Jonathan Moffa, and DOJ Deputy General
Counsel Trisha Anderson .
Also under recent scrutiny are a trove of text messages between FBI agent Peter Strzok to
his mistress, FBI attorney Lisa Page showing extreme bias against then-candidate Trump, while
both of them were actively engaged in the Clinton email investigation and the Trump-Russia
investigation. GOP lawmakers claim the FBI launched its investigation into Russian collusion
based on the 34-page dossier created by opposition research firm Fusion GPS - which hired the
CIA wife of a senior DOJ official to assist in digging up damaging information on
5then-candidate Trump .
A particularly disturbing text message between Strzok and Page was leaked to the press last
week referencing an "
insurance policy " in case Trump were to be elected President. Strzok wrote to Page: " I
want to believe the path you threw out to consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way
he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk ." It's like an insurance policy in
the unlikely event you die before you're 40.... "
House and Senate Committees are also trying to get to the bottom of a report last Monday by
Fox News which revealed that recently demoted DOJ official Bruce Ohr's wife, Nellie, worked for
Fusion GPS - the firm behind the Trump-Russia dossier. It was also later uncovered by internet
sleuths that Nellie Ohr represented the CIA's "Open Source Works" group at a 2010 working group
on organized crime, which she participated in along with her husband Bruce and Glenn Simpson,
co-founder of Fusion GPS.
Bruce and Nellie Ohr
Last Tuesday, FBI Deputy Director McCabe unexpectedly cancelled a scheduled testimony in
front of the House Intelligence Committee -- thought to be related to the Fox report on Bruce
and Nellie Ohr. Text messages between Strzok and Page were
released the same day .
So with Attorney General Jeff Sessions saying things may have "more innocent explanations"
here are some specific questions for the AG to answer:
Did Peter Strzok innocently tell his mistress that there was an " insurance policy"
against a Trump win, which likely referenced the Russia investigation which GOP lawmakers
think was based on an unverified dossier?
Was Peter Strzok innocently texting Lisa Page " F Trump " while he was the lead
investigator on the Clinton email case?
Was Peter Strzok's edit of the phrase "Gross negligence" to "extremely careless"
innocent? It very innocently changed the entire legal standing of the case from criminal
conduct to a layman's opinion of carelessness.
18 U.S. Code '
793 "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information" specifically uses the phrase
"gross negligence." Had Comey used the phrase, he would have essentially declared that Hillary
had broken the law.
Was Peter Strzok innocently calling Trump " a f*cking idiot " and a "
loathsome human" before investigating him?
Did FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's "damage control team" innocently change their
conclusion that Hillary Clinton's server was " possibly " hacked, rather than " reasonably
likely " - language which significantly altered the seriousness of Clinton's mishandling of
classified information?
Were all references to the FBI working with other members of the intelligence community
on Clinton's private server innocently scrubbed from Comey's exoneration statement - making
it look like a much smaller investigation?
Before he was demoted for doing so - did senior DOJ official Bruce Ohr innocently meet
with MI6 spy Christopher Steele who assembled the salacious 'Trump-Russia' dossier, and then
also innocently meet with Glenn Simpson, co-founder of opposition research firm Fusion GPS?
Fusion commissioned Steele to create the dossier, which relied on senior Russian
officials.
Did Fusion GPS innocently hire Bruce Ohr's CIA wife, Nellie Ohr, to gather damaging
information on President Trump? If there weren't such innocent explanations for everything,
one might think Nellie Ohr could have possibly passed information from the DOJ to Fusion GPS
and vice versa.
Did Hillary Clinton and the DNC innocently pay Fusion GPS $1,024,408 through law firm
Perkins Coie, which then paid Steele $168,000?
In addition to the 'Trump-Russia' dossier, did Fusion GPS innocently arrange the Trump
Tower "setup" meeting between Trump Jr. and a Russian Attorney? Or
attempt to link Donald Trump to billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein ? Or try to push
the debunked claim that a secret email server existed between Trump Tower and Moscow's Alfa
bank - which Alfa bank executives are suing Fusion GPS over?
The list goes on and on, but hey: sometimes things that might appear to be bad in the press
have more innocent explanations...
No! The true explanation cuts across the grain of the existing miasma currently being
perpetrated as truth by the senior management at the FBI. One being ignored and covered up by
the mainstream media. We have senior management at the top federal law enforcement agency
that has willfully chosen to elevate their personal political opinion and beliefs above their
sworn duty to uphold constitutional law. And this "explanation" is just the latest attempt to
reinforce a violently shaking house of cards. The question that presents itself is whether we
have the moral backbone as a country to correct our course. The outcome is questionable. And
yet there is room for hope.
"Never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake" Appointing a second Special Counsel could be interpreted as an interruption. I'm not
defending Sessions here, he simply might be doing exactly what his boss is asking him to
do.
Of course he won't, yet those who still support Trump will continue to perform mental
gymnastics to explain why. Trump picked Sessions, just like he picked Cohn, Munchkin, Pence, etc.
"The AAZ Empire the Judiciary domain is like central banking and media a goy-free zone. All
lawyers, attorneys, judges, etc. are members of the BAR association, a private, Zion
controlled monopoly, whose internal rules and regulations, that all BAR members are sworn to,
supersedes the constitutions and laws of all nation states."
This quote is not mine,but it reflects exactly what I think. If you do not believe this,do
a search about BAR association.
Look at her picture. You know she's a "chosen",even without knowing her name
Sessions is a gatekeeper. Like the Donald.
The simple fact that Hillary Clinton is not in jail, with the OVERWHELMING evidence we have
against her, that the Weiner lap top has disappeared with all 650 000 incriminating
e-mails, that all the Clinton dead pool is OVERFLOWING, including with the recent death of Dr.
Dean Lorich, who had knowledge about the Clinton Foundation doings in Haiti, Seth Rich's
death, etc. ALL THESE are proofs that we do not have a DOJ, an AG(which are named by the
EXECUTIVE branch) .
This leads to only one conclusion=there is one party, having two wings ,to
create an illusion of "democracy" and that voting matters.
Yes, the full-court press is on to end the Special Prosecutor investigation, and maybe
even the entire law authorizing it. There appear to be no legal grounds for any of this. This
seems to be pure politics and PR manipulation attempts.
I've always been very uncomfortable with the nearly unlimited mandate afforded Special
Prosecutors. Arguments that Mueller has exceeded his mandate and is now on a fishing
expedition show a complete disregard for the law. Mueller is allowed to do that, just as Ken
Starr was. That's the problem. Mueller hasn't done anything unlawful and nobody has seriously
alleged that he has. The problem is that the law allows him to do whatever he wants.
And investigators are allowed to communicate with each other. They shouldn't have affairs
with each other, but they do. Nobody serious, in a position to say or do anything that
counts, alleges that they did anything unlawful, or anything that should be handled any other
way than the way it was handled, which is a job reassignment and possible termination.
Prosecutors are biased against the people they investigate. That's their job. I don't like
that either, but that's the deal.
I'd have a lot more respect for Sessions if he didn't blather on about the Constitution
and State's Rights and Freedom, and then cheerlead enthusiastically for a violent police
state and suspension of the rule of law for profit. But as you say, in this situation, he is
indeed correct.
And the fatuousness of the campaign to discredit Mueller, which assiduously avoids any
legitimate political argument, is a very bad sign. President Trump's attorneys are in way
over their head and they're panicking. Perhaps with good reason. But it would be better for
America if Trump could have retained any competent representation. Clearly all the good
lawyers decided they wanted no part of him as a client.
Have you noticed that everyone with these impeccable, beyond reproach, do it by the book
reputations are all really nothing more than reptilian scumbags? Comey, Mueller, McCain,
Sessions.......
"... It is now known that the FBI also met with Christopher Steele, the compiler of the Trump Dossier, who is now known to have been in the pay of the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign in July 2016, shortly before the Russiagate investigation was launched. ..."
"... The department's Bruce Ohr, a career official, served as associate deputy attorney general at the time of the campaign. That placed him just below the deputy attorney general, Sally Yates, who ran the day-to-day operations of the department. ..."
"... Unbeknownst to investigators until recently, Ohr knew Steele and had repeated contacts with Steele when Steele was working on the dossier. Ohr also met after the election with Glenn Simpson, head of Fusion GPS, the opposition research company that was paid by the Clinton campaign to compile the dossier. ..."
"... It is also now known that over the course of the election the FBI – on the basis of information in the Trump Dossier – obtained at least one warrant from the FISA court which made it possible for it to undertake surveillance during and after the election of persons involved in the election campaign of Hillary Clinton's opponent Donald Trump. ..."
"... Let's remember a couple of things about the dossier. The Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign, which we now know were one and the same, paid the law firm who paid Fusion GPS who paid Christopher Steele who then paid Russians to put together a report that we call a dossier full of all kinds of fake news, National Enquirer garbage and it's been reported that this dossier was all dressed up by the FBI, taken to the FISA court and presented as a legitimate intelligence document -- that it became the basis for a warrant to spy on Americans. ..."
"... There is now talk of FBI Director Christopher Wray and of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein being held in contempt of Congress because of the failure of the FBI and the Justice Department to comply with Congressman Nunes's subpoenas. ..."
"... As the FBI's deputy director of counter-intelligence it is also highly likely that it was Strozk who was the official within the FBI who supervised the FBI's contacts with Christopher Steele, and who would have been provided with the Trump Dossier ..."
"... As the BBC has pointed out , it was also the Trump Dossier which Congressman Adam Schiff – the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Community, who appears to be very close to some of the FBI investigators involved in the Russiagate case – as well as the FBI's Russiagate investigators were using as the narrative frame narrative when questioning witnesses about their role in Russiagate. ..."
"... These facts make it highly likely that it was indeed the Trump Dossier which provided the information which the FBI used to obtain the surveillance warrants it obtained from the FISA court during the 2016 election and afterwards. ..."
"... Given Strzok's central role in the Russiagate investigation going back all the way to its start in July 2016, there has also to be a possibility that it was Strzok who was behind many of the leaks coming from the investigation which so destabilised the Trump administration at the start of the year. ..."
"... On the strength of a fake Dossier paid for by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign the Justice Department, the FBI and the US intelligence community carried out surveillance during the election of US citizens who were members of the campaign team of Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton's opponent ..."
"... Given the debacle the Justice Department, the FBI and the US intelligence community are facing, it is completely understandable why they should want to keep the Russiagate investigation alive to draw attention away from their own activities. ..."
"... Put in this way it is Robert Mueller's investigation which is the cover-up, and the surveillance which is the wrongdoing the cover up is trying to excuse or conceal, which is what I said nine months ago in March . Congressman Jordan has again recently called for a second Special Counsel to be appointed . When the suggestion of appointing a second Special Counsel was first floated last month the suggestion was that the focus of the second Special Counsel's investigation would be the Uranium One affair. ..."
"... Congressman Jordan has now correctly identified the surveillance of US citizens by the US national security bureaucracy during the election as the focus of the proposed investigation to be conducted by the second Special Counsel. ..."
"... There should be only one Special Counsel tasked with looking into what is the real scandal of the 2016 election: the surveillance of US citizens during the election by the US national security bureaucracy on the basis of the Trump Dossier. ..."
It is now known that the FBI also met with Christopher Steele, the compiler of the Trump
Dossier, who is now known to have been in the pay of the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign in
July 2016, shortly before the Russiagate investigation was launched.
Whilst there is some confusion about whether the FBI actually paid Steele for his
information, it is now known that Steele was in contact with the FBI throughout the election
and after, and that the FBI gave credence to his work.
Recently it has also come to light that Steele was also directly in touch with Obama's
Justice Department, a fact which was only disclosed recently. The best
account of this has been provided by Byron York writing for The Washington Examiner
The department's Bruce Ohr, a career official, served as associate deputy attorney general
at the time of the campaign. That placed him just below the deputy attorney general, Sally
Yates, who ran the day-to-day operations of the department. In 2016, Ohr's office was just
steps away from Yates, who was later fired for defying President Trump's initial travel ban
executive order and still later became a prominent anti-Trump voice upon leaving the Justice
Department.
Unbeknownst to investigators until recently, Ohr knew Steele and had repeated contacts
with Steele when Steele was working on the dossier. Ohr also met after the election with
Glenn Simpson, head of Fusion GPS, the opposition research company that was paid by the
Clinton campaign to compile the dossier.
Word that Ohr met with Steele and Simpson, first reported by Fox News' James Rosen and
Jake Gibson, was news to some current officials in the Justice Department. Shortly after
learning it, they demoted Ohr, taking away his associate deputy attorney general title and
moving him full time to another position running the department's organized crime drug
enforcement task forces.
It is also now known that over the course of the election the FBI – on the basis of
information in the Trump Dossier – obtained at least one warrant from the FISA court
which made it possible for it to undertake surveillance during and after the election of
persons involved in the election campaign of Hillary Clinton's opponent Donald Trump.
In response to subpoenas issued at the instigation of the Congressman Devin Nunes the FBI
has recently admitted that the Trump Dossier cannot be verified.
However the FBI and the Justice Department have so far failed to provide in response to
these subpoenas information about the precise role of the Trump Dossier in triggering the
Russiagate investigation.
The FBI's and the Justice Department's failure to provide this information recently provoked
an angry exchange between FBI Director Christopher Wray and Congressman Jim Jordan during a
hearing of the House Judiciary Committee.
During that hearing Jordan said to Wray the following
Let's remember a couple of things about the dossier. The Democratic National Committee and
the Clinton campaign, which we now know were one and the same, paid the law firm who paid
Fusion GPS who paid Christopher Steele who then paid Russians to put together a report that
we call a dossier full of all kinds of fake news, National Enquirer garbage and it's been
reported that this dossier was all dressed up by the FBI, taken to the FISA court and
presented as a legitimate intelligence document -- that it became the basis for a warrant to
spy on Americans.
In response Wray refused to say whether or not the Trump Dossier played any role in the FBI
obtaining the FISA warrants, even though it was previously disclosed that it did. This is
despite the fact that this information is not classified and ought already to have been
provided in response to Congressman Nunes's subpoenas.
There is now talk of FBI Director Christopher Wray and of Deputy Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein being held in contempt of Congress because of the failure of the FBI and the Justice
Department to comply with Congressman Nunes's subpoenas.
During the exchanges between Wray and Jordan at the hearing in the House Judiciary Committee
Jordan also had this to say
Here's what I think -- I think Peter Strozk (sic) Mr. Super Agent at the FBI, I think he's
the guy who took the application to the FISA court and if that happened, if this happened, if
you have the FBI working with a campaign, the Democrats' campaign, taking opposition
research, dressing it all up and turning it into an intelligence document so they can take it
to the FISA court so they can spy on the other campaign, if that happened, that is as wrong
as it gets
Peter Strzok is the senior FBI official who is now known to have had a leading role in both
the FBI's investigation of Hillary Clinton's misuse of her private server and in the Russiagate
investigation.
Strzok is now also known to have been the person who changed the wording in Comey's
statement clearing Hillary Clinton for her misuse of her private email server to say that
Hillary Clinton had been "extremely careless'" as opposed to "grossly negligent".
Strzok – who was the FBI's deputy director for counter-intelligence – is now
also known to have been the person who signed the document which launched the Russiagate
investigation in July 2016.
Fox News has
reported that Strzok was also the person supervised the FBI's questioning of Michael Flynn.
It is not clear whether this covers to the FBI's interview with Flynn on 24th January 2017
during which Flynn lied to the FBI about his conversations with Russian ambassador. However it
is likely that it does.
If so then this is potentially important given that it was Flynn's to the FBI during this
interview which made up the case against him to which he has now pleaded guilty, and given the
indications that Flynn's interview with the FBI on 24th January 2017 was a
set-up intended to entrap him .
As the FBI's deputy director of counter-intelligence it is also highly likely that it was
Strozk who was the official within the FBI who supervised the FBI's contacts with Christopher
Steele, and who would have been provided with the Trump Dossier.
Recently it has been disclosed that Special Counsel Mueller sacked Strzok from the
Russiagate investigation supposedly after it was discovered that Strzok had been sending
anti-Trump and pro-Hillary Clinton messages to Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer with whom he was having
an affair.
These messages were sent by Strzok to his lover during the election, but apparently only
came to light in July this year, when Mueller supposedly sacked Strzok because of them.
It seems that since then Strzok has been working in the FBI's human resources department, an
astonishing demotion for the FBI's former deputy director for counter-intelligence who was
apparently previously considered the FBI's top expert on Russia.
Some people have questioned whether the sending of the messages could possibly be the true
reason why Strzok was sacked. My colleague Alex Christoforou has reported
on some of the bafflement that this extraordinary sacking and demotion has caused.
Business Insider reports the anguished comments of former FBI officials incredulous that
Strzok could have been sacked for such a trivial reason. Here is what Business Insider
reports one ex FBI official Mark Rossini as having said
It would be literally impossible for one human being to have the power to change or
manipulate evidence or intelligence according to their own political preferences. FBI agents,
like anyone else, are human beings. We are allowed to have our political beliefs. If
anything, the overwhelming majority of agents are conservative Republicans.
This is obviously right. Though the ex-FBI officials questioned by Business Insider are
clearly supporters of Strzok and critics of Donald Trump,
the same point has been made from the other side of the political divide by Congressman Jim
Jordan
If you get kicked off the Mueller team for being anti-Trump, there wouldn't be anybody
left on the Mueller team. There has to be more
Adding to the mystery about Strzok's sacking is why the FBI took five months to confirm
it.
Mueller apparently sacked Strzok from the Russiagate investigation in July and it was
apparently then that Strzok was simultaneously sacked from his previous post of deputy director
for counter-espionage and transferred to human resources. The FBI however only disclosed his
sacking now five months later in response to demands for information from Congressional
investigators.
There is in fact an obvious explanation for Strzok's sacking and the strange circumstances
surrounding it and I am sure that it is the one Congressman Jordan was thinking during his
angry exchanges with FBI Director Christopher Wray.
Recently the FBI admitted to Congress that it has failed to verify the Trump Dossier.
I suspect that Congressman Jordan believes that the true reason why Strzok was sacked is
that Strzok's credibility had become so tied to the Trump Dossier that when its credibility
collapsed over the course of the summer when the FBI finally realised that it could not be
verified his credibility collapsed with it. If so then I am sure that Congressman Jordan is
right.
We now know from a variety of sources but first and foremost from the testimony to Congress
of Carter Page that the Trump Dossier provided the frame narrative for the Russiagate
investigation until just a few months ago.
We also know that the Trump Dossier was included in an appendix to the January ODNI report
about supposed Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
The fact that the Trump Dossier was included in an appendix to the January ODNI report shows
that at the start of the year the top officials of the FBI and of the US intelligence community
– Comey, Clapper, Brennan and the rest – believed in its truth.
The June 2017 article in the Washington Post (discussed by me here ) also all but confirms
that it was the Trump Dossier that provided the information which the CIA sent to President
Obama in August 2016 alleging that the Russians were interfering in the election.
As the BBC has pointed out , it was also the Trump
Dossier which Congressman Adam Schiff – the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence
Community, who appears to be very close to some of the FBI investigators involved in the
Russiagate case – as well as the FBI's Russiagate investigators were using as the
narrative frame narrative when questioning witnesses about their role in Russiagate.
These facts make it highly likely that it was indeed the Trump Dossier which provided
the information which the FBI used to obtain the surveillance warrants it obtained from the
FISA court during the 2016 election and afterwards.
Strzok's position as the FBI's deputy director for counter-intelligence makes it highly
likely that he was amongst those senior FBI and US intelligence officials who gave the Trump
Dossier credence, whilst his known actions during the Hillary Clinton private server
investigation and during the Russiagate investigation make it highly likely that it was he who
was the official within the FBI who sought and obtained the FISA warrants.
Given Strzok's central role in the Russiagate investigation going back all the way to
its start in July 2016, there has also to be a possibility that it was Strzok who was behind
many of the leaks coming from the investigation which so destabilised the Trump administration
at the start of the year.
This once again points to the true scandal of the 2016 election.
On the strength of a fake Dossier paid for by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign
the Justice Department, the FBI and the US intelligence community carried out surveillance
during the election of US citizens who were members of the campaign team of Donald Trump,
Hillary Clinton's opponent .
Given the hugely embarrassing implications of this for the FBI, it is completely
understandable why Strzok, if he was the person who was ultimately responsible for this debacle
– as he almost certainly was – and if he was responsible for some of the leaks
– as he likely also was – was sacked and exiled to human resources when the utter
falsity of the Trump Dossier could no longer be denied.
It would also explain why the FBI sought to keep Strzok's sacking secret, so that it was
only disclosed five months after it happened and then only in response to questions from
Congressional investigators, with a cover story about inappropriate anti-Trump messages being
spread about in order to explain it.
This surely is also the reason why in defiance both of evidence and logic the Russiagate
investigation continues to grind on.
Given the debacle the Justice Department, the FBI and the US intelligence community are
facing, it is completely understandable why they should want to keep the Russiagate
investigation alive to draw attention away from their own activities.
Put in this way it is Robert Mueller's investigation which is the cover-up, and the
surveillance which is the wrongdoing the cover up is trying to excuse or conceal, which is
what I said nine
months ago in March . Congressman Jordan has again recently called for
a second Special Counsel to be appointed . When the suggestion of appointing a second
Special Counsel was first floated last month the suggestion was that the focus of the second
Special Counsel's investigation would be the Uranium One affair.
That always struck me as misconceived not because there may not be things to investigate in
the Uranium One case but because the focus of any new investigation should be what happened
during the 2016 election, not what happened during the Uranium one case.
Congressman Jordan has now correctly identified the surveillance of US citizens by the
US national security bureaucracy during the election as the focus of the proposed investigation
to be conducted by the second Special Counsel.
In truth there should be no second Special Counsel. Since there is no Russiagate collusion
to investigate the Russiagate investigation – ie. the investigation headed by Mueller
– should be wound up.
There should be only one Special Counsel tasked with looking into what is the real
scandal of the 2016 election: the surveillance of US citizens during the election by the US
national security bureaucracy on the basis of the Trump Dossier.
I remain intensely skeptical that this will happen. However the fact that some members of
Congress such as Congressman Nunes (recently cleared of charges that he acted inappropriately
by disclosing details of the surveillance back in March) and Congressman Jordan are starting to
demand it is a hopeful sign.
Last month Seth Rich, a data analyst who worked for the DNC, was shot near his home in Washington DC. He was on the phone to his
girlfriend when it happened. Police were called to the scene and discovered the young man's body at roughly 4.20am. It was reported
that Rich was "covered in bruises", shot "several times" and "at least once in the back".
The New York Daily News reported:
" police have found little information to explain his death. At this time, there are no suspects, no motive and no witnesses
in Rich's murder.
While initial theories were that the killing was robbery or mugging gone wrong, the Washington Post said:
" There is no immediate indication that robbery was a motive in the attack but it has not been ruled out as a possibility."
Rich's family have also reported that nothing was taken:
" [Rich's] hands were bruised, his knees are bruised, his face is bruised, and yet he had two shots to his back, and yet they
never took anything."
On August 9th Julian Assange gave an interview on Dutch television in which he seemed to imply that Rich's death was politically
motivated, and perhaps suggest he had been a source for the DNC e-mail leak:
That same day wikileaks tweeted that they were offering a $20,000 dollar reward for information on the killing of Mr Rich.
These are the facts of the case, so far. And they are undisputed.
I'm not going to take a position on the motive for Mr Rich's killing, or possible suspects. But I do want to point out the general
level of media silence. Take these facts and change the names – imagine Trump's email had been hacked, and then a staffer with possible
ties to wikileaks was inexplicably shot dead. Imagine this poor young man had been a Kremlin whistleblower, or a Chinese hacker,
or an Iranian blogger.
If this, as yet unsolved, murder had ties to anyone other than Hillary Clinton, would it be being so ritually and rigourously
ignored by the MSM?
"... In addition to Strzok's "gross negligence" --> "extremely careless" edit, McCabe's damage control team removed a key justification for elevating Clinton's actions to the standard of "gross negligence" - that being the " sheer volume " of classified material on Clinton's server. In the original draft, the "sheer volume" of material "supports an inference that the participants were grossly negligent in their handling of that information." ..."
"... It's also possible that the FBI, which was not allowed to inspect the DNC servers, was uncomfortable standing behind the conclusion of Russian hacking reached by cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. ..."
"... Johnson's letter also questions an " insurance policy " referenced in a text message sent by demoted FBI investigator Peter Strzok to his mistress, FBI attorney Lisa Page, which read " I want to believe the path you threw out to consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk." It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40...." ..."
"... One wonders if the "insurance policy" Strzok sent to Page on August 15, 2016 was in reference to the original counterintelligence operation launched against Trump of which Strzok became the lead investigator in "late July" 2016? Of note, Strzok reported directly to Bill Priestap - the director of Counterintelligence, who told James Comey not to inform congress that the FBI had launched a counterintelligence operation against then-candidate Trump, per Comey's March 20th testimony to the House Intelligence Committee. (h/t @TheLastRefuge2 ) ..."
"... That's not to say Hillary shouldn't have been prosecuted. But what we're seeing here looks like perfectly normal behavior once the decision has been made not to prosecute; get the statements to be consistent with the conclusion. In a bureaucracy, that requires a number of people to be involved. And it would necessarily include people who work for Hillary Clinton, since that's whose information is being discussed. ..."
"... And the stuff about how a foreign power might have, or might possibly have, accessed her emails is all BS too. We already know they weren't hacked, they were leaked. ..."
"... Maybe people who don't understand complicated organizations see something nefarious here, but nobody who does will. Nothing will come of this but some staged-for-TV dramatic pronouncements in the House, and on FOX News, and affiliated websites. There's nothing here. ..."
"... Debatable re. biggest story being kept quiet. The AWAN Brothers/Family is a Pakistani spy ring operating inside Congress for more than a decade, and we hear nothing. They had access to virtually everything in every important committee. They had access to the Congressional servers and all the emails. Biggest spy scandal in our nations hsitory, and........crickets. ..."
"... They have had a year to destroy the evidence. Why should the CIA controlled MSM report the truth? ..."
"... Precisely. That's actually a very good tool for decoding the Clintons and Obama. "You collaborated with Russia." Means "I collaborated with Saudi Arabia." It takes a little while and I haven't fully mastered it yet, but you can reverse alinsky-engineer their statements to figure out what they did. ..."
"... And get this, Flynn was set up! Yates had the transcript via the (illegal) FISA Court of warrant which relied on the Dirty Steele Dossier, when Flynn deviated from the transcript they charged him Lying to the FBI. Comey McCabe run around lying 24/7. Their is no fucking hope left! The swamp WINS ALWAYS. ..."
FBI Edits To Clinton Exoneration Go Far Beyond What Was Previously Known; Comey, McCabe, Strzok ImplicatedTyler Durden Dec 15, 2017 10:10 AM 0 SHARES
detailed in a
Thursday letter from committee chairman Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) to FBI Director Christopher Wray.
James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok
The letter reveals specific edits made by senior FBI agents when Deputy Director Andrew McCabe exchanged drafts of Comey's statement
with senior FBI officials , including Peter Strzok, Strzok's direct supervisor
, E.W. "Bill" Priestap, Jonathan Moffa, and an unnamed employee from the Office of General Counsel (identified by
Newsweek as DOJ Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson) - in what was a coordinated
conspiracy among top FBI brass to decriminalize Clinton's conduct by changing legal terms and phrases, omitting key information,
and minimizing the role of the Intelligence Community in the email investigation. Doing so virtually assured that then-candidate
Hillary Clinton would not be prosecuted.
Heather Samuelson and Heather Mills
Also mentioned in the letter are the immunity agreements granted by the FBI in June 2016 to top Obama advisor Cheryl Mills and
aide Heather Samuelson - who helped decide which Clinton emails were destroyed before turning over the remaining 30,000 records to
the State Department. Of note, the FBI agreed to destroy evidence on devices owned by Mills and Samuelson which were turned over
in the investigation.
Sen. Johnson's letter reads:
According to documents produced by the FBI, FBI employees exchanged proposed edits to the draft statement. On May 6, Deputy
Director McCabe forwarded the draft statement to other senior FBI employees, including Peter Strzok, E.W. Priestap, Jonathan Moffa,
and an employee on the Office of General Counsel whose name has been redacted. While the precise dates of the edits and identities
of the editors are not apparent from the documents, the edits appear to change the tone and substance of Director Comey's statement
in at least three respects .
It was already known that Strzok - who was demoted to the FBI's HR department after anti-Trump text messages to his mistress were
uncovered by an internal FBI watchdog - was responsible for downgrading the language regarding Clinton's conduct from the criminal
charge of "gross negligence" to "extremely careless."
"Gross negligence" is a legal term of art in criminal law often associated with recklessness. According to Black's Law Dictionary,
gross negligence is " A severe degree of negligence taken as reckless disregard ," and " Blatant indifference to one's legal duty,
other's safety, or their rights ." "Extremely careless," on the other hand, is not a legal term of art.
According to an Attorney briefed on the matter, "extremely careless" is in fact a defense to "gross negligence": "What my client
did was 'careless', maybe even 'extremely careless,' but it was not 'gross negligence' your honor." The FBI would have no option
but to recommend prosecution if the phrase "gross negligence" had been left in.
18 U.S. Code § 793 "Gathering, transmitting or losing
defense information" specifically uses the phrase "gross negligence." Had Comey used the phrase, he would have essentially declared
that Hillary had broken the law.
In addition to Strzok's "gross negligence" --> "extremely careless" edit, McCabe's damage control team removed a key justification
for elevating Clinton's actions to the standard of "gross negligence" - that being the " sheer volume " of classified material on
Clinton's server. In the original draft, the "sheer volume" of material "supports an inference that the participants were grossly
negligent in their handling of that information."
Also removed from Comey's statement were all references to the Intelligence Community's involvement in investigating Clinton's
private email server.
Director Comey's original statement acknowledged the FBI had worked with its partners in the Intelligence Community to assess
potential damage from Secretary Clinton's use of a private email server. The original statement read:
[W]e have done extensive work with the assistance of our colleagues elsewhere in the Intelligence Community to understand what
indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the private email operation.
The edited version removed the references to the intelligence community:
[W]e have done extensive work [removed] to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection
with the personal e-mail operation.
Furthermore, the FBI edited Comey's statement to downgrade the probability that Clinton's server was hacked by hostile actors,
changing their language from "reasonably likely" to "possible" - an edit which eliminated yet another justification for the phrase
"Gross negligence." To put it another way, "reasonably likely" means the probability of a hack due to Clinton's negligence is above
50 percent, whereas the hack simply being "possible" is any probability above zero.
It's also possible that the FBI, which was not allowed to inspect the DNC servers, was uncomfortable standing behind the conclusion
of Russian hacking reached by cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike.
The original draft read:
Given the combination of factors, we assess it is reasonably likely that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's
private email account."
The edited version from Director Comey's July 5 statement read:
Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal
e-mail account.
Johnson's letter also questions an "
insurance policy " referenced in a text message sent by demoted FBI investigator Peter Strzok to his mistress, FBI attorney Lisa
Page, which read " I want to believe the path you threw out to consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way he gets elected
-- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk." It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40...."
One wonders if the "insurance policy" Strzok sent to Page on
August 15, 2016 was in reference to the original counterintelligence operation launched against Trump of which Strzok became
the lead investigator in "late July" 2016? Of note, Strzok reported directly to
Bill Priestap - the director of Counterintelligence, who told James Comey not to inform congress that the FBI had launched a
counterintelligence operation against then-candidate Trump, per Comey's March 20th testimony to the House Intelligence Committee.
(h/t @TheLastRefuge2 )
Transcript , James Comey Testimony to House Intel Committee, March 20, 2016
The letter from the Senate Committee concludes; "the edits to Director Comey's public statement, made months prior to the conclusion
of the FBI's investigation of Secretary Clinton's conduct, had a significant impact on the FBI's public evaluation of the implications
of her actions . This effort, seen in the light of the personal animus toward then-candidate Trump by senior FBI agents leading the
Clinton investigation and their apparent desire to create an "insurance policy" against Mr. Trump's election, raise profound questions
about the FBI's role and possible interference in the 2016y presidential election and the role of the same agents in Special Counsel
Mueller's investigation of President Trump ."
Johnson then asks the FBI to answer six questions:
Please provide the names of the Department of Justice (DOJ) employees who comprised the "mid-year review team" during the
FBI's investigation of Secretary Clinton's use of a private email server.
Please identify all FBI, DOJ, or other federal employees who edited or reviewed Director Comey's July 5, 2016 statement .
Please identify which individual made the marked changes in the documents produced to the Committee.
Please identify which FBI employee repeatedly changed the language in the final draft statement that described Secretary Clinton's
behavior as "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless. " What evidence supported these changes?
Please identify which FBI employee edited the draft statement to remove the reference to the Intelligence Community . On what
basis was this change made?
Please identify which FBI employee edited the draft statement to downgrade the FBI's assessment that it was "reasonably likely"
that hostile actors had gained access to Secretary Clinton's private email account to merely that than [sic] intrusion was "possible."
What evidence supported these changes?
Please provide unredacted copies of the drafts of Director Comey's statement, including comment bubbles , and explain the
basis for the redactions produced to date.
We are increasingly faced with the fact that the FBI's top ranks have been filled with political ideologues who helped Hillary
Clinton while pursuing the Russian influence narrative against Trump (perhaps as the "insurance" Strzok spoke of). Meanwhile, "hands
off" recused Attorney General Jeff Sessions and assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein don't seem very excited to explore the
issues with a second Special Counsel. As such, we are now almost entirely reliant on the various Committees of congress to pursue
justice in this matter. Perhaps when their investigations have concluded, President Trump will feel he has the political and legal
ammunition to truly clean house at the nation's swampiest agencies.
All I see in this story is that the FBI edits their work to make sure the terminology is consistent throughout. This is not
a smoking gun of anything, except bureaucratic procedure one would find anywhere any legal documents are prepared.
That's not to say Hillary shouldn't have been prosecuted. But what we're seeing here looks like perfectly normal behavior once
the decision has been made not to prosecute; get the statements to be consistent with the conclusion. In a bureaucracy, that requires
a number of people to be involved. And it would necessarily include people who work for Hillary Clinton, since that's whose information
is being discussed.
Now, if Hillary hadn't been such an arrogant bitch, we wouldn't be having this conversation. If she had just take the locked-down
Android of iOS phone they issued her, instead of having to forward everything to herself so she could use her stupid Blackberry
(which can't be locked down to State Dep't. specs), everything would have been both hunky and dory.
And the stuff about how a foreign power might have, or might possibly have, accessed her emails is all BS too. We already know
they weren't hacked, they were leaked.
Maybe people who don't understand complicated organizations see something nefarious here, but nobody who does will. Nothing
will come of this but some staged-for-TV dramatic pronouncements in the House, and on FOX News, and affiliated websites. There's
nothing here.
That obongo of all crooks is involved is a sure fact, but I'd like to see how many remaining defenders of the cause are still
motivated to lose everything for this thing...
In other terms, what are the defection rates in the dem party, because now this must be an avalanche.
Please, EVERYONE with a Twitter account send this message Every Day (tell your friends on facebook):
Mr. President, the time to purge the Obama-Clinton holdovers has long passed. Please get rid of them at once. Make your base
happy. Fire 100+ from DOJ - State - FBI. Hire William K. Black as Special Prosecutor
Debatable re. biggest story being kept quiet. The AWAN Brothers/Family is a Pakistani spy ring operating inside Congress for
more than a decade, and we hear nothing. They had access to virtually everything in every important committee. They had access
to the Congressional servers and all the emails. Biggest spy scandal in our nations hsitory, and........crickets.
Of course, they may all be related, since Debbie Wasserman-Shits brought them in and set them up, then intertwined their work
in Congress with their work for the DNC.
Just more theater. Throwing a bone to the few citizens who think for themselves. Giving us false hope the US legal system isn't
corrupt. This will never be prosecuted, because the deep state remains in control. They've had a year to destroy the incriminating
evidence.
Ryan and his buddies in Congress will make strained faces (as if taking a dump) and wring their hands saying they must hire
a "Special" Investigator to cover up this mess.
They tweet that crap all the time. Usually just a repeat with different names, but always blaming a Ruskie. About every 6 months
they hit on a twist in the wording that causes it to go viral.
Before Trump was elected , I thought the only way to get our country back was through a Military Coup, but it appears there
may be some light at the end of the tunnel.
I wonder if that light is coming from the soon to be gaping hole in the FBI's asshole when the extent of this political activism
by the agency eventually seeps into the public conciousness.
you can't clean up a mess of this magnitude. fire everyone in washington---senator, representative, fbi, cia, nsa ,etc and
start over---has NO chance of happenning
the only hope for a non violent solution is that a true leader emerges that every decent person can rally behind and respect,
honor and dignity become the norm. unfortunately, corruption has become a culture and i don't know if it can be eradicated
Just expose the Congress, McCabe, Lindsey, McCabe, Clinton, all Dem judges, Media, Hollywood, local government dems as pedos;
that will half-drain the swamp.
If Trump gets the swamp cleaned without a military coup, he will be one of our greatest Presidents. There will be people who
hate that more than they hate being in jail.
Precisely. That's actually a very good tool for decoding the Clintons and Obama. "You collaborated with Russia." Means
"I collaborated with Saudi Arabia." It takes a little while and I haven't fully mastered it yet, but you can reverse alinsky-engineer
their statements to figure out what they did.
And get this, Flynn was set up! Yates had the transcript via the (illegal) FISA Court of warrant which relied on the Dirty
Steele Dossier, when Flynn deviated from the transcript they charged him Lying to the FBI. Comey McCabe run around lying 24/7.
Their is no fucking hope left! The swamp WINS ALWAYS.
I have - it's was NBC Nightly News - they spent time on the damning emails from Strozk. Maybe 2-3 minutes. Normal news segment
time. Surprised the hell out of me.
the "MSM" needs to cover their own asses ...like "an insurance policy" just in case the truth comes out... best to be seen
reporting on the REAL issue at least for a couple minutes..
"... How is your Debbie Wasserman doing -- did not she threatened the DC police investigator for doing his job of investigating the Awan affair? Debbie has been a major protector of the Awan family that accomplished the greatest breach of the US cybersecurity. And how is your Nobel Peace Laureate doing -- collecting nice fees from banksters for his betrayal of democracy in the US? ..."
Are you shocked about Seth Rich murder? Wikileaks has offered a reward to speed up a
search for the murderers, whereas DNC did nothing. Nothing! But the DNC was very active when
certain Mr. Awan needed legal protection.
How is your Debbie Wasserman doing -- did not she threatened the DC police investigator for
doing his job of investigating the Awan affair? Debbie has been a major protector of the Awan
family that accomplished the greatest breach of the US cybersecurity. And how is your Nobel
Peace Laureate doing -- collecting nice fees from banksters for his betrayal of democracy in
the US?
Fusion GPs is an interesting part of the whole puzzle.
Notable quotes:
"... On Wednesday morning, Congressman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, responded to Attorney General Jeff Sessions' unclear position on appointing a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton's ties to Fusion GPS and Russia and the Uranium One deal orchestrated by the Clinton State Department during the Obama administration. ..."
"... "It needs to be about everything, including Mr. Comey's handling of the Clinton investigation in 2016," Jordan said. "The inspector general is looking into that right now. We're going to look into it as a congressional committee, but it needs to be the full gambit because frankly it's all tied together, and we think in many ways Mr. Rosenstein and many ways Mr. Mueller is compromised; they're not going to look at some of these issues." ..."
On Wednesday morning, Congressman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, responded to Attorney General Jeff
Sessions' unclear position on appointing a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton's
ties to Fusion GPS and Russia and the Uranium One deal orchestrated by the Clinton State
Department during the Obama administration.
Jordan, appearing on "Fox & Friends," said the appointment of a special prosecutor to
investigate the full breadth of Clinton's potentially illegal activities "needs to happen."
"It needs to be about everything, including Mr. Comey's handling of the Clinton
investigation in 2016," Jordan said. "The inspector general is looking into that right now.
We're going to look into it as a congressional committee, but it needs to be the full gambit
because frankly it's all tied together, and we think in many ways Mr. Rosenstein and many ways
Mr. Mueller is compromised; they're not going to look at some of these issues."
"But the biggest part, I do believe, is the dossier," Jordan stressed. "The fact, as I said
yesterday, the fact that a major political party can finance this dossier at the same time it
looks like Christopher Steele, the author of the dossier, was being paid by the FBI."
"So are they complicit in putting together this dossier, which was National Enquirer
baloney, turning it into an intelligence document, getting a warrant, and spying on Americans?
If that happened in this great country, that is just so wrong. That's why it warrants a special
examination of this whole issue."
Asked by Ainsley Earhardt why the Department of Justice hasn't asked for a special counsel
yet, Jordan said he thinks it's because "some of the career people at the Justice Department
just don't want to go there." Jordan also said that Attorney General Sessions, who is "a good
man," may feel compromised by his recusal from some aspects of the Russia investigation and
therefore unwilling to push hard against those who don't want to go after Clinton.
On Tuesday, the attorney general testified before the House Judiciary Committee. When asked
by Rep. Jordan if he would appoint a special counsel to investigate Clinton, Sessions
demurred.
In a recently released Aug. 15, 2016 text message from Peter Strzok, a senior FBI
counterintelligence official, to his reputed lover, senior FBI lawyer Lisa Page, Strzok
referenced an apparent plan to keep Trump from getting elected before suggesting the need for
"an insurance policy" just in case he did.
A serious investigation into Russia-gate might want to know what these senior FBI officials
had in mind.
"... Sir Andrew Wood is a close friend of Christopher Steele (of the Steele Dossier) and an associate of Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd., which is Steele's private spy agency. [Does Steele still work for the British SIS, MI6?] "Before the election Steele had gone to Wood and shown him the dossier." (p.38). Wood is wired into the arch-NWO Chatham House, which is home to The Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA), the companion organization of which is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). (q.v. "Tragedy and Hope" by Carrol Quigley; "The Imperial Brain Trust: The Council on Foreign Relations & United States foreign Policy" by Laurence H. Shoup and William Minter; "Wall Street's Think Tank: The Council on Foreign Relations and the Empire of Neoliberal Geopolitics, 1976-2104" by Laurence H. Shoup). ..."
"... I am starting to wonder if Luke Harding might be MI6 with journalism for a cover. ..."
Lately, I have been reading Luke Harding's "Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win."
Harding is a journalist who works as a foreign correspondent for the Guardian newspaper. His book draws heavily upon the "Steele
Dossier." (q.v. Wikipedia: Donald Trump-Russian Dossier) Harding's Wikipedia page is also very interesting, as is some of the
information that he generously supplies in "Collusion." For example, on pp.37-38, Harding describes a three-day event in November
of 2016 that was sponsored by the Halifax International Security Forum in Halifax, N.S. Harding describes the objective of the
gathered international group as making sense of the world in the aftermath of Trump's stunning victory. Interestingly, Senator
John McCain was one of the delegates; however, the participation of Sir Andrew Wood, a former Ambassador to Russia from 1995-2000
is perhaps even more interesting. Wood and McCain were participants in the Ukraine panel.
Sir Andrew Wood is a close friend of Christopher Steele (of the Steele Dossier) and an associate of Orbis Business Intelligence
Ltd., which is Steele's private spy agency. [Does Steele still work for the British SIS, MI6?] "Before the election Steele had
gone to Wood and shown him the dossier." (p.38). Wood is wired into the arch-NWO Chatham House, which is home to The Royal Institute
for International Affairs (RIIA), the companion organization of which is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). (q.v. "Tragedy
and Hope" by Carrol Quigley; "The Imperial Brain Trust: The Council on Foreign Relations & United States foreign Policy" by Laurence
H. Shoup and William Minter; "Wall Street's Think Tank: The Council on Foreign Relations and the Empire of Neoliberal Geopolitics,
1976-2104" by Laurence H. Shoup).
At this conference in Halifax, Harding reports that Wood briefed McCain about the contents of the Steele Dossier [rattle-tat-tattle-tale
MI6's "ScuttleTrump" operation seems to proceeding swimmingly at this point]. The senile senator from Arizona evidently decided
that " the implications [of the dossier] were sufficiently alarming to dispatch a former senior U.S. official to meet with Steele
and find out more." The emissary, David Kramer, is currently a senior director at the McCain institute for International Leadership:
Kramer was formerly the President of the highly questionable Freedom House, a nest of NWO neocons and neoliberals. (q.v. Wikipedia
article, Freedom House, especially the section on Criticism/Relationship with the U.S. Government.) Please, recall McCain's role
in the coup d'état in Ukraine in 2014.
I am starting to wonder if Luke Harding might be MI6 with journalism for a cover. Then there is the bizarre case of
Carter Page, the former U.S. Marine intelligence officer and purported lover of all things Russian and of Putin. This obsessive
enthusiast is beginning to remind me of another obsessive Russian enthusiast, U.S. Marine, and defector to the soviet Union; Patsy
Oswald. I am starting to look at this Trump-Russia fraud as more than a takedown of the crooked Don. It seems to be an ingenious
way of further demonizing Putin and the Russians, and, if so, it is working like a charm. The MSM echo chamber cannot get enough
of it. and neither can the NWO.
Hillary Clinton "actually listening to the people"??? Nonsense.
Democrats lost because she didn't bother to listen to the concerns of the working class.
Instead, she demonized and ridiculed them. If Democrats don't return to their one-time base
in the working class, we will be doomed to more Donald Trumps and more massive transfers of
wealth from those to work for a living to the very rich.
As a lifetime progressive, I categorically reject the neoliberal political philosophy of
both Clinton and Obama. In addition to being morally wrong, it is foolish, because in
kicking out both the working class and progressives like me, they don't have enough votes
to win elections. I also reject lying in order to undo the will of the American people.
Russia-gate is, from the "evidence" given, total BS.
The will of those stinking (not a word I would use) undesirables at Walmart was to raise
their collective middle fingers at the elites who have abandoned them and thrown them under
the bus. They were voting against phony promises of hope and change. They were voting
against NAFTA and the TPP. And guess what: Plenty of them would have voted for Bernie
Sanders.
Fox reporter Shannon Brem tweeted that Fox News producer Jake Gibson has obtained 10k texts
between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, one of which says "Trump should go f himself," and "F
TRUMP."
... ... ...
In another tweet posted by Bream, Peter Strzok says "I am riled up. Trump is
a f*cking idiot, is unable to provide a coherrent answer ," and "I CAN'T PULL AWAY, WHAY THE
F*CK HAPPENED TO OUR COUNTRY (redacted)??!?!"
Page responds "I don't know, But we'll get it back. ..."
... ... ...
In another tweet posted by Bream, Peter Strzok says "I am riled up. Trump is
a f*cking idiot, is unable to provide a coherrent answer ," and "I CAN'T PULL AWAY, WHAY THE
F*CK HAPPENED TO OUR COUNTRY (redacted)??!?!"
Page responds "I don't know, But we'll get it back. ..."
... ... ...
The messages between Strzok and Page make it abundantly clear that the agents investigating
both candidates for President were extremely biased against then-candidate Trump, while going
extremely easy on Hillary Clinton over her mishandling of classified information.
... ... ...
The messages sent between Strzok and Page, as well as Strzok's conduct in the
Clinton investigation and several prior cases are now under review for political bias by the
Justice Department . Furthermore, the fact that the reason behind Strzok's firing was kept a
secret for months is of keen interest to House investigators. According to
Fox News two weeks ago :
"While Strzok's removal from the Mueller team had been publicly reported in August, the
Justice Department never disclosed the anti-Trump texts to the House investigators."
"Responding to the revelations about Strzok's texts on Saturday, Nunes said he has now
directed his staff to draft contempt-of-Congress citations against Rosenstein and the new FBI
director, Christopher Wray." -Fox News
Strzok also relied on the Trump-Russia dossier created by opposition research firm Fusion
GPS. In August, 2016 - nine months before Robert Mueller's Special Counsel was launched, the
New York Times reported that Strzok was hand picked by FBI brass to supervise an investigation
into allegations of Trump-Russia collusion . The FBI investigation grew legs after they
received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" and decided to act on its salacious and largely
unproven claims, According to
Fox News
House investigators told Fox News they have long regarded Strzok as a key figure in the
chain of events when the bureau, in 2016, received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" and
launched a counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling in the election that
ultimately came to encompass FISA surveillance of a Trump campaign associate.
The "dossier" was a compendium of salacious and largely unverified allegations about
then-candidate Trump and others around him that was compiled by the opposition research firm
Fusion GPS. The firm's bank records, obtained by House investigators, revealed that the
project was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. - Fox
News
Weeks before the 2016 election, Peter Strzok's FBI team agreed to pay former MI6 agent and
Fusion GPS operative Christopher Steele $50,000 if he could verify the claims contained within
the dossier - which relied on the cooperation of two senior Kremlin officials.
... ... ...
When Steele was unable to verify the claims in the dossier, the FBI wouldn't
pay him according to the New York Times .
Mr. Steele met his F.B.I. contact in Rome in early October, bringing a stack of new
intelligence reports. One, dated Sept. 14, said that Mr. Putin was facing "fallout" over his
apparent involvement in the D.N.C. hack and was receiving "conflicting advice" on what to
do.
The agent said that, if Mr. Steele could get solid corroboration of his reports, the
F.B.I. would pay him $50,000 for his efforts, according to two people familiar with the
offer. Ultimately, he was not paid . - NYT
Did you catch that? Despite the fact that Steele was not paid by the FBI for the dossier,
Peter Strzok used it to launch a counterintelligence investigation into President Trump's team
. Steele was ultimately paid
$168,000 by Fusion GPS to assemble the dossier.
There's more - according to journalist Sara Carter there are more anti-Trump messages
exchanged between other members of Mueller's team
Sean Hannity: I'm hearing rumors all over the place Sara Carter that there are other
anti-Trump text-emails out there. And we know about them.
Sara Carter: I think you're hearing correctly Sean and I think a lot more is going to come
out. In fact, I know a lot more is going to come out based on the sources I've spoken to.
... ... ...
The text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page are highly compromising , and prove
that both FBI investigations into Clinton and Trump were headed by a man, aided by his
mistress, who did not want to see Trump win the White House. Furthermnore, if anti-Trump text
messages were exchanged between other members of Robert Mueller's special counsel, which are
apparently on deck for later this month or January, it's hard to imagine anyone taking anything
concluded by this dog-and-pony show seriously.
So let's see here, I'm looking for the parts about the FBI?/special investigation, or even
anything relevant to the subject matter in your post Jack. Nope nothing there except a
speculation about something that has long since passed and with no real way to determine
actual facts. But hey thanks for taking up all the unused space here on the forum.
Back to revelant speculation...
Melissa Hodgman is the wife of the FBI scum. Guess what she does? She is head of the SEC
enforcement division. I guess that's where 'ol Pete learned how to turn "grossly negligent"
into "extremely careless". I guess that's good enough for the SEC so it should be good enough
for the Effing Bee Eye.
funny how two libtards who are cheating on their partners, can have the audacity to
believe theyre the intelligent ones. Lost, hollow, carcases of human beings they are.
You can not be serious. A FBI investigator can't let any bias influence their
investigations regardless of their personal feelings one way or the other. This Agent saying
that he was in a position to protect the country from Trump puts his bias on full display. I
expect FBI agents to be all Joe Friday all of the time.
When law enforcement is taking pro-active actions to protect Hillary and insure her
presidency...should anyone be shocked that a 'rat' inside her campaign gets murdered and no
one cares?
Sexual Blackmail rings have been around forever. Every 1st world clandestine intel agency
has long since perfected these types of traps. Starts with basic Honey Traps and goes to kids
and much worse crimes than sexual misconduct (think the Godfather when the Senator was set up
at the Brothel and you get a good idea).
Before someone becomes a dependable tool you need to have them by the balls. It has been
estimated that 1 in 3 politicians in D.C. are comprimised this way at some point during their
career. This is how the CIA controls politicians outside the US. It gets quid pro quo from
other intel agencies for internal control (Mossad, MI6, or other). It's an old game. Epstein
is Mossad. The island is a trap outside of U.S. Why would alan dershowitz go there? Simple he
was lured and trapped. Think about it, if you are in this dirty business, how do get a good
Lawyer? Good lawyers who are 'committed' to your cause always come in handy.
This is how real power is and has been aquired. With power comes control.
They're "going all in." Doesn't matter what Hand the Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous
Seditious Psychopaths at the Deep State & their cohorts have been dealt.
Win, stolen or lost. They were going & are going "all in" with the PsyOp, Scripted
False Narrative of Russia hacking the Elections / Russia / Putin / Trump Propaganda gone full
retard via the Deep States Opeatives in the Presstitute Media.
The misconception is that individuals believe we are dealing with normal, sane human
beings. We're not. Far from it. What we are dealing with are sick, twisted, Pure Evil
Criminal, Psychopathic, Satanic / Lucerferian elements from the CIA / Pentagram Temple of Set
Scum literally making Hell on Earth.
What's at Stake is the Deep State Global network of MultiNational Central Banking,
Espionage, Murder, War, Torture, Destabilization Campaigns, BlackMail, Extortion, Child /
Human Trafficking, Drug / Gun Running, Money Laundering, Corruption, NSA spying, Media
control & control of the 17 Intelligence Agencies.
Most importantly, The Deep State controls all the distribution lines of the
aforementioned. Especially the Coaxial Cable Communication lines of Espionage spying &
Surveillance State Apparatus / Infrastructure.
Agencies all built on the British Model of Intelligence. Purely Evil & Highly
Compartmentalized Levels which function as a Step Pyramid Model of Authority / Monarch Reign
Pyramid Model of Authority.
That's what's at Stake. How this plays out is anyone's guess. The Pure Evil Criminal
Psychopath Rogue elements of the Deep State will not go quietly. If not dealt with now,
they'll disappear only to resurface at a later date with one objective:
Total Complete Full Spectrum World Domination they seek through Power & Control.
It's those Select Highly Compartmentalized Criminal Pure Evil Rogue Elements at the Deep
State Top that have had control since the JFK Execution that have entrenched themselves for
decades & refuse to relinquish Control.
This impure evil has been running the world since the time of the Pharoahs, it's ancient
Babylonian mysticism/paganism and it is nothing more than the worship of Lucifer; it has
never died out, it just re-emerges as something far more wicked, vile and sinister. They are
all the sons and daughters of satan and do what he does - kill, steal and destroy.
It would be Nieve to think that hundreds of thousands of years of control over mankind be
simply turned over by the Criminal Pure Evil Psychopathic Elite.
The Deep State will always exist.
However, the Pure Evil Criminal Psychopathic Highly Compartmentalized Rogue Levels of it
are being delt with. Which is what the World is witnessing.
"President Trump needs to do mass firings at the corrupt FBI/DOJ"
Firings? Firings are for Starbucks employees who dip into the cash register. When people
afforded this level of "trust" and responsibility show how deeply corrupt they are - in that
they openly aid and abet horrific criminals (HRC et al) they need to go to JAIL. FOREVER. And
their supervisors - who goddamn well knew what the fuck they were doing - need to be their
cellmates.
The FBI and DOJ have lost ALL integrity, honor, and moral authority. At this point, if I
saw an FBI agent on fire, I wouldn't piss on him to put him out.
Two FBI officials who
would later be assigned to the special counsel's investigation into Donald Trump's
presidential campaign described him as an "idiot" and "loathsome human" in a series of text
messages last year, according to copies released on Tuesday.
One said in an election night text that the prospect of a Trump victory was
"terrifying".
the fact that Steele dossier was published by Buzzfeed gave this story a new interesting light.
Notable quotes:
"... The piece showed that the Democrats' two paid-for sources that have engendered belief in Russia-gate are at best shaky. First was former British spy Christopher Steele's largely unverified dossier of second- and third-hand opposition research portraying Donald Trump as something of a Russian Manchurian candidate. ..."
"... And the second was CrowdStrike, an anti-Putin private company, examining the DNC's computer server to dubiously claim discovery of a Russian "hack." CrowdStrike, it was later discovered, had used faulty software it was later forced to rewrite . The company was hired after the DNC refused to allow the FBI to look at the server. ..."
"... The Huffington Post published my piece on Nov. 5, 2016, that predicted three days before the election that if Clinton lost she'd blame Russia. My point was confirmed by the campaign-insider book Shattered, which revealed that immediately after Clinton's loss, senior campaign advisers decided to blame Russia for her defeat. ..."
"... I published another piece , which the Huffington Post editors promoted, called, "Blaming Russia To Overturn The Election Goes Into Overdrive." I argued that "Russia has been blamed in the U.S. for many things and though proof never seems to be supplied, it is widely believed anyway." ..."
"... BuzzFeed , of course, is the sensationalist outlet that irresponsibly published the Steele dossier in full, even though the accusations – not just about Donald Trump but also many other individuals – weren't verified. Then on Nov. 14, BuzzFeed reporter Jason Leopold wrote one of the most ludicrous of a long line of fantastic Russia-gate stories, reporting that the Russian foreign ministry had sent money to Russian consulates in the U.S. "to finance the election campaign of 2016." The scoop generated some screaming headlines before it became clear that the money was to pay for Russian citizens in the U.S. to vote in the 2016 Duma election. ..."
Under increasing pressure from a population angry about endless wars and the transfer of wealth to the one percent, American
plutocrats are defending themselves by suppressing critical news in the corporate media they own. But as that news emerges on
RT and dissident websites, they've resorted to the brazen move of censorship, which is rapidly spreading in the U.S. and Europe.
I know because I was a victim of it.
At the end of October, I wrote an
article for Consortium
News about the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign paying for unvetted opposition research that became
the basis for much of the disputed story about Russia allegedly interfering in the 2016 presidential election.
The piece showed that the Democrats' two paid-for sources that have engendered belief in Russia-gate are at best shaky. First
was former British spy Christopher Steele's
largely unverified
dossier of second- and third-hand opposition research portraying Donald Trump as something of a Russian Manchurian candidate.
And the second was CrowdStrike, an anti-Putin private company, examining the DNC's computer server to dubiously claim discovery
of a Russian "hack." CrowdStrike, it was later discovered, had used
faulty software
it was later forced to
rewrite
. The company was hired after the DNC refused to allow the FBI to look at the server.
My piece also described the dangerous consequences of partisan Democratic faith in Russia-gate: a sharp increase in geopolitical
tensions between nuclear-armed Russia and the U.S., and a New McCarthyism that is spreading fear -- especially in academia, journalism
and civil rights organizations -- about questioning the enforced orthodoxy of Russia's alleged guilt.
After the article appeared at Consortium News , I tried to penetrate the mainstream by then publishing a version of the
article on the HuffPost, which was
rebranded from the Huffington Post in April this year by new management. As a contributor to the site since February 2006,
I am trusted by HuffPost editors to post my stories directly online. However, within 24 hours of publication on Nov. 4, HuffPost
editors retracted
the article without any explanation.
This broke with the earlier principles of journalism that the Web site espoused. For instance, in 2008, Arianna Huffington
told radio host Don Debar that, "We welcome all opinions,
except conspiracy theories." She said: "Facts are sacred. That's part of our philosophy of journalism."
But Huffington stepped down as editor in August 2016 and has nothing to do with the site now. It is
run by Lydia Polgreen, a former New York Times reporter and editor, who evidently has very different ideas. In April,
she completely redesigned the site and renamed it HuffPost.
Before the management change, I had published several articles on the Huffington Post about Russia without controversy.
For instance, The Huffington Post published my
piece on Nov. 5,
2016, that predicted three days before the election that if Clinton lost she'd blame Russia. My point was confirmed by the
campaign-insider book Shattered, which revealed that immediately after Clinton's loss, senior campaign advisers decided to
blame Russia for her defeat.
On Dec. 12, 2016, I published another
piece , which the Huffington Post editors promoted, called, "Blaming Russia To Overturn The Election Goes Into Overdrive."
I argued that "Russia has been blamed in the U.S. for many things and though proof never seems to be supplied, it is widely believed
anyway."
After I posted an updated version of the Consortium News piece -- renamed "On the Origins of Russia-gate" -- I was informed
23 hours later by a Facebook friend that the piece had been retracted by HuffPost editors. As a reporter for mainstream media
for more than a quarter century, I know that a newsroom rule is that before the serious decision is made to retract an article the
writer is contacted to be allowed to defend the piece. This never happened. There was no due process. A HuffPost editor ignored
my email asking why it was taken down.
Despite this support from independent media, a senior official at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, I learned, declined to take
up my cause because he believes in the Russia-gate story. I also learned that a senior officer at the American Civil Liberties Union
rejected my case because he too believes in Russia-gate. Both of these serious organizations were set up precisely to defend individuals
in such situations on principle, not preference.
In terms of their responsibilities for defending journalism and protecting civil liberties, their personal opinions about whether
Russia-gate is real or not are irrelevant. The point is whether a journalist has the right to publish an article skeptical of it.
I worry that amid the irrational fear spreading about Russia that concerns about careers and funding are behind these decisions.
One online publication decidedly took the HuffPost's side. Steven Perlberg, a media reporter for BuzzFeed, asked
the HuffPost why they retracted my article. While ignoring me, the editors issued a statement to BuzzFeed saying that
"Mr. Lauria's self-published" piece was "later flagged by readers, and after deciding that the post contained multiple factually
inaccurate or misleading claims, our editors removed the post per our contributor terms of use." Those terms include retraction for
"any reason," including, apparently, censorship.
Perlberg posted the HuffPost statement
on Twitter. I asked him if he inquired of the editors what those "multiple" errors and "misleading claims" were. I asked him to contact
me to get my side of the story. Perlberg totally ignored me. He wrote nothing about the matter. He apparently believed the HuffPost
and that was that. In this way, he acquiesced with the censorship.
BuzzFeed , of course, is the sensationalist outlet that irresponsibly published the Steele dossier in full, even though
the accusations – not just about Donald Trump but also many other individuals – weren't verified. Then on Nov. 14, BuzzFeed
reporter Jason Leopold wrote one of the most
ludicrous of a long line of fantastic Russia-gate stories, reporting that the Russian foreign ministry had sent money to Russian
consulates in the U.S. "to finance the election campaign of 2016." The scoop generated some screaming headlines before it became
clear that the money was to pay for Russian citizens in the U.S. to vote in the 2016 Duma election.
That Russia-gate has reached this point, based on faith and not fact, was further illustrated by a Facebook exchange I had with
Gary Sick, an academic who served on the Ford and Carter national security staffs. When I pressed Sick for evidence of Russian interference,
he eventually replied: "If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck " When I told him that was a very low-bar for such serious
accusations, he angrily cut off debate.
When belief in a story becomes faith-based or is driven by intense self-interest, honest skeptics are pushed aside and trampled.
True-believers disdain facts that force them to think about what they believe. They won't waste time making a painstaking examination
of the facts or engage in a detailed debate even on something as important and dangerous as a new Cold War with Russia.
This is the most likely explanation for the HuffPost 's censorship: a visceral reaction to having their Russia-gate faith
challenged.
"... If there were secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence such as might give rise to genuine concern that the national security of the United States might be compromised – for example because they were intended to swing the US election from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump – then the FBI would have a legitimate reason to investigate those contacts even if no actual crimes were committed during them. ..."
"... The point is however is that eighteen months after the start of the Russiagate investigation no evidence either of criminal acts or of secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence which might have placed the national security of the United States in jeopardy has come to light. ..."
"... There is no evidence of a criminal conspiracy by anyone in the Trump campaign involving the Russians. or the hacking of John Podesta's and the DNC's computers in order to steal emails from those computers and to have them published by Wikileaks; ..."
"... There is also no evidence of any secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence during the election which might have placed the national security of the United States in jeopardy. ..."
"... If no evidence either of a criminal conspiracy or of inappropriate secret contacts by the Trump campaign and the Russians has been found after eighteen months of intense investigation by the biggest and mightiest national security and intelligence community on the planet, then any reasonable person would conclude that that must be because no such evidence exists. ..."
"... Some months I expressed doubts that Special Counsel Robert Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would countenance fishing expeditions . It turns out I was wrong. On any objective assessment it is exactly such fishing expeditions that the Mueller investigation is now engaging in. ..."
"... Deutsche Bank is a German bank not a Russian bank. To insinuate that the Russians control Deutsche Bank – one of the world's leading international banks – because Deutsche Bank has had some previous financial dealings with various Russian banks and businesses is quite simply preposterous. I doubt that there is a single important bank in Germany or Austria of which that could not also be said. ..."
"... Which again begs the question why? Why are Mueller and the Justice Department resorting to these increasingly desperate actions in order to prove something which it ought to be obvious by now cannot be proved? ..."
"... My colleague Alex Christoforou has recently pointed out that the recent indictment of Michael Flynn seems to have been partly intended to shield Mueller from dismissal and to keep his Russiagate investigation alive. Some time ago I made exactly the same point about the indictments against Paul Manafort and Rick Gates and about the indictment against George Papadopoulos. ..."
"... Those indictments were issued directly after the Wall Street Journal published an editorial saying that Mueller should resign. ..."
"... It is the Wall Street Journal editorial which in fact provides the answer to Mueller's and Rosenstein's otherwise strange behaviour and to the way that Mueller has conducted the investigation up to now. The Wall Street Journal's editorial says that Mueller's past as the FBI's Director means that he is too close to the FBI to take an objective view of its actions. ..."
"... It is universally agreed that the FBI's then Director – Mueller's friend James Comey – broke protocols by the way he announced that Hillary Clinton had been cleared. ..."
"... By failing to bring charges against Hillary Clinton the FBI ensured that she would win the Democratic Party's nomination, and that she not Bernie Sanders would face off against Donald Trump in the election in the autumn. That is important because though the eventual – completely unexpected – election outcome was that Donald Trump won the election, which Hillary Clinton lost, every opinion poll which I have seen suggests that if the election had been between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump then Bernie Sanders would have won by a landslide. ..."
"... They played Sessions like a violin. Sessions recluses himself for a bullcrap Kisnyak speech, where he did not even meet him. Rosenstein then recommends Trump fire Comey -- who wanted to be fired so they would appoint a special prosecutor -- which Rosenstein does -- Mueller, to the acclamation of ALL of Con and the Senate-including Republicans. ..."
"... Trump was pissed because they removed his only defender from Mueller -- the head of the DOJ. He knew it was a setup, so went ballistic when he found out about Sessions recusing. ..."
"... Strzok was obviously at a VERY senior pay grade. It would be very surprising if HR had any jobs at Strzok's pay grade. ..."
"... once this special prosecutor is done, congress needs to rewrite the special prosecutor law to narrow their mandate to just the item allowed to be investigated - no fishing expeditions - enough of this stupidity - and maybe put a renewal clause in there so that it has to be renewed every 12 months... ..."
"... This is, and always has been a sideshow for the "true believers" in the Democrap party and all Hitlary supporters to accuse Trump of EXACTLY what Hitlary did ..."
Almost eighteen months after Obama's Justice Department and the FBI launched the Russiagate investigation, and seven months after
Special Counsel Robert Mueller took the investigation over, the sum total of what it has achieved is as follows
(1) an indictment of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates which concerns entirely their prior financial dealings, and which makes no
reference to the Russiagate collusion allegations;
(2) an indictment for lying to the FBI of George Papadopoulos, the junior volunteer staffer of the Trump campaign, who during
the 2016 Presidential election had certain contacts with members of a Moscow based Russian NGO, which he sought to pass off –
falsely and unsuccessfully – as more important than they really were, and which also does not touch on the Russiagate collusion
allegations; and
(3) an indictment for lying to the FBI of Michael Flynn arising from his perfectly legitimate and entirely legal contacts with
the Russian ambassador after the 2016 Presidential election, which also does not touch on the Russiagate collusion allegations,
and which looks as if it was brought about by an
act of entrapment
.
Of actual evidence to substantiate the claims of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the election Mueller has
so far come up with nothing.
Here I wish to say something briefly about the nature of "collusion".
There is no criminal offence of "collusion" known to US law, which has led some to make the point that Mueller is investigating
a crime which does not exist.
There is some force to this point, but it is one which must be heavily qualified:
(1) Though there is no crime of "collusion" in US law, there most certainly is the crime of conspiracy to perform a criminal act.
Should it ever be established that members of the Trump campaign arranged with the Russians for the Russians to hack the DNC's
and John Podesta's computers and to steal the emails from those computers so that they could be published by Wikileaks, then since
hacking and theft are serious criminal acts a criminal conspiracy would be established, and it would be the entirely proper to do
to bring criminal charges against those who were involved in it.
This is the central allegation which lies behind the whole Russiagate case, and is the crime which Mueller is supposed to be investigating.
(2) The FBI is not merely a police and law enforcement agency. It is also the US's counter-espionage agency.
If there were secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence such as might give rise to genuine concern that
the national security of the United States might be compromised – for example because they were intended to swing the US election
from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump – then the FBI would have a legitimate reason to investigate those contacts even if no actual
crimes were committed during them.
Since impeachment is a purely political process and not a legal process, should it ever be established that there were such secret
contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence which might have placed the national security of the United States in
jeopardy, then I have no doubt that Congress would say that there were grounds for impeachment even if no criminal offences had been
committed during them.
The point is however is that eighteen months after the start of the Russiagate investigation no evidence either of criminal acts
or of secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence which might have placed the national security of the United
States in jeopardy has come to light.
Specifically:
(1) There is no evidence of a criminal conspiracy by anyone in the Trump campaign involving the Russians. or the hacking of
John Podesta's and the DNC's computers in order to steal emails from those computers and to have them published by Wikileaks;
and
(2) There is also no evidence of any secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence during the election
which might have placed the national security of the United States in jeopardy.
Such contacts as did take place between the Trump campaign and the Russians were limited and innocuous and had no effect on the
outcome of the election. Specifically there is no evidence of any concerted action between the Trump campaign and the Russians to
swing the election from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump.
As I have previously discussed, the meeting between Donald Trump Junior and the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya is
not such evidence .
If no evidence either of a criminal conspiracy or of inappropriate secret contacts by the Trump campaign and the Russians has
been found after eighteen months of intense investigation by the biggest and mightiest national security and intelligence community
on the planet, then any reasonable person would conclude that that must be because no such evidence exists.
Why then is the investigation still continuing?
Some months I expressed doubts that Special Counsel Robert Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would
countenance fishing expeditions. It turns out I was wrong. On any objective assessment it is exactly such fishing expeditions that the Mueller investigation is
now engaging in.
How else to explain the strange decision to subpoena Deutsche Bank for information about loans granted by Deutsche Bank to Donald
Trump and his businesses?
Deutsche Bank is a German bank not a Russian bank. To insinuate that the Russians control Deutsche Bank – one of the world's leading
international banks – because Deutsche Bank has had some previous financial dealings with various Russian banks and businesses is
quite simply preposterous. I doubt that there is a single important bank in Germany or Austria of which that could not also be said.
Yet in the desperation to find some connection between Donald Trump and Russia it is to these absurdities that Mueller is reduced
to.
Which again begs the question why? Why are Mueller and the Justice Department resorting to these increasingly desperate actions
in order to prove something which it ought to be obvious by now cannot be proved?
My colleague Alex Christoforou has recently pointed out that the recent indictment of Michael Flynn seems to have been
partly intended to shield Mueller from dismissal and to keep his Russiagate investigation alive. Some time ago I made exactly the same point about
the indictments against Paul Manafort and Rick Gates and about the indictment against George Papadopoulos.
Those indictments were issued directly after the Wall Street Journal published an
editorial saying that Mueller
should resign.
The indictment against Manafort and Gates looks sloppy and rushed. Perhaps I am wrong but there has to be at least a suspicion
that the indictments were issued in a hurry to still criticism of Mueller of the kind that was now appearing in the Wall Street Journal.
Presumably the reason the indictment against Flynn was delayed was because his lawyers had just signaled Flynn's interest in
a plea bargain, and it took a few more weeks of negotiating to work that out.
It is the Wall Street Journal editorial which in fact provides the answer to Mueller's and Rosenstein's otherwise strange behaviour
and to the way that Mueller has conducted the investigation up to now. The Wall Street Journal's editorial says that Mueller's past as the FBI's Director means that he is too close to the FBI to take
an objective view of its actions.
In fact the Wall Street Journal was more right than it perhaps realised. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the FBI's
actions are open to very serious criticism to say the least, and that Mueller is simply not the person who can be trusted to take
an objective view of those actions.
Over the course of the 2016 election the FBI cleared Hillary Clinton over her illegal use of a private server to route classified
emails whilst she was Secretary of State though it is universally agreed that she broke the law by doing so.
The FBI does not seem to have even considered investigating Hillary Clinton for possible obstruction of justice after it also
became known that she had actually destroyed thousands of her emails which passed through her private server, though that was an
obvious thing to do.
It is universally agreed that the FBI's then Director – Mueller's friend James Comey – broke protocols by the way he announced
that Hillary Clinton had been cleared.
By failing to bring charges against Hillary Clinton the FBI ensured that she would win the Democratic Party's nomination, and
that she not Bernie Sanders would face off against Donald Trump in the election in the autumn. That is important because though the eventual – completely unexpected – election outcome was that Donald Trump won the election,
which Hillary Clinton lost, every opinion poll which I have seen suggests that if the election had been between Bernie Sanders and
Donald Trump then Bernie Sanders would have won by a landslide.
In other words it was because of the FBI's actions in the first half of 2016 that Bernie Sanders is not now the President of the
United States.
In addition instead of independently investigating the DNC's claims that the Russians had hacked the DNC's and John Podesta's
computers, the FBI simply accepted the opinion of an expert – Crowdstrike – paid for by the DNC, which it is now known was partly
funded and was entirely controlled by the Hillary Clinton campaign, that hacks of those computers had actually taken place and that
the Russians were the perpetrators.
As a result Hillary Clinton was able to say during the election that the reason emails which had passed through those computers
and which showed her and her campaign in a bad light were being published by Wikileaks was because the Russians had stolen the emails
by hacking the computers in order to help Donald Trump.
It is now known that the FBI also met with Christopher Steele, the compiler of the Trump Dossier, who is now known to have been
in the pay of the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign. The first meeting apparently took place in early July 2016, shortly before
the Russiagate investigation was launched.
Whilst there is some confusion about whether the FBI actually paid Steele for his information, it is now known that Steele was
in contact with the FBI throughout the election and continued to be so after, and that the FBI gave credence to his work.
Recently it has also come to light that Steele was also directly in touch with Obama's Justice Department, a fact which was only
disclosed recently.
The best
account of this has been provided by Byron York writing for The Washington Examiner
The department's Bruce Ohr, a career official, served as associate deputy attorney general at the time of the campaign. That
placed him just below the deputy attorney general, Sally Yates, who ran the day-to-day operations of the department. In 2016,
Ohr's office was just steps away from Yates, who was later fired for defying President Trump's initial travel ban executive order
and still later became a prominent anti-Trump voice upon leaving the Justice Department.
Unbeknownst to investigators until recently, Ohr knew Steele and had repeated contacts with Steele when Steele was working
on the dossier. Ohr also met after the election with Glenn Simpson, head of Fusion GPS, the opposition research company that was
paid by the Clinton campaign to compile the dossier.
Word that Ohr met with Steele and Simpson, first reported by Fox News' James Rosen and Jake Gibson, was news to some current
officials in the Justice Department. Shortly after learning it, they demoted Ohr, taking away his associate deputy attorney general
title and moving him full time to another position running the department's organized crime drug enforcement task forces.
It is also now known that over the course of the election the FBI – on the basis of information in the Trump Dossier – obtained
at least one warrant from the FISA court which made it possible for it to undertake surveillance during and after the election of
persons belonging to involved the campaign team of Hillary Clinton's opponent Donald Trump.
In response to subpoenas issued at the instigation of the Congressman Devin Nunes the FBI has recently admitted that
the Trump Dossier cannot be verified
.
However the FBI and the Justice Department have so far failed to provide in response to these subpoenas information about the
precise role of the Trump Dossier in triggering the Russiagate investigation.
The FBI's and the Justice Department's failure to provide this information recently provoked an angry exchange between FBI Director
Christopher Wray and Congressman Jim Jordan during a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee.
During that hearing Jordan said to Wray the following
Let's remember a couple of things about the dossier. The Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign, which we now
know were one and the same, paid the law firm who paid Fusion GPS who paid Christopher Steele who then paid Russians to put together
a report that we call a dossier full of all kinds of fake news, National Enquirer garbage and it's been reported that this dossier
was all dressed up by the FBI, taken to the FISA court and presented as a legitimate intelligence document -- that it became the
basis for a warrant to spy on Americans.
In response Wray refused to say officially whether or not the Trump Dossier played any role in the FBI obtaining the FISA warrants.
This was so even though officials of the FBI – including former FBI Director James Comey – have slipped out in earlier Congressional
testimony that it did.
This is also despite the fact that this information is not classified and ought already to have been provided by the Justice Department
and the FBI in response to Congressman Nunes's subpoenas.
There is now talk of FBI Director Christopher Wray and of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein being held in contempt of Congress
because of the failure of the Justice Department and the FBI to comply with Congressman Nunes's subpoenas.
During the exchanges between Wray and Jordan at the hearing in the House Judiciary Committee Jordan also had this to say
Here's what I think -- I think Peter Strozk (sic) Mr. Super Agent at the FBI, I think he's the guy who took the application
to the FISA court and if that happened, if this happened , if you have the FBI working with a campaign, the Democrats' campaign,
taking opposition research, dressing it all up and turning it into an intelligence document so they can take it to the FISA court
so they can spy on the other campaign, if that happened, that is as wrong as it gets
Peter Strzok is the senior FBI official who is now known to have had a leading role in both the FBI's investigation of Hillary
Clinton's misuse of her private server and in the Russiagate investigation.
Strzok is now also known to have been the person who changed the wording in Comey's statement clearing Hillary Clinton for her
misuse of her private email server to say that Hillary Clinton had been "extremely careless'" as opposed to "grossly negligent".
Strzok – who was the FBI's deputy director for counter-intelligence – is now also known to have been the person who signed the
document which launched the Russiagate investigation in July 2016.
Fox News has
reported that Strzok was also the person who supervised the FBI's questioning of Michael Flynn. It is not clear whether this
covers the FBI's interview with Flynn on 24th January 2017 during which Flynn lied to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian
ambassador. However it is likely that it does.
If so then this is potentially important given that it was Flynn's lying to the FBI during this interview which made up the case
against him and to which he has now pleaded guilty. It is potentially even more important given the strong indications that Flynn's
interview with the FBI on 24th January 2017 was
a set-up intended
to entrap him by tricking him into lying to the FBI.
As the FBI's deputy director of counter-intelligence it is also highly likely that it was Strozk who was the official within the
FBI who supervised the FBI's contacts with Christopher Steele, and who would have been the official within the FBI who was provided
by Steele with the Trump Dossier and who would have made the first assessment of the Trump Dossier.
Recently it has been disclosed that Special Counsel Mueller sacked Strzok from the Russiagate investigation supposedly after it
was discovered that Strzok had been sending anti-Trump and pro-Hillary Clinton messages to Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer with whom he
was having an affair.
These messages were sent by Strzok to his lover during the election, but apparently only came to light in July this year, when
Mueller supposedly sacked Strzok because of them.
It seems that since then Strzok has been working in the FBI's human resources department, an astonishing demotion for the FBI's
former deputy director for counter-intelligence who was apparently previously considered the FBI's top expert on Russia.
Some people have questioned whether the sending of the messages could possibly be the true reason why Strzok was sacked. My colleague
Alex Christoforou has
reported on some
of the bafflement that this extraordinary sacking and demotion has caused.
Business Insider reports the anguished comments of former FBI officials incredulous that Strzok could have been sacked for such
a trivial reason. Here is what Business Insider
reports
one ex FBI official Mark Rossini as having said
It would be literally impossible for one human being to have the power to change or manipulate evidence or intelligence according
to their own political preferences. FBI agents, like anyone else, are human beings. We are allowed to have our political beliefs.
If anything, the overwhelming majority of agents are conservative Republicans.
This is obviously right. Though the ex-FBI officials questioned by Business Insider are clearly supporters of Strzok and critics
of Donald Trump,
the same point has been made from the other side of the political divide by Congressman Jim Jordan
If you get kicked off the Mueller team for being anti-Trump, there wouldn't be anybody left on the Mueller team. There has
to be more
Adding to the mystery about Strzok's sacking is why the FBI took five months to confirm it.
Mueller apparently sacked Strzok from the Russiagate investigation in July and it was apparently then that Strzok was simultaneously
sacked from his previous post of deputy director for counter-espionage and transferred to human resources. The FBI has however only
disclosed his sacking now, five months later and only in response to demands for information from Congressional investigators.
There is in fact an obvious explanation for Strzok's sacking and the strange circumstances surrounding it, and I am sure that
it is the one which Congressman Jordan had in mind during his angry exchanges with FBI Director Christopher Wray.
I suspect that Congressman Jordan believes that the true reason why Strzok was sacked is that Strzok's credibility had become
so tied to the Trump Dossier that when its credibility collapsed over the course of the summer when the FBI finally realised that
it could not be verified his credibility collapsed with it.
If so then I am sure that Congressman Jordan is right.
We now know from a variety of sources but first and foremost from the
testimony to Congress of Carter Page
that the Trump Dossier provided the frame narrative for the Russiagate investigation until just a few months ago.
We also know that the Trump Dossier was included in an appendix to the January ODNI report about supposed Russian meddling in
the 2016 election which was shown by the US intelligence chiefs to President elect Trump during their stormy meeting with him on
8th January 2017.
The fact that the Trump Dossier was included in an appendix to the January ODNI report shows that at the start of this year the
top officials of the FBI and of the US intelligence community – Comey, Clapper, Brennan and the rest – believed in its truth.
The June 2017 article in the Washington Post (discussed by me
here ) also all but confirms that it was
the Trump Dossier that provided the information which the CIA sent to President Obama in August 2016 which supposedly 'proved' that
the Russians were interfering in the election.
As the BBC has pointed out , it was also the
Trump Dossier which Congressman Adam Schiff – the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Community, who appears to be very close
to some of the FBI investigators involved in the Russiagate case – as well as the FBI's Russiagate investigators were using as the
narrative frame when questioning witnesses about their supposed role in Russiagate.
These facts make it highly likely that it was indeed the Trump Dossier which provided the information which the FBI used to obtain
all the surveillance warrants the FBI obtained from the FISA court during the 2016 election and afterwards.
Strzok's position as the FBI's deputy director for counter-intelligence makes it highly likely that he was the key official within
the FBI who decided that the Trump Dossier should be given credence, whilst his known actions during the Hillary Clinton private
server investigation and during the Russiagate investigation make it highly likely that it was he who was the official within the
FBI who sought and obtained the FISA warrants.
Given Strzok's central role in the Russiagate investigation going back all the way to its start in July 2016, there also has to
be a possibility that it was Strzok who was behind many of the leaks coming from the investigation which so destabilised the Trump
administration at the start of the year.
This once again points to the true scandal of the 2016 election.
On the strength of a fake Dossier paid for by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign the Justice Department, the FBI and the
US intelligence community carried out surveillance during the election of US citizens who were members of the campaign team of Hillary
Clinton's opponent Donald Trump.
Given the hugely embarrassing implications of this for the FBI, it is completely understandable why Strzok, if he was the person
who was ultimately responsible for this debacle – as he very likely was – and if he was responsible for some of the leaks – as he
very likely also was – was sacked and exiled to human resources when it was finally concluded that the Trump Dossier upon which all
the FBI's actions were based could not be verified.
It would also explain why the FBI sought to keep Strzok's sacking secret, so that it was only disclosed five months after it happened
and then only in response to questions from Congressional investigators, with a cover story about inappropriate anti-Trump messages
being spread about in order to explain it.
This surely is also the reason why in defiance both of evidence and logic the Russiagate investigation continues.
Given the debacle the Justice Department, the FBI and the US intelligence community are facing, it is completely understandable
why they should want to keep the Russiagate investigation alive in order to draw attention away from their own activities.
Put in this way it is Robert Mueller's investigation which is the cover-up, and the surveillance which is the wrongdoing that
the cover up is trying to excuse or conceal, which is what
I said nine months ago in March .
When the suggestion of appointing a second Special Counsel was first floated last month the suggestion was that the focus of the
second Special Counsel's investigation would be the Uranium One affair.
That always struck me as misconceived not because there may not be things to investigate in the Uranium One case but because the
focus of any new investigation should be what happened during the 2016 election, not what happened during the Uranium one case.
Congressman Jordan has now correctly identified the surveillance of US citizens by the US national security bureaucracy during
the election as the primary focus of the proposed investigation to be conducted by the second Special Counsel.
In truth there should be no second Special Counsel. Since there is no Russiagate collusion to investigate the Russiagate investigation
– ie. the investigation headed by Mueller – should be wound up.
There should be only one Special Counsel tasked with looking into what is the real scandal of the 2016 election: the surveillance
of US citizens carried out during the election by the US national security bureaucracy on the basis of the Trump Dossier.
I remain intensely skeptical that this will happen. However the fact that some members of Congress such as Congressman Nunes (recently
cleared of charges that he acted inappropriately by disclosing details of the surveillance back in March) and Congressman Jordan
are starting to demand it is a hopeful sign.
Top Clinton Aides Face No Charges After Making False Statements To FBI
Neither of the Clinton associates, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, faced legal consequences for their misleading statements,
which they made in interviews last year with former FBI section chief Peter Strzok.
These are acts to overthrow the legitimate government of the USA and therefore constitute treason. Treason is still punishable
by death. It is time for some public hangings. Trump should declare martial law. Put Patraeus and Flint in charge and drain the
swamp like he promised...
Absolutely. This is not political, about justice or corruption or election coercion, this is about keeping the fires lit under
Trump, no matter how lame or lying, in the hopes that something, anything, will arise that could be used to unseat Trump. Something
that by itself would be controversial but ultimately a nothing-burger, but piled upon the months and years of lies used to build
a false consensus of corruption, criminality and impropriety of Trump. Their goal has always been to undermine Trump by convincing
the world that Trump is evil and unfit using nothing but lies, that without Trump's endless twitter counters would have buried
him by now. While they know that can't convince a significant majority that these lies are true, what they can do is convince
the majority that everyone else thinks it true, thereby in theory enabling them to unseat Trump with minimal resistance, assuming
many will simply stand down in the face of a PERCEIVED overwhelming majority.
This is about constructing a false premise that they can use minimal FACTS to confirm. They are trying and testing every day
this notion with continuing probes and jabs in hopes that something....anything, sticks.
Mueller is a lot of things, but he is a politician, and skilled at that, as he has survived years in Washington.
So why choose KNOWN partisans for your investigation? He may not have known about Strzok, but he surely knew about Weitsmann's
ties to HRC, about Rhee being Rhodes personal attorney,..so why put them on, knowing that the investigations credibility would
be damaged? No way most of this would not come out, just due to the constant leaks from the FBI/DOJ.
What is the real goal, other than taking Trump down and covering up FBI/DOJ/Obama Admin malfeasance? These goons are all highly
experienced swamp dwellers, so I think there is something that is being missed here..
" The fact that the Trump Dossier was included in an appendix to the January ODNI report shows that at the start of this year
the top officials of the FBI and of the US intelligence community – Comey, Clapper, Brennan and the rest – believed in its truth.
"
Oh, bull crap. None of them believed a word of it, and at least some of them were in on the dossier's creation.
They just wanted to put over their impeach/resist/remove scam on us deplorables so they could hang on to power and maintain
secrecy over all their years of criminal activity.
The FBI is a fraud on the sheeple. Indoctrinated sheeple believe FBI testimony. The M.O. of the FBI is entrapment of victims
and entrapped witnesses against victims using their Form 302 interrogations. The FBI uses forensic evidence from which gullible
juries trust the FBI financed reports. Power corrupts. The power to be believed because of indoctrination corrupts absolutely.
Keep your powder dry. Hold your fire until you see the whites of their eyes.
All this crap comes down to ONE THING: Sessions ... why he refuses to fire a mega-conflicted and corrupt POS Mueller...
Investigative reporter Sarah Carter hinted (last Friday?) that something big would be happening "probably within the next forty-eight
hours". She related this specifically to a comment that Sessions had been virtually invisible.
I will make a prediction:
THE COMING WEEK WILL BE A TUMULTUOUS WEEK FOR THOSE OBSESSED BY THE "RUSSIA COLLUSION CONSPIRACY" .
First, Sessions will announce significant findings and actions which will directly attack the Trump-Russia-Collusion narrative.
And then, the Democrats/Media/Hillary Campaign will launch a hystierical, viscious, demented political counter attack in a
final onslaught to take down Trump.
They played Sessions like a violin. Sessions recluses himself for a bullcrap Kisnyak speech, where he did not even meet him.
Rosenstein then recommends Trump fire Comey -- who wanted to be fired so they would appoint a special prosecutor -- which Rosenstein
does -- Mueller, to the acclamation of ALL of Con and the Senate-including Republicans.
When Trump tries to get out of the trap by leaking he is thinking about firing Sessions, Lispin Lindsey goes on television
to say that will not be allowed too happen. If he fires Sessions, Congress would not approve ANY of Trump's picks for DOJ-leaving
Rosenstein in charge anyway.
Trump was pissed because they removed his only defender from Mueller -- the head of the DOJ. He knew
it was a setup, so went ballistic when he found out about Sessions recusing.
There is good reason for optimism: Trumpus Maximus is on the case.
I remain intensely skeptical that this will happen. However the fact that some members of Congress such as Congressman Nunes
(recently cleared of charges that he acted inappropriately by disclosing details of the surveillance back in March) and Congressman
Jordan are starting to demand it is a hopeful sign.
The design has been exposed. It is now fairly clear WHAT the conspirators did.
We now enter the neutralization and mop-up phase.
And, very likely, people who know things will be EAGER to talk:
FBI agents, like anyone else, are human beings. We are allowed to have our political beliefs. If anything, the overwhelming
majority of agents are conservative Republicans.
Bloomberg fed a fake leak that Mueller had subpoenaed records from Deutsche Bank. Democrats (Schiff) on the House Intelligence Committee fed fake information about Don Jr. that was leaked to CNN. Leading to
an embarrassing retraction. ABC's Brian Ross fed a fake leak about the Flynn indictment. Leading to an embarrassing retraction.
Maybe the operation that Sessions set up some time ago to catch leakers is bearing fruit after all. And Mueller should realize
that the ice is breaking up all around him.
once this special prosecutor is done, congress needs to rewrite the special prosecutor law to narrow their mandate to just
the item allowed to be investigated - no fishing expeditions - enough of this stupidity - and maybe put a renewal clause in there
so that it has to be renewed every 12 months...
This is, and always has been a sideshow for the "true believers" in the Democrap party and all Hitlary supporters to accuse
Trump of EXACTLY what Hitlary did, in the classic method of diversion. Sideshow magicians have been doing it for millenia--"Look
over there" while the real work is done elsewhere. The true believers don't want to believe that Hitlary and the Democrap party
are complicit in the selling of Uranium One to the Ruskies for $145 million. No, no, that was something completely different and
Hitlary is not guilty of selling out the interests of the US for money. Nope, Trump colluded with the Russians to win the election.
Yep, that's it.
Mueller is now the official head of a shit show that's coming apart at the seams. He was too stupid to even bring on ANY non-Hitlary
supporting leftists which could have given him a smidgen of equibility, instead he stacked the deck with sycophant libtard leftists
who by their very nature take away ANY concept of impartiality, and any jury on the planet would see through the connivance like
glass. My guess is he's far too stupid to stop, and I happily await the carnage of his actions as they decimate the Democrap party.
"... FBI Director Christopher Wray has declined to tell the House Judiciary Committee if he was prohibited from sharing documents that would show whether the notorious Steele dossier was used to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign. ..."
FBI Director Christopher Wray has declined to tell the House Judiciary Committee if he was prohibited from sharing documents that
would show whether the notorious Steele dossier was used to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign.
What exactly MI6 put in Steele dossier is true and what is lie is unclear. What is clear that
Steele himself cant; collect information of this type and at this level. He is just a low level
intelligence patsy. Even to invent all this staff he definitely relied on his MI6 source(s) which
may have a specific agenda and might be guided form Washington. Brennan was a well known Hillary
sympathizer has had huge influence on Obama and definitely capable of playing dirty tricks with
Trump. What is interesting that in FBI the dossier was handled by counterintelligence official who by
his job description should have very close contacts with CIA
The revelation came one day after the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Richard
Burr, told reporters that the committee had been working "backwards" to examine the memos as
part of its separate but parallel investigation into Russia's election meddling.
The memos were compiled into a dossier by veteran British spy Christopher Steele, who was
hired by a Washington, DC-based opposition research firm in June 2016 to investigate the Trump
campaign's ties to Russia. The firm, Fusion GPS, was first hired by unspecified anti-Trump
Republicans in late 2015. Democrats took over funding for the firm's work after Trump won the
GOP nomination.
all talk and smoking guns. never one question answered. If we were on that stand we would
have to answer not mumble and use legal jargon. sick of the whole mess.
What is your take on this fellow Peter P. Strzok II? His back history is purportedly
Georgetown, Army Intelligence (his father PP Strzok I is Army Corp of Engineers), and was
until recently deputy director of counterintelligence at FBI with focus on Russia and China.
He is the fellow who altered Comey's draft to read "extremely careless" instead of "grossly
negligent", he interviewed HRC, Mills, Abedin (and gave the latter two immunity); he pushed
for the continued payment of Steele in the amount of $50,000 for further Dossier research in
the face of some resistance (cf James Rosen); he also interviewed Flynn, and for most of the
first half of 2017 and for all of 2016 appears to have been the most important and
influential agent working on the HRC-Trump-Russia nexus. James Rosen suggests he has CIA
connections as well. The dude has also no internet presence. There is not much information
out there on a person who seems to be pretty influential in DC / FBI / Foreign Intel circles.
He screwed up, and a lawyer, sent texts, and now is gone. Does he strike you as fishy at all,
or is this kind of stuff pretty common for people in his field and position.
Just one day after Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I.in the Russia
investigation, reports have surfaced accusing a veteran investigator in the special probe of
sending disparaging text messages regarding President Donald Trump. The investigator was
removed from the probe a few month ..... #5FastFacts#News#BreakingNews
That damn Comey is the biggest liar and most corrupt person in the Hillary email
investigation. Actually there was no investigation, because he had already determined how she
had done nothing wrong. Pathetic. Also Mueller has set up his group of lawyers, who have all
been connected to contributing to Hillary Clinton's campaign. The damn democrats will do
anything to try to find something corrupt about President Trump. All they need to do is look
in the mirror, if they are looking for corrupt.
Obviously Rosenstein didn't think the DoJ could do the job since he scrambled to appoint a
special counsel at the first opportunity after Comey leaked the memo. Trey Gowdy is one of
the most honest Congressmen in the HoR but he's seemingly a little naive at times. He wants
to believe the best about his colleagues and friends. The facts have to be in his face before
he sees the truth. He's only now beginning to see the light about Mueller, I think.
the f.b.i. just like the i.r.s. the e.p.a. , homeland security and many more govt.
organisations that at one time worked for the very citizens that pay them but now they are
all politicized , even weaponized to be used as a tool against one's political rivals ,
thanks Obummer !! who did not start or do this all on his own but did carry the ball down the
road further than any other before him
FBI your garbage thanks to the Clinton's. I hope to live for 30 more years and your shit
to me. Now I understand why we need rights to guns . To fight you criminals in my government.
I hate liberals but I know some conservatives are just as nasty . McCain is my top choice for
Hillary bent .
I don't think there is an impartial person in the entire world... And I mean that
literally... Everyone from England to Australia to Japan to South Africa is as passionate
about this Trump issue as anyone here in the US.
If Casey and Muller are an example of NO FINER INSTITUTION AND NO FINER PEOPLE THAN THE
FBI..." REALLY? so why are all the PROBER'S HILLARY DONATORS? -----> Wray is a deep state
criminal just like Comey and Mueller
The FBI agent fired by Mueller for sending Anti-Trump text messages was IN charge of the
Russia probe and even asked Micheal Flynn questions. So could it be that this was all a set up
against Trump? More secrets keep unravelling in the Mueller probe, and we'll keep updating you
on this story.
Seeker, Mr. Strzok needs to have a prolonged interrogation done on him , until the lasi
little tidbit of his machinations are wrung out of him until it is a sure bet that he has
nothing left to give up. Stzrok has good friends who invented sure fire techniques that have
guaranteed results. A Thousand Cuts comes to mind ! ! ! Of course that can not happen so let
Hillary in on the scuttlebut that Stzrok is going to rat out everbody in order to save His
behind. In no time flat Mr Stzrok will throw a JIMMY HOFFA ! ! ! ! ! That Hairy , Bull Dagger
, Pussy Hat Wearin , P U S S Y P O S S E of Hillary's is Ruthless ! ! ! ! ! Thank You Seeker
jeebs out
Enjoyed you explanation of neocons. I realized, some years back, we need to change the
Department of Defense to the Department of Offense. I suppose we could rename Homeland
Security to Dept. of Defense, but they are actuating an offensive war on us and our freedoms.
Maybe stop poking our noses in other peoples business and we could eliminate both
departments. So ... what do we call a conservative that is hawkish on Peace? A normal, well
balanced, human being? Haven't seen one of those hanging out around our capitol in a
while.
"... The task will be exceedingly complex, given Strzok's consequential portfolio. He participated in the FBI's fateful interview with Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016 – just days before then-FBI Director James Comey announced he was declining to recommend prosecution of Mrs. Clinton in connection with her use, as secretary of state, of a private email server. ..."
"... As deputy FBI director for counterintelligence, Strzok also enjoyed liaison with various agencies in the intelligence community, including the CIA, then led by Director John Brennan. ..."
"... The Justice Department maintained that the decision to clear Strzok for House interrogation had occurred a few hours prior to the appearance of the Times and Post stories. ..."
"... In addition, Rosenstein is set to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on Dec. 13. ..."
"... A top House investigator asked: "If Mueller knew about the texts, what did he know about the dossier?" ..."
"... Carr declined to comment on the extent to which Mueller has examined the dossier and its relationship, if any, to the counterintelligence investigation that Strzok launched during the height of the campaign season. ..."
EXCLUSIVE – Two senior Justice Department officials have confirmed to Fox News that
the department's Office of Inspector General is reviewing the role played in the Hillary
Clinton email investigation by Peter Stzrok, a former deputy director for counterintelligence
at the FBI who was removed from the staff of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III earlier this
year, after Mueller learned that Strzok had exchanged anti-Trump texts with a colleague.
A source close to the matter said the OIG probe, which will examine Strzok's roles in a
number of other politically sensitive cases, should be completed by "very early next year."
The task will be exceedingly complex, given Strzok's consequential portfolio. He
participated in the FBI's fateful interview with Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016 – just
days before then-FBI Director James Comey announced he was declining to recommend prosecution
of Mrs. Clinton in connection with her use, as secretary of state, of a private email
server.
As deputy FBI director for counterintelligence, Strzok also enjoyed liaison with various
agencies in the intelligence community, including the CIA, then led by Director John
Brennan.
House investigators told Fox News they have long regarded Stzrok as a key figure in the
chain of events when the bureau, in 2016, received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" and
launched a counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling in the election that
ultimately came to encompass FISA surveillance of a Trump campaign associate.
The "dossier" was a compendium of salacious and largely unverified allegations about
then-candidate Trump and others around him that was compiled by the opposition research firm
Fusion GPS. The firm's bank records, obtained by House investigators, revealed that the project
was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, D-Calif., has sought documents and
witnesses from the Department of Justice and FBI to determine what role, if any, the dossier
played in the move to place a Trump campaign associate under foreign surveillance.
Strzok himself briefed the committee on Dec. 5, 2016, the sources said, but within months of
that session House Intelligence Committee investigators were contacted by an informant
suggesting that there was "documentary evidence" that Strzok was purportedly obstructing the
House probe into the dossier.
In early October, Nunes personally asked Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein – who
has overseen the Trump-Russia probe since the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions –
to make Strzok available to the committee for questioning, sources said.
While Strzok's removal from the Mueller team had been publicly reported in August, the
Justice Department never disclosed the anti-Trump texts to the House investigators. The denial
of access to Strzok was instead predicated, sources said, on broad "personnel" grounds.
When a month had elapsed, House investigators – having issued three subpoenas for
various witnesses and documents – formally recommended to Nunes that DOJ and FBI be held
in contempt of Congress. Nunes continued pressing DOJ, including a conversation with Rosenstein
as recently as last Wednesday.
That turned out to be 12 days after DOJ and FBI had made Strzok available to the Senate
Intelligence Committee, which is conducting its own parallel investigation into the allegations
of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.
Contempt citations?
Responding to the revelations about Strzok's texts on Saturday, Nunes said he has now
directed his staff to draft contempt-of-Congress citations against Rosenstein and the new FBI
director, Christopher Wray. Unless DOJ and FBI comply with all os his outstanding requests for
documents and witnesses by the close of business on Monday, Nunes said, he would seek a
resolution on the contempt citations before year's end.
"We now know why Strzok was dismissed, why the FBI and DOJ refused to provide us this
explanation, and at least one reason why they previously refused to make [FBI] Deputy Director
[Andrew] McCabe available to the Committee for an interview," Nunes said in a statement.
Early Saturday afternoon, after Strzok's texts were cited in published reports by the New
York Times and the Washington Post – and Fox News had followed up with inquiries about
the department's refusal to make Strzok available to House investigators – the Justice
Department contacted the office of House Speaker Paul Ryan to establish a date for Strzok's
appearance before House Intelligence Committee staff, along with two other witnesses long
sought by the Nunes team.
Those witnesses are FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and the FBI officer said to have
handled Christopher Steele, the British spy who used Russian sources to compile the dossier for
Fusion GPS. The official said to be Steele's FBI handler has also appeared already before the
Senate panel.
The Justice Department maintained that the decision to clear Strzok for House
interrogation had occurred a few hours prior to the appearance of the Times and Post
stories.
In addition, Rosenstein is set to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on Dec.
13.
The Justice Department maintains that it has been very responsive to the House intel panel's
demands, including private briefings for panel staff by senior DOJ and FBI personnel and the
production of several hundred pages of classified materials available in a secure reading room
at DOJ headquarters on Oct. 31.
Sources said Speaker Ryan has worked quietly behind the scenes to try to resolve the clash
over dossier-related evidence and witnesses between the House intel panel on the one hand and
DOJ and FBI on the other. In October, however, the speaker took the unusual step of saying
publicly that the two agencies were "stonewalling" Congress.
All parties agree that some records being sought by the Nunes team belong to categories of
documents that have historically never been shared with the committees that conduct oversight
of the intelligence community.
Federal officials told Fox News the requested records include "highly sensitive raw
intelligence," so sensitive that officials from foreign governments have emphasized to the U.S.
the "potential danger and chilling effect" it could place on foreign intelligence sources.
Justice Department officials noted that Nunes did not appear for a document-review session
that his committee's ranking Democrat, U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., attended, and once
rejected a briefing by an FBI official if the panel's Democratic members were permitted to
attend.
Sources close to the various investigations agreed the discovery of Strzok's texts raised
important questions about his work on the Clinton email case, the Trump-Russia probe, and the
dossier matter.
"That's why the IG is looking into all of those things," a Justice Department official told
Fox News on Saturday.
A top House investigator asked: "If Mueller knew about the texts, what did he know about
the dossier?"
Peter Carr, a spokesman for the special counsel, said: "Immediately upon learning of the
allegations, the Special Counsel's Office removed Peter Strzok from the investigation."
Carr declined to comment on the extent to which Mueller has examined the dossier and its
relationship, if any, to the counterintelligence investigation that Strzok launched during the
height of the campaign season.
The "Bull Dog" of the House has a grave warning for Robert Mueller.
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), known for his tough "prosecutor" persona, sits on the House
Intelligence Committee. The Committee on Saturday
threatened to hold the FBI and Department of Justice in contempt of Congress for
withholding information related to the removal of FBI agent Peter Strzok from Robert Mueller's
Russia investigation.
Rep. Gowdy told Fox News that the Special Counsel faces "integrity" problems after the
revelation that Strzok's removal was due to exchanging anti-Trump text messages with FBI lawyer
Lisa Page–with whom Strzok was having an extramarital affair.
"We met with the
department of justice and they have to go through the texts," Gowdy said.
He then explained the Intelligence Committee's interest in the Strzok text messages.
"We are not entitled to them, nor do we have an interest in purely personal texts. We are
very interested in both anti-Trump and/or pro-Clinton texts . Because, as he made reference
to, he was a very important agent in her investigation, also in the ongoing Russian related
investigation, perhaps the decision for Comey to change the wording in a statement."
Gowdy's remark about "wording in a statement" referred to reports that Strzok
encouraged former FBI director James Comey to describe Hillary Clinton's private email
server actions as "extremely careless" rather than "grossly negligent." The latter term carries
legal weight with potential criminal penalties while the former does not.
Gowdy continued: "He is super important and people have a right to know whether agents are
biased one way or another. The department is going to go through the texts been going to make
them available to us as soon as they can." Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum then asked Gowdy if
he still has confidence in the Mueller probe, to which the South Carolina lawmaker replied.
"I do, but I got to confess to you, and I understand people who think I'm wrong. I got an
email last night from a friend back home saying, 'Look, Gowdy, let go of the prosecutor
stuff.' I still think that Mueller can produce a product that we all have confidence in, but
things like this, make it really difficult -- the perception is, is every bit as important as
the reality, and if the perception is, you're employing people who are biased, it makes us
really difficult for those of us that would like to defend the integrity of former
prosecutors."
Gowdy's comments echo the sentiments of many Americans, who question the integrity of agents
that have investigated two presidential campaigns, but apparently favor one over the other.
"... The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, removed a top F.B.I. agent from his investigation into Russian election meddling after the Justice Department's inspector general began examining whether the agent had sent text messages that expressed anti-Trump political views, according to three people briefed on the matter. The agent, Peter Strzok, is considered one of the most experienced and trusted F.B.I. counterintelligence investigators. He helped lead the investigation into whether Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information on her private email account, and then played a major role in the investigation into links between President Trump's campaign and Russia. ..."
"... Two senior Justice Department officials have confirmed to Fox News that the department's Office of Inspector General is reviewing the role played in the Hillary Clinton email investigation by Peter Stzrok, a former deputy director for counterintelligence at the FBI who was removed from the staff of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III earlier this year, after Mueller learned that Strzok had exchanged anti-Trump texts with a colleague. ..."
"... House investigators told Fox News they have long regarded Strzok as a key figure in the chain of events when the bureau, in 2016, received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" and launched a counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling in the election that ultimately came to encompass FISA surveillance of a Trump campaign associate. ..."
"... The "dossier" was a compendium of salacious and largely unverified allegations about then-candidate Trump and others around him that was compiled by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS. The firm's bank records, obtained by House investigators, revealed that the project was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. [ ] ..."
"... Strzok himself briefed the committee on Dec. 5, 2016, the sources said, but within months of that session House Intelligence Committee investigators were contacted by an informant suggesting that there was "documentary evidence" that Strzok was purportedly obstructing the House probe into the dossier. ..."
"... Fox News' James Rosen also reveals Strzok played a key role in agreeing to pay ex-MI6 agent Christopher Steele $50,000 to find evidence to further support the dossier's explosive claims. FBI officials were uncomfortable with the validity of Steele's findings, yet they moved forward with FISA surveillance anyways. ..."
Joshua Caplan – In yet another blow to Mueller's investigation
into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, the special counsel was
forced to fire a top FBI agent after possible anti-Trump text messages were discovered.
The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, removed a top F.B.I. agent from his
investigation into Russian election meddling after the Justice Department's inspector general
began examining whether the agent had sent text messages that expressed anti-Trump political
views, according to three people briefed on the matter. The agent, Peter Strzok, is considered
one of the most experienced and trusted F.B.I. counterintelligence investigators. He helped
lead the investigation into whether Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information on her
private email account, and then played a major role in the investigation into links between
President Trump's campaign and Russia.
In August, ABC News reported that Strzok quit Team Mueller for unknown reasons. "It's
unclear why Strzok stepped away from Mueller's team of nearly two dozen lawyers, investigators
and administrative staff. Strzok, who has spent much of his law enforcement career working
counterintelligence cases and has been unanimously praised by government officials who spoke
with ABC News, is now working for the FBI's human resources division," reported Mike
Levine.
Late Saturday night, we learn the Department of Justice has launched a review of Peter
Stzrok's role in the Hillary Clinton email investigation.
Two senior Justice Department officials have confirmed to Fox News that the department's
Office of Inspector General is reviewing the role played in the Hillary Clinton email
investigation by Peter Stzrok, a former deputy director for counterintelligence at the FBI who
was removed from the staff of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III earlier this year, after
Mueller learned that Strzok had exchanged anti-Trump texts with a colleague.
Reacting to Strzok's 'anti-Trump,' texts, House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes
(R-CA)
said , "We now know why Strzok was dismissed, why the FBI and DOJ refused to provide us
this explanation, and at least one reason why they previously refused to make [FBI] Deputy
Director [Andrew] McCabe available to the Committee for an interview."
Strzok played a key role in analyzing the infamous 'Trump dossier,' supplied by shady
research firm Fusion GPS. The now disgraced FBI agent used disproven elements of the dossier to
spy on members of the Trump campaign.
House investigators told Fox News they have long regarded Strzok as a key figure in the
chain of events when the bureau, in 2016, received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" and
launched a counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling in the election that
ultimately came to encompass FISA surveillance of a Trump campaign associate.
The "dossier" was a compendium of salacious and largely unverified allegations about
then-candidate Trump and others around him that was compiled by the opposition research firm
Fusion GPS. The firm's bank records, obtained by House investigators, revealed that the project
was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. [ ] Strzok himself briefed the committee on Dec. 5, 2016, the sources said, but within months
of that session House Intelligence Committee investigators were contacted by an informant
suggesting that there was "documentary evidence" that Strzok was purportedly obstructing the
House probe into the dossier.
Fox News' James Rosen also reveals Strzok played a key role in agreeing to pay ex-MI6
agent Christopher Steele $50,000 to find evidence to further support the dossier's explosive
claims. FBI officials were uncomfortable with the validity of Steele's findings, yet they moved
forward with FISA surveillance anyways.
Peter Strzok Carried On An Affair With Andrew McCabe's Lawyer, Lisa Page, While Plotting The
Downfall Of President Donald Trump (Lisa Page Seen Walking Behind McCabe.) Andrew McCabe Is The
Acting FBI Director Who Said "First We F*ck Flynn, Then We F*ck Trump."
The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, removed a top F.B.I. agent from his
investigation into Russian election meddling after the Justice Department's inspector general
began examining whether the agent had sent text messages that expressed anti-Trump political
views, according to three people briefed on the matter. The agent, Peter Strzok, is considered
one of the most experienced and trusted F.B.I. counterintelligence investigators. He helped
lead the investigation into whether Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information on her
private email account, and then played a major role in the investigation into links between
President Trump's campaign and Russia. But Mr. Strzok was reassigned this summer from Mr.
Mueller's investigation to the F.B.I.'s human resources department, where he has been stationed
since. The people briefed on the case said the transfer followed the discovery of text messages
in which Mr. Strzok and a colleague reacted to news events, like presidential debates, in ways
that could appear critical of Mr. Trump.
In a statement to the New York Times, Strzok lawyer said"we are aware of the allegation and
are taking any and all appropriate steps."
In August, ABC News reported that Strzok quit
Team Mueller for unknown reasons. "It's unclear why Strzok stepped away from Mueller's team of
nearly two dozen lawyers, investigators and administrative staff. Strzok, who has spent much of
his law enforcement career working counterintelligence cases and has been unanimously praised
by government officials who spoke with ABC News, is now working for the FBI's human resources
division," reported Mike Levine.
Now this
After new details emerged about Strzok's firing, the Washington Post revealed the Justice Department
launched an investigation into "communications between certain individuals." Details of the
mystery probe will be revealed "promptly upon completion of the review of them,' said the
Justice Department. Late Saturday night, we learn the Department of Justice has launched a
review of Peter Stzrok's role in the Hillary Clinton email investigation.
Two senior Justice Department officials have confirmed to Fox News that the department's
Office of Inspector General is reviewing the role played in the Hillary Clinton email
investigation by Peter Stzrok, a former deputy director for counterintelligence at the FBI
who was removed from the staff of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III earlier this year,
after Mueller learned that Strzok had exchanged anti-Trump texts with a colleague.
A source close to the matter said the OIG probe, which will examine Strzok's roles in a
number of other politically sensitive cases, should be completed by "very early next year." [
] He participated in the FBI's fateful interview with Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016 –
just days before then-FBI Director James Comey announced he was declining to recommend
prosecution of Mrs. Clinton in connection with her use, as secretary of state, of a private
email server.
Reacting to Strzok's 'anti-Trump,' texts, House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes
(R-CA)
said , "We now know why Strzok was dismissed, why the FBI and DOJ refused to provide us
this explanation, and at least one reason why they previously refused to make [FBI] Deputy
Director [Andrew] McCabe available to the Committee for an interview."
This is huge. Read the thread below for the complete context. Peter Strzok was knee deep
in the entire mess!
Hillary investigation, Hillary interview. Cheryl Mills interview and immunity deal. Weiner's
laptop. Trump Dossier, and Russian collusion. All of these investigations are totally
compromised.
https://www.citizenfreepres...
All they did was their best to destroy evidence, bury evidence and deflect any kind of
real investigation of Hilabeast and team....and everybody knows it on the Hill.
So what are you waiting for asleep at the wheel Sessionns.... ? and any other decent
politician.....well....yeah, obviously those don't exist.....
This is crazy how much more corrupt can this get WTF is Session & Wray doing. Then
Mueller puts this guy on his team, as the Lead FBI , as if he didn't know he was a
compromised dirtbag.
Like how Mueller hide it from everyone for 3 months why he was demoted, and they want to
pretend they the honest brokers just looking for the truth and facts/s
Dirty cop Mueller and his team sycophants trying take down the President United States on
some trumped up bull, turn this country into joke and do irreparable damage.
While he did nothing scratch his old balls while Hil & Obama sold out to the
Russians.
"'Review of' FBI Official's Role in Clinton Email Investigation"
Huh? The the entire thing "investigation" is and has been, from Day 1, nothing more than a no
holds barred attack on not only the legally elected POTUS DJT, but equally against his
supporters.
His alleged crime is a series of text messages criticizing Trump.
Mueller removed Strzok from his team , but that is not enough for Trump's supporters, who are seizing on Strzok's role as a pretext
to discredit and remove Mueller, too.
Notable quotes:
"... The newest pseudo-scandal fixates on the role of Peter Strzok, an FBI official who helped tweak the language Comey employed in his statement condemning Clinton's email carelessness and has also worked for Mueller. ..."
"... His alleged crime is a series of text messages criticizing Trump. Mueller removed Strzok from his team , but that is not enough for Trump's supporters, who are seizing on Strzok's role as a pretext to discredit and remove Mueller, too. ..."
"... When Mueller was appointed, legal scholars debated whether Trump had the technical authority to fire him, but even the majority who believed he did assumed such a power existed only in theory. Republicans in Congress, everyone believed, would never sit still for such a blatant cover-up ..."
"... In fact, the risk has swelled. Trump has publicly declared any investigation into his finances would constitute a red line, and that he reserves the option to fire Mueller if he investigates them. Earlier this month, it was reported that Mueller has subpoenaed records at Deutsche Bank , an institution favored both by Trump and the Russian spy network. ..."
The newest pseudo-scandal fixates on the role of Peter Strzok, an FBI official who helped tweak the language Comey employed in
his statement condemning Clinton's email carelessness and has also worked for Mueller.
His alleged crime is a series of text messages criticizing Trump.
Mueller removed Strzok from his team , but that is not enough for Trump's supporters, who are seizing on Strzok's role as a pretext
to discredit and remove Mueller, too.
The notion that a law-enforcement official should be disqualified for privately expressing partisan views is a novel one, and
certainly did not trouble Republicans last year, when Rudy Giuliani was boasting on television about his network of friendly agents.
Yet in the conservative media, Mueller and Comey have assumed fiendish personae of almost Clintonian proportions.
When Mueller was appointed, legal scholars debated whether Trump had the technical authority to fire him, but even the majority
who believed he did assumed such a power existed only in theory. Republicans in Congress, everyone believed, would never sit still
for such a blatant cover-up .
Josh Blackman, a conservative lawyer, argued that Trump could remove the special counsel, but "make no mistake: Mueller's firing
would likely accelerate the end of the Trump administration." Texas representative Mike McCaul declared in July, "If he fired Bob
Mueller, I think you'd see a tremendous backlash, response from both Democrats but also House Republicans." Such a rash move "could
be the beginning of the end of the Trump presidency," Senator Lindsey Graham proclaimed.
In August, members of both parties began drawing up legislation to prevent Trump from sacking Mueller. "The Mueller situation
really gave rise to our thinking about how we can address the current situation," explained Republican senator Thom Tillis, a sponsor
of one of the bills. By early autumn, the momentum behind the effort had slowed; by Thanksgiving, Republican interest had melted
away. "I don't see any heightened kind of urgency, if you're talking about some of the reports around Flynn and others," Tillis said
recently. "I don't see any great risk."
In fact, the risk has swelled. Trump has publicly declared any investigation into his finances would constitute a red line,
and that he reserves the option to fire Mueller if he investigates them. Earlier this month, it was reported that
Mueller has subpoenaed records at Deutsche Bank , an institution favored both by Trump and the Russian spy network.
John Dowd, a lawyer for Trump, recently floated the wildly expansive defense that a "president cannot obstruct justice, because
he is the chief law-enforcement officer." Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett called the investigation "illegitimate and corrupt"
and declared that "the FBI has become America's secret police." Graham is now calling for a special counsel to investigate "Clinton
email scandal, Uranium One, role of Fusion GPS, and FBI and DOJ bias during 2016 campaign" -- i.e., every anti-Mueller conspiracy
theory. And perhaps as ominously, Trump's allies have been surfacing fallback defenses. Yes, "some conspiratorial quid pro quo between
somebody in the Trump campaign and somebody representing Vladimir Putin" is "possible," allowed
Wall Street Journal columnist
Holman Jenkins, but "we would be stupid not to understand that other countries have a stake in the outcome of our elections and,
by omission or commission, try to advance their interests. This is reality." The notion of a criminal conspiracy by a hostile nation
to intervene in the election in return for pliant foreign policy has gone from unthinkable to blasé, an offense only to naïve bourgeois
morality.
It is almost a maxim of the Trump era that the bounds of the unthinkable continuously shrink. The capitulation to Moore was a
dry run for the coming assault on the rule of law.
Currently in the USA only nationalist politicians display some level of courage and
authenticity. That's why they attract people.
The problem with superdelegates in Democratic Party is just the tip of the iceberg of the "Clinton transformation" of the
party. The Part is
now neoliberal party that have nothing to do with the democracy. At best it would qualify as a
moderate Republican wing.
Notable quotes:
"... This endless compromise won't work. The odds of the Dems intentionally trading their Big Money Corporate Supporters like Monsanto for the Working Class is somewhere between slim and none, at least in my lifetime. ..."
"... If the superdelegates were limited to currently serving Democratic members of Congress, currently serving Democratic state governors, and current or former Democratic Presidents and Vice-Presidents, it would be a huge improvement. ..."
"... No lobbyists, no big city mayors, and no state party bosses (unless they are also in one of the other permitted categories). ..."
"... I suppose it doesn't help that I watched the Truman & Wallace episodes of Oliver Stone's "Untold History of the United States" last night. But even before that I've been haunted by the image of shadow on the steps of Sumitomo Bank in Hiroshima, Japan. Recalling that image, the DNC's betrayals of the American people, and the short-sighted and self-serving actions of those who rule us -- detailed in trivialities by Norman Solomon -- combined these give fuller meaning to the comment Bernie Sanders made about those who rule us and their greatest concern about their place on the Titanic. ..."
"... Team D cares not a whit for its voters, but it cares very much for the concerns of big donors. ..."
"... under the new rules, those superdelegates would have to tie their votes on the convention's first ballot to the outcome of primaries and caucuses. In 2016, all superdelegates were allowed to support either candidate. ..."
"... In other words, will the practice of Clinton or the Clintonites locking the superdelegate vote up early just be merely reshaped by this process, with a new sheen of faux democracy, rather than inhibited? ..."
"... This is why the comment above by Quanka is astute: You have to tell the Democrats (and Republicans) that you won't owe your vote to them. And that you are going to burn down the party if it doesn't serve the commonwealth. ..."
"... See my post below when it comes out of moderation; Our country does have a progressive/populist tradition, but everything possible is done to erase it from contemporary memory. Now buried to memory is the history of the Non-Partisan League of North Dakota, the Farmer-Labor Party of Minnesota, and even the Reform Republicanism of the early 1900's (Wisconsin's Robert M. La Follette for instance). ..."
"... I hate to tell you, but the New York City subway actually costs $2.75. Another testament to the neoliberal con game, as practiced by the Metropolitan Transit Authority. ..."
"... What is ironic about this issue of superdelegates is that the so called "Democratic" party has them and the party of the elite, the Republicans, do not (well, they do, but at a much smaller % and they are required to vote for whoever won their respective state primary). What is also ironic is that the reason the Dems came up with this system was to prevent blowouts in the election. Carter and McGovern had gotten trounced. The feeling was that "wiser" heads, i.e. experienced politicians could steer the party toward a more electable candidate. And how did that work out for them? First time superdelegates voted in 1984, Mondale lost 49 out of 50 states to Reagan. ..."
"... The Democrat Party is run by a bunch of careerist hacks. This is why the GOP is actually more "democratic" (and got hijacked by Trump): because it's not run by careerist hacks who are more concerned about protecting their rice bowls than they are about being responsive to the electorate. These hacks got paid a billion dollars to run the losing 2016 campaign -- they "won" the election by their self-serving metric, and now get to pay themselves to "resist" the administration that they caused to be elected through their self-serving careerism. ..."
"... And now with current 'RussiaGate' nonsense and the rest of it, and all the wars, including the genocidal destruction of Libya, and some other things, I can never again vote for a Democrat, and I won't vote for a Republican either. I voted for a Socialist once but those votes were not counted because he could not satisfy the requirements to get on the ballot -- petitions and registering in over 200 districts in the state. No one decent gets through the machine. ..."
"... The DNC's Unity Commission's behavior confirms that the real goal of the leadership of the DNC is exactly the opposite of the name of the commission. So what is their real goal? To prevent the emergence of a progressive majority. In fact, this has been their goal for decades; and in fairness, they have been very successful in realizing it to the detriment of the majority of We the People. ..."
"... While I was at the post office, I had a conversation with a longtime friend who is now in the Arizona House of Representatives. She just got elected last year. Even though she is officially a Democratic Party member, she ran as a progressive and that's how she rolls in the House. Get this, she spent this morning addressing a conservative youth group and they loved it. Compared to what they usually hear from politicians, they found her speech refreshing. It was all about balanced policy, and if she posts a video, I will share it. Perhaps the DNC will pay attention. ..."
"... I approve of bringing up this suppressed history of our country's leftist, progressive, socialist, even communist strands, not to mention the multi racial and class political alliance, social organizations, and very frequently personal connections including marriages. Don't forget that the power structure used propaganda, legislation, the law, and armed mobs that often especially, but not only, in the South with rope necklaces, lead poisoning, or if you were "lucky" multi-decade prison terms, or just merely having your home/church/business burnt. This has never really stopped. Like when Jim Crow continues by other means, so did the anti-organization. Chicago, Detroit, the South,etc. Sadly, the black misleadership also help, albeit without the violence, after MLK and others, were no longer a problem. ..."
"... So centuries of poor whites, blacks, native Americans, religious leaders, even some business leaders and some upper class people, struggling together, usually dealing with violence and murder have been dropped into the memory hole. ..."
"... Some days I just want to start screaming and not stop. ..."
The Report is fair, but supporting things like reduction of Super Delegates from the
mid-700s to mid-200s is wrong! Complaining about lack of democracy within the Party means
getting rid of them altogether! That's just one small example.
This endless compromise won't work. The odds of the Dems intentionally trading their
Big Money Corporate Supporters like Monsanto for the Working Class is somewhere between slim
and none, at least in my lifetime.
It is a good start. If the superdelegates were limited to currently serving Democratic
members of Congress, currently serving Democratic state governors, and current or former
Democratic Presidents and Vice-Presidents, it would be a huge improvement.
No lobbyists, no
big city mayors, and no state party bosses (unless they are also in one of the other
permitted categories).
I can't point to any particulars -- but I felt something disingenuous about Norman Solomon
-- something 'off'. An even meaner thought came to mind as I listened to his complaints and
details of the DNC machinations -- Norman Solomon would be perfect to work for unity in the
Green Party. He could make theater of herding the Green cats and accomplish nothing in
particular.
I suppose it doesn't help that I watched the Truman & Wallace episodes of Oliver
Stone's "Untold History of the United States" last night. But even before that I've been
haunted by the image of shadow on the steps of Sumitomo Bank in Hiroshima, Japan. Recalling
that image, the DNC's betrayals of the American people, and the short-sighted and
self-serving actions of those who rule us -- detailed in trivialities by Norman Solomon --
combined these give fuller meaning to the comment Bernie Sanders made about those who rule us
and their greatest concern about their place on the Titanic.
But this time the DNC has no dying Roosevelt to tack a Truman onto.
Aye! and you can't burn a thing down by continuing to send it money, or lend it undying
support, or by continuing to vote for their horrible lesser evil moderate republican
candidates.
I quit the damned party as loudly as i could in november 2016 emails to all and sundry,
chewing them all new ones, as it were.
i never heard a word back, of course and the AI that runs the damned thing keeps sending
me emails begging for cash; and surveys,lol which i send back to them with my chicken scratch
all in the margins with my outrage and my considered opinions. i assume all that goes unread,
as well. perhaps if i incorporated and obtained a po box in the caymans or pulau or
somewhere
Short-term (2018)–Norman Solomon is right. Only the Democratic party is in a
position to defeat the rightists. In the longer term, Howie Hawkins's recent argument for a
new, genuinely working-class party is more convincing to me. It's a lot more work,
though.
The DNC may be becoming irrelevant, but individual Democratic politicians can monetize
their current positions as they stock their personal lifeboats before the Bernie Sanders
mentioned Titanic goes down..
Instead of thinking short term and trying stay in the Dim party real left wing people need
to take the long term view and start a new party which will be the only way forward.
In the draft proposal, a special national party commission calls for keeping some 400
members of the Democratic National Committee as automatic delegates to the convention.
But under the new rules, those superdelegates would have to tie their votes on the
convention's first ballot to the outcome of primaries and caucuses. In 2016, all
superdelegates were allowed to support either candidate.
And yet
Cohen and other Democrats stressed, however, that commission members have been busy
circulating amendments ahead of the commission's weekend gathering in metro Washington.
So, which superdelegates will remain and with what actual
constraints, and how far does this move the system away from the status quo? In light of
Solomon's interview, I do wonder about actuarial sleigh-of-hand here. Is there a way of
affecting a likely purge of 2020 Sanders/"grass-roots" aligned superdelegates now? Is there a
way of suggesting that the superdelegates must vote as the states' primaries/caucuses (thus
defanging them) but then not actually imposing any real penalty of these "party elders" and
such? (Will 2020 be about "unfaithful superdelegates voting their conscience against the
party rules for the greater good"?)
In other words, will the practice of Clinton or the Clintonites locking the
superdelegate vote up early just be merely reshaped by this process, with a new sheen of faux
democracy, rather than inhibited?
The report itself is worth reading. I downloaded it a while back when Lambert and Yves
first posted it.
Solomon gets Moore wrong. Moore is not a neo-fascist or fascist. Moore represents some
very deep-seated religious ideas that are prevalent in the South and in the border states.
When Naked Capitalism and other sources report a bishop of an African-American church making
rather ambiguous comments about the rock with the Ten Commandments, we see an ancient
religious attitude emerging:
Yet as many Southerners point out, the South has a progressive / populist tradition. And
where are the Democrats? To me, this is part of the thorough corruption of the party and its
deterioration into a fan club. Too many Democrats are looking for fascists and Rooskies.
People are fleeing the party, and various Democrats living the "Don't know much about
history" aspect of U.S. culture are desperately trying to pin the fascist label on people.
And what is the solution being offered? Fly in Jon Ossoff? He didn't live in the
congressional district where he ran anyway, going counter to another deeply held U.S.
tradition, that you live in your district.
This isn't about "smart" or not smart thinking. This is about people being so thoroughly
corrupt in their thinking that they can only frame questions corruptly and give corrupt
answers. Maybe I'm being hard on Solomon, but looking for Benito Mussolini in Alabama is
wrong history, wrong metaphor, wrong diagnosis, wrong meme.
Next up? The question and and answer of "gentle" "entitlement" "reform." Corrupt from its
very inception.
This is why the comment above by Quanka is astute: You have to tell the Democrats (and
Republicans) that you won't owe your vote to them. And that you are going to burn down the
party if it doesn't serve the commonwealth.
See my post below when it comes out of moderation; Our country does have a
progressive/populist tradition, but everything possible is done to erase it from contemporary
memory. Now buried to memory is the history of the Non-Partisan League of North Dakota, the
Farmer-Labor Party of Minnesota, and even the Reform Republicanism of the early 1900's
(Wisconsin's Robert M. La Follette for instance).
Watt4Bob: You refer here and below to the states along the inland sea, in a sense, the
rather eccentric Great Lakes States. I'd add:
–Chicago agitators and the Haymarket "Riot" (which the police caused)
–The United Auto Workers (Flint strike among others).
–Unions and Youngstown.
–Jane Addams and her own ideas about building community and building peace.
–The Milwaukee Socialists and the mayoralty there.
–The whole rambunctious structure (if it's a structure) of neighborhood associations in
Chicago, where many of those involved in the Harold Washington campaign got their start.
–Henry Gerber, the Society for Human Rights, and the first agitation for acceptance of
gay people, 1924, Chicago. Who even knew that midwesterners thought about politico-sexual
themes?
Yes, there is very talented group of people here who simply have to cut down on the
distractions and get back to work.
Socialism was actually a powerful movement -- with elected officials -- all throughout the
Upper Midwest during the so-called Progressive Era and the 1920s. Part of this was a result
of German settlements; any Midwestern town with a significant population of Germans
(especially from Hamburg) had a strong socialist impulse. Often this was manifest in the
elected officials, but even where the Socialists didn't win elections, they were able to
influence policy.
I have little patience for the so-called "Democrats" who, as you said above "don't know
much about history".
Thank you for bringing those points up. I'd say that buzzwords like fascist and Nazi are
bull horned (as opposed to Republican dog whistles) only as a means to distract from actual
policy issues (vis-a-vis Bernie), but I wonder if it is the case that even the most cynical
Clintonites believe their own BS at this point. These narratives have taken on a life of
their own.
I don't think Norman Solomon has bad intentions. If anything he is appealing to pragmatism
and reason too strongly in a political environment that is unreasonable. Bernie does a much
better job at blowing the emotional horn just enough to fit the political zeitgeist while
maintaining an engine of actual policy issues to move his political machine. Historically,
this has always been a successful strategy for socialists, Americans love fire-brands.
As far as Norman's claims of fascism I just don't see how tossing around those terms adds
any strategic value to the political struggle against the right. It just comes across as
preaching to the choir. We (the left) all know Moore is an ass, calling him fascist doesn't
make that any more evident. The trick is trying to understand why he is still viable
politically to a significant number of people despite being an ass. This was the mistake made
with Trump. To loosely paraphrase Adolph Reed, calling something fascist or Nazi and $2.25
will get me a ride on the subway but it does nothing to develop action to counter right wing
agendas. The normalization of the right (Republicans) does not occur because they have
"better ideas" (their current tax bill shows they aren't even trying to appeal to 99% of
society) it is because the current left option in the USA (Democrats) are offering
no ideas , or certain members are not allowed to express ideas because of corporate power and
corporate-supported political power. Assuming I am directing this at the DNC, then who is
actually supporting the so-called fascists?
As goes fascism in the United States, I don't really think anyone has a good
definition. Some see it as a politics that are largely aesthetic as opposed to based on
discourse or debate. Some see it as a marriage of corporate power with state power with
police and military supremacy. By those two measures I think the USA is already deeply
fascist. Though it seems by the current measures, the only thing that make someone
unequivocally fascist (or Nazi) is their being a bigot. This simplistic view of fascism is an
insult to history, and all the people that either died fighting fascism or were sacrificed at
its political altar.
I hate to tell you, but the New York City subway actually costs $2.75. Another
testament to the neoliberal con game, as practiced by the Metropolitan Transit
Authority.
What is ironic about this issue of superdelegates is that the so called "Democratic"
party has them and the party of the elite, the Republicans, do not (well, they do, but at a
much smaller % and they are required to vote for whoever won their respective state primary).
What is also ironic is that the reason the Dems came up with this system was to prevent
blowouts in the election. Carter and McGovern had gotten trounced. The feeling was that
"wiser" heads, i.e. experienced politicians could steer the party toward a more electable
candidate. And how did that work out for them? First time superdelegates voted in 1984,
Mondale lost 49 out of 50 states to Reagan.
I think a little history would be useful at this point to help us understand that we've
been this way before.
As concerns the Minnesota Farmer-Labor party which later merged with the Minnesota
Democratic Party to form the DFL, which has lately devolved, IMO, Wellstone and Franken not
withstanding, to much more closely resemble the party of Clintonism than the party of the
young Hubert Humphrey.
The Minnesota Farmer–Labor Party emerged from the Nonpartisan League in North Dakota
and the Union Labor
Party in Duluth, Minnesota, on a platform of farmer and labor union protection,
government ownership of certain industries, and social security laws.[2] One of the primary
obstacles of the party, besides constant vilification on the pages of local and state
newspapers, was the difficulty of uniting the party's divergent base and maintaining
political union between rural farmers and urban laborers who often had little in common
other than the populist perception that they were an oppressed class of hardworking
producers exploited by a small elite.
That 'divergent base' thing ring a bell anyone?
"The farmer approached problems as a proprietor or petty capitalist. Relief to him meant
a mitigation of conditions that interfered with successful farming. It involved such things
as tax reduction, easier access to credit, and a floor under farm prices. His individualist
psychology did not create scruples against government aid, but he welcomed it only as long
as it improved agricultural conditions. When official paternalism took the form of public
works or the dole, he openly opposed it because assistance on such terms forced him to
abandon his chosen profession, to submerge his individuality in the labor crew, and to
suffer the humiliation of the bread line. Besides, a public works program required
increased revenue, and since the state relied heavily on the property tax, the cost of the
program seemed likely to fall primarily on him.
At the opposite end of the seesaw sat the city worker, who sought relief from the
hunger, exposure, and disease that followed the wake of unemployment. Dependent on an
impersonal industrial machine, he had sloughed off the frontier tradition of individualism
for the more serviceable doctrine of cooperation through trade unionism. Unlike the
depressed farmer, the unemployed worker often had no property or economic stake to protect.
He was largely immune to taxation and had nothing to lose by backing proposals to dilute
property rights or redistribute the wealth. Driven by the primitive instinct to survive,
the worker demanded financial relief measures from the state."
The upper-midwest was fly-over land long before the Wright brothers, and it makes perfect
sense that the the Minnesota Farmer-Labor, and its predecessor, the Non-Partisan League of
North Dakota should sprout here, where the effects of elite neglect/abuse and the related
Great Depression had left We the People feeling mis/unrepresented by the two
national parties.
Of course it's good to remember that Hubert Humphrey, and the Minnesota Democratic party
did not embrace the populist revolt until it had been successful on its own, in electing
multiple Minnesota Governors, Senators, and Representatives in the 1920-30's, but embrace it
they did, and from 1944 until the 1970's, the DFL stood for something a bit more than the
local franchise of the National Party.
I strongly encourage you to follow the links in the quotes above, you'll find the history
of, among other things, the Bank of North Dakota, still the only state-owned bank in the
country, founded in 1919 to allow ND farmers to break the strangle-hold that banks in
Minneapolis and Chicago held over the farmers of the northern plains, and demand of working
people for free, universal health-care.
So far, the Democratic party, sadly, including the DFL, seems dedicated to putting down
the populist revolt by its neglected base, but with some hard work maybe this time around we
can figure out how to shorten the time between being resisted and being embraced.
The enemies are perennial, so are the solutions, but populism did have a season of
successes in the first half of the 20th century, and there is no reason to think it couldn't
happen again.
Remember too, the Non Partisan League of
Alberta Canada, and was one of the principal champions of universal healthcare that Canadians
now enjoy.
I think incumbent Governors and Congress members have earned the right to be a super
delegate by virtue of having won their own election. Their re-election will be affected by
the top of the ticket.
If Repubs had been blessed with super delegates, would Trump have still won?
July 2016, after the primaries were over, the WaPo, that bastion of Dem estab groupthink,
suggested the GOP adopt super delegates to avoid another surprise primary outcome. And we see
how well not having super delegates turned out for the GOP.
"There are probably a few missteps I am forgetting. Priebus's spinelessness may well
result in an irretrievably divided party, not to mention a humiliating loss in a critical,
entirely winnable election. Priebus's successor had better learn some lessons from 2016. He
or she might also consider using super delegates. It turns out party grownups are needed.
This cycle they've been AWOL."
The Democrat Party is run by a bunch of careerist hacks. This is why the GOP is
actually more "democratic" (and got hijacked by Trump): because it's not run by careerist
hacks who are more concerned about protecting their rice bowls than they are about being
responsive to the electorate. These hacks got paid a billion dollars to run the losing 2016
campaign -- they "won" the election by their self-serving metric, and now get to pay
themselves to "resist" the administration that they caused to be elected through their
self-serving careerism.
They're not going to let go of the self-licking ice cream cone that the Democrat Party has
become until their comprehensive election losses make it obvious to the Wall Street Wing that
they're wasting their money. That day may be coming soon; however, the current coup d'etat in
Washington may render a party of $27 donors irrelevant
This: "until their comprehensive election losses make it obvious to the Wall Street Wing
that they're wasting their money. "^^^
A similar sentiment was included in all of the flurry of angry emails i sent hither and
yon when I quit the demparty right after the election. ie: the current course of pleasing the
donors is unsustainable if they continue to chase off their own base. what are the donors
paying for?
one would presume a voice in gooberment .meaning won seats,lol.
without voters, why would any self respecting conglomerate continue to shell out dough to the
demparty?
of course, all the hippie-punching and other abuse of their base makes perfect sense if the
demparty is, in truth, a ringer party for the oligarchs a pressure relief valve, like on the
side of a water heater
if, in other words, they pretend to be the "opposition" and "for the people"(tm) so all
us'n's don't go rabid and Wobbly.
This seems a more and more likely explanation every week.
Perhaps old age and failing memory is to blame, but I can't remember not hearing the
nonsense arguments of 'vote for the lesser of two evils and reform from within', and the fear
mongering about the right or Republicans winning. (Republicans used to have sort-of 'liberal'
members, like Lowell Weicker, who would make current Democrats look like fascists -- well, a
lot of them are really ). It never worked and everything just gets worse.
And now with current 'RussiaGate' nonsense and the rest of it, and all the wars,
including the genocidal destruction of Libya, and some other things, I can never again vote
for a Democrat, and I won't vote for a Republican either. I voted for a Socialist once but
those votes were not counted because he could not satisfy the requirements to get on the
ballot -- petitions and registering in over 200 districts in the state. No one decent gets
through the machine.
I've given up on both parties, and their phony elections -- there are no solutions there.
What is needed is to see through the games and destroy the machine. Not easy but there is no
other way. Solomon is part of the machine, and the so-called 'progressives' are not
progressive. We are at the point where the only possible solutions are radical -- striking at
the root. The collapse of the empire and capitalism (corporatism -- just a larval stage of
fascism) is coming one way or another because it is not sustainable -- and that which cannot
be sustained will not be. It's like how slavery and feudalism reached a point where they
could no longer survive as dominant systems, nor returned to as such (similar to how the gold
standard, or non-tech agricultural society can not be universally restored). The writing
finger moves on.
We can either see how the global wind of history and culture is blowing and intelligently
move ahead with it, or we can destroy ourselves. The action must be on the streets, in the
workplace, from the masses, in collective consciousness, and world wide. Democrat shills like
Solomon and clowns like Trump should be ignored as symptomatic noise.
The DNC's Unity Commission's behavior confirms that the real goal of the leadership of
the DNC is exactly the opposite of the name of the commission. So what is their real goal? To
prevent the emergence of a progressive majority. In fact, this has been their goal for
decades; and in fairness, they have been very successful in realizing it to the detriment of
the majority of We the People.
Thank you for shining the light on this latest episode of their actions for their
financial benefactors.
Just got back from running errands. While I was at the post office, I had a
conversation with a longtime friend who is now in the Arizona House of Representatives. She
just got elected last year. Even though she is officially a Democratic Party member, she ran
as a progressive and that's how she rolls in the House. Get this, she spent this morning
addressing a conservative youth group and they loved it. Compared to what they usually hear
from politicians, they found her speech refreshing. It was all about balanced policy, and if
she posts a video, I will share it. Perhaps the DNC will pay attention.
it's really not possible for the leaders at the national level of the Democratic Party
to have a close working relationship with the base when it's afraid of the base.
And strangely, this is a big reason for why after three plus decades, I am no longer an
active member of the party. If you treat the majority of American nation as dangerous,
deplorable, or at best just dumb, please don't be shocked when people start either start
ignoring you, or just try to get rid of.
I approve of bringing up this suppressed history of our country's leftist,
progressive, socialist, even communist strands, not to mention the multi racial and class
political alliance, social organizations, and very frequently personal connections including
marriages. Don't forget that the power structure used propaganda, legislation, the law, and
armed mobs that often especially, but not only, in the South with rope necklaces, lead
poisoning, or if you were "lucky" multi-decade prison terms, or just merely having your
home/church/business burnt. This has never really stopped. Like when Jim Crow continues by
other means, so did the anti-organization. Chicago, Detroit, the South,etc. Sadly, the black
misleadership also help, albeit without the violence, after MLK and others, were no longer a
problem.
So centuries of poor whites, blacks, native Americans, religious leaders, even some
business leaders and some upper class people, struggling together, usually dealing with
violence and murder have been dropped into the memory hole.
Some days I just want to start screaming and not stop.
"... The Demopublican War Party: United to shovel more money into the maw of the oligarch class while stealing dollars, services, and servitude from the working class. Reverse Robin Hood/Reverse Socialism in full effect. ..."
"... Currently, we have $20T debt but the U.S. govt is borrowing at short term rates in order to get this amazingly low debt service. ..."
"... Does anyone else believe that this is the game the U.S. govt is playing? If it is then I wonder what the consequences are in keeping short term interest rates at artificially low levels in perpetuity. ..."
"... I'll start taking the "deficit hawks" seriously when they start talking Defense procurement reform. Until then, its just "balance the budget on the backs of widows and orphans". ..."
"... For those who are fortunate enough not to live in these Benighted States: have pity upon us, especially those of us who done our best to fight against this horror show. Democraps are either just as bad or worse bc of their duplicity. The GOP is, at least, totally loud and proud of who they are, and no more dog whistles for them. ..."
"... poll end of October 2017 shows widespread fed up with government policies and war https://www.charleskochinstitute.org/news/cki-real-clear-politics-foreign-policy-poll/ ..."
"... It is impressive how the Democrats do nothing, but nothing at all against the catastrophic tax 'reform', instead - me too! ..."
"... I am still waiting on my Reagan trickle down. Reagan and fellow thieves stole social security funds to make their deficit look lower. Those funds have not been paid back....approximately $3,000,000,000,000. Now the dead beats are planning on slipping out of town. ..."
"... We should go back to the 1960 tax structure , the one in place after eight years of Eisenhower, so it should get plenty of Republican support, yes? ..."
"... You are already seeing the consequences of artificially low short term rates. Negative yielding sovereign European debt - meaning you pay to lend to some European governments. ..."
"... People don't understand what money is our how it is and can be created. They imagine it is like gold and limited in supply so that government can spend only from a finite supply which they must obtain by taxes or loans that require interest to be paid. This fable is about as true as Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy. Money has no value but as an instrument of exchange. It can be created by government to pay for benefit of a nation. Instead we allow private bankers to create money via loans (no printing press needed its just a line item on a spread sheet on their computers which shows up in the borrowers account) The privately owned central bank system limits or increases the supply by various means in a cyclical manner which leads to boom and bust cycles in the economy. The rich get richer after each bust cycle since they have cash to acquire assets available at depressed prices ..."
"... There's no reason why with the current state of technology so much money is needed to campaign for office. Almost as if the MSM is conditioning us to believe it necessary. There's no reason some one can't run a campaign using social media, YouTube and video conferencing instead of advertising (on same MSM) travelling long distances to campaign rallies and broadcast advertising. Microdonations and volunteering assistance can take care of the rest. If there is a will, there's a way to run an outsider as a candidate. The recent death of Anderson reminded me of his difficulties running, but he ran at a time when none of these technologies existed. ..."
"... Churning out extra dosh works when it is part of a larger plan to increase productivity by encouraging people outta pointless 'shit industry' service jobs into either outright production like manufacturing or primary industry, or infrastructure investment like railways, roads, bridges & renewable energy projects. Just pumping fresh new bills into health n education will be great for those who work in these sectors, but is unlikely to create much flow on to the rest of the population. ..."
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Thursday said the tax cuts included in the tax reform
package Republican lawmakers crafted in conjunction with the Trump Administration have to be
deficit neutral so as to conform with budget reconciliation rules.
The U.S. Republican tax cut plan that President Donald Trump wants passed by the end of the
year is unlikely to trigger a big deficit expansion because it will spur more investment and
job growth, House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan told Reuters in an interview on
Wednesday.
"Paul Ryan deficit hawk is also a growth advocate. Paul Ryan deficit hawk also knows that you
have to have a faster growing economy, more jobs, bigger take-home pay, that means higher tax
revenues ," Ryan told Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday."
The tax overhaul legislation that Ryan shepherded through the House -- the Senate takes up
its version this week -- would add at least $1 trillion to budget deficits over the next
decade, even when accounting for economic growth, according to independent tax analysts.
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Wednesday said House Republicans will aim to cut spending
on Medicare, Medicaid and welfare programs next year as a way to trim the federal deficit .
"We're going to have to get back next year at entitlement reform, which is how you tackle
the debt and the deficit ," Ryan said during an interview on Ross Kaminsky's talk radio
show.
And no. The Democrats aren't any better. Look at the trillions Obama handed to Wall Street.
That wasn't even a tax cut, it was a give-away. Obamacare is a sham, willfully constructed in
way that makes sure it can't survive. The Democrats only pretend to care for the people. As
soon as they again have a majority and fake intent for pro-social reforms the Repubs will again
whine about the deficit and the Democrats will be happy to fold.
The Demopublican War Party: United to shovel more money into the maw of the oligarch class
while stealing dollars, services, and servitude from the working class. Reverse Robin
Hood/Reverse Socialism in full effect.
Indeed. Two faces, same coin. The msm desperately wants to keep the relevant the age-old
rope-a-dope of the Demotards vs. Rethuglicans 2K17! Jesus, ever-loving-Christ, though, you
fuck with social security and Medicare and you bring on the wrath of AARP's membership.
Release the BLUE-HAIRS!
Can't wait, but that is another struggle for another day. In the mean time, I notice that
even the mention of Paul Ryan elicits a shudder. Such a slime.
It [was] a remarkably low $240B as of 2016. Does this mean that the Fed can just keep short term
rates low or even reduce them, vis-a-vis the Japanese model, and allow U.S. govt debt to grow
to arbitrarily high levels?
Currently, we have $20T debt but the U.S. govt is borrowing at short term rates in order
to get this amazingly low debt service. Now let's suppose over the next 50yrs our national
debt grows to a ridiculous $100T, if the fed puts short term rates at 0.1% then our annual
debt service will still be at the same levels or less.
Does anyone else believe that this is the game the U.S. govt is playing?
If it is then I wonder what the consequences are in keeping short term interest rates at
artificially low levels in perpetuity.
Here's to the evolving True Political
Awakening .
Move beyond the two-faced monkeys; the 2-faced division-makers; the 2 lying parties. Move
beyond them into yourself, your own mind and thoughts, owned by no-one; a critical and
independent thinker who seeks the truth.
I'll start taking the "deficit hawks" seriously when they start talking Defense procurement
reform. Until then, its just "balance the budget on the backs of widows and orphans".
There was a large mound formed recently over the grave of former Republican senator from WI
Bob Lafollette Sr., this protrusion was caused by his rapidly spinning corpse.
For those who are fortunate enough not to live in these Benighted States: have pity upon us,
especially those of us who done our best to fight against this horror show.
Democraps are either just as bad or worse bc of their duplicity. The GOP is, at least,
totally loud and proud of who they are, and no more dog whistles for them.
The Democrats, all while the GOP Tax SCAM was being shoved down our gobs, wasted all of
their time and "emotions" on a witch hunt to toss Al Franken outta the Senate. Franken is not
my favorite Senator by a long shot, but this is yet another chapter of the Democraps ACORNing
their own purportedly in the name of "taking the moral high ground." My Aunt Fanny.
Complicit, greedy, conniving, venal, deplorable bastards the whole d*mn lot with the
possible exception of Bernie Sanders (no great shakes but the pick of the litter).
Ugh. Don't get me started on all of those dual Israeli/USA citizens in riddling our
Congress. They are ALL in favor of this Jerusalem travesty with Schmuck Schumer leading the
charge. That's not about Trump... or not much about Trump. I place blame on worthless scum
like Schumer.
This is why people voted for Trump: they could see the worthlessness of both parties. Of
course, voting for Trump was a complete Mug's game, as for sure, the way things have turned
out was a foregone conclusion.
I am still waiting on my Reagan trickle down. Reagan and fellow thieves stole social security
funds to make their deficit look lower. Those funds have not been paid back....approximately
$3,000,000,000,000. Now the dead beats are planning on slipping out of town.
We should go back to the 1960 tax structure , the one in
place after eight years of Eisenhower, so it should get plenty of Republican support, yes?
top rate on regular income: 91%
top rate on capital gains: 25%
top rate on corporate tax: 52%
The top income tax tier back then was $400,000 - adjusted for inflation to 2017 dollars,
that's about $10 million. So anyone with an income of $10 million would still get a take-home
pay of $1 million a year. Seems like the right thing to do, doesn't it?
Good one b, the demodogs will stoop their feet point figures so they can raise lots of
$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to pay their friends the consultants and lose more seats. It's what they do
best.
I've almost given up. It's not just amerika; lookit Australia this week where the citizens
are being distracted by a same sex marriage beatup which should have been settled in 5
minutes years ago - meanwhile the last vestiges of Australia's ability to survive as a
sovereign state are being flogged off to anyone with a fat wedge in their kick.
Aotearoa isn't much better the 'new' government which was elected primarily because the
citizens were appalled to discover that for about the first time in 150 years, compatriots -
compatriots with jobs in 'the gig economy' were homeless in huge numbers, has just announced
that the previous government's housing policy was a total mess, and that fixing the problem
will be difficult -really Jacinda we never woulda guessed, I guess what yer really trying to
say is nothing is gonna change.
The englanders are in even worse trouble with their brexit mess, the political elite is
choosing to ignore a recent Northern Ireland poll which revealed that most people in the
north would rather hook up with Ireland than stay with an non EU UK, so the pols there are
arguing over semantics about the difference between "regulatory alignment" and "regulatory
equivalence" as it applies to Ulster while the pound is sinking so fast it is about to
establish equivalence with the euro by xmas.
No one is paying attention to what is really happening as in between giving us the lowdown on
which 2nd rate mummer was rude to a 3rd rate thespian and advertorials about the best
chronometer (who even wears a watch in 2017?) for that man in your life, the media simply
doesn't have the time much less the will to tell the citizens how quickly their lives are
about to go down the gurgler.
The only salient issue is - will the shit hit the fan before the laws are in place to
silence, lock up and butcher dissenters, or will there be a brief period where we hit the
barricades and have a moment of glory before humanity gets to enjoy serfdom Mk2?
b, have you really taken a look at federal government spending? What is the ratio of spending
by the German government between social programs and discretionary spending for defense,
agriculture subsidies, infrastructure, etc?
The majority of federal government spending is non-discretionary social entitlement
spending with the biggest being health care spending. Just Medicare & Medicaid is a third
of all federal government spending. Then you have to add health care spending for federal
government employees and members of Congress, Tricare and VA. With health care costs growing
at 9% each and every year as it has for the past 30 years, medical related expenditures as a
share of total federal government spending will continue to rise.
Deficits will continue to grow as these entitlement programs grow automatically as
eligibility grows. Even if all defense expenditures were zeroed out, the federal government
would still run a deficit.
You are already seeing the consequences of artificially low short term rates. Negative
yielding sovereign European debt - meaning you pay to lend to some European governments.
European junk bonds with 10 year duration yielding less than 10 yr US Treasury bond. Loss
making, junk rated European companies raising even more intermediate term debt at 0.001%.
Corporations borrowing to buy back stock. The Swiss National Bank creating money out of thin
air and owning $85 billion of US equity in major US companies like Apple & Google. The
Bank of Japan owning a third of all Japanese government bonds outstanding and the Top 10
holder of the companies in the Nikkei 100 index. Financial speculation off the charts across
the globe.
People don't understand what money is our how it is and can be created. They imagine it is
like gold and limited in supply so that government can spend only from a finite supply which
they must obtain by taxes or loans that require interest to be paid. This fable is about as true as Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy. Money has no value but as an instrument of exchange. It can be created by government to
pay for benefit of a nation. Instead we allow private bankers to create money via loans (no
printing press needed its just a line item on a spread sheet on their computers which shows
up in the borrowers account) The privately owned central bank system limits or increases the
supply by various means in a cyclical manner which leads to boom and bust cycles in the
economy. The rich get richer after each bust cycle since they have cash to acquire assets
available at depressed prices
As for the debt owed by the US the privately owned Fed will ensure the government can
borrow whatever is needed for interest payments since they can create an infinite supply of
money by acquiring junk and calling them assets. Out pal OPEC (Saudis) keeps Petro dollar
(USD ) in demand and exchange rates are set within agreed upon limits by the worlds central
banks under the BIS, with input from various shadowy groups like Bilderbergers, trilaterals
and CFR. And if all else fails, an attack on the USD will result in the military option being
used
To remain in power corrupt governments rely on a citizen base that is uneducated or
misinformed, busy surviving to pay taxes and daily expenses, is dependent on government and
in debt and is well entertained. They must also be divided by religion, race, social, gender,
age and party (secular religion) and given a common external enemy to fear.
The system is working to perfection. Neoliberal economics is the icing on the cake and is
the gift that keeps on giving to the chosen ones.
Check out the pdf on money creation by the Bank of England
There's no reason why with the current state of technology so much money is needed to
campaign for office. Almost as if the MSM is conditioning us to believe it necessary. There's no reason some one can't run a campaign using social media, YouTube and video
conferencing instead of advertising (on same MSM) travelling long distances to campaign
rallies and broadcast advertising. Microdonations and volunteering assistance can take care
of the rest. If there is a will, there's a way to run an outsider as a candidate. The recent death of
Anderson reminded me of his difficulties running, but he ran at a time when none of these
technologies existed.
I think people are just too lazy to make the effort. Most elections people are just too
lazy to even vote.
While I agree that money can just be created there is a limit to that particularly when
low constraints on consumable supplies run parallel to established shortfalls on finite goods
such as houses, land, food etc. Inflation runs rampant and we weak humans distract ourselves
with cheap baubles instead of creating useful shit and putting a roof over the heads of our
children - "waddaya want for xmas kid, a freehold shithole or a new VR headset?" "I'll take
the vive Dad".
Churning out extra dosh works when it is part of a larger plan to increase productivity by
encouraging people outta pointless 'shit industry' service jobs into either outright
production like manufacturing or primary industry, or infrastructure investment like
railways, roads, bridges & renewable energy projects. Just pumping fresh new bills into
health n education will be great for those who work in these sectors, but is unlikely to
create much flow on to the rest of the population.
"... You are correct that there is no public source yet confirming the FBI paid Steele. However, the FBI's refusal to turn over relevant documents regarding their relationship with Steele tells me there was money paid. What is indisputable is that th information in the dossier was used as a predicate to seek permission from a FISA court to go after Trump and his team. That is outrageous. ..."
"... This is increasingly my take as well -- the FBI, CIA and NSA do seem to have "conspired" to destroy Donald Trump. I finger Brennan, Clapper, Susan Rice, Benjamin Rhodes, and maybe Samantha Power as being involved in the flood of illegal leaks earlier in the year that did so much to pave the way for Mueller's appointment. ..."
You are correct that there is no public source yet confirming the FBI paid Steele. However, the FBI's refusal to turn over
relevant documents regarding their relationship with Steele tells me there was money paid. What is indisputable is that th information
in the dossier was used as a predicate to seek permission from a FISA court to go after Trump and his team. That is outrageous.
This is increasingly my take as well -- the FBI, CIA and NSA do seem to have "conspired" to destroy Donald Trump. I finger
Brennan, Clapper, Susan Rice, Benjamin Rhodes, and maybe Samantha Power as being involved in the flood of illegal leaks earlier
in the year that did so much to pave the way for Mueller's appointment.
What I fail to understand is why Democrats are sitting back and cheering as these agencies work together to destroy a duly
elected President of the USA. Does anyone really believe that if these agencies get away with it this time they will stop with
Trump?
All these agencies are out of control and are completely unaccountable.
"... Pentagon "weaponised information" years ago: " Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media ".) ..."
"... The collapse of the Fusion GPS operation will unravel the whole construction. And it's coming . ( And don't forget Awan .) All this because the Dems fixed their nomination and then lost anyway. ..."
"... an angry Senator Senator Grassley - who was previously stonewalled by the FBI and DOJ from getting requested information about Strzok's unexpected removal - has issued a letter demanding FBI documents in advance of an upcoming Senatorial interview with the anti-Trump FBI agent. ..."
"... The Committee has previously written to Mr. Strzok requesting an interview to discuss his knowledge of improper political influence or bias in Justice Department or FBI activities during either the previous or current administration, the removal of James Comey from his position as Director of the FBI, the DOJ's and FBI's activities related to Hillary Clinton, the DOJ's and FBI's activities related to Donald J. Trump and his associates, and the DOJ's and FBI's activities related to Russian interference in the 2016 election. To date, the Committee has received no letter in reply to that request. ..."
"... All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok regarding the decision to close the Clinton investigation without recommending any charges; ..."
"... I doubt that Strzok worked alone. ..."
"... This is one of the best re-caps of this whole sordid FBI obstruction/coverup situation: Strzok and Laufman had also interviewed Hillary. No recordings were made of the session. But Comey testified that it's a "crime to lie to us". Not for the Clintons and their associates. ..."
"... Hillary had told her interviewers that she hadn't received training on handling classified information, but she signed a document testifying that she had. Hillary claimed that she hadn't carried a second phone, but an aide, Justin Cooper, who made the server possible, testified that indeed she did . ..."
Following this weekend's shocking disclosure that Peter Strzok was removed from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation
of Russia-Trump election (having previously handled the Clinton email server probe and interviewing Michael Flynn) after allegedly
having exchanged anti-Trump and pro-Hillary Clinton text messages with his mistress (who was an FBI lawyer working for Deputy FBI
Director Andrew McCabe), an angry Senator Senator Grassley - who was previously stonewalled by the FBI and DOJ from getting requested
information about Strzok's unexpected removal - has issued a letter demanding FBI documents in advance of an upcoming Senatorial
interview with the anti-Trump FBI agent.
In his letter to FBI director Christopher Wray, Grassley writes:
The Committee has previously written to Mr. Strzok requesting an interview to discuss his knowledge of improper political
influence or bias in Justice Department or FBI activities during either the previous or current administration, the removal of James
Comey from his position as Director of the FBI, the DOJ's and FBI's activities related to Hillary Clinton, the DOJ's and FBI's activities
related to Donald J. Trump and his associates, and the DOJ's and FBI's activities related to Russian interference in the 2016 election.
To date, the Committee has received no letter in reply to that request.
In advance of Mr. Strzok's interview, please provide the following communications, in the form of text messages or otherwise,
to the Committee no later than December 11, 2017:
All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok related to then Director Comey's draft or final statement closing
the Clinton investigation, including all records related to the change in the portion of the draft language describing Secretary
Clinton's and her associates' conduct regarding classified information from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless";
All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok regarding the decision to close the Clinton investigation
without recommending any charges;
All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok related to opening the investigation into potential collusion
by the Trump campaign with the Russian government, including any FBI electronic communication (EC) authored or authorized by Mr.
Strzok and all records forming the basis for that EC;
All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok related to the FBI's interactions with Christopher Steele relating
to the investigation into potential collusion by the Trump campaign with the Russian government, including any communications
regarding potential or realized financial arrangements with Mr. Steele;
All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok related to any instance of the FBI relying on, or referring
to, information in Mr. Steele's memoranda in the course of seeking any FISA warrants, other search warrants, or any other judicial
process;
All FD-302s of FBI interviews of Lt. Gen. Flynn at which Mr. Strzok was present, as well as all related 1A documents (including
any contemporaneous handwritten notes); and
All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok containing unfavorable statements about Donald J. Trump or
favorable statements about Hillary Clinton.
Since this will be the first - and so far only - glimpse inside the ideological motivations inside Mueller's prosecutorial team
the public will be greatly interested in finding what they reveal, especially those which show any direct communication between Strzok
and Comey.
"Whoa, and there's more on Peter Strzok. He exchanged anti-Trump texts with Lisa Page, another Mueller team member with whom
he was having an affair. She's deputy to Andrew McCabe."
"Surprise – it was Hillary Clinton supporter Peter Strzok told Comey that there was no proof of "intent" – BEFORE he had interviewed
HRC."
And of course, he was involved with the sketchy interview of Cheryl Mills
And Heather Samuelson
And voila, they were given immunity
He allowed Mills and Samuelson to attend the interview with Hillary
So Strzok exonerated Hillary, led the probe into Weiner's laptop that cleared Hillary, allowed major conflicts in the Clinton
investigation, and then took control of the Steele dossier probe into Trump, all while being a rabid anti-Trump, pro-Clinton partisan
in his personal life.
And when Mueller learned of this behavior he reassigned him instead of firing him, in order to prevent word getting out to
the public.
Sessions is culpable in the obstruction of justice UNLESS there is something big going on behind the scenes. The FBI will not
provide requested documentation. The choice is going to come down to reorganizing the FBI from outside that institution. I wouldn't
have a clue about legality or process of doing that, but that is what it will come down to. You can't expect these criminals to
do it on their own or to voluntarily place their heads in a noose with documentation.
They hire agents directly out of law school (at least it used to be that way). The idea was they NOT have any life experience
(or independent judgment). It's no accident.
They're "going all in." Doesn't matter what Hand the Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths at the Deep State
& their cohorts have been dealt.
Win, stolen or lost. They were going & are going "all in" with the PsyOp, Scripted False Narrative of Russia hacking the Elections
/ Russia / Putin / Trump Propaganda gone full retard via the Deep States Opeatives in the Presstitute Media.
The misconception is that individuals believe we are dealing with normal, sane human beings. We're not. Far from it. What we
are dealing with are sick, twisted, Pure Evil Criminal, Psychopathic, Satanic / Lucerferian elements from the CIA / Pentagram
Temple of Set Scum literally making Hell on Earth.
What's at Stake is the Deep State Global network of MultiNational Central Banking, Espionage, Murder, War, Torture, Destabilization
Campaigns, BlackMail, Extortion, Child / Human Trafficking, Drug / Gun Running, Money Laundering, Corruption, NSA spying, Media
control & control of the 17 Intelligence Agencies.
Most importantly, The Deep State controls all the distribution lines of the aforementioned. Especially the Coaxial Cable Communication
lines of Espionage spying & Surveillance State Apparatus / Infrastructure. Agencies all built on the British Model of Intelligence.
Purely Evil & Highly Compartmentalized Levels which function as a Step Pyramid Model of Authority / Monarch Reign Pyramid Model
of Authority.
That's what's at Stake. How this plays out is anyone's guess. The Pure Evil Criminal Psychopath Rogue elements of the Deep
State will not go quietly. If not dealt with now, they'll disappear only to resurface at a later date with one objective:
Total Complete Full Spectrum World Domination they seek through Power & Control.
It's those Select Highly Compartmentalized Criminal Pure Evil Rogue Elements at the Deep State Top that have had control since
the JFK Execution that have entrenched themselves for decades & refuse to relinquish Control.
This impure evil has been running the world since the time of the Pharoahs, it's ancient Babylonian mysticism/paganism and
it is nothing more than the worship of Lucifer; it has never died out, it just re-emerges as something far more wicked, vile and
sinister. They are all the sons and daughters of satan and do what he does - kill, steal and destroy.
It would be Nieve to think that hundreds of thousands of years of control over mankind be simply turned over by the Criminal
Pure Evil Psychopathic Elite. The Deep State will always exist. However, the Pure Evil Criminal Psychopathic Highly Compartmentalized
Rogue Levels of it are being delt with. Which is what the World is witnessing.
I'd bet there is more to the Pete Strzok story. I don't think Mueller canned him, and tried to keep that on the down-low, based
solely on Strzok's overt, naked partisanship. I'd bet that the content of Strzok's text messages, rather than the (partisan) tone
, will be revealing. Things are heating up...
How about a paragraph or 3 of detail, juxtaposing all of Trump's high crimes & misdemeanors against the Klinton machine? Keep
in mind however, you must go back 30+ years, because there are documented incidents (not rumors, innuendo or hype) of criminality
from the Klinton crime syndicate. Hopefully you have likewise documentation for Trump...
" Trumps Guilty" Guilty of what exactly? Mueller and the boys have been at it for almost a year now and coming up with a big
nothing burger. The charges Flynn peaded guilty to have nothing to do with colusion with the Russians simply ommiting details
of conversations with the Russian ambassador. Alan Dershowicz a prominate progressive and constitutional scholar and no friend
of Trump has stated in an interview he sees no basis for an obstruction of justice charge.
I doubt that Strzok worked alone. He apparently headed up the Hillary Protection Team (HPT) at the FBI. How did he
keep Hillary updated? Via Loretta Lynch?
This info request is limited...what about the Huma/Weiner computer?
The Senate smells blood in the water, but doesn't sense who will win, hence the cautious demand letter.
Pretty clear that FBI and much of DOJ have gone rogue, and no longer respond to the rest of the government.
This scandal will be so significant that it makes Watergate look like jaywalking.
You will know when the tide has turned when Democrat Senators go for DOJ blood (in order to distance themselves).
All of this will eventually be shown as something far more sinister than mere partisan agents. And those details will reveal
a whole new pattern of illegal, immoral, and traitorous conduct.
This is one of the best re-caps of this whole sordid FBI obstruction/coverup situation: Strzok and Laufman had also interviewed
Hillary. No recordings were made of the session. But Comey testified that it's a "crime to lie to us". Not for the Clintons and
their associates.
Hillary had told her interviewers that she hadn't received training on handling classified information, but she
signed a document testifying that she had. Hillary claimed that she hadn't carried a second phone, but an aide, Justin Cooper,
who made the server possible, testified
that indeed she did .
Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills told the same lie. These are the kinds of misstep that Team Mueller would have used to hang a
Trump associate. But Comey testified that Hillary Clinton did not lie. And that meant he was lying. Not only did Clinton's people
lie to the FBI. But the head of the FBI had lied for them.
The fix had been in all along.
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WAS COMING FROM INSIDE THE FBI
please provide the following communications, in the form of text messages or otherwise, to the Committee no later than December
11, 2017....
First few questions for Mr. Strzok:
How many cell phones have you owned/used over the past 4 years?
Have you ever owned/used a throw away phone?
How many computers have you had/used over the past 4 years?
Have you ever owned/used/controlled a private server?
Have you ever thrown away a blackberry?
If you wanted to have private, secure communication regarding your obstruction of justice activities, would you avoid using
your office computer or cell phone?
I remain skeptical. After 46% of Americans are informed of some wrongdoing, Trump discovers it too.
Silly me, thinking that Trump, as president and having every law enforcement/spy agency at his command, should be finding out
long before me and I should be reading about what he DID, not what he is TWEETING.
Why isn't he personally confronting the principals? Remember "Your Fired"? I didn't and still don't watch TV, but I thought
he was famous for calling the person directly accountable before him, not tweeting or writing a letter to the editor or a prayer
request.
Trump didn't have this guy removed. His own people did, long ago. This is like the Mafia seeing a made man is so out of hand
that the Mafia itself turns him in.
We should be keen on watching results, not the evidence of what abject morons we are as Americans to have a government so nakedly
corrupt. I think the main problem is Americans, despite great genetics and being born into such wealthy conditions, are operating
with effective IQ's below sub-saharan Africa. If you take in television news as information, that's all a critically thinking
person needs to know about you. You're a three year old in terms of logic and reason.
I'm just too worn out with victory being right around the corner since at least as far back as Whitewater.
"... the news of Strzok's direct role in the statement that ultimately cleared the former Democratic presidential candidate of criminal wrongdoing, now combined with the fact that he was dismissed from special counsel Robert Mueller's team after exchanging private messages with an FBI lawyer that could be seen as favoring Clinton politically, may give ammunition to those seeking ways to discredit Mueller's Russia investigation. ..."
Over the weekend we noted that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's top FBI investigator into
'Russian meddling', agent
Peter Strzok, was removed from the probe due to the discovery of anti-Trump text messages
exchanged with a colleague (a colleague whom he also happened to be having an extra-marital
affair with).
Not surprisingly, the discovery prompted a visceral response from Trump via Twitter:
Tainted (no, very dishonest?) FBI "agent's role in Clinton probe under review." Led Clinton
Email probe. @foxandfriends Clinton money going
to wife of another FBI agent in charge.
Alas, as it turns out, Strzok, who was blatantly exposed as a political hack by his own
wreckless text messages, also had a leading role in the Hillary email investigation. And
wouldn't you know it, as CNN has
apparently just discovered, Strzok not only held a leading role in that investigation but
potentially single-handedly saved Hillary from prosecution by making the now-infamous change in
Comey's final statement to describe her email abuses as "extremely careless" rather than the
original language of "grossly negligent."
A former top counterintelligence expert at the FBI, now at the center of a political uproar
for exchanging private messages that appeared to mock President Donald Trump, changed a key
phrase in former FBI Director James Comey's description of how former secretary of state
Hillary Clinton handled classified information, according to US officials familiar with the
matter.
Electronic records show Peter Strzok, who led the investigation of Hillary Clinton's private
email server as the No. 2 official in the counterintelligence division, changed Comey's earlier
draft language describing Clinton's actions as "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless," the
source said. The drafting process was a team effort, CNN is told, with a handful of people
reviewing the language as edits were made, according to another US official familiar with the
matter.
But the news of Strzok's direct role in the statement that ultimately cleared the former
Democratic presidential candidate of criminal wrongdoing, now combined with the fact that he
was dismissed from special counsel Robert Mueller's team after exchanging private messages with
an FBI lawyer that could be seen as favoring Clinton politically, may give ammunition to those
seeking ways to discredit Mueller's Russia investigation.
The FBI and the Justice Department declined to comment.
Of course, as we noted a month ago (see:
First Comey Memo Concluded Hillary Was "Grossly Negligent," Punishable By Jail ), the
change in language was significant since federal law states that "gross negligence" in handling
the nation's intelligence can be punished criminally with prison time or fines whereas "extreme
carelessness" has no such legal definition and/or ramifications.
In fact, Section 793 of federal law states that "gross negligence" with respect to the
handling of national defense documents is punishable by a fine and up to 10 years in prison
...so you can see why that might present a problem for Hillary.
"Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document,
writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan,
map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1)
through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or
delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed,
or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of
custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or
destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to
his superior officer -- shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years,
or both."
And just like that, the farce that has heretofore been referred to as the "Russian meddling
probe" has been exposed for what it really is...an extremely compromised political "witch
hunt".
As the phony Russian Witch Hunt continues, two groups are laughing at this excuse for a lost
election taking hold, Democrats and Russians!
This is the Mueller-Comey FBI crime family at its finest. James Comey was an highly paid
executive at Lockheed Martin just prior to being named FBI director, replacing his close
buddy Mueller who was FBI director. LM was also a high contributor to the Clinton Foundation
in its glory days, with suspicious ties to Comey's lawyer brother. Dickie Mueller seems to be
the brains of the whole cabal.
Where are the emails between this stork and the fbi page named kelly that he was having an
interoffice affair with? Its been proved she hated OUR PRESIDENT TRUMP of US(A). This stork
guy won't be getting the attention from this fbi page that he is in an interoffice
relationship with unless he acts the way she wants. Seems like these emails should be easy to
get by the lamestream wapo, failing nytimes, fakest of fake news cnn, etc.
When Strzok made the change, he provided incontrovertible proof of the FBI's obstruction
of justice in the Clinton case, as this article clearly explains:
Zero of this happens if the President hadn't been hammering in a public way for
intelligence leaks to be plugged and calling out the FBI and Comey relentlessly.....I think
it's a pretty good bet that one of the twenty seven leak investigations going on caught this
idiot..No way an Inspector General just happened upon Storks texts...that takes some
"wiretapping" or other counter measures..Now the dam has burst...Anyone defending the FBI and
it's integrity at this point needs to be hung...
And I feel like the Democrats get so distracted. They have been talking about sexual
harassment and stuff instead of the TAX BILL. It is so damn easy to get them to take their
eyes off the ball! and get played again and again. . . and TRAGIC given the consequences . .
.
It's the perfect "distraction". Allows them to engage in virtue-signaling and "fighting
for average Americans". It's all phony, they always "lose" in the end getting exactly what
they wanted in the first place, while not actually having to cast a vote for it.
It's all related, less safety net and more inequality means more desperation to take a
job, *ANY* job, means more women putting up with sexual harassment (and workplace bullying
and horrible and illegal workplace conditions etc.) as the price of a paycheck.
Horrible Toomey's re-election was a parallel to the Clinton/Trump fiasco. The Democrats
put up a corporate shill, Katie McGinty that no-one trusted.
"Former lobbyist Katie McGinty has spent three decades in politics getting rich off the
companies she regulated and subsidized. Now this master of the revolving-door wants
Pennsylvania voters to give her another perch in government: U.S. Senator." Washington
Examiner.
She was a Clintonite through and through, that everyone, much like $Hillary, could see
through.
To paraphrase the Beatles, you say you want a revolution but you don't really mean it. You
want more of the same because it makes you feel good to keep voting for your Senator or your
Congressman. The others are corrupt and evil, but your guys are good. If only the others were
like your guys. News flash: they are all your guys.
America is doomed. And so much the better. Despite all America has done for the world, it
has also been a brutal despot. America created consumerism, super-sizing and the Kardashians.
These are all unforgivable sins. America is probably the most persistently violent country in
the world both domestically and internationally. No other country has invaded or occupied so
much of the world, unless you count the known world in which case Macedonia wins.
This tax plan is what Americans want because they are pretty ignorant and stupid. They are
incapable of understanding basic math so they can't work out the details. They believe that
any tax cut is inherently good and all government is bad so that is also all that matters.
They honestly think they or their kids will one day be rich so they don't want to hurt rich
people. They also believe that millionaires got their money honestly and through hard work
because that is what they learned from their parents.
Just send a blank check to Goldman Sachs. Keep a bit to buy a gun which you can use to
either shoot up a McDonalds or blow your own brains out.
And some people still ask me why I left and don't want to come back. LOL
Macedonia of today is not the same are that conquered the world. They stole the name from
Greeks.
That being said, the US is ripe for a change. Every policy the current rulers enact seems
to make things better. However, I suspect a revolution would kill majority of the population
since it would disrupt the all important supply chains, so it does not seem viable.
However, a military takeover could be viable. If they are willing to wipe out the most
predatory portions of the ruling class, they could fix the healthcare system, install a
high-employment policy and take out the banks and even the military contractors. Which could
make them very popular.
Yeah, right. Have you seen our generals? They're just more of the same leeches we
have everywhere else in the 0.01%. Have you seen any of the other military dictatorships
around the world, like actually existing ones? They're all brilliantly corrupt and total
failures when it comes to running any sort of economy. Not to mention the total loss of civil
rights. Americans have this idiotic love of their military thanks to decades of effective
propaganda and think the rule of pampered generals would somehow be better than the right to
vote. Bleh.
This is a military dictatorship. The fourth and sixth amendments have been de facto
repealed. Trump cared about one thing and one thing only, namely to repeal the estate tax. He
is the ultimate con man and this was his biggest con. It is truly amazing how he accomplished
this. He has saved his family a billion $$$. He will now turn over governing to the generals
and Goldman Sachs. He may even retire. Truly amazing. One has to admire the sheer perversity
of it all. When will the American electorate get tired of being conned? The fact is they have
nothing but admiration for Trump. We live in a criminal culture, winner take all. America
loves its winners.
There is an old 2003 David Brooks column in which he mentions that
"The Democrats couldn't even persuade people to oppose the repeal of the estate tax, which
is explicitly for the mega-upper class. Al Gore, who ran a populist campaign, couldn't even
win the votes of white males who didn't go to college, whose incomes have stagnated over the
past decades and who were the explicit targets of his campaign. Why don't more Americans want
to distribute more wealth down to people like themselves?"
Then Brooks goes on to explain
"The most telling polling result from the 2000 election was from a Time magazine survey
that asked people if they are in the top 1 percent of earners. Nineteen percent of Americans
say they are in the richest 1 percent and a further 20 percent expect to be someday. So right
away you have 39 percent of Americans who thought that when Mr. Gore savaged a plan that
favored the top 1 percent, he was taking a direct shot at them."
The Republicans have conditioned people to believe government services (except for
defense/military) are run poorly and need to be "run like a business" for a profit.
The problem is that not all government services CAN be profitable (homeless care, mental
health care for the poor, EPA enforcement, OSHA enforcement). And when attempts are made to
privatize some government operations such as incarceration, the result is that the private
company tries to maximize profits by pushing for laws to incarcerate ever more people.
The history of the USA as viewed by outsiders, maybe 50 years hence, will be that of a
resource consuming nation that spent a vast fortune on military hardware and military
adventures when it had little to fear due to geography, a nation that touted an independent
press that was anything but, a nation that created a large media/entertainment industry which
helped to keep citizens in line, a nation that fostered an overly large (by 2 or 3 times per
Paul Whooley) parasitical financial industry that did not perform its prime capital
allocation task competently as it veered from bubble to bubble and a nation that managed to
spend great sums on medical care without covering all citizens.
But the USA does have a lot of guns and a lot of frustrated people.
Maybe Kevlar vests will be the fashion of the future?
The provision to do away with the estate tax, if not immediately, in the current versions
(House and Senate) is great news for the 1%, and bad for the rest of us.
And if more people are not against that (thanks for quoting the NYTImes article), it's the
failure of the rest of the media for not focusing more on it, but wasting time and energy on
fashion, sports, entertainment, etc.
he provision to do away with the estate tax . . . is great news for the 1%
I think it's even a little more extreme than that. The data is a few years old, but it is
only the top 0.6% who are affected by estate taxes in the United States. See the data at
these web sites:
The military adventures were largely in support of what Smedley Butler so accurately
called the Great "Racket" of Monroe Doctrine colonialism and rapacious extractive
"capitalism" aka "looting."
It took longer and costed the rich a bit more to buy up all the bits of government, but
the way they've done will likely be more compendious and lasting. Barring some "intervening
event(s)".
While Republicans show their true colors, im out there seeing a resurgence of civil
society. And im starting to reach Hard core Tea Party types. Jobs, Manufacturing, Actual
Policy.
Renegade ( ex-? ) Republican David Stockman NAILS IT TO THE WALL:
To be sure, some element of political calculus always lies behind legislation. For instance, the Dems didn't pass the Wagner
Act in 1935, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 or the Affordable Care Act of 2010 as exercises in pure civic virtue -- these measures
targeted huge constituencies with tens of millions of votes at stake.
Still, threadbare theories and untoward effects are just that; they can't be redeemed by the risible claim that this legislative
Rube Goldberg contraption being jammed through sight unseen ( in ACA redux fashion ) is for the benefit of the rank
and file Republican voters, and most especially not for the dispossessed independents and Dems of Flyover America who voted
for Trump out of protest against the failing status quo.
To the contrary. The GOP tax bill is of the lobbies, by the PACs and for the money. Period.
There is no higher purpose or even nugget of conservative economic principle to it. The battle cry of "pro-growth tax cuts"
is just a warmed over 35-year-old mantra from the Reagan era that does not remotely reflect the actual content of the bill
or disguise what it really is: namely, a cowardly infliction of more than $2 trillion of debt on future American taxpayers
in order to fund tax relief today for the GOP's K Street and Wall Street paymasters.
On a net basis, in fact, fully 97% of the $1.412 trillion revenue loss in the Senate Committee bill over the next decade
is attributable to the $1.369 trillion cost of cutting the corporate rate from 35% to 20% (and repeal of the related AMT).
All the rest of the massive bill is just a monumental zero-sum pot stirring operation.
Stockman, who knows federal budgeting better than most of us know the contents of our own homes, goes on to shred the tax bill
item by item, leaving a smoking, scorched-earth moonscape in his deadly rhetorical wake. And he's not done yet.
But Lordy, how he scourges the last hurrah of the know-nothing R party, just before it gets pounded senseless at the polls
next year. Bubble III is the last hope of the retrograde Republican Congressional rabble. But it's a 50/50 proposition at best
that our beloved bubble lasts through next November. :-(
thanks Jim, yes, this looks like it will knock the legs out of the "main st" economy, but over at versailles on the potomac
they'll be listening to/playing the fiddle and watching the country burn while guzzling 300 dollar scotch and and admiring their
campfire.
Right next to "Versailles on the Potomac" is the site of the former Bonus Army camp, Anacostia Flats. The burning of the Bonus
Army camp at Anacostia Flats could be seen, as a red glow, from the White House. Historians charitable to Herbert Hoover suggest
that Gen. Douglass MacArthur 'conned' Hoover into letting the Army 'disperse' the Bonus Army. The resulting spectacle can be said
to be one of the prime reasons why the American public rejected Hoover when he ran for re-election against Franklin Roosevelt.
I don't know if Hoover played the fiddle, but MacArthur was known to be able to play politicians like one.
The lesson here, if there is one, is that the present occupant of the White House had better be very circumspect about taking
advice from Generals.
"anacostia flats" bonus army raided by Wall Street General MacArthur which is reason in previous iteration of Wall Street power
grab by "American Liberty League", ("The Plot To Seize the White House"-Jules Archer) Marine General Smedley Butler felt forced
play whistle-blower, providing FDR leverage he needed to prosecute banksters.
Big River Bandido December 2, 2017 at 3:26 pm
The gist of the commenter's statement was true - Democrats are totally complicit in the end result of Republican economic and
foreign policy. Until now, Republicans could only deliver on their promises when Democrats helped them out. The Democrats' enabling
strategy eventually alienated their own core supporters. With this tax cut, the Republicans have shown, for the first time, the
ability to enact and sign their own legislation.
The Democrats basically accommodated the Republicans long enough to ensure their own irrelevance. They will not rise again
until their "mixed stances" and those who encourage them are purged.
"... By riding hatred of President Trump and spurring on the Russia-gate hysteria, Democrats hope to win in 2018 without a serious examination of why they lost support of key working- and middle-class voting blocs, says Andrew Spannaus. ..."
By riding hatred of President Trump and spurring on the Russia-gate hysteria, Democrats
hope to win in 2018 without a serious examination of why they lost support of key working- and
middle-class voting blocs, says Andrew Spannaus.
Victories in state-level elections in New Jersey and Virginia on Nov. 7 have buoyed
Democratic hopes for an anti-Trump wave among the population that will lead to a big victory in
next year's mid-term elections, and permanently damage President Trump heading towards 2020.
Yet there is significant risk in hoping that anti-Trump sentiment will be enough for the
Democrats to return to power.
The danger is that the considerable differences between the centrist faction, which for the
most part controls the party structure, and the progressive wing of the party, will be swept
under the rug in the name of unity, perpetuating the substantive problems that have alienated
important sections of the population from the party.
The power of opposition to Trump has been on display from the very beginning: It was more
than a bit ironic to see feminist protestors – properly exercising their right to protest
against a President who has made many derogatory comments towards women – hold up signs
defending the CIA during the Women's March on Inauguration Day Yes, in their zeal to oppose
Trump, both the center and the far left have been willing to embrace the battle led by a
limited but powerful grouping in the intelligence community to stop the President from his
stated intention of improving relations with Vladimir Putin's Russia.
This has become such a cause célèbre that people who would normally
look suspiciously at the motives of the CIA or other similar agencies seem unable to recognize
that the basic "crime" Trump is accused of is favoring diplomacy with a country most of the
institutions consider an enemy. With the media's help, it has apparently been decided that this
President does not have the right to influence policy, if the majority of the establishment
disagrees with his positions.
The major issue in the Democratic Party is obviously the economy. Sen. Bernie Sanders,
officially an Independent from Vermont, won 43 percent of the vote in the 2016 Democratic
primaries because he pushed a "populist," anti-system message that was heavily critical of
globalization, Wall Street and trade deals that have weakened the American middle class.
By riding hatred of President Trump and spurring on the Russia-gate hysteria, Democrats
hope to win in 2018 without a serious examination of why they lost support of key working- and
middle-class voting blocs, says Andrew Spannaus.
Victories in state-level elections in New Jersey and Virginia on Nov. 7 have buoyed
Democratic hopes for an anti-Trump wave among the population that will lead to a big victory in
next year's mid-term elections, and permanently damage President Trump heading towards 2020.
Yet there is significant risk in hoping that anti-Trump sentiment will be enough for the
Democrats to return to power.
The danger is that the considerable differences between the centrist faction, which for the
most part controls the party structure, and the progressive wing of the party, will be swept
under the rug in the name of unity, perpetuating the substantive problems that have alienated
important sections of the population from the party.
The power of opposition to Trump has been on display from the very beginning: It was more
than a bit ironic to see feminist protestors – properly exercising their right to protest
against a President who has made many derogatory comments towards women – hold up signs
defending the CIA during the Women's March on Inauguration Day Yes, in their zeal to oppose
Trump, both the center and the far left have been willing to embrace the battle led by a
limited but powerful grouping in the intelligence community to stop the President from his
stated intention of improving relations with Vladimir Putin's Russia.
This has become such a cause célèbre that people who would normally
look suspiciously at the motives of the CIA or other similar agencies seem unable to recognize
that the basic "crime" Trump is accused of is favoring diplomacy with a country most of the
institutions consider an enemy. With the media's help, it has apparently been decided that this
President does not have the right to influence policy, if the majority of the establishment
disagrees with his positions.
The major issue in the Democratic Party is obviously the economy. Sen. Bernie Sanders,
officially an Independent from Vermont, won 43 percent of the vote in the 2016 Democratic
primaries because he pushed a "populist," anti-system message that was heavily critical of
globalization, Wall Street and trade deals that have weakened the American middle class.
"... Mark Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the research. ..."
"... Before that agreement, Fusion GPS's research into Trump was funded by a still unknown Republican client during the GOP primary ..."
"... The "Russian dossier," whose contents Trump has denied and which has been widely discredited, is believed to have led the FBI to investigate the Trump campaign and several Trump associates. ..."
"... Until now, Fusion GPS has continued to refuse to cooperate with congressional panels investigating Russian attempts to intervene in the election, and how the Obama administration probed those efforts. Democrats have also protected the company. ..."
Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee paid opposition research firm Fusion GPS to compile the "Russian dossier"
that triggered an FBI investigation into possible collusion between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government,
according to a
report Tuesday by the Washington Post .
A Republican had contracted first with Fusion GPS, and Clinton and the DNC continued to fund Fusion GPS's work, the report says.
According to the Post :
Mark Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the
research.
After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI
and the U.S. intelligence community
Before that agreement, Fusion GPS's research into Trump was funded by a still unknown Republican client during the GOP primary.
The Clinton campaign and the DNC, through the law firm, continued to fund Fusion GPS's research through the end of October
2016, days before Election Day.
The "Russian dossier," whose contents Trump has denied and which has been widely discredited, is believed to have led the FBI
to investigate the Trump campaign and several Trump associates.
Until now, Fusion GPS has continued to refuse to cooperate with congressional panels investigating Russian attempts to intervene
in the election, and how the Obama administration probed those efforts. Democrats have also protected the company.
The revelation that the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee were involved in procuring the salacious accusations
against Trump that fed their own later accusations of Russian interference in the election lends credence to those who, like Trump
himself, have regarded the Russia accusations as conspiracy theories.
Last week, Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journalobserved :
The Washington narrative is focused on special counsel Robert Mueller's probe. But the ferocious pushback and unseemly tactics
from Democrats suggest they are growing worried. Maybe the real story is that Democrats worked with an opposition-research firm
that has some alarming ties to Russia and potentially facilitated a disinformation campaign during a presidential election.
On the heels of revelations that the FBI was investigating Russian attempts to influence Hillary Clinton to approve a controversial
uranium deal, Democrats will have more questions to answer about possible collusion with Russia. The FBI, too, will face additional
scrutiny from Congress -- especially as it agreed to pay Steele after the election for additional research into Trump's potential
Russia ties.
"... as Russiagate widens, it's becoming clear that some part of the US intelligence community and part of the US financial elite were involved in the manipulation of the 2016 election. ..."
"... The spooks have been trying (and failing!) for years to break up the EU ..."
"... As for the gangsters, nobody could compete with the thug (felon) Avigdor Lieberman in the Knesset and the neo-Nazi activists in Kevan government. Don't forget that Mr. Kolomojsky, an Israeli citizen and big-time criminal and financier of the neo-Nazi battalion Azov, is also a pillar of Jewish Community in Ukraine (and a darling of the Wall Street Journal) and that Mr. D. Alperovitch, the Russophobe who conducted the fraudulent analysis of the data with his fraudulent CrowdStrike, is from a ziocon company of Atlantic Council. The Tokyo Rose has been, of course, documented in a company of neo-Nazis. ..."
"... Oh? And what evidence would that be? The CrowdStrike report? The Steele dossier? James Comey's say-so? Or perhaps that of some other DNC contractor or Obama administration flunkee? Do come back and enlighten us when they find some real evidence–i.e., something that might actually stand an outside chance of winning a conviction in court. ..."
"... Precisely. Thanks for highlighting this succinct explanation. Those who point to intel agencies or career bureaucrats as Deep State are identifying the puppets, not the masters. Kudos to Whitney for getting it right. ..."
Michael Kenny, November 11, 2017 at 2:23 pm GMT • 300 Words
Russiagate still scaring the daylights out of some people! The distinction between
"Hillary paid for it" and "Hillary fabricated it" has already been made umpteen times. The
reason, I think, why this author is trying to tie Hillary to the intelligence agencies and
the millionaires is because, as Russiagate widens, it's becoming clear that some part of
the US intelligence community and part of the US financial elite were involved in the
manipulation of the 2016 election.
A part of the US financial elite have invested heavily (and for the most part, legally) in
Russia but have thereby done business with some very dubious characters, some probably linked
to the Russian Mafia. Having installed their stooge in the Kremlin, the gangsters took the
logical next step and tried to install a stooge in the White House. The US elite was happy to
let the Russians have a slice of the cake but by manipulating the election, the gangsters
were in practice making a grab for the whole cake. The US elite wasn't willing to accept
that. Hence the current fight.
The spooks have been trying (and failing!) for years to break up the EU and what
both the US elite and the Russian gangsters had in mind was to carve up Europe between them
("spheres of influence"). The two projects came together in Ukraine. In other words, all of
this has very little to do with politics or international relations and a great deal to do
with dirty money.
Trying to pin that on Hillary is a rather flat-footed attempt to divert
attention away from the links between the Russian gangsters, the spooks and the Trump's
entourage.
"Trying to pin that on Hillary is a rather flat-footed attempt to divert attention away
from the links between the Russian gangsters, the spooks and the Trump's entourage."
We understand your frustration with the events in Syria. The ziocons' vicious hatred
towards Russians for the "loss" of Syria to the Syrian citizens (instead the
US/Israel/SA-sponsored ISIS) is evident.
As for the gangsters, nobody could compete with the thug (felon) Avigdor Lieberman in the
Knesset and the neo-Nazi activists in Kevan government. Don't forget that Mr. Kolomojsky, an
Israeli citizen and big-time criminal and financier of the neo-Nazi battalion Azov, is also a
pillar of Jewish Community in Ukraine (and a darling of the Wall Street Journal) and that Mr.
D. Alperovitch, the Russophobe who conducted the fraudulent analysis of the data with his
fraudulent CrowdStrike, is from a ziocon company of Atlantic Council. The Tokyo Rose has
been, of course, documented in a company of neo-Nazis.
Mike Whitney' paper has a hall mark of a courageous and principled person, whereas your
Russophobic insinuations have been Russophobic insinuations and nothing more.
Yeah, yeah. Poor, prosecuted Hillary is just a victim. Like all the rest of the poor,
prosecuted leftist sore losers. Or rather, losers, sore or otherwise.
Hillary has a long, long career playing in the sandbox with Murder Inc, Political
Division.
Of course, she will take the fall for failure. Mobsters whack other mobsters quite
frequently if they "fail"or are disloyal. And of course, glory-seekers like Hillary set themselves up for complete humiliation, at
minimum, when things don't go so well.
And yet and yet there is evidence that the Trump campaign was in contact with various
Russians all during the campaign.
Oh? And what evidence would that be? The CrowdStrike report? The Steele dossier? James
Comey's say-so? Or perhaps that of some other DNC contractor or Obama administration flunkee?
Do come back and enlighten us when they find some real evidence–i.e., something
that might actually stand an outside chance of winning a conviction in court.
And they too were looking for "dirt" -on Clinton.
Well that isn't too hard to find, is it! No need to go to the black market for that.
The question now is: to what extent was the Trump campaign conspiring with Russia to
subvert our election process? If they were involved in such a conspiracy, then the Trump
organization has violated Federal laws and should be held to account, each and every one
who so conspired.
Opposition research is not a crime. Nor is talking about US politics with foreign
nationals; if it were, I'd be guilty of treason on a weekly basis, since I now live in
Europe.
Although you may not like the source of the information nor its underlying purposes, if
it exposes criminal actions by anyone than it served a good cause.
This is hilarious! I can remember using almost exactly those same words with
Hillbots every time one of her corrupt schemes came to light. For example, isn't interceding
with the Attorney General on your wife's behalf to head off an investigation in to her before
an election a crime known as 'obstruction of justice'? Riddle me that, Batman.
Precisely. Thanks for highlighting this succinct explanation. Those who point to intel
agencies or career bureaucrats as Deep State are identifying the puppets, not the masters.
Kudos to Whitney for getting it right.
This is from July, 2017, before the most recent revelations...
Notable quotes:
"... Azerbaijan's Silk Way Airlines transported hundreds of tons of weapons under diplomatic cover to Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan Congo ..."
"... the weapons and ammunition are usual from east Europe (Bulgaria, Serbia, Croatia, Ukraine ...) ..."
"... the contracts are with U.S. companies themselves hired by the CIA and/or Pentagon as well as with Saudi and Israeli companies ..."
"... offloading during unusual "fueling stops" allowed to disguise the real addressee of the loads ..."
"... With lots of details from obtained emails. Ten thousands of tons of weapons and ammunition to al-Qaeda and other Takfiris in Syria also came first from Libya by ship, then on at least 160 big cargo flights via Saudi Arabia and Qatar to Turkey and during the last years by various ships under U.S. contracts from mostly east-European countries. ..."
"... A British spy. An Arizona senator. And one inflammatory dossier on Donald Trump. The connection between them is starting to unravel... ..."
"... there are indications that McCain was the one who hired the company which created the infamous Steele dossier. ..."
"... there is evidences that he distributed it to the CIA, FBI and to the media. ..."
"... the "Reason" article is complete nonsense. I've covered the details the last two weeks. The "dodgy dossier" was shared by Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd, with the British MI6 and the FBI starting in August 2016. That's why I claim it's not RussiaGate but IC-Gate. A complot by the Intelligence Community of the UK and US. McCain is just a distraction of the true effort to dump Trump. ..."
"... Christopher Steele and Sir Andrew Wood worked in a British spy nest in Moscow during the Yeltsin years of the 90s. ..."
"... Is RussiaGate Really IC-Gate Did MI6/CIA Collude with Chris Steele to Entrap Trump? ..."
Azerbaijan's Silk Way Airlines transported hundreds of tons of weapons under diplomatic
cover to Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan Congo
the weapons and ammunition are usual from east Europe (Bulgaria, Serbia, Croatia, Ukraine
...)
the contracts are with U.S. companies themselves hired by the CIA and/or Pentagon as well
as with Saudi and Israeli companies
offloading during unusual "fueling stops" allowed to disguise the real addressee of the
loads
With lots of details from obtained emails. Ten thousands of tons of weapons and ammunition to al-Qaeda and other Takfiris in Syria also
came first from Libya by ship, then on
at least 160 big cargo flights via Saudi Arabia and Qatar to Turkey and during the last years
by
various
ships under U.S. contracts from
mostly east-European
countries.
---
With all the Trump-Russia nonsense flowing around one person's involvement in the creation of
the issue deserves more scrutiny:
McCain and the Trump-Russia Dossier. The third time is the Charm. I am reminded. McCain can do no wrong:
His service to his country (it's alleged, by aiding the enemy);
The Keating Five; (I dindu nuttin wrong)
The Trump-Russia Dossier (by political treason stabbing the nominee of his own Party; ignoring
the words of Reagan). McCain, once again, will be excused and forgiven. His actions were due to illness – the most
aggressive cancer of the brain. How is that so?
Thanks b, the mountain of evidence you provide daily, as proof of the corporate empire's malignancy,
is therapeutic and empowering, but, until this information reaches the bulk of the U$A's masses
we're all just treading water here.
@2: The last thing McCain has to worry about is prosecution or even criticism for fomenting war
crimes. The cancer is real and he will be lauded for his courage and lionized if he dies. But
should he survive he will carry on as usual with no apologies and no criticism.
Sorry b .... the "Reason" article is complete nonsense. I've covered the details the last two
weeks. The "dodgy dossier" was shared by Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd, with the British MI6
and the FBI starting in August 2016. That's why I claim it's not RussiaGate but IC-Gate. A complot
by the Intelligence Community of the UK and US. McCain is just a distraction of the true effort
to dump Trump.
A British spy. An Arizona senator. And one inflammatory dossier on Donald Trump. The
connection between them is starting to unravel...
there are indications that McCain was the one who hired the company which created the
infamous Steele dossier.
there is evidences that he distributed it to the CIA, FBI and to the media.
the issue is now in front of a British court.
Christopher Steele and Sir Andrew Wood worked in a British spy nest in Moscow during the Yeltsin
years of the 90s.
Is RussiaGate Really IC-Gate Did MI6/CIA Collude with Chris Steele to Entrap Trump?
'Sir' Andrew Wood as spy chief in Moscow
Fusion GPS linked to UAE Sheikh and Rubio Donor
Peter W. Smith Tapped Alt-Right to Access Dark Net for Clinton emails – linked to Charles
C. Johnson – Stephen Bannon - Andrew Auernheimer, a hacker who goes by the alias 'Weev', "exiled"
to the Ukraine
Thanks, b. Love the lede... 350 "diplomatic" flights transporting weapons for ter'rists - Trud
What a slimy little cur John McCain (Satan's Mini-Me) turns out to be. Guess how surprised
I'm not that the little skunk is up to his eyeballs in weapons proliferation & profiteering, not
to mention that old Yankee favourite Gun-barrel "Diplomacy".
I suspected during the Prez Campaign that Trump had McCain well and truly scoped when he said
(of Satan's Mini-Me) "I like my war "heroes" not to get captured."
This story says a lot for China & Russia's approach to long-term Strategic Diplomacy. I imagine
that they both know all this stuff and a helluva lot more, but they go to all the summits, prattle
about Our AmeriKKKan Friends, and then presumably laugh their asses off when the summit is over.
Xi & Putin seem to truly believe that the blowback from all this Yankee Duplicity will eventually
do as much harm to the American Dream as an Ru/Cn Military Solution.
@james 8
[Reported by Independent.co.uk, New York Post and the Guardian.co.uk] McCain admitted he handed
the dossier to Comey."
NYPost: McCain "I gave Russia blackmail dossier on Trump to the FBI"
Senator John McCain passed documents to the FBI director, James Comey, last month alleging
secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Moscow and that Russian intelligence had personally
compromising material on the president-elect himself
Yes, there will be no accountability in the U.S. for the exceptional ones. However, the British
courts setting aside "special relationships" may take a different view that McCain has a case
to answer.
Craven McCain has been teflon for his entire political career and he was teflon when he wrecked
airplanes in the navy. McCain is just a teflon guy. Untouchable. Probably has "dossiers" on anybody
that can damage him.
@2 I have no doubt that McCain's medical condition is real. I well remember the news stories in
early June when McCain put up a bizarre performance during testimony by James Comey - asking questions
that simply didn't make any sense whatsoever and leaving everyone utterly gob-smacked regarding
McCain's mental state.
Possibly all of the Russia-gate allegations, which have been taken on faith by Democratic partisans
and members of the anti-Trump Resistance, trace back to claims paid for or generated by Democrats. If
for a moment one could remove the often justified hatred many people feel toward Trump, it would be
impossible to avoid the impression that the scandal may have been devised by the DNC and the Clinton
camp in league with Obama's intelligence chiefs to serve political and geopolitical aims. In other
words this is a sophisticated false flag operation.
Even more alarmingly (what really smells like a part on intelligence agencies coup d'état against
Trump ) is the basis for much of the Jan. 6 intelligence "assessment" by those "hand-picked" analysts
from three U.S. intelligence agencies - the CIA, the FBI and the NSA - not all 17 agencies that Hillary
Clinton continues to insist were involved. (Obama's intelligence chiefs, DNI Clapper and CIA Director
John Brennan, publicly admitted that only three agencies took part and The New York Times printed a
correction saving so.)
Notable quotes:
"... Well its three . And one is Brennan . And one is whatever. I mean, give me a break. They're political hacks . So you look at it, and then you have Brennan, you have Clapper and you have Comey . Comey's proven now to be a liar and he's proven to be a leaker. So you look at that. ..."
"... Trump gets it. He knows the weak points of the propaganda claims of "Russian hacking": Podesta and the fake Steele dossier, the DNC server, the lack of any FBI investigation of the alleged hack, the NYT's long false insistence on the '17 agencies' assessment, the "political hacks" who fitted their claims to the Obama/Clinton narrative. ..."
"... But neither the Washington Post nor the NY Times or others mention the crucial points Trump spelled out in their write-ups of the gaggle. There is no word on the DNC servers in them. Instead they create a claim of "Putin says and Trump just believes him". The do not name the facts and questions Trump listed to support his position. Taking up the valid questions Trump asked would of course require the news outlets to finally delve into them. We can't have that. ..."
"... Trump is not the brightest bulb and he is not well informed. I dislike nearly all of his policies. But he understands that the "Russian hacking" narrative is false and is carried by lunatic political hacks who want to push the U.S. back into a cold, or maybe even hot war with Russia, China, Iran and probably everyone else. ..."
"... I guess it could be that the DNC really was hacked, but maybe they faked the hack story, fed the story to Crowdstrike, then paid Crowdstrike a lot of money to fabricate a fairytale about Russian hacking... ..."
"... This Russian fairytale would be the bedrock of Hillary's campaign, and it gave her a reason to badmouth trump who intended to get along with Putin, which deeply offended the neocon Bolsheviks who've been running things since 9/11 ..."
"... If the hacking really happened, it's maybe more likely to have been the US NSA that did the hacking... that might explain why the DNC and Hillary were not alarmed by the hacking --if it happened-- and did nothing about it, and continued to write incriminating emails... ..."
"... Russia gate is Really Hillary Gate... And that's just the beginning as we consider the DNC lid coming off via Donna Brazile and the Uranium scandal. Mueller has been gatekeeper for the Deep State for OKC bombing, 911,...other False Flag...and now today's Intrigues. ..."
"... Back when Trump looked like he was in the running in the US presidential election, I wondered how one man, even if he was genuine, could without the backing of US intelligence, take down the deepstate/borg/whatever. Putin pulled Russia out of the nineties with key backing from patriotic intelligence and military leadership, but Trump even if genuine would be on his own. Just ordered 'Art of the deal' to try and understand Trump a bit more. Looks like he has just destroyed a big chunk of deep state financing so will be interesting to see how long he can stay alive. ..."
"... well, Mueller declined to find 9/11 evidence against bin laden... or maybe we should say, "he declined to manufacture evidence"... for some unkown reason... ..."
"... Can we just face the facts here that there is a coordinated effort by these elite to get Trump dethroned? What reason for this? Simple...he's a threat. ..."
"... Mike Whitney posted a great piece this week suggesting Brennan, Obama's political 'hack', is behind this mess - "Brennan spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign from the get-go. As early as August 2016, Brennan was providing classified briefings to ranking members of Congress expressing his conviction that Moscow was helping Trump to win the election. The former Director offered no proof to back up his claims nor has he since then. It was also Brennan who gradually persuaded Clapper, Comey and Morrell to join his anti-Russia jihad, although all were reluctant participants at first. Were they won over by compelling secret evidence that has been been withheld from the public?" - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/48172.htm ..."
"... These are but a few sources digging and reporting on these bogus charges against Putin. I'd like to believe the majority of the U.S. electorate isn't being fooled by the nonsense. I can't speak for those who choose to remain inside the brainwashing corporate media bubble, but for those of us who divorced ourselves from their propaganda long ago ain't buying nor ever did buy into the muh Russia crap. ..."
"... Meanwhile, USG declares RT and Sputnik to be foreign agents and must register as such -- and Trump had nothing to do with that?!? ..."
"... The media is now now in permanent psy op mode, colonizing the public's mind and jamming people's ability to reason, think critically and even tell fact from fiction. It is only a matter of time before overt repression becomes widespread (to protect our freedoms of course) and the last remnants of democracy give way to an Orwellian/Huxleyite dystopia. ..."
"... CNN covers the Binney/Pompeo meeting, and describes Binney in the headline as a "conspiracy theorist": http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/07/politics/mike-pompeo-william-binney-meeting/index.html ..."
Trump Points To Falsehoods In "Russian Hacking" Claims - Media Still Ignore Them
During the flight of his recent Asia tour U.S. President Donal Trump held a press gaggle on board
of the plane. Part of it were questions and answers about the alleged "Russian hacking" of the U.S.
election.
There is no public transcript available yet but the Washington Post's Mark Berman
provided a screenshot
of some relevant parts:
Mark Berman @markberman - 6:20 AM - 11 Nov 2017
Full comment from @realDonaldTrump again questioning the US intel community conclusion that
Russia meddled last year
In the attached transcript Trump talks about his very short encounter with the Russian President
Putin in Hanoi:
Q: When did you bring up the issue of election meddling? Did you ask him a question?
A: Every time he sees me he says he didn't do that and I really believe that when he tells
me that, he means it. But he says, I didn't do that. I think he is very insulted by it, ...
...
He says that very strongly and he really seems to be insulted by it he says he didn't do it.
Q: Even if he didn't bring it up one-on-one, do you believe him?
A: I think that he is very, very strong on the fact that didn't do it. And then you look and
you look what's going on with Podesta , and you look at what's going on with the server from the
DNC and why didn't the FBI take it ? Why did they leave it? Why did a third party look at the
server and not the FBI ? You look at all of this stuff, and you say, what's going on here? And
you hear it's 17 agencies. Well its three . And one is Brennan . And one is whatever. I mean,
give me a break. They're political hacks . So you look at it, and then you have Brennan, you have
Clapper and you have Comey . Comey's proven now to be a liar and he's proven to be a leaker. So
you look at that. And you have President Putin very strongly, vehemently say he has nothing
to do with that. Now, you are not going to get into an argument, you are going to start talking
about Syria and the Ukraine.
Trump gets it. He knows the weak points of the propaganda claims of "Russian hacking": Podesta
and the fake Steele dossier, the DNC server, the lack of any FBI investigation of the alleged hack,
the NYT's long false insistence on the '17 agencies' assessment, the "political hacks" who fitted
their claims to the Obama/Clinton narrative.
But
neither the Washington Post
nor the NY Times or
others mention the crucial points Trump spelled out in their write-ups of the gaggle. There is
no word on the DNC servers in them. Instead they create a claim of "Putin says and Trump just believes
him". The do not name the facts and questions Trump listed to support his position. Taking up the
valid questions Trump asked would of course require the news outlets to finally delve into them.
We can't have that.
Instead we get more "Russian influence" claptrap. Like this from the once honorable Wired
which headlines:
Russian interference in Brexit through targeted social media propaganda can be revealed for the
first time. A cache of posts from 2016, seen by WIRED, shows how a coordinated network of Russian-based
Twitter accounts spread racial hatred in an attempt to disrupt politics in the UK and Europe.
Interesting, enthralling, complicate and sensational ...
... until you get down to paragraph 14(!):
Surprisingly, all the posts around Brexit in this small snapshot were posted after the June vote
"Russian agents" influenced the U.S. election by buying mostly
irrelevant Facebook ads - 25% of which were never seen by anyone and 56% of which were posted
AFTER the election
"Russian-based Twitter accounts" influenced the Brexit vote in the UK by tweeting affirmative
AFTER the vote happened
Trump is not the brightest bulb and he is not well informed. I dislike nearly all of his policies.
But he understands that the "Russian hacking" narrative is false and is carried by
lunatic political hacks who want to push the U.S. back into a cold, or maybe even hot war with
Russia, China, Iran and probably everyone else.
"Trump is not the brightest bulb and he is not well informed. I dislike nearly all of his policies.
But he understands that the "Russian hacking" narrative is false and is carried by lunatic political
hacks who want to push the U.S. back into a cold, or maybe even hot war with Russia, China, Iran
and probably everyone else."
I couldn't agree more B. The distraction to cover up the DNC crimes and the 'pay to play' antics
during HRC's tenure at SECState are part of this nonsense as well.
the term "hacked" implies that someone came in on the internet, right?
I guess it could be that the DNC really was hacked, but maybe they faked the hack story,
fed the story to Crowdstrike, then paid Crowdstrike a lot of money to fabricate a fairytale about
Russian hacking...
This Russian fairytale would be the bedrock of Hillary's campaign, and it gave her a reason
to badmouth trump who intended to get along with Putin, which deeply offended the neocon Bolsheviks
who've been running things since 9/11
If the hacking really happened, it's maybe more likely to have been the US NSA that did
the hacking... that might explain why the DNC and Hillary were not alarmed by the hacking --if
it happened-- and did nothing about it, and continued to write incriminating emails...
...they assumed the hackers were on their side
OK, then, if the hacking was a fairytale, made up by Debbie and Hillary, and reinforced by
Crowdstrike, then what? Maybe it doesn't make any difference in the long run, if the DNC was hacked
or not
Whatever happened, the emails got out, Assange strongly hints that Seth Rich was the leak,
Seth Rich was murdered, and his murder was intended to be a warning to people like Donna Brazile,
who, after Seth was murdered, started drawing her office blinds because she didn't want to be
sniped... presumably by the people who murdered Seth Rich
Russia gate is Really Hillary Gate... And that's just the beginning as we consider the DNC
lid coming off via Donna Brazile and the Uranium scandal. Mueller has been gatekeeper for
the Deep State for OKC bombing, 911,...other False Flag...and now today's Intrigues.
Will
Podesta and Hillary escape?...or get Prison? John McCain with ISIS and photo opp,.. Evil in your
face 24. If certain people are not in Prison....Mueller could wear the label Satan's guardian.
..and it wouldn't be exaggeration
Back when Trump looked like he was in the running in the US presidential election, I wondered
how one man, even if he was genuine, could without the backing of US intelligence, take down the
deepstate/borg/whatever. Putin pulled Russia out of the nineties with key backing from patriotic
intelligence and military leadership, but Trump even if genuine would be on his own. Just ordered
'Art of the deal' to try and understand Trump a bit more. Looks like he has just destroyed a big
chunk of deep state financing so will be interesting to see how long he can stay alive.
well, Mueller declined to find 9/11 evidence against bin laden... or maybe we should say,
"he declined to manufacture evidence"... for some unkown reason...
whatever, if seth rich's murder was an attempt to terrorize politicians and the media into
parroting the party line --like the anthrax letters did after 9/11-- it worked
b, it is so funny that everytime you allude to Trump being in the right against the teeming hordes
or globalist, anti-Russia elites, you always offer the caveat: "but...he's a bastard and I hate
him."
Can we just face the facts here that there is a coordinated effort by these elite to get
Trump dethroned? What reason for this? Simple...he's a threat.
Enemy of my enemy anyone?
P.s. I view him as an opportunist. a chameleon. At the very least, perhaps he realizes the
absolute absurdity of trying to keep the house of cards aloft in the ME. So far, no wars, and
a de-escalation in Syria. Pundits are talking about 3+% growth in US for first time in decade.
I dont't know...perhaps Donald can cut and run in time to salvage some of the US prosperity.
I'm almost inclined to think Trump is letting this Russian hack thing play out on purpose despite
his Tweets to the contrary. Preventing the feds from 'investigating' it wouldn't make it go away,
it would just cement the notion of guilt and a cover-up into the anti-Trump, anti-Russian segment
of the public. More importantly, the similarly-inclined political/government leaders (pro-Hillary,
DNC, politicized FBI and intel, neocons, deep state, whatever...) and MSM slowly expose themselves
for what they are. They get too confident in the big lie actually working and go into a feeding
frenzy. Trump trolls them on Twitter and they go insane.
When you want to catch sharks, you don't chase them around the ocean to hunt them. You
chum the waters and wait
for them to come to you. Trump isn't the one chumming the waters here - he's letting the sharks
do that themselves.
I scratched my head like everyone else trying to figure out Trump's earlier incomprehensible
hiring/firing volley his first few months. Maybe that was just a bit of theatre. Trump might not
understand the 'little people' too much, but he does understand his opponent psychopaths (corporate,
banking or government/intel) and how to use their basic flaws against them. 'Draining the swamp'
sells well, but letting his opponents stick their necks out far enough before Trump's own Night
of the Long Knives would (to me) be a far more effective strategy towards his ends. And probably
much safer for him than Kennedy's approach.
Kind of worrying that one has to rely on outsider psychopaths to cull other psychopath's well-entrenched
herds within the US government. Does that ever turn out well?
Only the most strident partisans hold tightly to the Russian interference nonsense.
Those who simply want to deal in facts bother ourselves to self inform using multiple sources
who have been trying to make sense of the dastardly twists and turns in this muh Russia whodunit
scandal. The DNC emails, dossier, collusion the whole escapade, from the beginning, could be seen
as being built on nothing more than quicksand.
Mike Whitney posted a great piece this week suggesting Brennan, Obama's political 'hack',
is behind this mess - "Brennan spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign from the get-go. As early
as August 2016, Brennan was providing classified briefings to ranking members of Congress expressing
his conviction that Moscow was helping Trump to win the election. The former Director offered
no proof to back up his claims nor has he since then. It was also Brennan who gradually persuaded
Clapper, Comey and Morrell to join his anti-Russia jihad, although all were reluctant participants
at first. Were they won over by compelling secret evidence that has been been withheld from the
public?" - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/48172.htm
And then you have the Intercept's piece on Binney's meeting with CIA's Pompeo with Ray McGovern
providing a lot more detail and an interview with his favorite news outlet RT -
http://raymcgovern.com/
Oh, and about Binney's meeting with Pompeo? Trump requested Pompeo meet with him. He did. But
Pompeo, as of today, remains steadfast in supporting the ICA crap report Obama's political intel
hacks put out.
These are but a few sources digging and reporting on these bogus charges against Putin.
I'd like to believe the majority of the U.S. electorate isn't being fooled by the nonsense. I
can't speak for those who choose to remain inside the brainwashing corporate media bubble, but
for those of us who divorced ourselves from their propaganda long ago ain't buying nor ever did
buy into the muh Russia crap.
we got to wonder why donna brazile made such a fuss about Seth Rich. She's being way too cagey
for comfort but even if we leave seth rich out of it, none of it make any sense
Also from a Youtube video I saw earlier there are claims this is what is happening.
1. Obama regime was chronically corrupt including sell of Uranium to Russia for bribes. Elements
of the US military and intelligence were disgusted by this and approached Trump BEFORE the elections
as a figure who could help them.
2. Trump decided to work with them and during his election campaign he deliberately made constant
exaggerated claims of his supposed friendship with Putin, this was bait for the Democrats to smear
him as a Putin-lover, Putin puppet.
3. Once elected, the whole "Trump is a Putin puppet" was allowed to run so that a huge demand
for some sort of investigation in to Trump and his Russia links could be built. Only this investigation
would in fact be used to target the Democrats and Clinton including for their corruption over
the Uranium sales with the Russians.
4. This was apparently (according to these claims) the game plan from the beginning and Mueller
is apparently going to work to convict Hillary Clinton and other senior Democrats.
I don't know how true this is, but it does answer a lot of questions and anomalies and also
ties in with B's thesis that we are essentially seeing a quasi-military government in D.C. under
Trump.
@ PavewayIV who ended his comment with: "Kind of worrying that one has to rely on outsider psychopaths
to cull other psychopath's well-entrenched herds within the US government. Does that ever turn
out well? "
Yep! And we add our textual white noise to the rearranging of the deck chairs on
the top deck of the good ship Humanity as it careens over the falls/into the shoals/pick-your-metaphor
psychohistorian@14 - Captain to crew: "I will not have this ship go down looking
like a garbage scow. Deck chairs will be arranged in a neat and orderly manner at all times!"
The same media you're decrying here is also ignoring this week's paradise papers revelations
about Wilbur Ross, Trump's commerce secretary and business links with Russian Israeli mobsters
and oligarchs like Mogilevich.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMhzkvWuXEM
There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what is not true. The other is to refuse
to believe what is true. Can't fix stupid sociopathy. I pity deplorable goyims, They deserve their
plight...
Please someone end this idiot circus! Russia hacked THE ELECTION ...hacked THE ELECTION ??? For
the love of gawd..the ELECTION, meaning the voting was hacked.....it was NOT. Nothing has focused
on Russian 'hacking' of VOTES. Russia 'if' they hacked, at best hacked some emails and info used
to expose Hillary. And posted negative info on the net. So, so what? How many leakers weren't
doing that?
I have had it with the Dems, they have IQs somewhere below that of cabbages. But
I guess there are a certain number of citizens that will believe anything if it is repeated enough
by their herd leaders.
All this pathetic, lousy street theater resembling staging can only serve one important reason:
Distraction. What is it that people need to be distracted from? That the US has turned openly
into a military dictatorship? That the extermination proceedings are speeding up?
Hitler used
gas chambers, as did the US after the war. While the first was a psychopathic dictator, the latter
is a psychopathic society. It has spend trillions in research and design of lethal weapons and
systems to exterminate any 'enemy'.
With all the technological progress, people do no longer need to be dragged to a gas chamber.
The gas chamber will come to them. Sprayed into the atmosphere and making its way into earth's
life systems.
Trump, Dump, Busch, Koch, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon - plutocratic hand puppets. It is not the
people who decide where and when the ship sinks. It will be sunken for them - with all the useless
eaters on board.
Trump is too stupid to realize that the very reason the election was rigged in his favour was
- the derailment of ANY ZIO/US/Russia relations !! Their top priority ( as always) has been to
keep Russia and Germany apart ! Russia's 'resources' and German 'innovation' is a match made in
heaven - would spell the end of the US economy !
Not only did the Propaganda System refuse to correctly report as b details, but nowhere has it
mentioned the defeat of Daesh, as Pepe Escobar discloses: "This is History in the making.
"And right on cue, VIRTUALLY NOTHING about this REAL ON THE GROUND VICTORY OF
A REAL WAR ON TERROR is being covered by Western corporate media.
"No wonder. Because this was the work of Damascus, Russia, Hezbollah, Iran advisers, Baghdad
and the PMUs – actually the "4+1" - and not the US-led "coalition" that includes Wahhabi mongrels
House of Saud and UAE - that totally smashes to bits the monochord Washington narrative.
The war on Syria and the Russian "hacking" debacle has corrupted the entire western media. Not
that it was ever squeaky clean - far from it - but it was at least somewhat independent from the
dominant establishment. There were pauses between the outrageous lies and blatant fact twisting
and it did not overtly shill for neoliberal political parties and work overtime pushing massive
amounts of propaganda on the public 24/7/365 and relentlessly demonize, in the most crude fashion
imaginable, the leaders of some of the the world's most powerful countries and any sovereign nation
that values its independence and freedom from Western exploitation.
The media is now now in permanent psy op mode, colonizing the public's mind and jamming
people's ability to reason, think critically and even tell fact from fiction. It is only a matter
of time before overt repression becomes widespread (to protect our freedoms of course) and the
last remnants of democracy give way to an Orwellian/Huxleyite dystopia.
If by chance Trump or anyone is genuine about taking down the deep state, they cannot do it
by running around in a pathetic attempt trying to fix small issues. They would have to leave the
machine to carry on as normal and go for its foundations. I thought about this months ago, and
now looking at the latest events, this could be what is happening.
Meanwhile a revolution threatening the federation of Australia is taking place in Canberra utilizing
a formless and compliant press corps and a fake issue of dual citizenship. Chaos is a disease
agent which has jumped out of the Middle Eastern laboratory into all western nations.
"... As Russia-gate continues to buffet the Trump administration, we now know that the "scandal" started with Democrats funding
the original dubious allegations of Russian interference, notes Joe Lauria. ..."
As Russia-gate continues to buffet the Trump administration, we now know that the "scandal" started with Democrats funding
the original dubious allegations of Russian interference, notes Joe Lauria.
By Joe Lauria
The two sources that originated the allegations claiming that Russia meddled in the 2016 election -- without providing convincing
evidence -- were both paid for by the Democratic National Committee, and in one instance also by the Clinton campaign: the
Steele dossier and the CrowdStrike analysis of the DNC servers. Think about that for a minute.
We have long known that the DNC did not allow the FBI to examine its computer server for clues about who may have hacked it –
or even if it was hacked – and instead turned to CrowdStrike, a private company co-founded by a virulently anti-Putin Russian. Within
a day, CrowdStrike blamed Russia on dubious evidence.
And, it has now been disclosed that the Clinton campaign and the DNC
paid for opposition research memos written by former British MI6 intelligence agent Christopher Steele using hearsay accusations
from anonymous Russian sources to claim that the Russian government was blackmailing and bribing Donald Trump in a scheme that presupposed
that Russian President Vladimir Putin foresaw Trump's presidency years ago when no one else did.
Since then, the U.S. intelligence community has struggled to corroborate Steele's allegations, but those suspicions still colored
the thinking of President Obama's intelligence chiefs who, according to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, "hand-picked"
the analysts who produced the Jan. 6 "assessment" claiming that Russia interfered in the U.S. election.
In other words, possibly all of the Russia-gate allegations, which have been taken on faith by Democratic partisans and members
of the anti-Trump Resistance, trace back to claims paid for or generated by Democrats.
If for a moment one could remove the sometimes justified hatred that many people feel toward Trump, it would be impossible to
avoid the impression that the scandal may have been cooked up by the DNC and the Clinton camp in league with Obama's intelligence
chiefs to serve political and geopolitical aims.
Absent new evidence based on forensic or documentary proof, we could be looking at a partisan concoction devised in the midst
of a bitter general election campaign, a manufactured "scandal" that also has fueled a dangerous New Cold War against Russia; a case
of a dirty political "oppo" serving American ruling interests in reestablishing the dominance over Russia that they enjoyed in the
1990s, as well as feeding the voracious budgetary appetite of the Military-Industrial Complex.
Based on what is now known, Wall Street buccaneer Paul Singer paid for GPS Fusion, a Washington-based research firm, to do opposition
research on Trump during the Republican primaries, but dropped the effort in May 2016 when it became clear Trump would be the GOP
nominee. GPS Fusion has strongly
denied that it hired
Steele for this work or that the research had anything to do with Russia.
Then, in April 2016 the DNC and the Clinton campaign
paid its Washington lawyer Marc Elias to hire Fusion GPS to unearth dirt connecting Trump to Russia. This was three months before
the DNC blamed Russia for hacking its computers and supposedly giving its stolen emails to WikiLeaks to help Trump win the election.
"The Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee
retained Fusion GPS
to research any possible connections between Mr. Trump, his businesses, his campaign team and Russia, court filings revealed this
week," The New York Times
reported on Friday
night.
So, linking Trump to Moscow as a way to bring Russia into the election story was the Democrats' aim from the start.
Fusion GPS then hired ex-MI6 intelligence agent Steele, it says for the first time, to dig up that dirt in Russia for the Democrats.
Steele produced classic opposition research, not an intelligence assessment or conclusion, although it was written in a style and
formatted to
look like one.
It's important to realize that Steele was no longer working for an official intelligence agency, which would have imposed strict
standards on his work and possibly disciplined him for injecting false information into the government's decision-making. Instead,
he was working for a political party and a presidential candidate looking for dirt that would hurt their opponent, what the Clintons
used to call "cash for trash" when they were the targets.
Had Steele been doing legitimate intelligence work for his government, he would have taken a far different approach. Intelligence
professionals are not supposed to just give their bosses what their bosses want to hear. So, Steele would have verified his information.
And it would have gone through a process of further verification by other intelligence analysts in his and perhaps other intelligence
agencies. For instance, in the U.S., a National Intelligence Estimate requires vetting by all 17 intelligence agencies and incorporates
dissenting opinions.
Instead Steele was producing a piece of purely political research and had different motivations. The first might well have been
money, as he was being paid specifically for this project, not as part of his work on a government salary presumably serving all
of society. Secondly, to continue being paid for each subsequent memo that he produced he would have been incentivized to please
his clients or at least give them enough so they would come back for more.
Dubious Stuff
Opposition research is about getting dirt to be used in a mud-slinging political campaign, in which wild charges against candidates
are the norm. This "oppo" is full of unvetted rumor and innuendo with enough facts mixed in to make it seem credible. There was
so much dubious stuff in Steele's
memos that the FBI was unable to confirm its most salacious allegations and apparently refuted several key points.
Perhaps more significantly, the corporate news media, which was largely partial to Clinton, did not report the fantastic allegations
after people close to the Clinton campaign began circulating the lurid stories before the election with the hope that the material
would pop up in the news. To their credit, established media outlets recognized this as ammunition against a political opponent,
not a serious document.
Despite this circumspection, the Steele dossier was shared with the FBI at some point in the summer of 2016 and apparently
became the basis for
the FBI to seek Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants against members of Trump's campaign. More alarmingly, it may have
formed the basis for much of the Jan. 6 intelligence
"assessment" by those "hand-picked" analysts from
three U.S. intelligence agencies – the CIA, the FBI and the NSA – not all 17 agencies that Hillary Clinton continues to insist were
involved. (Obama's intelligence chiefs, DNI Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan, publicly admitted that only three agencies took
part and The New York Times
printed a correction
saying so.)
If in fact the Steele memos were a primary basis for the Russia collusion allegations against Trump, then there may be no credible
evidence at all. It could be that because the three agencies knew the dossier was dodgy that there was no substantive proof in the
Jan. 6 "assessment." Even so, a summary of the Steele allegations were included in a secret appendix that then-FBI Director James
Comey described to then-President-elect Trump just two weeks before his inauguration.
Five days later, after the fact of Comey's briefing was leaked to the press, the Steele dossier was published
in full by the sensationalist website BuzzFeed behind the excuse that the allegations' inclusion in the classified annex of a
U.S. intelligence report justified the dossier's publication regardless of doubts about its accuracy.
Russian Fingerprints
The other source of blame about Russian meddling came from the private company CrowdStrike because the DNC blocked the FBI from
examining its server after a suspected hack. Within a day, CrowdStrike claimed to find Russian "fingerprints" in the metadata of
a DNC opposition research document, which had been revealed by an Internet site called DCLeaks, showing Cyrillic letters and the
name of the first Soviet intelligence chief. That supposedly implicated Russia.
CrowdStrike also claimed that the alleged Russian intelligence operation was extremely sophisticated and skilled in concealing
its external penetration of the server. But CrowdStrike's conclusion about Russian "fingerprints" resulted from clues that would
have been left behind by extremely sloppy hackers or inserted intentionally to implicate the Russians.
CrowdStrike's credibility was further undermined when Voice of America
reported
on March 23, 2017, that the same software the company says it used to blame Russia for the hack wrongly concluded that Moscow also
had hacked Ukrainian government howitzers on the battlefield in eastern Ukraine.
"An influential British think tank and Ukraine's military are disputing a report that the U.S. cyber-security firm CrowdStrike
has used to buttress its claims of Russian hacking in the presidential election," VOA reported. Dimitri Alperovitch, a CrowdStrike
co-founder, is also a senior fellow at the anti-Russian Atlantic Council think tank in Washington.
More speculation about the alleged election hack was raised with WikiLeaks' Vault 7 release, which revealed that the CIA is not
beyond covering up its own hacks by leaving clues implicating others. Plus, there's the fact that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange
has declared again and again that WikiLeaks did not get the Democratic emails from the Russians. Buttressing Assange's denials of
a Russian role, WikiLeaks associate Craig Murray, a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, said he met a person connected to the
leak during a trip to Washington last year.
And, William Binney, maybe the best mathematician to ever work at the National Security Agency, and former CIA analyst Ray McGovern
have published a technical analysis
of one set of Democratic email metadata showing that a transatlantic "hack" would have been impossible and that the evidence points
to a likely leak by a disgruntled Democratic insider. Binney has further stated that if it were a "hack," the NSA would have been
able to detect it and make the evidence known.
Fueling Neo-McCarthyism
Despite these doubts, which the U.S. mainstream media has largely ignored, Russia-gate has grown into something much more than
an election story. It has unleashed a neo-McCarthyite attack on Americans who are accused of being dupes of Russia if they dare question
the evidence of the Kremlin's guilt.
Just weeks after last November's election, The Washington Post
published a front-page story
touting a blacklist from an anonymous group, called PropOrNot, that alleged that 200 news sites, including Consortiumnews.com and
other leading independent news sources, were either willful Russian propagandists or "useful idiots."
Last week, a new list emerged with the names of over 2,000 people,
mostly Westerners, who have appeared on RT, the Russian government-financed English-language news channel. The list was part of a
report entitled, "The Kremlin's Platform for 'Useful Idiots' in the West," put out by an outfit called European Values, with a
long list of European funders.
Included on the list of "useful idiots" absurdly are CIA-friendly Washington Post columnist David Ignatius; David Brock, Hillary
Clinton's opposition research chief; and U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres.
The report stated: "Many people in Europe and the US, including politicians and other persons of influence, continue to exhibit
troubling naïveté about RT's political agenda, buying into the network's marketing ploy that it is simply an outlet for independent
voices marginalised by the mainstream Western press. These 'useful idiots' remain oblivious to RT's intentions and boost its legitimacy
by granting interviews on its shows and newscasts."
The intent of these lists is clear: to shut down dissenting voices who question Western foreign policy and who are usually excluded
from Western corporate media. RT is often willing to provide a platform for a wider range of viewpoints, both from the left and right.
American ruling interests fend off critical viewpoints by first suppressing them in corporate media and now condemning them as propaganda
when they emerge on RT.
Geopolitical Risks
More ominously, the anti-Russia mania has increased chances of direct conflict between the two nuclear superpowers. The Russia-bashing
rhetoric not only served the Clinton campaign, though ultimately to ill effect, but it has pushed a longstanding U.S.-led geopolitical
agenda to regain control
over Russia, an advantage that the U.S. enjoyed during the Yeltsin years in the 1990s.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Wall Street rushed in behind Boris Yeltsin and Russian oligarchs to asset strip
virtually the entire country, impoverishing the population. Amid widespread accounts of this grotesque corruption, Washington
intervened in Russian politics to help get Yeltsin re-elected in 1996. The political rise of Vladimir Putin after Yeltsin resigned
on New Year's Eve 1999 reversed this course, restoring Russian sovereignty over its economy and politics.
That inflamed Hillary Clinton and other American hawks whose desire was to install another Yeltsin-like figure and resume U.S.
exploitation of Russia's vast natural and financial resources. To advance that cause, U.S. presidents have supported the eastward
expansion of NATO and have deployed 30,000 troops on Russia's border.
In 2014, the Obama administration helped
orchestrate a coup that toppled the
elected government of Ukraine and installed a fiercely anti-Russian regime. The U.S. also undertook the risky policy of aiding jihadists
to overthrow a secular Russian ally in Syria. The consequences have brought the world closer to nuclear annihilation than at
any time since the Cuban
missile crisis in 1962.
In this context, the Democratic Party-led Russia-gate offensive was intended not only to explain away Clinton's defeat but to
stop Trump -- possibly via impeachment or by inflicting severe political damage -- because he had talked, insincerely it is turning
out, about detente with Russia. That did not fit in well with the plan at all.
Joe Lauria is a veteran foreign-affairs journalist. He has written for the Boston Globe, the Sunday Times of London and the Wall
Street Journal among other newspapers. He is the author of How I Lost By Hillary Clinton published by OR Books in June 2017. He can be reached at
[email protected] and followed on Twitter at
@unjoe .
The question arise: "Was hacking DNC another CIA false flag operation with the specific goal
to poison US-Russian relations and using Hillary Clinton as a patsy?"
According fo church committee report: "Approximately 50 of the [Agency] assets are individual
American journalists or employees of U.S. media organizations. Of these, fewer than half are
"accredited" by U.S. media organizations ... The remaining individuals are non-accredited
freelance contributors and media representatives abroad ... More than a dozen United States news
organizations and commercial publishing houses formerly provided cover for CIA agents abroad. A
few of these organizations were unaware that they provided this cover.
[7] "
"Journalist Carl
Bernstein , writing in an October 1977 article in the magazine Rolling Stone , claims that the Church
Committee report "covered up" CIA relations with news media, and names a number of journalists
whom he says worked with the CIA [10] Like the Church
Committee report, however, Bernstein does not refer to any Operation Mockingbird."
Notable quotes:
"... "Russian meddling" became the perfect rallying cry for the CIA's broader information operation (IO) that was designed to poison public opinion against "Russian aggression" and to reign in Trump's plans to normalize relations with Moscow. ..."
"... Clinton became the "fall guy" in a darker, deep-state propaganda campaign for which she is only partially responsible. ..."
"... the Steele dossier was shared with the FBI at some point in the summer of 2016 and apparently became the basis for the FBI to seek Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants against members of Trump's campaign. ..."
"... More alarmingly, it may have formed the basis for much of the Jan. 6 intelligence "assessment" by those "hand-picked" analysts from three U.S. intelligence agencies -- the CIA, the FBI and the NSA -- not all 17 agencies that Hillary Clinton continues to insist were involved ..."
"... The article proves that the nation's premier law enforcement agency was using parts of a discredited "raw intelligence" report that was paid for by the DNC and was clearly commissioned as a part of a smear campaign -- to spy on members of the opposition party. Clearly, one could easily make the case that the FBI was abusing its extraordinary police-state powers to subvert the democratic process. ..."
"... The FBI, under James Comey, also attempted to use agent Steele for future research but abandoned the idea after parts of the dossier began to surface in the media making it politically impossible to maintain the relationship. ..."
"... The fact that the FBI was willing to build its investigation on the sensational and unverified claims in the DNC-bought-and-paid-for dossier, suggests that the real motive was not to reveal collusion between Trump and Moscow or even to uncover evidence related to the hacking claims. The real goal was to vilify Russia and derail Trump's efforts at détente. ..."
"... Steele's July report helped to prop up the threadbare "hacking" storyline that was further reinforced by the dubious cyber-forensic analysis of DNC servers performed by CrowdStrike, "a private company co-founded by a virulently anti-Putin Russian." ..."
"... Russia-gate is entirely a Democratic Party invention. Both sources of information (Crowdstrike and Steele) were chosen by members of the Democratic hierarchy (through their intermediaries) to create stories that coincided with their political objectives. Due to the obvious bias of the people who funded the operations, neither the methods nor the information can be trusted. But that's just part of the story. The bigger story relates to the role played by the nation's premier intelligence and law enforcement agencies. And that's where we see signs of institutional corruption on a truly colossal scale. ..."
"... Nov. 18: Arizona Sen. John McCain and a former assistant, David Kramer, are told about the existence of the dossier by an associate of Steele's, former British diplomat Sir Andrew Wood. Kramer travels to London later that month to meet with Steele and find out more about the dossier. Steele forwards a copy of the dossier to Fusion, Kramer and McCain. ..."
"... This is a damning admission that the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that was released on January 6, and was supposed to provide rock-solid proof of Russia hacking and collusion, was built (at least, in part) on the thin gruel and specious allegations found in the sketchy "Trump dossier". Former CIA Director John Brennan has refuted this claim, but there's significant circumstantial evidence to suggest that it is true. ..."
"... On December 9, 2016, The Washington Post reported that the CIA determined that Russian hacking was conducted to boost Trump and hurt Clinton during the presidential campaign. This same theory that was propounded in the ICA report just a month later. It appears that Brennan and his "hand-picked" intelligence analysts decided to carefully comb the dossier cherry-picking the most credible allegations to weave into their dubious intelligence Assessment. So even though large sections of the dossier were scrapped, the report itself was used as the foundation for the ICA. ..."
"... It's clear that Brennan had no "information or intelligence" that would lead a reasonable man to think that anyone in Trump's entourage was colluding with Russian officials or agents. The whole story is spun from whole cloth. The disturbing implication however is that Brennan, who was an outspoken supporter of Hillary and equally harsh critic of Trump, was using the CIA's intrusive surveillance powers to spy on a rival political party in the heat of a presidential campaign. If that is not a flagrant example of subverting democracy, then what is? ..."
"... It all started with Brennan, he's the ringleader in this dodgy caper. But Brennan was not operating as a free agent pursuing his own malign political agenda, but as a strong-arm facilitator for the powerful foreign policy establishment which includes leaders from Big Oil, Wall Street, and the giant weapons manufacturers. These are the corporate mandarins who pull Brennan's chain and give Brennan his marching orders. This is how power trickles down in America. ..."
"... So while the moneytrail may lead back to the DNC and Hillary's Campaign, the roots of Russia-gate extend far beyond the politicians to the highest-ranking members of the permanent state. ..."
For nearly a year, Hillary Clinton failed to admit that her campaign and the
Democratic National Committee had provided funding for the notorious dossier that alleged Trump
colluded with Russia to win the 2016 presidential election. Then, two weeks ago, the Washington
Post published a blockbuster article that proved that Clinton had been misleading the public
about her Campaign's role in producing the report.
Following the article's publication, Clinton went into hiding for more than a week
during which time she huddled with her political advisors to settle on a strategy for dealing
with the crisis.
"Russian meddling" became the perfect rallying cry for the CIA's broader information
operation (IO) that was designed to poison public opinion against "Russian aggression" and to
reign in Trump's plans to normalize relations with Moscow.
The fact that the CIA had essentially extracted a credible narrative from sections of the
notorious dossier, left Hillary with no other option except to play-along even after the votes
had been counted. As a result, Clinton became the "fall guy" in a darker, deep-state
propaganda campaign for which she is only partially responsible. Here's a little
background from Joe Lauria's "must read" article "The Democratic Money Behind Russia-gate":
" the Steele dossier was shared with the FBI at some point in the summer of 2016 and
apparently became the basis for the FBI to seek Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
warrants against members of Trump's campaign.
More alarmingly, it may have formed the basis for much of the Jan. 6 intelligence
"assessment" by those "hand-picked" analysts from three U.S. intelligence agencies -- the
CIA, the FBI and the NSA -- not all 17 agencies that Hillary Clinton continues to insist were
involved .
If in fact the Steele memos were a primary basis for the Russia collusion allegations
against Trump, then there may be no credible evidence at all." (Consortium News)
So, were "the Steele memos the primary basis for the Russia collusion allegations against
Trump"? This is the pivotal question that still remains largely unanswered. As Lauria notes,
the FBI did in fact use the "salacious and unverified" dossier to obtain at least one FISA
warrant. This is from The Hill:
"The FBI used the dossier alleging Russian ties to President Trump's campaign associates
to help convince a judge to grant a warrant to secretly monitor former campaign aide Carter
Page, CNN reports.
FBI Director James Comey has cited the dossier in some of his briefings with lawmakers in
recent weeks as one of the information sources used by his bureau to bolster its probe, U.S.
officials briefed on the investigation told CNN." ("FBI used Trump dossier to help get warrant
to monitor ex-aide: report", The Hill)
The article proves that the nation's premier law enforcement agency was using parts of a
discredited "raw intelligence" report that was paid for by the DNC and was clearly commissioned
as a part of a smear campaign -- to spy on members of the opposition party. Clearly, one could
easily make the case that the FBI was abusing its extraordinary police-state powers to subvert
the democratic process.
The FBI, under James Comey, also attempted to use agent Steele for future research but
abandoned the idea after parts of the dossier began to surface in the media making it
politically impossible to maintain the relationship. This is from a February article in
the Washington Post:
"The former British spy who authored a controversial dossier on behalf of Donald Trump's
political opponents alleging ties between Trump and Russia reached an agreement with the FBI
a few weeks before the election for the bureau to pay him to continue his work, according to
several people familiar with the arrangement. The agreement to compensate former MI6 agent
Christopher Steele came as U.S. intelligence agencies reached a consensus that the Russians
had interfered in the presidential election by orchestrating hacks of Democratic Party email
accounts ..
Ultimately, the FBI did not pay Steele. Communications between the bureau and the former spy
were interrupted as Steele's now-famous dossier became the subject of news stories,
congressional inquiries and presidential denials, according to the people familiar with the
arrangement, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to
discuss the matter." ("FBI once planned to pay former British spy who authored controversial
Trump dossier", Washington Post)
The fact that the FBI was willing to build its investigation on the sensational and
unverified claims in the DNC-bought-and-paid-for dossier, suggests that the real motive was not
to reveal collusion between Trump and Moscow or even to uncover evidence related to the hacking
claims. The real goal was to vilify Russia and derail Trump's efforts at
détente.
It's also worth noting , that Steele's earliest report implausibly alleges that the "Russian
authorities had been cultivating and supporting US presidential candidate Trump for at least 5
years." (No one had any idea that Trump would run for president 5 years ago.) The report also
details perverted sexual acts involving Trump and urinating prostitutes in a hotel in Moscow.
(All fake, of course) The point we are trying to make, is that Steele's first report focused on
corruption, perversion and blackmail, whereas, his second installment completely changed
direction to cyber-espionage operations on foreign targets.
Why?
It was because, on July 22, 2016, just days before the Democratic National Convention,
WikiLeaks published 20,000 emails hacked from DNC computers revealing the corrupt
inner-workings of the Democratic establishment. In response, Steele decided to craft a story
that would support the Dems plan to blame the Russians for the moral cesspit they-alone had
created. In other words, his report was a way of "passing the buck".
Steele's July report helped to prop up the threadbare "hacking" storyline that was
further reinforced by the dubious cyber-forensic analysis of DNC servers performed by
CrowdStrike, "a private company co-founded by a virulently anti-Putin Russian."
The hacking theme was also aided by the deluge of unsourced, evidence-lite articles cropping
up in the media, like this gem in the Washington Post:
"Russian government hackers penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National
Committee and gained access to the entire database of opposition research on GOP presidential
candidate Donald Trump, according to committee officials and security experts who responded
to the breach.
The intruders so thoroughly compromised the DNC's system that they also were able to read
all email and chat traffic, said DNC officials and the security experts.
The intrusion into the DNC was one of several targeting American political organizations.
The networks of presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were also targeted
by Russian spies " ("Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on
Trump", Washington Post)
What's remarkable about the above excerpt is that it follows the same basic approach to
propaganda as nearly all the other pieces on the topic. Unlike the lead-up to the Iraq War,
where journalists at the New York Times made every effort to create a believable storyline that
included references to aluminum tubes, Niger uranium, mobile weapons labs, etc. The media no
longer tries to support their narrative with evidence or eyewitnesses. The major media now
simply tells people what they want them to think and leave it at that. Even so, it doesn't
require much critical thinking to see the holes in the Russia hacking story. One merely needs
to suspend judgment long enough to see that main claims all emerge from (Democratic) sources
who have every reason to mislead the public. Here's an excerpt from Joe Lauria's article that
sums it up perfectly:
"The two sources that originated the allegations claiming that Russia meddled in the 2016
election were both paid for by the Democratic National Committee, and in one instance also by
the Clinton campaign: the Steele dossier and the CrowdStrike analysis of the DNC servers.
Think about that for a minute .
In other words, possibly all of the Russia-gate allegations, which have been taken on faith
by Democratic partisans and members of the anti-Trump Resistance, trace back to claims paid for
or generated by Democrats.
If for a moment one could remove the sometimes justified hatred that many people feel toward
Trump, it would be impossible to avoid the impression that the scandal may have been cooked up
by the DNC and the Clinton camp in league with Obama's intelligence chiefs to serve political
and geopolitical aims." ("The Democratic Money Behind Russia-gate", Consortium News)
Russia-gate is entirely a Democratic Party invention. Both sources of information
(Crowdstrike and Steele) were chosen by members of the Democratic hierarchy (through their
intermediaries) to create stories that coincided with their political objectives. Due to the
obvious bias of the people who funded the operations, neither the methods nor the information
can be trusted. But that's just part of the story. The bigger story relates to the role played
by the nation's premier intelligence and law enforcement agencies. And that's where we see
signs of institutional corruption on a truly colossal scale.
As we noted earlier, the Clinton smear campaign would probably have ended after the votes
were counted had not the intel agencies, particularly the CIA, decided the hacking story could
be used to inflict more damage on Russia. It wasn't Clinton's decision to gather more
information for the dossier, but others whose motives have remained largely concealed. Who are
they?
According to a timeline in the Daily Caller:
November: The contract between the Democrats, Fusion and Steele ends along with the
presidential campaign.
Nov. 18: Arizona Sen. John McCain and a former assistant, David Kramer, are told about
the existence of the dossier by an associate of Steele's, former British diplomat Sir Andrew
Wood. Kramer travels to London later that month to meet with Steele and find out more about the
dossier. Steele forwards a copy of the dossier to Fusion, Kramer and McCain.
Dec. 9: McCain provides a copy of the dossier to then-FBI Director James Comey during a
meeting at the latter's office.
Dec. 13: Steele writes the final memo of the dossier. It alleges that a Russian tech
executive used his companies to hack into the DNC's email systems. The executive, Aleksej
Gubarev, denied the allegations after the dossier was published by BuzzFeed on Jan. 10, 2017.
He is suing both BuzzFeed and Steele.
Jan. 6: Comey and other intelligence community officials brief then-President-elect Trump on
some of the allegations made in the dossier.
Jan. 10: CNN reports that the briefing of Trump took place four days earlier. Citing that
reporting as justification, BuzzFeed publishes the dossier. (The Daily Mail)
John McCain? Is that who we're talking about? Was it McCain who paid former M16 agent
Christopher Steele to add another report to the dossier? Why?
Is it that hard to imagine that a Russophobic foreign policy wonk like McCain -- who has
expressed his vehement hatred for Vladimir Putin on the floor of the senate -- would hire a
mud-slinging free agent like Steele to craft a story that would further demonize Russia,
discourage Trump from normalizing relations with Moscow, and reinforce the theory that the
Kremlin meddled in the 2016 elections?
Does that mean that McCain may have told Steele (or his intermediaries) precisely what he
wanted the final draft to say? It certainly seems probable. And here's something else to mull
over. This is from the Business Insider:
Steele gave the dossier to Republican Sen. John McCain. McCain then gave it to the FBI
director at the time, James Comey. Comey, along with the former Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan, briefed both President Barack
Obama and then-President elect Trump on the dossier's allegations in January.
Intelligence officials purposefully omitted the dossier from the public intelligence report
they released in January about Russia's election interference because they didn't want to
reveal which details they had corroborated, according to CNN." ("Mueller reportedly interviewed
the author of the Trump-Russia dossier -- here's what it alleges, and how it aligned with
reality", Business Insider)
This is a damning admission that the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that was
released on January 6, and was supposed to provide rock-solid proof of Russia hacking and
collusion, was built (at least, in part) on the thin gruel and specious allegations found in
the sketchy "Trump dossier". Former CIA Director John Brennan has refuted this claim, but
there's significant circumstantial evidence to suggest that it is true.
On December 9, 2016, The Washington Post reported that the CIA determined that Russian
hacking was conducted to boost Trump and hurt Clinton during the presidential campaign. This
same theory that was propounded in the ICA report just a month later. It appears that Brennan
and his "hand-picked" intelligence analysts decided to carefully comb the dossier
cherry-picking the most credible allegations to weave into their dubious intelligence
Assessment. So even though large sections of the dossier were scrapped, the report itself was
used as the foundation for the ICA.
Brennan spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign from the get-go. As early as August 2016,
Brennan was providing classified briefings to ranking members of Congress expressing his
conviction that Moscow was helping Trump to win the election. The former Director offered no
proof to back up his claims nor has he since then. It was also Brennan who gradually persuaded
Clapper, Comey and Morrell to join his anti-Russia jihad, although all were reluctant
participants at first. Were they won over by compelling secret evidence that has been been
withheld from the public?
Not likely. It's more probable that Brennan was merely able to convince them that the
powerful foreign policy establishment required their cooperation on an issue that would have
grave impact on Washington's imperial plan for Syria, Ukraine, Central Asia and beyond?
Some readers might remember when Brennan testified before Congress way-back on May 23 and
boldly stated:
BRENNAN: "I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed
contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump
campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such
individuals and it raised questions in my mind, again, whether or not the Russians were able
to gain the cooperation of those individuals."
It's clear that Brennan had no "information or intelligence" that would lead a
reasonable man to think that anyone in Trump's entourage was colluding with Russian officials
or agents. The whole story is spun from whole cloth. The disturbing implication however is that
Brennan, who was an outspoken supporter of Hillary and equally harsh critic of Trump, was using
the CIA's intrusive surveillance powers to spy on a rival political party in the heat of a
presidential campaign. If that is not a flagrant example of subverting democracy, then what
is? Here's a clip from the Washington Times:
"It was then-CIA Director John O. Brennan, a close confidant of Mr. Obama's, who provided
the information -- what he termed the "basis" -- for the FBI to start the counterintelligence
investigation last summer .Mr. Brennan told the House Intelligence Committee on May 23 that
the intelligence community was picking up tidbits on Trump associates making contacts with
Russians
But he said he believed the contacts were numerous enough to alert the FBI, which began its
probe into Trump associates that same July, according to previous congressional testimony from
then-FBI director James B. Comey." (The Washington Times)
It all started with Brennan, he's the ringleader in this dodgy caper. But Brennan was
not operating as a free agent pursuing his own malign political agenda, but as a strong-arm
facilitator for the powerful foreign policy establishment which includes leaders from Big Oil,
Wall Street, and the giant weapons manufacturers. These are the corporate mandarins who pull
Brennan's chain and give Brennan his marching orders. This is how power trickles down in
America.
So while the moneytrail may lead back to the DNC and Hillary's Campaign, the roots of
Russia-gate extend far beyond the politicians to the highest-ranking members of the permanent
state.
"... This is why the denial is happening. This is why the Russia hysteria is continuing. By using wedge politics and fear to separate the cultists from other perspectives, using approval and belonging to keep them addicted, shaming tactics to keep them from straying, and controlling the discourse on their end of the political spectrum, Democrats have created America's largest cult. ..."
"... That was a very interesting article and on the mark. But, Pence will be a good placeholder and keep the population largely complacent, But in 2020, the democratic cult MUST WIN. If the Republicans are smart, they will lay low and concede the Presidency by fielding the most ridiculous candidate possible (hard to imagine who that could be after Trump). ..."
What interests me is who the Democrats have in mind as a replacement if they manage to bring
down Trump. He still has quite a few supporters – amazing, I know – who would be
borderline homicidal toward anyone the Democrats wanted to shove into the ring, and it
absolutely could not be Hillary.
f Trump dies, resigns or is removed from office in the next four years, Vice President
Mike Pence would replace him in the White House.
I doubt Sanders would be chosen in 2020 – too many reminders of DNC corruption that
denied him the nomination. It will probably be someone new and likely a woman.
Yes, but the Democrats' efforts to bring down the government are surely not directed at
replacing Trump with Pence. Obviously, they want a Republican presidency to be replaced with
a Democratic one, or they would not be playing the victim so zealously. And Sanders is a
milksop who plumped for party unity even after learning how soundly he had been rogered by
Hillary and her coterie. There is not an American politician alive today who embodies the
American values idealists like to believe prevail in America. Not one.
This is why the denial is happening. This is why the Russia hysteria is continuing. By
using wedge politics and fear to separate the cultists from other perspectives, using
approval and belonging to keep them addicted, shaming tactics to keep them from straying, and
controlling the discourse on their end of the political spectrum, Democrats have created
America's largest cult.
That was a very interesting article and on the mark. But, Pence will be a good
placeholder and keep the population largely complacent, But in 2020, the democratic cult MUST
WIN. If the Republicans are smart, they will lay low and concede the Presidency by fielding
the most ridiculous candidate possible (hard to imagine who that could be after Trump).
I was thinking that a black woman candidate would be essentially doubling down after the
Clinton debacle. My bet, if I were a betting man, would be her or someone like her as the VP
pick with a simulacrum of Joe Biden or Al Gore as the presidential nominee. The Republicans
would run a weenie like Paul "Ly'ng Ryan" Ryan to get the lose over with as little pain as
possible.
FYI, the Ly'ng Ryan" nickname apparently originated from his claims of being a sub-3 hour
marathon runner. Marathon runners took strong exception at his casual and completely
unsubstantiated claims about impressive marathon times thus his name among the runner
community.
There was a post a while back indicating that anyone who believed Hillary Clinton had serious
health problems during her Presidential run was a dupe and fool of the non-MSM media
(apparently referring to yours truly among others). Well, lookie here:
An excerpt from WaPo details how horrified Donna Brazile and others in the DNC were
about Hillary's non-stop coughing fits and ill health. In fact, Hillary was so sick that
Brazile and others discussed replacing her with Biden as the Dem nominee after she
fainted.
Hillary's camp is furious with Brazile and lashed out at her over the grim picture she
painted of Hillary's health and campaign.
The Clinton Cult has apparently concluded that Brazile was controlled by the Kremlin per
this open letter signed by 100 of Cintons senior aides:
"We were shocked to learn the news that Donna Brazile actively considered overturning
the will of the Democratic voters by attempting to replace Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine as
the Democratic Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees. "It is particularly troubling and
puzzling that she would seemingly buy into false Russian-fueled propaganda, spread by both
the Russians and our opponent, about our candidate's health."
"... Their argument, if you can call it that, rests on the claim that a document which unquestionably shows inappropriate bias and collusion does not show inappropriate bias and collusion because it contains a paragraph which says the document should not be construed as containing inappropriate bias and collusion. This is really boring and stupid, but since the Clinton cult is circulating this nonsense all over social media I figure I should probably write something for people to refute it with. ..."
Dem Pundits Spent Yesterday Lying About DNC Primary Rigging Document
The establishment liberal spin machine has been working overtime the last 24 hours to make
it seem as though former acting DNC chair Donna Brazile had not admitted what she'd admitted in
an excerpt from her book published by Politico on Thursday.
Their argument, if you can call it that, rests on the claim that a document which unquestionably
shows inappropriate bias and collusion does not show inappropriate bias and collusion because
it contains a paragraph which says the document should not be construed as containing inappropriate
bias and collusion. This is really boring and stupid, but since the Clinton cult is circulating
this nonsense all over social media I figure I should probably write something for people to refute
it with.
"... The agreement -- signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to [DNC lawyer] Marc Elias -- specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party's finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings. ..."
"... A second difference in substance: Let's remember that for Clinton, the JFA enabled her campaign to circumvent contribution limits for large donors (Brazile: "Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400"). The Sanders campaign , by contrast, had no issue with maxed out donors: "During fall '15, 99.8% of Bernie donors could give again" (because it's awful hard to max out $27 at a time). ..."
"... That's pretty amazing, isn't it? Personnel is policy, as they say, and the Clinton campaign has made sure that the DNC's Communications Director and new hires in the senior staff in the communications, technology, and research departments will be acceptable to it. The Clinton campaign will also review all mass email and communcations (which explains why Brazile, as interim DNC chair, couldn't send out a press release without checking with Brooklyn. Since the notorious debate schedule was already controlled by Wasserman Schultz, there was no point messing about with it, I assume.) There is one place in this passage where the general election is mentioned, so let's look at it: ..."
"... Second, the DNC itself does not ..."
"... But I'd like to know how far up the editorial totem poles the fix went and how it was achieved. ..."
"... It has been a while since I handled a criminal defense case, but I am not sure that the agreement is not in fact, criminal. When the Sanders for President campaign signed an agreement and paid money in consideration of getting access to the voter file and when the state parties agreed to merge their fundraising efforts with the DNC and HFA, the commercial fraud laws applied to that relationship. Since the fundraising was done using interstate phone calls, letters, and emails and the voter file access was provided by electronic transmissions from servers in DC to end users in Burlington, Vermont that includes 18 USC 1341, 1343 and 1346 (mail, wire and honest services fraud). These laws do not just ban outright lying, but also the concealment of material facts that one has a duty to disclose. ..."
"... The DNC got into the position of selling themselves to the Clintons as they were $20 million in debt, right? I have read that the major reason for these debts was that the DNC had not shrunk itself since the last campaign and was paying out a ton of money for consultants doing Christ knows what. In fact, Obama also used the DNC to support a stack of his consultants as well as grifters gotta grift, right? ..."
"... My question is whether this was a deliberate ploy on Obama and the Clinton factions to put the DNC into such a vulnerable position before 2016 came along that when the time came, they had to take up an offer that they could not refuse. I have not heard if Obama has made any comments on this fiasco that took place on his watch and it seems nobody wants to call him out on it. In the Brazile case, it is not a matter of following the money but following the lack of money. ..."
"... "Both sides in the Democratic Party's current faction fight, as I see it, are in denial about the true nature and scope of the problem "Both responses are essentially utopian: They rest on the premise that the Democratic Party is still a functioning political organization and that the United States is still a functioning democracy." ..."
Long-time Democratic[1] operative Donna Brazile, interim chair of the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) after Debbie Wasserman Schultz was defenestrated[2], has, like two otherparticipants in
the 2016 Presidential election and at least one set of
observers , written a book, Hacked , and published a long excerpt from it four
days ago, in Politico
. Here is the key passage, in which Brazile paraphrases and quotes a conversation with Gary
Gensler, former of Goldman Sachs and the CFTC, and then the chief financial officer of the
Clinton campaign:
[Gensler] described the party as fully under the control of Hillary's campaign
, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. The campaign had the DNC on life
support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using
the party as a fund-raising clearinghouse. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a
maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for
contributions to state parties and a party's national committee.
Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write
an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund -- that figure
represented $10,000 to each of the 32 states' parties who were part of the Victory Fund
agreement -- $320,000 -- and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states
first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states
usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the
DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.
Yes, you read that right. Although the Hillary Victory Fund was billed as aiding the states,
in fact the states were simply pass-throughs, and the money went to the Clinton campaign. (This
is not news;
Politico covered the Victory Fun in 2016 : "The Democratic front-runner says she's raising
big checks to help state committees, but they've gotten to keep only 1 percent of the $60
million raised.")
"Wait," I said. "That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the
state party races. You're telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she
got the nomination?"
Gary said the campaign had to do it or the party would collapse.
"That was the deal that Robby struck with Debbie," he explained, referring to campaign
manager Robby Mook. "It was to sustain the DNC. We sent the party nearly $20 million from
September until the convention, and more to prepare for the election."
After some research, Brazile finds a document ("the agreement") that spells out what "fully
under the control of Hillary's campaign" meant operationally:
The agreement -- signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a
copy to [DNC lawyer] Marc Elias -- specified that in exchange for raising money and investing
in the DNC, Hillary would control the party's finances, strategy, and all the money raised.
Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and
it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult
with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.
I had been wondering why it was that I couldn't write a press release without passing it
by Brooklyn. Well, here was the answer.
(Importantly, Gensler has not disputed this account, of which, assuming he's not vacationing
Antarctica, he must have been aware of, given the media uproar. We can therefore assume its
accurate). Note two aspects of this passage, which I'm quoting at such length to ensure we know
what Brazile actually charged. I've helpfully underlined them: (1) Brazile leads with the
money; that is, the Clinton Victory Fund, and (2) Brazile describes the DNC as "fully under the
control" of the Clinton campaign.
Predictably, an enormous controversy erupted, much of it over the weekend just passed, but
I'm not going to do a blow-by-blow of the talking points. (Glenn Greenwald provides an
excellent media critique in
"Four Viral Claims Spread by Journalists on Twitter in the Last Week Alone That Are False
"; all four have to do with this controversy[3].) I think the following three quotes are key,
the first two being oft-repeated talking points by Clinton loyalists:
"The joint fundraising agreements were the same for each campaign except for
the treasurer, and our understanding was that the DNC offered all of the presidential
campaigns the opportunity to set up a JFA and work with the DNC to coordinate on how those
funds were used to best prepare for the general election."
Question: Were the agreements "the same" for each campaign? (Perez focuses only on the JFA,
but that omits a separate Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the DNC and the Clinton
campaign, as we shall see below.)
Second, from 2005-9 DNC chair Howard Dean:
Question: Did the agreement apply only to the general election, and not the primary? (Dean
says "this memo," but he also omits the distinction between the MOU and the JFA.)
"We learned today from the former Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Donna Brazile
that the Clinton campaign, in her view, did rig the presidential nominating process by
entering into an agreement to control day-to-day operations at the DNC," Tapper said,
continuing on to describe specific arms of the DNC the Clinton camp had a say over, including
strategy and staffing, noting that the agreement was "entered into in August of 2015," months
before Clinton won the nomination .
Tapper then asked, "Do you agree with the notion that it was rigged?" And
Warren responded simply: "Yes."
Question: Can we say that the 2016 Democratic primary was rigged? (Tapper uses the word
"rigged," and Warren adopts it, but a careful reading of Brazile's article shows that although
she uses the word, she does not actually make the claim.[4])
In this post, I'm going to answer each of these three questions by looking at the documents,
plural, in question (Spoiler: My answers are "No," "No," and "Yes," respectively.) Here is a
timeline of the documents:
8/27/2015 (
reported ): The Clinton-DNC Joint Fundraising Agreement (JFA).
Available for download at
WikiLeaks, hilariously enough.
8/26/2015 (signed): The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU, or "memo").
Available for
download at MSNBC. The MOU
characterized by NBC as a "side deal," specifies how the JFA is to be implemented. Hence,
"the agreement" comprises both documents; the JFA cannot be understood without the MOU, and
vice versa.
11/5/2105 (
reported
): The Sanders-DNC Joint Fundraising Agreement. I can't find a copy online, but it's
described by ABC here . If there is an MOU that accompanies the Sanders JFA, it has not
come to light, and presumably, by this point, it would have.
In summary, the Clinton JFA set up the Hillary Victory Fund scam , the MOU gave
Clinton control of (much of) the DNC apparatus, and (
according to Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver ) the Sanders JFA bought their campaign
access to the DNC voter list, and was never used for fundraising because the DNC never asked
the campaign to do any. So to answer the our first question, we'll look at the JFA. To answer
the second, we'll look at the MOU. And to answer the third, we'll see how all the evidence
balances out.
Were the Agreements "the Same" for Each Campaign?
Perez is wrong. The agreements were not at all the same, either formally or
substantively.
Formally, the agreements were not the same because the Clinton JFA had an MOU (the "side
deal") and the Sanders JFA did not.
ABC :
[T]he Clinton campaign Friday afternoon confirmed the existence of a memo between the DNC
and their campaign, which specifically outlines an expanded scope and interpretation of their
funding agreement . [R]epresentatives from Sanders' former campaign say they only signed a
basic, formulaic fundraising agreement that did not include any additional language about
joint messaging or staffing decision-making [as does the MOU].
Substantively, the agreements weren't the same either. The substance of the JFA was a scheme
enable the Hillary Victory Fund to collect "big checks" (as Politico puts it), supposedly
behalf of the state parties, but in reality treating them as conduits to the coffers of the
Clinton campaign. Page 3:
From time to time and in compliance with FECA, after expenses have been deducted from the
gross proceeds, the Victory Fund will transfer the net proceeds to the Committees according
to the Allocation Formula, as modified by any reallocation required.
"[T]he Committees" being the state party political committees, into whose accounts the
contributions were deposited, only to be immediately removed and transferred to the Clinton
campaign (at least for the states that signed entered into the agreement; a few did not).
However, the Sanders campaign wasn't in the business of collecting "big checks," being
small-donor driven. Hence the substance of the agreement could not have been the same.
ABC once more :
Former Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver told ABC News Friday night that the campaign
entered the agreement with the party in November 2015 to facilitate the campaign's access to
the party's voter rolls. Weaver claims the DNC offered to credit any fundraising the senator
did for the party against the costs of access to the party's data costs, priced at $250,000.
But, Weaver continued, the party did not follow up about fundraising appearances for the
independent senator.
Instead, the Sanders campaign raised the $250,000 from small donors.
WaPo :
Weaver said the Sanders campaign decided early on to ignore the joint fundraising program
and raise small dollars on its own to pay for access to the voter file. "Who are the wealthy
people Bernie was going to bring to a fundraiser?" Weaver asked. "We had to buy the voter
file right before the primaries."
A second difference in substance: Let's remember that for Clinton, the JFA enabled her
campaign to circumvent contribution limits for large donors (Brazile: "Individuals who had
maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for
$353,400"). The Sanders campaign , by
contrast, had no issue with maxed out donors: "During fall '15, 99.8% of Bernie donors could
give again" (because it's awful hard to max out $27 at a time).
Suppose you were comparing two mortgages on different houses: One mortgage has a side deal
attached, the other does not. One is for a lavish facility and demands a complex financing
arrangement involving a third party. The other is for a fixer-upper and a lump sum is paid in
cash. Would you say those two mortgages are "the same," or not? Even if they both had the word
"Mortage" at the top of page one?
Did the Agreement Apply Only to the General Election, and not the Primary?
We now turn our attention to the MOU. Howard Dean,
sadly , is wrong. The MOU contains two key passages; the first describes the relationship
between Hillary for America (HFA; the Clinton campaign) and the DNC (Brazile: "fully under the
control of Hillary's campaign"), and the second is language on the general election. Let's take
each in turn. On control, pages 1 and 2:
With respect to the hiring of a DNC Communications Director , the DNC agrees
that no later than September 11, 2015 it will hire one of two candidates previously
identified as acceptable to HFA.
2. With respect to the hiring of future DNC senior staff in the communications,
technology, and research departments , in the case of vacancy, the DNC will maintain
the authority to make the final decision as between candidates acceptable to HFA. 3.
Agreement by the DNC that HFA personnel will be consulted and have joint authority over
strategic decisions over the staffing, budget, expenditures, and general election
related communications, data, technology, analytics, and research. The DNC will provide HFA
advance opportunity to review on-line or mass email, communications that features a
particular Democratic primary candidate . This does not include any communications
related to primary debates – which will be exclusively controlled by the DNC. The DNC
will alert HFA in advance of mailing any direct mail communications that features a
particular Democratic primary candidate or his or her signature .
That's pretty amazing, isn't it? Personnel is policy, as they say, and the Clinton campaign
has made sure that the DNC's Communications Director and new hires in the senior staff in the
communications, technology, and research departments will be acceptable to it. The Clinton
campaign will also review all mass email and communcations (which explains why Brazile, as
interim DNC chair, couldn't send out a press release without checking with Brooklyn. Since the
notorious debate schedule was already controlled by Wasserman Schultz, there was no point
messing about with it, I assume.) There is one place in this passage where the general election
is mentioned, so let's look at it:
Agreement by the DNC that HFA personnel will be consulted and have joint authority over
strategic decisions over the staffing, budget, expenditures, and general
election[-]related communications, data, technology, analytics, and research.
At the most generous reading, the Clinton campaign has "joint authority" with the DNC over
"strategic decisions over the staffing, budget, expenditures." At the narrowest reading, given
that the "general-election[-]related qualifier applies only to "communications," the joint
authority applies to "strategic decisions over the staffing, budget, expenditures, and data,
technology, analytics, and research." And given that the Clinton campaign is writing the checks
that keep the DNC afloat, who do you think will have the whip hand in that "joint authority"
relationship?
Now to the clause that supposedly says the agreement (JFA + MOU) applies only to the general
election. Here it is, from page 3:
Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to violate the DNC's obligation of
impartiality and neutrality through the Nominating process. All activities performed
under this agreement will be focused exclusively on preparations for the General Election and
not the Democratic Primary. Further we understand you may enter into similar agreements with
other candidates
(Pause for hollow laughter, given Wasserman Schultz's defenestration, Brazile passing debate
questions to the Clinton campaign, etc.). First, even though Hoho seems to think it's
exculpatory, the clause is an obvious fig leaf.
Glenn Greenwald explains :
DNC and Clinton allies pointed to the fact that the agreement contained self-justifying
lawyer language claiming that it is "focused exclusively on preparations for the General,"
but
as Fischer noted that passage "is contradicted by the rest of the agreement." This would
be like creating a contract to explicitly bribe an elected official ("A will pay Politician B
to vote YES on Bill X"), then adding a throwaway paragraph with a legalistic disclaimer that
"nothing in this agreement is intended to constitute a bribe," and then have journalists cite
that paragraph to proclaim that no bribe happened even though the agreement on its face
explicitly says the opposite.
Second, the DNC itself does not believe that it has any "obligation of impartiality
and neutrality" whatever. From Wilding et al. v. DNC Services Corporation, D/B/A Democratic
National Committee and Deborah "Debbie" Wasserman Schultz (as cited
in Naked Capitalism here ), the DNC's lawyer, Mr. Spiva:
MR. SPIVA: [W}here you have a party that's saying, We're gonna, you know, choose our
standard bearer, and we're gonna follow these general rules of the road, which we are
voluntarily deciding, we could have -- and we could have voluntarily decided that, Look,
we're gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that
way . That's not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also
been their right, and it would drag the Court well into party politics, internal party
politics to answer those questions.
Third, look at the institutional realities from point one on control. The Clinton campaign
had control over the Communications Director slot and major strategic decisions from
the moment the agreement was signed. Are we really to believe that they were behaving as
neutral parties? (One obvious way to have shown that would have been to release the MOU either
when it was signed.)
Can We Say that the 2016 Democratic Primary Was Rigged?
I found no evidence, none whatsoever. 'The only thing I found, which I said, I've found
the cancer but I'm not killing the patient,' was this memorandum that prevented the DNC from
running its own operation," Brazile added
I think Brazile is either overly charitable, or overly legalistic (perhaps confusing
"rigged" with "fixed," where only in the latter case is the outcome absolutely determined). I
also think she's wrong. The
dictionary definition of rigged is:
to manipulate fraudulently
There's ample evidence of rigging in both the JFA and the MOU. The JFA enabled the Hillary
Victory Fund, which was a fraudulent scheme to allow big donors to contribute to the Clinton
campaign by using the states as passthroughs. And the MOU enabled to Clinton campaign to
fraudulently manipulate the public and the press into the belief that the DNC was an
independent entity, when in fact it was a wholly owned and operated subsidiary of the Clinton
campaign.
Conclusion
I know
we're not supposed to "relitigate" the 2016 campaign ; we're supposed to look forward and
not back. However, the demand not to "relitigate" assumes that the case is closed; as Brazile
shows, we're hardly through with the depositions, let alone prepared to render judgment. So,
when you hear "relitigate," think "silencing tactic," and ask yourself who and what silence
serves. And perhaps this post will provide a basis for further discussion. 119
comments
Likewise, confirms my decision to wash my hands of the party. If, by some miracle, a
candidate acceptable to my priorities is nominated, I will still vote for him/her, but the
party isn't getting any default support or any $.
People need to stop conflating the DNC with the Democratic Party. I realized I was doing
so and stopped.
The DNC is an organization for raising money to support Democratic Party candidates for US
President; its subsidiaries are, of course, the DCCC and the DSCC. The only reason they have
power to dictate to the actual party is because they hold the purse strings. That
Bernie and others have run successful campaigns, to one degree or another, without their
"help" is one of the reasons they're fighting so hard to maintain the status quo. If they're
shown to be redundant, the power of those who currently run it evaporates.
Saying "I'll never vote Democrat again" is, as my sainted mother used to say, cutting off
your nose to spite your face. Right now, if we're going to at least slow down the rocketing
juggernaut that is GOP/plutocratic ownership of our governments, we need to elect progressive
candidates. There's no time to create a third party that can compete, so we need to vote for
the candidates who are advancing a non-neoliberal/neocon agenda whatever party they run
under. It's mostly Democrats, at the moment, but a social media acquaintance spoke of a
clearly progressive candidate running for a local office as a Republican because that's how
she's registered.
One of the ways the GOP was so successful in conning the working people and small business
owners and others into buying their hogwash was by demonizing "the Democrats." Now, their
message that "Democrats" are nothing but crazy-headed hippies who want to take their money
and give it to other people is so deeply ingrained it's a hard row to how convincing them
just how big a lie it is. Indeed, I suspect I shocked a raging right-winger the other day
when I told him we agreed about Obama and Clinton, because his Fox-muddled mind firmly
believes a Democrat thinks Obama rules the heavens.
If we don't "vote Democrat" in the upcoming primaries, then the establishment local and
state parties are going to throw more New Democrats against the GOP and lose. That can't
happen.
Yes, thank you! People need to vote for the progressive candidates in the Democratic
primaries. If they don't, then the establishment candidates will easily win, and the national
government will continue to be dominated by both Republican and Democratic lap dogs of the
billionaires. And if there are a few progressive Republicans out there, sure, vote for them,
too.
I often wonder whether some of the people who admonish us to stop voting for Democrats are
really employed by one of the many Koch brothers organizations. Not all of them, of course,
and I'm not making an accusation against anyone who is commenting here. But if people don't
vote for progressive Democrats, the billionaires and the corporate advocates of
financialization will win.
Of course, appearances can be deceptive: Obama ran as a progressive candidate .
As a quick ready-reckoner -- the more a candidate bloviates on Identity issues, the less
likely they are (should they be elected) to be "progressive" on issues of substance: the
economy, tax, war/imperialism
Right! Where are these progressive democrats? I would love to support one other than
Bernie Sanders (yes I know he is not perfect and he is too old). But they don't seem to exist
at the national level. There seem to be mayoral and other municipal candidates on the right
track – just have no idea how to move those ideas onto the state or national level.
Maybe I am just cranky and pessimistic right now.
TYT did several interviews of "Justice Democrats", newbies running on a progressive
platform. Some of the interviews you could see Cenk Uynger almost cringing, and the usually
voluble Jimmy Dore very quiet as the candidates lacked public speaking skills, and
demonstrating a probable lack of political smarts necessary to maneuver any bureaucracy.
Without trial by fire at lower levels, learning how to run a government and get results,
then there is no way to judge the candidates.
Unless candidates like Roza Calderon a faster learn that is
apparent at this point, they the Justice Democrats can only win when "anyone but him/her"
applies ,
So it was our apathy that did it. It was our moral failure. "Really," says Algernon, in The Importance of Being Earnest, "if the lower orders don't
set us a good example, what on earth is the use of them? They seem, as a class, to have
absolutely no sense of moral responsibility."
There's an important difference between being and voting Democrat. Actually, we already
have a defacto 3rd party, Independents/Unaffiliated, a larger block of voters than either
Republicans or Democrats.
With even greater numbers of Independents/Unaffiliated, we could be a force to be reckoned
with. Actually, we should recognize and own our power right now because we could decimate the
ranks of the Duopoly and make room for an actual third party. We can still vote for Democrats
of course, but they'll realize that they can't continue to take our votes for granted.
There's actually no good reason to remain a registered Democrat. You can still vote for
Democrats as an Independent/Unaffiliated voter. It's only for some presidential primaries and
caucuses that party registration is a limitation. If you live in one of those states, you can
temporarily register as a Democrat to vote, then revert to independent/unaffiliated
afterwards. Other than that, all other elections are open without regard to affiliation.
The Democrats and Republicans are two wings of the same bird of prey, and we're the prey
only because we haven't yet learned to fly to escape their talons. If we start owning our
power as free agents/Independent voters, that can change. While deep pocketed donors may have
the power to make the wheels turn for the Duopoly, those wheels can't go anywhere without our
votes. Since we don't have the power of money, we can at least exercise our political power
to stay out of their talons.
Independence is the way to fly. It's not just leverage, it's also the only way to clear
more space and demand for official third parties. Since the Duopoly refuses to change their
ways and repair the rigged system they created to keep only themselves in power, we can and
should abandon them in droves.
In order to vote in the New York State Democrat party primary you must be a registered
Democrat. In NY the primary is where most seats are won and lost. Being registered as a
Democrat is a necessary evil in some cases.
It has never been clear to me why a hostile takeover of the Democrats, followed by a
management purge and seizure of its assets, should be framed as "saving" the Democrat Party.
I think that's what a lot of Sanders people would like to do. It's also not clear to me why
people think the Democrats can simply be by-passed , and don't need to be assaulted,
and if from the inside, all the better.
As readers know, my experience with the Greens was poor (as it has been with others I have
talked to). This is especially sad since the GP in Maine had seemed to be viable. So, my fear
of the Greens is not fear of the un known, but fear of the known ; I worked
at dysfunctional non-profits before, and I don't need to do it again. Others, especially CP
activists, may differ in their experience, but that's mine. (Note that I was reinforced in my
priors by Stein's lawyer adopting the "Russian hacking" meme in Stein's post-election
lawsuits.)
if Bernie's primary campaign and support had been transferred to the Green Party, he
would have been a very serious contender,
I agree. But Sanders couldn't join the Green ticket, because he made a promise to support
the Democratic candidate, and unlike some politicians, he tries to keep his promises. So what did the Greens do? Instead of actively trying to gain the support of Sanders
primary voters, they nominated ideological purist Ajamu Baraka as their Vice Presidential
candidate, and he would not back down from unrealistic insulting criticism of Sanders. In
effect, the Greens chose to fail.
I am not interested in keeping the two party system. Either the country breaks apart, or we will have regional parties that can compete with
the Democrats and the Republicans.
How many clowns can dance on the head of a pin? Debating whether it feels better to have a
donkey or an elephant standing on your neck is a fools errand. Neither the Democrat or
Republican party is democratic or representative of any more than a handful of families from
the Billionaires Club. While they may favor different individuals in the ruling class,
neither faux-party has the slightest interest in the rabble who don't line their pockets and
provide protection against electoral defeat.
Elections are a stage managed charade in our kleptocracy. Expecting them to change
anything that matters, or alter the course of the Warfare State is pure delusion. First we
must have Collapse, then Chaos before we can have Change that we can believe in.
"First we must have Collapse, then Chaos before we can have Change that we can believe
in."
You are right -- although hopefully mere "crisis" will be sufficient for radical change
rather than complete collapse & chaos . Collapse & chaos may void any chance of
organised positive change. Having said that the signs are not good: see https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/11/06/the-ecosystem-is-breaking-down/
for the less than cheery news on ecosystem breakdown.
Both parties must be revealed unambiguously to the whole public as the completely morally
bankrupt, treasonous & vicious entities that socialists & progressives have known
them to be for decades.
The big problem with the Democrats is that they just kicked all the Progressives out and
actively oppose them. Voting for blue dogs doesn't get us anywhere.
You are correct about Carter. Zbigniew Brzezinski was a creature of the Rockefellers, and
he was Carter's Special Assistant for National Security. Prior to becoming President, Carter
was a member of the Trilateral Commission.
The rigging was obvious from the start. When nearly all the super delegates declared for
Clinton before a single primary was held, I read numerous reports that said the reason was
quid pro quo. The super delegates were to be given campaign money in exchange for their
support. The agreement proves it.
That, and what the DNC did to Bernie supporters during the convention, made me swear I'd
never give them a penny. I have only donated to specific candidates directly. Meanwhile, the
Dem establishment stubbornly remains clueless as to why it cannot regain the House and
Senate.
I have seen portions of the agreement (not sure if JFA or MOU) characterized as a "slush
fund" for consultants. Naturally, of course, but one might also wonder if that slush fund was
used to purchase any superdelegate votes. Pure speculation I didn't have time to run down, so
I left it on the cutting room floor.
G, a lot happened to Sanders supporters at the convention, too much to recap but you can
probably find stories about it. Many walked out but their seats were filled by paid
seat-fillers so the hall didn't look empty, also from what I understand paid seat-fillers
sometimes didn't let them take their seats. Signs were blocked, white noise was used to
muffle boos, etc.
Before the convention, many of the primaries had a lot of funny business (not all, I know
of no problems here in Texas). But California, Arizona, New York, Puerto Rico, Nevada and
others all had SERIOUS problems with things such as efforts to prevent Sanders supporters
from voting, questionable vote counting (such as at Nevada caucuses), efforts to make voting
difficult by having few poll places, etc., etc.
I think there were irregularities in Illinois, too. I recall that 6 counties did not have
enough Democratic ballots, and the Democratic Attorney General, a Clinton supporter, sued to
prevent voters in those counties from voting after election day. In Massachusetts, Bill Clinton illegally electioneered near or in a polling place. But the
authorities let him get away with it.
Great article Lambert. TheGreenwald article was helpful but yours is the icing on the
cake. Hopefully many will read this so that they do not get confused with all of the
Clintonista response to Brazile. Howard Dean must be suffering from early Alzheimer's to
write such a lie. But he has done it before.
It's hard for me to believe anyone can, with a straight face, suggest the 2 agreements are
equal.How can you have more than one agreement giving "the authority to make the final decision
" ??!!
Final means last, no? #corruptlosers
I know we're not supposed to "relitigate" the 2016 campaign; we're supposed to look
forward and not back. However, the demand not to "relitigate" assumes that the case is
closed; as Brazile shows, we're hardly through with the depositions, let alone prepared to
render judgment. So, when you hear "relitigate," think "silencing tactic," and ask yourself
who and what silence serves.
Well said. Regular contact with the centrist MSM recently is like being subjected to
hypnotism routines from 50s movies. "You are thinking forward, forward, forward. When I snap
my fingers you will feel fresh, eager to believe in the promises of the party of Franklin
Roosevelt and Barack Obama."
and yet FDR stood by while his own "Senator Sanders" – Henry Wallace was sidetracked
from his vice-presidency and legacy as FDR's successor (to the chagrin of Eleanor, among
many) by corporate dems James Byrnes, stooge for big oil and U.S. steel, who replaced Wallace
with Truman at 1944 dem convention
However, there certainly is no comparison, as you note, between obama's complete lack of
"transparency, oversight, accountability" regarding bush-cheney war crimes, Wall Street
frauds, destabilization of entire Middle-East, leading to republican trump administration,
and FDR
Most authors-historicans I have encountered believe FDR had no real idea how ill he
was
A while ago, I read a story about the DNC's misuse of unpaid interns. The story itself was
barfy enough, but what really shocked me was an aside asserting that even official elected
DNC members were barred from viewing the DNC's budget. ( http://paydayreport.com/unpaidinternsatdnc/
)
"Surely that can't be true," I said to myself. But it is! I looked up the DNC's charter
and bylaws and the standing budget committee is specifically exempted from article 9 section
12, which says that all official meetings of the DNC and its committees must be open to the
public and cannot involve voting by secret ballot. http://s3.amazonaws.com/uploads.democrats.org/Downloads/DNC_Charter__Bylaws_9.17.15.pdf
"WTF kind of an organization is this?!" I thought. How on earth is that even legal?
Well, after the Brazile disclosure of the Clinton MOU, I went back to look at the DNC
charter/bylaws. You'll note on the first page the date the current version was
adopted–2 days after the MOU was signed!
Anyone wanna take a bet that the budget committee carveout was one of things that was
changed?
jsba, suggest you use the Wayback machine or another internet archive and look at prior
historical copies of DNC charter/bylaws, to identify the changes. Could be very illuminating
as to (possible) criminal intent?
I was wrong about the budget committee carveout–it's in this version as well (still
completely insane!).
The fact that it was amended 2 days after the MOU is, obviously, still extremely
suspicious. I don't have time to, but the 2009 version would be useful to identify possible
changes.
As much as I'd like to switch parties (hah) so as to add to the greater numbers of fleeing
formerly party faithful, I'm in one of those 'closed primary' states. My vote is already
nearly worthless (though I exercise my right every chance I get); to switch to a third party
would make sure I'm both excluded from the more interesting local party contests AND drowned
out in national contests. Lose/lose. Maybe if something like Maine's (currently under attack)
Ranked Choice Voting existed all over, I'd be less sour about the whole thing.
Yeah, you need people like Lambert willing to do the work. It is exhausting keeping up
with the truths, half truths and lies promulgated in the press and trying to figure out what
is true and what isn't.
I find it interesting that the agreement involved control of the IT/data infrastructure of
the DNC. Doesn't the DNC administer the democratic party registry? And with that observation,
wasn't there a lot of illegal party switching that caused a problem for some Democrats voting
in party restricted primaries that had their registration switched, so that they couldn't
take part in the primaries. Wouldn't it be interesting if the switched parties were on the
DNC record as donating to Bernie's campaign? Fixed, indeed.
Manipulations of the deplorable superdelegate system, with its covert quid pro quo payoffs
after the Clintons take power, was part of a seamless fix. Premature coronation by media and
party wigs after primary victories in red states no Democrat would win in the general
election helped ice it.
Perhaps revelations will turn up on mainstream media, from the Sabbath Gasbags to NPR,
knifing Bernie with Hillary talking points at every opportunity, when he wasn't being
ignored. Thomas Frank wrote persuasively on WaPo's bias in Swat Team in Harper's, and there
have been tidbits on off-record Clinton media cocktail parties and such. But I'd like to know
how far up the editorial totem poles the fix went and how it was achieved. Certainly Jeff
Bezos has a Washington wish list. I marveled at how many journalists suddenly sounded like
breathless valley girl propagandists. And still do. What faster way to tank journalism's
credibility than that perception?
I guess that's why after catching headlines more of my reading time shifts to alternative
offerings such as those presented here.
But I'd like to know how far up the editorial totem poles the fix went and how it was
achieved.
I worked as a journalist in America for over a decade. I cannot stress enough how
unnecessary such a literal fix would be. (Though doubtless words were and are exchanged
between concerned parties when needed.)
The hive-mind position of most U.S. journalists -- and especially of editors, who tend to
be the most compliant with the power-structure and often the stupidest people in the room --
was (and is) an automatical default to unquestioning support -- even worship -- of the
Democratic Party, its elite, and Clintonite neoliberalism.
I once wrote a long feature that got a crush-letter from Joe Lieberman's office. The
editors at the magazine in question were ecstatic and printed that letter as its own separate
feature in the next issue. Personally, I thought Leiberman was scum, but kept my qualms to
myself and was glad I used a byline.
It seems to me that the HRC campaign's JFA was expressly designed to -- and succeeded in
its design -- circumvent the statutory $2700 limit on direct campaign contributions. Yet I
have not seen commentary that suggests any laws were violated. What am I missing?
To me, it seemed that the Democratic Party had already decided for clinton before the
primaries, as at my local caucus the party had planted each neighborhood group with a party
faithful, not from the neighborhood, who would argue for clinton and fear monger about Trump.
I know this because I talked to the plant in my group, asked her where she lived, and
discovered it was not in my neighborhood; it was a different town. Others reported the
same.
Also, a Dem party leader came up to me and said "Sanders is not going to be the nominee"
and "When this is over (meaning the primary), then you'll be supporting Hillary, right?" I
told her to never assume anything.
So, thanks to Brazile, no matter her motivation, for providing proof of what we already
knew.
I think you don't see that skill set very much in party leaders because they so rarely
need for the party to win elections. They do need to be able to maintain control
over their parties, so they're great at being cutthroat and cheating. But apart from certain
important individual elections, the success of the party as a whole isn't a big priority for
them. There are spoils to divide either way.
I worked on the Sanders primary campaign in my city. I watched as the state/regional
leadership consistently tanked the gotv and other Sanders ground outreach while a few local
leaders working in smaller areas worked their hearts out on the ground. Surprisingly (or not)
the state/ regional leadership bailed to work on the HRC campaign within hours of closing the
primary office.
I swear, in one of her interviews on the past weekend, Brazile made a quick, underbreath,
reference to 'poor Seth Rich' in recounting the death threats aimed at her. Glad someone has
not forgotten that connection.
It has been a while since I handled a criminal defense case, but I am not sure that the
agreement is not in fact, criminal. When the Sanders for President campaign signed an
agreement and paid money in consideration of getting access to the voter file and when the
state parties agreed to merge their fundraising efforts with the DNC and HFA, the commercial
fraud laws applied to that relationship. Since the fundraising was done using interstate
phone calls, letters, and emails and the voter file access was provided by electronic
transmissions from servers in DC to end users in Burlington, Vermont that includes 18 USC
1341, 1343 and 1346 (mail, wire and honest services fraud). These laws do not just ban
outright lying, but also the concealment of material facts that one has a duty to
disclose.
Considering the importance of voter file access, it is impossible to imagine that your
chief competitor having joint authority over hiring the people who handle all your customer
service and monitor your compliance with voter file contract is not a material fact. If,
under DC contract law or FTC commerical regulations, these kinds of conflicts of interest are
mandatorily disclosable (I do not practice in DC but I doubt DC applies caveat emptor to that
degree), then 18 USC 1343 was broken and Jeff Sessions could indict everyone involved.
It is even worse for the state parties agreement. The DNC arguably has a duty of loyalty
to its state affiliates which makes agreeing to encourage them all to sign up even though it
is concealing its knowledge that the money will be allocated in a way that will be bad for at
least some of them seem utterly inconsistent with the honest services provisions of 1346. All
in all, it is probably a good thing for the DNC that the Sessions aides I went to law school
with paid less attention in criminal law that I did.
It seemed to me that the nondisclosure of material facts and of conflicts of interest
might, arguably, constitute some type of criminal activity and that Donna Brazile's
characterization of the agreement as "not a criminal act" was, perhaps, a bit too facile but
I did not know the specific statutes or claims that might be involved. I really appreciate
your detailed observations here.
"Not a dime's worth of difference."
When it comes to politics, it isn't Russians we need to worry about, it's Americans. That's
where the collusion is – between the parties.
It was the Republicans' turn, period. Jeff Sessions doubtless knows that.
Just want to point out that the state-party=>DNC pass-through is not at all new. Has
been active in some form and proportion in every presidential campaign since 1992 (mainly, or
at least nominally due to changes in FEC regulation), but really ramped up in and after
2008.
Pushback by states has decreased over time, as state party executive directors are now
almost always (even in off-cycle years) routed in from DC, instead of staffing from the local
pool of operatives.
One of the important impacts is on state legislatures. Gutted of necessary funding, and
discouraged (and sometimes contractually inhibited) from soliciting further funds on the
national level, state parties have little left in their coffers to support their legislative
candidates and committees (and forget about the bottom of the ticket).
So this kind of money hoovering is a significant factor in the national net loss of Dem
seats in state houses in non-"battleground" states.
During oral arguments in McCutcheon v. FEC three years ago, Justice Samuel Alito
dismissed the Campaign Legal Center's
analysis showing how, absent limits on the total amount that donors could give to
multiple political committees, candidates could use joint fundraising schemes to raise
huge, potentially corrupting contributions.
These scenarios, Justice Alito claimed, are "wild hypotheticals that are not obviously
plausible." Hillary Clinton, though, is proving that the Campaign Legal Center was right all
along.
I'm not at all a campaign finance expert. Perhaps readers will weigh in?
Yes, the amounts are new. Just saying this was the direction things were going for a while
already. Good will between DNC and state parties already at a low ebb, DWS a big part of
that.
As we know, the Citizens United Supreme Court decision allows corporations, individuals
and labor unions to make unlimited contributions to independent organizations that use the
money to support or defeat a candidate. Rules prohibit coordination between a candidate committee and an individual or
organization making "independent expenditures."
Clearly this was not the arrangement between the HVF, State Democratic Central Committees
participating in the PAC and the DNC. Hillary was pulling the strings at the DNC. But I'm just now appreciating that the Hillary Victory Fund is not a Super PAC.
Joint fundraising is fundraising conducted jointly by a political committee and one or
more other political committees or unregistered organizations. Joint fundraising rules
apply to:
Party committees;
Party organizations not registered as political committees;
Federal and/or nonfederal candidate committees;
Nonparty, unauthorized political committees (nonconnected PACs); and
Unregistered nonparty organizations. 11 CFR 102.17(a)(1)(i) and (2).
The HVF was the first joint fundraising committee between a presidential candidate and the
Democratic party since the 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision McCutcheon v FEC. A horrible
precedent at that!
McCutcheon declared a total limit on how much an individual can give federal candidates
and parties in a two-year cycle unconstitutional. Chief Justice Roberts opined, "The existing
aggregate limits may in fact encourage the movement of money away from entities subject to
disclosure."
Right!
The HVF demonstrates how rechanneling dark money from super PACs toward candidates and
parties doesn't stop unethical and undemocratic processes.
That the HVF was needed to balance the Obama debt is one thing. That the HVF can pass
through money from State committees to the DNC and then coordinate activities there while
passing off as a joint fundraising committee is another thing.
The rechanneling of hundreds of millions of dollars donated by rich D elites to bypass
individual contribution limits was a brilliant financial engineering feat–one that the
Rs will surely emulate.
Before conducting a joint fundraiser, all participants must enter into a written
agreement that identifies the JFR and states the allocation formula -- the amount or
percentage that the participants agree to use for allocating proceeds and expenses. 11 CFR
102.17(c)(1).
What was the allocation formula of the joint fundraising committee?
As the HVF fairy tale plays out, Clinton is the witch who lures Hansel and Gretel to the
forest with a castle of confections, with the intention to eat them.
Are Democrats capable of outsmarting the witches that want to cannibalize the party?
Thanks Lambert for this. As usual, you have seen around corners and cleared the mud from
the water. Thank God you like crawling through this sh*t, so that I at least don't have
to.
Our local radio host Warren Olney, on KCRW who started his show "To The Point" (which is
syndicated nationally on Public Radio International) during the 2000 Bush v Gore Supreme
Court crowning of Bush fiasco is doing a week long retrospective of the disintegration of
Americans' faith in "our" institutions (ha!) before he goes to a once a week podcast.
I have listened to him for 17 years and I don't know how he could stomach covering U.S.
society, politics, and culture during those years of non-ending sh*t show. He was fair to all
guests including some right wing loonies, but you never got the feeling he was going for
"balance." He always seemed to get the truth. Gonna sorely miss him.
So glad you are still on the case, and loving it. You have my gratitude, and soon, a
contribution.
How much of the $250,000 the Sanders campaign paid for the DNC voter list went to the
Clinton campaign? I am still wondering if this kind of thing has occurred in other elections?
As far as relitigating the primary goes, we should've had that fight back, if not in 2000,
then definitely in 2004. After Team Clinton, people who justified their sellouts and perfidy
with 'we must never have another McGovern or Carter', gave the GOP a gift of a unified
government that should have been the permanent end of their credibility. Because while
McGovern, Carter, and Mondale went down in flames they didn't so thoroughly destroy the
anti-reactionary institutions as badly as the Third Way did.
The endless 2016 primary is our punishment for giving these centrist vipers a second
chance.
I appreciate Lambert going through these documents and laying out the timeline. One of the
things that this read sparked for me was the realization the Joe Biden was elbowed out just
as much as Bernie Sanders. I didn't follow the Biden decision-making process at the time but
checking back on the timeline it seems like Clinton pre-empted any attempt by dear old Joe to
actually decide to run. Correct me if I'm wrong (as I may well be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden#2016_presidential_race
It doesn't take much elbowing to oust someone who was polling in single digits in his home
state. I donated to O'Malley's campaign before Bernie got in, and, regrettably, am still on
his mailing list.
The bottom line is that the political system is owned by the ruling oligarchy and that the
Democratic Establishment is in bed with them. If a serious candidate from the left poses a
challenge, they will rig the Primary against that candidate.
The Democratic Establishment is pretty much paid to lose and to make the consultant class
rich. Equally as importantly, they exist to co-opt the left.
Sure there are a few voices talking that make sense like Tulsi Gabbard. They are the
exception to a very corrupt party.
A big part of why the middle class has declined is because of the total betrayal of the
Democratic Party from the ideas behind the New Deal.
The DNC got into the position of selling themselves to the Clintons as they were $20
million in debt, right? I have read that the major reason for these debts was that the DNC
had not shrunk itself since the last campaign and was paying out a ton of money for
consultants doing Christ knows what. In fact, Obama also used the DNC to support a stack of
his consultants as well as grifters gotta grift, right?
My question is whether this was a deliberate ploy on Obama and the Clinton factions to put
the DNC into such a vulnerable position before 2016 came along that when the time came, they
had to take up an offer that they could not refuse. I have not heard if Obama has made any
comments on this fiasco that took place on his watch and it seems nobody wants to call him
out on it. In the Brazile case, it is not a matter of following the money but following the
lack of money.
"Both sides in the Democratic Party's current faction fight, as I see it, are in denial
about the true nature and scope of the problem
"Both responses are essentially utopian: They rest on the premise that the Democratic Party
is still a functioning political organization and that the United States is still a
functioning democracy."
Thanks. This was plain and simple money laundering to get around the Federal Election
Commission rules and regulations. That no one has been brought to justice shows how corrupt
the American political process is. It would great if you could post how you would reform it.
I would start with paper ballots counted in public and halt corporations from buying
elections.
If I understand the law correctly, this really wasn't money laundering, since laundered
money becomes dirty by virtue of its being the result of a crime (like drug dealers
depositing cash at HSBC (IIRC)). Handling money in a complex and obfuscated way is not, in itself, money laundering. I'm
not sure what the word is, though.
Violating campaign laws is a crime. Circumventing can often be shown to be violating. Need
a prosecutor willing to prosecute white collar crime, a rare breed for at least the last
decade.
But trump has been attacked by Clintons, and he has DOJ but nothing is happening.
Some very good points are made here. Carping about the inequities of the Democrat Party
establishment isn't going to change their behaviour. Too much lucre. One needs to change the
people running the party. From the ground up and with concrete regulatory features. Full
stop.
However, one might look to the UK Labour party to see how it reacted when J. Corbyn, a
lifelong member and activist, became leader of the party through grandee miscalculation. The
Thatcherist Blairites went ballastic and basically decided to destroy the party rather than
let a fairly mild democratic socialist offer an alternative to their beloved neoliberal
economic policies. Too much lucre. They almost destroyed Labour in Scotland and were intent
on defenestrating Labour in England, whilst retaining some feeble structure as a mock
substitute, so that the Tories would, in fact, become the one and only alternative.
The forces aligned against the democratic tendencies of ordinary citizens are formidable
and reach into every nook and cranny of our lives. They have the money, technological reach
and hence the power of capital and its persuasive abilities.
i dont think a campaign had owned the dnc like that before. i think it had nothing to do
with hilary being a good team player, and everything to do with money and juicy
consulting/lobbying jobs. and pointing this out is not "sulking". know your enemy, and don't
excuse their crimes and predations by an argument that "that's just the way things are".
I am a Bernie supporter. He was pushed to the side by the Dem's – a party to which I
belonged for forty years – in a total panic when it was shown to the Dem's that Bernie
was able to reach disaffected party members as myself by raising a large amount of money
through individual small donors.
That Bernie accomplished this feat was a huge factor, IMO, in why and how my former party
felt it necessary to malign and derail Bernie and his supporters before, during and after the
Democratic -meh – Nominating Convention.
The Dem's should have just named the Hillary for America Fund the Hillary for Hillary
Fund.
Hillary cares only for and about Hillary. She's the reason Trump is POTUS today.
My family has been Democrat for many generations. Most of my family members have,
unfortunately, BTFD on this one. I used to find them to be reasonable folk. Trump derangement
syndrome has infected them all. This is a common complaint these days.
Forgot to thank Lambert for all of his great care and hard work in putting this together
for us. Thank you, Lambert.
In Brazile's account I do believe I remember reading that my home state, CA, did not sign off
on the agreement with regard to the HFV fund. But I seem to remember that Naked Capitalism,
or perhaps in the commentariat here, did state that the Dem's here in CA were in an uproar
over Hillary Victory Fund taking all of the state party monies. Am I having a flashback or
did I actually remember this wrong? Anyone know?
I thought the most interesting thing about Brazile's comments to date was that Obama left
the DNC indebted and therefore more vulnerable to the highest bidder. Not easy to bail that
out on $27 donations. So typical of these Goldmanite administrations, this use of finance as
a political weapon.
"... An early draft of former FBI Director James Comey's statement closing out the Hillary Clinton email case accused the former Secretary of State of having been 'grossly negligent" in handling classified information, new memos to Congress show. ..."
"... "There is evidence to support a conclusion that Secretary Clinton, and others, used the email server in a manner that was grossly negligent with respect to the handling of classified information," reads the statement, one of Comey's earliest drafts. ..."
"... Of course, Comey's final statement, while critical of Hillary's email usage, alleged that no prosecutor would pursue charges against actions which he described only as "extremely careless." ..."
"... Meanwhile, Section 793 of federal law states that "gross negligence" with respect to the handling of national defense documents is punishable by a fine and up to 10 years in prison ...so you can see why that might present a problem for Hillary. ..."
"... ...that said, we're going to go out on a limb and question whether it just might have had something to do with that infamous meeting between Bill Clinton and then Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Comey's boss, that happened just 6 days before Comey made his statement? ..."
The Hill , early drafts of former FBI Director James Comey's statement on Hillary Clinton's email case accused the former Secretary
of State of "gross negligence" in her handling of classified information as opposed to the "extremely careless" phrase that made
its way into the final statement.
As The Hill further points out, the change in language is significant since federal law states that "gross negligence" in handling
the nation's intelligence can be punished criminally with prison time or fines whereas "extreme carelessness" has no such legal definition
and/or ramifications.
An early draft of former FBI Director James Comey's statement closing out the Hillary Clinton email case accused the former
Secretary of State of having been 'grossly negligent" in handling classified information, new memos to Congress show.
The tough language was changed to the much softer accusation that Clinton had been "extremely careless" in her handling of classified
information when Comey announced in July 2016 there would be no charges against her.
The draft, written weeks before the announcement of no charges, was described by multiple sources who saw the document both before
and after it was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee this past weekend.
"There is evidence to support a conclusion that Secretary Clinton, and others, used the email server in a manner that was
grossly negligent with respect to the handling of classified information," reads the statement, one of Comey's earliest drafts.
Those sources said the draft statement was subsequently changed in red-line edits to conclude that the handling of 110 emails
containing classified information that were transmitted by Clinton and her aides over her insecure personal email server was "extremely
careless."
Of course, Comey's final statement, while critical of Hillary's email usage, alleged that no prosecutor would pursue charges
against actions which he described only as "extremely careless."
"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling
of the classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified
information."
"There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position or in the position of those
with whom she was corresponding about the matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."
Meanwhile, Section 793 of federal law states that "gross negligence" with respect to the handling of national defense documents
is punishable by a fine and up to 10 years in prison ...so you can see why that might present a problem for Hillary.
"Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch,
photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national
defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in
violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally
removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or
destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer -- shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
Unfortunately, The Hill's sources couldn't confirm the most important detail behind this bombshell new revelation, namely who
made the call to the change the language...
The sources, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media, said the memos show
that at least three top FBI officials were involved in helping Comey fashion and edit the statement, including Deputy Director Andrew
McCabe, General Counsel James Baker and Chief of Staff Jim Rybicki.
The documents turned over to Congress do not indicate who recommended the key wording changes, the sources said. The Senate Judiciary
Committee is likely to demand the FBI identify who made the changes and why, the sources said.
...that said, we're going to go out on a limb and question whether it just might have had something to do with that infamous
meeting between Bill Clinton and then Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Comey's boss, that happened just 6 days before Comey made his
statement?
The mere presence of a private server that sent/received classified information is THE EVIDENCE that she intended to mishandle
classified information. Jesus H. Christ on a cracker what are these people smoking? That's like saying that just because you were
drunk and decided to drive that you didn't intend to drive drunk.
" ...early drafts of former FBI Director James Comey's statement on Hillary Clinton's email case accused the former Secretary
of State of "gross negligence" in her handling of classified information as opposed to the "extremely careless" phrase that made
its way into the final statement."
Presstitutes from guardian have no shame. Look, for example, at the following statement "The former
Clinton staffers – among them high-profile figures such as Huma Abedin, Jennifer Palmieri and campaign
manager Robby Mook, the target of stringent criticism from Brazile – wrote: "It is particularly troubling
and puzzling that she would seemingly buy into false Russian-fueled propaganda, spread by both the Russians
and
our opponent , about our candidate's health."
It is widely suspected that Hillary Clinton has second stage
of Parkinson or some other serious neurological diseases?
It is telling that Guardian is afraid to open comments on this article.
Notable quotes:
"... Regarding the primary, in which Sanders – a Vermont independent – mounted a surprisingly strong challenge, Brazile writes in her book that a joint fundraising agreement between Clinton and the DNC "looked unethical" and she felt Clinton had too much influence on the party. ..."
She also said she "got sick and tired of people trying to tell me how to spend money" as DNC chair,
when she "wasn't getting a salary. I was basically volunteering my time".
"I'm not Patsey the slave," Brazile said, referring to a character in the Oscar-winning film 12
Years a Slave.
In her book, Brazile writes that she did not ultimately try to make the change of candidate because:
"I thought of Hillary, and all the women in the country who were so proud of and excited about her.
I could not do this to them."
On ABC, she admitted she had not had the power to make the change but said: "I had to put in on
the the table because I was under tremendous pressure after Secretary Clinton fainted to have a quote-unquote
plan B. I didn't want a plan B. Plan A was great for me. I supported Hillary and I wanted her to
win. But we were under pressure."
Brazile writes that on 12 September 2016, Biden's chief of staff called saying the vice-president
wanted to speak with her. Her thought, she writes, was: "Gee, I wonder what he wanted to talk to
me about?"
On ABC, she said she did not mention the possible switch. "I mean, look, everybody was called
in to see, do you know anything? How is she doing? And of course my job at the time was to reassure
people, not just the vice-president but also reassure the Democratic party, the members of the party,
that Hillary was doing fine and that she would resume her campaign the following week."
It is unclear if Biden was ever willing to step into the race. The former vice-president, who
many believe could a run for the presidency in 2020, made no immediate comment.
Asked if she still thinks a Biden-Booker ticket could have won, Brazile equivocated, saying: "Well,
you know, I had a lot of other combinations. This was something you play out in your mind."
Regarding the primary, in which Sanders – a Vermont independent – mounted a surprisingly strong
challenge, Brazile writes in her book that a joint fundraising agreement between Clinton and the
DNC "looked unethical" and she felt Clinton had too much influence on the party.
"... the DNC agreed to let the Clinton campaign control the party's finances, strategy, donations, and staffing decisions in exchange for the Clinton campaign's financial help. ..."
"... At a time when many people and many voices are calling for unity within the Democratic party, it was really disturbing to see that there was kind of a purge of party officials from both the at large committee, as well as the executive committee within the DNC. That really had one common thread of the people who were booted out of those seats that they had held. Some for decades. The commonality was that these were people who had either supported Bernie Sanders for president or supported Keith Ellison for DNC chair, or both. ..."
"... Getting rid of the non democratic superdelegates who make up one third of all of the votes cast that a nominee needs to secure the nomination, and to secure open or same day registration primaries so that again, open the doors. Let's let everybody in and get involved in the process. ..."
"... In Roger Stone's book, The Making of the President 2016 ..."
"... Every piece of what we've learned so far, unfolding over months, is as bad as or worse than we had thought: The DNC works to engineer a Clinton/Trump match-up, the combination most likely to assure a Democratic loss . It vehemently denies that it is tilted favorably toward Clinton -- which turns out to be true, in a technical sense, because it is controlled by Clinton. ..."
"... Debbie will be the sacrificial lamb. Still waiting for anyone in the mainstream to publish the name "Awan". ..."
"... she's put her money where her mouth is numerous times now, beginning with leaving the DNC in protest over its unethical practices ..."
In
this Real
News Network interview , Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) responds to former interim chair
Donna Brazile's revelation that the Clinton campaign had effective control of the DNC. Gabbard
was a vice-chair of the Democratic National Committee until February 28, 2016, when she
resigned to endorse Senator Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democratic Primary.
AARON MATÉ: It's The Real News. I'm Aaron Maté. During the 2016 Democratic
primary, supporters of Bernie Sanders complained that the Democratic National Committee was
plagued by internal corruption, and rigging the nomination for Hillary Clinton. Well today, the
former interim chair of the DNC has come out to say exactly that. Writing for Politico, Donna
Brazile details a scheme wherein the Clinton campaign effectively took over the DNC. Facing a
major funding shortfall, the DNC agreed to let the Clinton campaign control the party's
finances, strategy, donations, and staffing decisions in exchange for the Clinton campaign's
financial help.
But, this did not happen after Clinton became the nominee. In fact, this agreement was made
in August 2015, months before a single primary vote was cast. Among many things, this meant
that the DNC was able to act as a money laundering operation for the Clinton campaign. Tens of
millions of dollars in donations to state democrats across the country ultimately was kicked
back to Clinton headquarters in Brooklyn, well, earlier I spoke to someone who has been a
prominent vocal critic of the DNC process from the start. Congressmember Tulsi Gabbard
represents Hawaii's second congressional district. She was vice chair of the DNC until February
2016 when she resigned to endorse senator Bernie Sanders. I spoke to her about Donna Brazil's
revelations. Congressmember Gabbard, welcome. Your response, what we've heard from Donna
Brazile today.
TULSI GABBARD: I was not surprised to read what she was detailing in what was printed today.
This was something that when I was vice chair of the DNC I didn't have knowledge of the
details, but it was something that some folks were actually talking about and were concerned
about at that time
AARON MATÉ: I want to quote more from Donna Brazile. She writes "If the fight had
been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which
one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the
party's integrity." She's referring especially to this financial arrangement in which the
Clinton camp gives the DNC money but in exchange, the DNC hands over control of basically every
single decision. Your thoughts on that? Were you surprised by her revelation?
TULSI GABBARD: Again, this is not something I wasn't privy to the inner workings of how
these decisions were made, because at that time the decisions were really ultimately coming
from the chair of the DNC. But I had heard some concerns from folks from different state
parties actually. Executive directors and chairs and people who were involved in the grassroots
organizing and trying to again increase involvement in the process. Their concerns around this
joint fundraising agreement that Donna Brazile talked about in her article and her book was
that the funds that were being raised through this agreement were not actually benefiting the
party, but they were kind of being used as a pass through for lack of a better word. Their
concerns again were about getting more support for the work that parties do on the ground and
grassroots organizing. Turning out the vote, going and knocking on doors. Doing all the things
that happened on the ground in states all across the country. Again, this was not something
that I was terribly surprised by in reading that Donna detailed, but it's something that hasn't
been laid out in the way that she has in this way.
AARON MATÉ: Yeah. She provides a figure when it comes to the money element. She says
that of $82 million that was raised in state fundraisers, less than half of 1%, half of 1% got
to go to the state parties, and said the rest went back to Brooklyn for the Clinton campaign.
What kind of difference do you think that made on the election outcome when it comes to
democratic efforts at the state level?
TULSI GABBARD: It's hard to say. I can't exactly quantify that. But I do know that some of
the state party officials who I had spoken to at different times during the campaign had
actually expressed these concerns and decided not to sign onto this joint fundraising agreement
for that specific reason. They saw at that point, look we're not going to be used by anyone's
campaign. If you want to talk about how to help strengthen local parties, let's have that
conversation, but this was clearly not an effort in that direction.
AARON MATÉ: You recently spoke out about some more decisions by the DNC at the
national level, in terms of their staffing of key committees. Can you comment there on what you
were most upset by, and your thoughts on what should be done?
TULSI GABBARD: At a time when many people and many voices are calling for unity within the
Democratic party, it was really disturbing to see that there was kind of a purge of party
officials from both the at large committee, as well as the executive committee within the DNC.
That really had one common thread of the people who were booted out of those seats that they
had held. Some for decades. The commonality was that these were people who had either supported
Bernie Sanders for president or supported Keith Ellison for DNC chair, or both. If the message
is that we're going to get rid of people who may have dissenting opinions, or may be calling
for different kinds of reform or retaliating for positions that they've taken this is not the
direction that the democratic party should be going in. The democratic party should be going in
the direction of openness, inclusiveness, transparency, accountability, which is why I've been
calling for two major but very basic kinds of reform. Getting rid of the non democratic superdelegates who make up one third of all of the votes cast that a nominee needs to secure
the nomination, and to secure open or same day registration primaries so that again, open the
doors. Let's let everybody in and get involved in the process.
She says that of $82 million that was raised in state fundraisers, less than half of 1%,
half of 1% got to go to the state parties, and said the rest went back to Brooklyn for the
Clinton campaign.
Great dot-connecting. Incredible irony that HRC's diversion of funds from swing states to
her high-spending campaign was one of the proximate causes of her losing the electoral
college.
Yep. Here in Maine, where the state party was part of the Victory Fund kick-back scheme,
Trump ended up winning one of the state's electoral votes (Maine allows splitting by
congressional district) -- the first time a Republican took a Maine electoral vote since
1988.
The link at the FEC was dated 9/16/15 and shows only 32 states and the Democratic Party of
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
Open Secrets shows 38 states eventually signed on to the Hillary Victory Fund shows 38
states (Iowa, NJ, Del, KS, NM and SD added), with each participating state a "beneficiary" of
around $3M. Nada to the Democratic Party of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. https://www.opensecrets.org/jfc/summary.php?id=C00586537
These $3M expenditures pale to Hillary for America ($120,822,326), DNC Services Corp
($55,639,930), Bully Pulpit Interactive ($40,881,995), and Chapman, Cubine et al
($25,432,057).
Incidentally, I was not able to track these funds at the Oregon Secretary of State with
Orestar, the online tool to search campaign finances. As I looked closely at the filings, it
appears the FEC requires expenditures by (not contributions to) the Democratic Party of
Oregon to federal political committees be recorded. I only see ~$275K contributed back
(aggregated expenditures) to "Democratic Party of Oregon Federal Account" and "Democratic
Party of Oregon Forward Oregon Transfer Down Acct." in the 2015 and 2016 calendar years
(though an additional $123,404.48 has gone to Democratic Party of Oregon Federal Account in
2017).
"Open Secrets shows 38 states eventually signed on to the Hillary Victory Fund shows 38
states (Iowa, NJ, Del, KS, NM and SD added) "
Oh, so that's why the KS Dem party officials claimed they couldn't afford $20k for
a mailer for Thompson in the KS-04 special election race this spring . A race he almost won,
without that help!
So for Wisconsin at least, it is not true that the state party made anything (even half of
1 percent) from the "joint" fundraising. Clinton took all but $4700 of the proceeds AND took
another $282,000 from the state party.
She says that of $82 million that was raised in state fundraisers, less than half of 1%,
half of 1% got to go to the state parties, and said the rest went back to Brooklyn for the
Clinton campaign.
Just like Charles Koch, she just wanted her fair share; all of it.
Tell me please, how is this different from republican efforts to exterminate Obama Care by
de-funding every bit of its supporting infrastructure?
Whether it was Hilary's intent to exterminate the Democratic party or not, the effect
seems quite similar.
At first, I didn't think that he was anything more than your classic identity politician.
Then I needed constituent service. Matter of fact, I needed it a couple of times. Let me tell
you, his staff aced it. They were that good.
As far as I am concerned, Raul has my vote for as long as he wants to stay in office.
Finally one shoe has dropped. The second one about to drop is that the DNC emails were not
hacked by Russia in any capacity, directly or indirectly by the Kremlin, whatever. They were
most probably leaked. HRC started the Russia hysteria when she called President Trump a
pupped of Putin in one of the debates. This is only one small example of her manipulative
arrogance.
Every piece of what we've learned so far, unfolding over months, is as bad as or
worse than we had thought: The DNC works to engineer a Clinton/Trump match-up, the
combination most likely to assure a Democratic loss . It vehemently denies
that it is tilted favorably toward Clinton -- which turns out to be true, in a technical
sense, because it is controlled by Clinton.
The establishment Democrats accuse
Sanders of not working for down-ballot Democrats while the DNC is siphoning money from the
states to help Clinton's campaign. "Maintaining ties to Wall Street makes economic
sense for Democrats and keeps their coffers full," one "pollster and senior political adviser
to President Bill Clinton from 1994 to 2000" helpfully assures us two weeks ago in the NYT , except when it
doesn't, such as when Donna Brazile discovers, to her horror, that the party is, fact, broke,
probably due, in no small part, to paying consultants -- like the one writing in the
Times -- whose expertise has led the
decimation of the party. (And, on top of all that, the DNC, professing "unity," purges
long-time members who supported Bernie Sander or Keith Ellison and appoints anti-minimum wage
lobbyist Dan Halpern to the Finance Committee.)
Every part of the story turns out to be a colossal train wreck -- and all this
from establishment/élite types who spent the entire campaign season reminding everyone
else that they knew what was realistic, pragmatic, achievable, so on and so forth.
It's unreal, really.
" but it was something that some folks were actually talking about and were concerned
about at that time"
===================================
Why does this remind me of Harvey Weinstein?
its like deja vu or something
I think we have to go back and find out who 'endorsed' Harvey. How many? And we go back, research and publish the names of those who knew, and yet still endorsed
Hillary.
To be fair to Rep. Gabbard, the excerpt published by Ms. Brazile clearly indicates that
Rep. Wasserman-Shulz (DWS) was not keeping the rest of the DNC leadership fully informed of
relevant business and financial arrangements.
If Brazile's account is accurate, the question arises, why did the DNC board tolerate that
situation for so long, given their legal responsibilities? Given the anomalous behavior by
DWS, you have to wonder how the DNC board could have been comfortable in their roles, and why
action wasn't taken against DWS earlier. That leads one to a suspicion is that there was an
outside force supporting (controlling?) DWS and intimidating the others.
Ah yes, but Brazile's account is a self-serving CYA attempt to get ahead of a story that
was obvious as it was happening to anyone paying attention 18 months ago. Notice no mention
of passing debate questions from CNN to Clinton ahead of time. It undercuts your "bombshell"
if you have to say "it was rigged and I helped"
Debbie will be the sacrificial lamb. Still waiting for anyone in the mainstream to publish
the name "Awan".
Nearly a year after the Nov 2016 general election, this issue is finally beginning to be
elevated. Senator Elizabeth Warren also responded affirmatively to a question about whether
some primary elections were rigged against Sanders on PBS Newshour yesterday evening.
Somewhat related in terms of the scramble to get ahead of the Den estab breakdown: In an interesting coincidence the recent meeting of the AFL-CIO saw labor leaders say it's
time to stop automatically giving Dems support.
"The time has passed when we can passively settle for the lesser of two evils," reads
the main political resolution passed Tuesday by delegates. Lee Saunders, chair of the
AFL-CIO's political committee and president of AFSCME (link is external), and Randi
Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers (link is external), introduced
the resolution. They lead the labor federation's two largest unions. Convention managers
yoked the resolution to another measure it also approved discussing a labor party, though not
by name. "
Many AFT members were very unhappy (understatement) when Weingarten announced support for
Hillary without first polling members. AFT lost a lot of members over that. I'm not sure this
isn't a PR scramble by labor leaders to keep their jobs, instead of any real change in
outlook. But it's an interesting data point about the current state-of-play.
AFT member here. I was livid about the sham endorsement "process" that happened; it was
rushed through, months before the first contest, with absolutely no consultation from the
rank and file. Weingarten's infamous text messages about the National Nurses Union basically solidified
for me that she's nothing but pond scum. She's not a teacher, she's an attorney. And clearly,
not a very clever one, at that. I am obligated to be an AFT member, and if I were only to
become a "partial" member I'd still be paying about 88% of the dues anyway. I still support
my AFT local.
The national AFT and its pathetic misleadership can go to hell.
If it's any consolation, your situation appears to be the norm with the long-established
unions. Their clearly-stated bias aside, the World Socialist Web Site covers labor disputes
and has shown over and over that the mainstream unions have sold their rank-and-file out.
Ironically, just this week I read where an activist group has done some major housecleaning
at the Teamsters -- and it only took them 41 years.
During the primary, the outrage among SEIU members when their Fearless Leader not only
announced for HRC but tried to pretend it was "what our people want" by posting to Facebook
photos of a half-dozen blue-shirted members heading out to knock on doors. It didn't go over
well.
Did Senator Warren admit that her refusal to endorse Bernie was bought by the Hillary
Victory Fund? In other words, does this indicate that the great fighter against Wall Street
corruption was bought off by Wall Street?
Was Massachusetts one of the participating states? She wouldn't have made any friends
there exposing the money-laundering, if so. And had Clinton beaten the odds and won, she
would have been toast, especially given she has a huge target on her back painted by the GOP.
The Clintons notoriously hold grudges, and have long memories.
The Margot Kidder piece in Counterpunch linked to in Montanamaven's
comment lists 31 of the 33 participating states. Massachusetts is one of them. (It's not
clear which are the other two states or why they aren't listed.)
I remember reading these things back then, and trying to forward them to HillBots I knew.
Without exception I was poo-poo'ed as a
tinfoil-hat-wearing-conspiracy-theorist-berniebro-whiner-misogynist-right-wing-conspiracy-member.
I'd love to say 'I told you so' to those peeps, but most of them are now fully occupied
looking under their beds for Russkis. :/
Not that I know Joseph Cannon, but check out his Cannonfire site .hysteric hysteria, deny,
RUSSKIS!, Brazile is a liar!!!, deny again, MORE RUUUUSSSKKKIIIIS!!!
to me it seems to be the 'I'm With Her' version of a Trumpsters pizzagate rantings .I
dunno, maybe I am missing something and my brain has already been washed and taken over by
Cyrillic Control Mechanisms
I read about this on Politico yesterday. Donna Brazile? This is the lady who leaked debate
topics to Clinton and was fired from CNN, right? It makes you wonder why she is writing about
this now. Opportunism in order to sell books? Revenge on Clinton? Or does she sense the wind
changing direction in the Democratic party?
Personally I think Donna Brazile, via her story and book, is trying get her version out as
she probably knows the Clinton Mafia will throw her under the bus as this story is finally
getting legs..with or without Donna Brazile's revelations.
As I've noted before her name is Mud with CNN, noone wants her to be a talking head. And
Clinton can no longer shelter her. What does she have left but airing the dirty laundry and
hoping for a payout?
Donna Brazile is wrong that this was not illegal, but only unethical. The Hillary Victory
Fund was set up to evade the campaign financing laws. There is a legal limit on how much an
individual can give to a candidate. Hillary's big donors had reached those limits. She
directed her donors who had exceeded the legal limits on direct contributions to her to give
to the DNC and state parties with the agreement that those entities would funnel the money
back to her.
That would seem to me to be evidence of intent to violate the law.
RICO? Would seem the big donors had to know what they were doing as well. But then I
recall the recent lawsuit where the party claimed it could do anything and the judge
agreed.
There is just no good reason for a party to operate in such a manner. Complete financial
transparency in real time whilst functioning in a democratic process among binding terms with
real membership seems to be the least people should expect.
All of which is why I am a member/participant of no party and find the process
illegitimate across the board. It really does come back to it's not just if you win or lose,
but how it's played.
" If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before
the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act
." -- Donna Brazile
I, too, beg to differ. Naturally a perp doesn't see their own twisted actions as
criminal.
But the basic principle behind campaign finance laws is transparency. Both the D and R
parties receive extensive direct and in-kind government financing, such as the free primary
elections which states run on their behalf. Consequently they are obliged to provide an
accurate accounting of funds received and paid.
Does anyone think Robert "Torquemada" Mueller couldn't indict both Hillary and Donna
Brazile on a whole laundry list of federal offenses, if he were actually looking for gross
electoral wrongdoing?
Re "Naturally a perp doesn't see their own twisted actions as criminal."
Remember Brazile is famous for complaining that people were trying to "criminalize
behavior that is normal", when they complained about the blatant pay-to-play behavior
revealed during the election.
Slightly off topic: The neolib Dem estab has just discovered – much to their
surprise, no doubt – that's it's one thing to run the neoliberal economic playbook on
the deplorables, but quite another thing to run the neoliberal playbook on their own
establishment's finances and organization, each for their own personal benefit.
The judge dismissed the lawsuit because federal court wasn't, in his opinion, the proper
channel for seeking redress, not because he agreed with the DNC's assertion it wasn't
required to abide by its charter.
"But not one of them alleges that they ever read the DNC's charter or heard the statements
they now claim are false before making their donations. And not one of them alleges that they
took action in reliance on the DNC's charter or the statements identified in the First
Amended Complaint (DE 8). Absent such allegations, these Plaintiffs lack standing."
People who knew and did not speak, would they be accessories?
From Wikipedia:
Knowledge of the crime[edit]
To be convicted of an accessory charge, the accused must generally be proved to have had
actual knowledge that a crime was going to be, or had been, committed. Furthermore, there
must be proof that the accessory knew that his or her action, or inaction, was helping the
criminals commit the crime, or evade detection, or escape. A person who unknowingly houses
a person who has just committed a crime, for instance, may not be charged with an accessory
offense because they did not have knowledge of the crime.
I believe you are most correct & thanks for altering the direction of the
comments.
The support for Sanders was a resonate echo of
support many of us felt for President Jimmy Carter.
How far we have traveled is well acknowledged when you see that Sanders lost.
For the purposes of the Naked Capitalism readers, who are studying how real money is
captured & used by the Jet Setter Classes, here we have a Politico so entrenched
her Unit used coercion & tricks to take for themselves all of the main tool, money,
required to make the Democratic Party a real Party.
(I refuse to see Hillary Clinton as the First Woman Nominated for the Presidency, &
consider her & her husband Bill, the Clinton Unit.)
I do chalk it up to the Clinton Unit's long & destructive influence as law makers &
breakers. What the Unit is about is clear when you look at their history in Haiti. We are to
get the leadership & economy same as the Haitians get.
The leak that in many cases there was no sincere link at all between what Clinton Unit II
said, and what she really believed & intended, meant we were to get another cipher.
"Look out kid/They keep it all hid. -Bob Dylan, comes to mind.
After Obama it is clear that the Democratic Party is and will be in the pocket of the
pirate parasites of the US Financial System.
The revolution has to take place below the jet setter classes stranglehold on who writes
the checks for what. (I'd be interested in knowing how much of whose money paid for the
Clinton Unit's Boeing.)
In the end we as a bunch of honest people who like justice in that form it takes in the
day to day demonstration of good ethical moorings, liked how Sanders got the money for his
campaign.
The Clinton Unit by taking money from down ballot candidates crippled the necessary
revolution being attempted by those actually fighting to strengthen the nation.
Is there a large and notable set of organized people who vote, lining up behind Tulsi
Gabbard as the next Great Hope of the Mope (GHOTM)? Able and willing to go to the mat for
her? Trusting that she is not just another screen on which people can project their
images?
Got to have leaders, don't we? Because most of us just go along, go along, go along But
leaders are just other flawed humans, so easy to corrupt and failing that, to remove from the
game board by other means Too bad the Occupy model, whatever that actually was/is, seems not
to work effectively, especially against the organized on the other side of the crowd-control
technologies
I don't think people learned/practiced an occupy model for the most part. Folk were
expected to bite off more than they could chew in due haste. Remember the media immediately
asking what are your demands before people could figure out wtf was going on beyond we are
the 99 percent? Establishing a new practice was of course difficult to do while wondering if
you would be busted for just being there. Like the problems with parties people just keep
rolling with what they know (top-down), hammering their familiar square peg in a round hole
– rather than attempt/establish new process.
We really have no idea what a democratic process looks like.
Trusting that she is not just another screen on which people can project their
images?
Always a valid concern, but she's put her money where her mouth is numerous times now,
beginning with leaving the DNC in protest over its unethical practices.
And also, it's not up to her, is it? That screen thing is not about what she is, it's
about what people do. On a practical level, that move that Gabbard decries -- killing off
local party organizations -- is truly a step the wrong way. Real citizens have more to do
than just project their images.
she's put her money where her mouth is numerous times now, beginning with leaving
the DNC in protest over its unethical practices
That isn't why Tulsi Gabbard resigned as vice chair of the Democratic National Committee.
She resigned because the person in that position is supposed to remain neutral in
presidential primaries, and she decided she wanted to publicly endorse Sanders.
In other words, she was following the party rules. This separates her from all those DNC
officers who stayed on board while putting their thumbs on the scale for Clinton.
In order to survive, you have to trust SOMEBODY! Whom do you trust JT? I get what you are
saying and agree 100%, but what next? I think that is the meaning of accountability. You have
to trust someone and make that trust the basis for your life. Screw me over and you are out.
Mopes are mopes because they keep placing their trust in the wrong place or for whatever
social reason, don't have an option.
The twisted logic of Margaret Thatchers now famous line-" there is no society", is a case
in point. The entire quote is,"I think we've been through a period where too many people have
been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with
it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.'
They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society.
There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything
except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after
ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too
much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone
has first met an obligation."
Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, the champions of Neoliberalism and the recasting of
the Divine right of Kings as a means of ordering society. The Market is Supreme, the Noble
Families (Corporations and Insiders, the 10%, are in direct communion with the divine, and
the rest of us need to worship and obey. We have no power because we have not earned it. It
is a recasting of the Feudal order. But what she fails to articulate is the obligation of the
system to the people? In her ideology, there is no reciprocal obligation. The systems owes
nothing. It is a system where the powerful hold control and the subjects are held in check by
blind faith.
Thatcher is right for the wrong reasons. Trust starts with the family and successful,
healthy families have a better chance of surviving over time due to the natural support they
provide. But she takes for granted, or is totally blinded by her own history. The Feudal
order failed for a reason. It breeds war and corruption. It thrived on ignorance and
violence. Offer a different vision, and the power center shifts.
Leadership is important as everyone knows. With proper leadership, much is possible.
Leadership is achieved when guided by some vision or goal. Is it any wonder why individuals
that can communicate a vision of brotherhood and solidarity are killed or marginalized by
Authoritarians? Where collectivism is shunned at every turn. How the meaning of family values
is cynically turned on its head.
Obligation is right. What is screwed up is how obligations have been distorted, and
continue to be distorted in a capitalist system. If you believe in social evolution, then the
strength of the family unit can serve as the fundamental immortal unit that provides the
basis for continued human existence. It is a buffer against the excesses of the capitalist
system. It is the source from which positive change will come. Support the family unit by
guaranteeing affordable housing, healthcare, and work. A basic income firmly grounded in
social contribution. What institutions are left that have not been corrupted by the
Neoliberal disease?
The problem making inroads is that the current political power still thinks this is a
game. It is not. The first duty for people who desire a better world for themselves, their
families, and their future generations need to see the obligation to protect the commons,
their families being the basic unit connected to a larger whole.
By destroying the middle class, capitalists have sown the seeds of their own destruction.
How many people are willingly going to walk into bondage? The promise of Neoliberalism is
failing and the mopes/masses know it- they live it. They just don't know where to turn. It is
a slow motion grinding into dust.
Communities are begging for relief. The organizations that need to be constructed are ones
that allow people to extend themselves out into the world and take risks, at the same time,
providing them with the assurance and concrete reality that if they fail, there is a place or
institution that will not let them perish. Capitalists buy loyalty. Individuals in their club
always fail upwards. No one is EVER left behind.
There is nothing to prevent other groups from achieving that same sense of solidarity
except fear.
The same is true of the Republican party -- nationally it's owned by the Koch brothers and
other billionaires, and locally, pretty much the same. Neither organization is going away in
the near future.
The most powerful aspect of the last election cycle is the eye opening role that money
plays in politics. Everyone knows the fundamental influence money has, but the false
narrative that has been acting for decades was finally turned on its head. Namely, that large
sums of money are needed to compete in the political process and only by funneling that
capital flow into the pockets of corporate entities can anything get done. Sanders campaign
proved without a doubt that self financing is possible and money alone is not enough to carry
victory. Its who controls that money, and what can be done with it, are the important
factors. Money didn't win the election for Trump, corruption did.
The lies and crookedness of the existing power structure has been laid bare and only the
completely uninformed still believe it or are directly paid off by the process. No wonder
silence and an outside forces- RUSSIA- must be deployed. There is nothing left to mask the
class warfare. This process reminds me of rats fleeing a sinking ship, and good riddance-
they all need to drown or just scatter away into obscurity.
But until those money flows can be directed towards the commons, the corruption will not
be driven out of our society. Democracy will die.
The silence and obfuscation on these important developments just highlight the crisis
capitalism, as a system, is facing and how the existing political structure is incapable of
dealing with the problem. The level of corruption is the problem, along with the extent lies
and misinformation are needed to maintain control. It is dysfunctional.
Once again, the rallying cry is for a social guarantee. A guarantee for work, healthcare,
housing, and a basic standard of living. Neoliberalism says no to all the above. Their
worldview is that there are no guarantees. Only competition where the strong prevail and the
weak perish. Boiled down once again to the fight between socialism and capitalism. Third way
politics is no longer functional. Hard choices must be made.
But what is the source of that power? Physical strength? Intellect? Mind control- the
ability to convince others? All of the above? The mind returns to social evolution. Forces
trying to maintain the status quo and counter forces seeking to alter the system. The
constant tension of forces exerting pressure until something gives. The faults and cracks are
everywhere. What holds it together is the peoples willingness to exert pressure where they
are directed to by their leadership. There is a crisis of leadership.
Finally, people are waking up to the notion that following crooks and thieves does not
make their lives better or secure. The nation needs leaders who are not cynical opportunists,
here in America and around the world. As the Trump administration makes painfully obvious,
America's standing in the world diminishes in proportion to its level of naked corruption. We
have become that which we professed we were against. The next true Revolution must be that
Scoundrels cannot run the world. Yea, I know Utopia. But if you can't dream about Utopia what
do humans have? All that comes to mind is a capitalist nightmare. ( As seen from the
Bottom)
Just as the Soviet Union collapsed in a breathtaking short time, the Rube Goldberg
construction that is todays capitalist system might meet the same speedy end. Just as the old
guard soviet apparatchiks held on for dear life, supporting a known failed experiment due to
their privileged position, if feels like the capitalist system is headed for a similar fate.
A quick, catastrophic failure instead of a slow, incremental adjustment. A failure brought
about form outside forces and the system not being able to deal or cope.
Donna Brazile can now make money revealing how she and the Democratic party screwed over
working people in this country and lied to the constituency she was supposed to serve. If
this helps people understand how they are fundamentally mislead, if only indirectly and
unintended, all the better. Its NOT about the money alone, it shows what the cynical
manipulation of money makes you become.
Re "Once again, the rallying cry is for a social guarantee. A guarantee for work,
healthcare, housing, and a basic standard of living. Neoliberalism says no to all the above.
Their worldview is that there are no guarantees. Only competition where the strong prevail
and the weak perish."
One cannot get a government controlled by special interests and large corporations to
provide social guarantees that are worth a damn and won't be corrupted. Indeed, the heart of
the problem is that the New Deal guarantees and post-Depression regulations (e.g.
Glass-Steagall), or even the earlier antitrust laws, have all been eroded.
There is a historical American worldview, not neoliberal, but also not "Third Way", in
which there are no Big Brother guarantees, yet there is strong social protection of those in
need. It contains a greater level of self-reliance, in the sense that one does not place
one's hope in corruptible governments as the solution. And yet not self-reliance, because it
trusted in neighbors to help neighbors. And it also renounces personal greed as a prime
motivator. The pioneers had this worldview – self reliance with a recognition of a
common interest, and thus a moral duty, leading to a willingness to help others, building an
entire nation, one barn raising party at a time, so that their children would have a better
life.
I am no historian, but gut experience informs me that what you are talking about is a true
American sentiment. The desire for individual freedom struggling simultaneously to forge a
lasting social bond with your fellow countrymen. At its heart, our nation was formed in the
embrace of a contradiction. The promise of freedom connected to the chains of bondage. The
age old dilemma of the rights of the rulers over the ruled. Freedom was sought above all else
and the historical opportunity presented itself for a great experiment. Open land available
for occupation, far from a ruling power, devoid of a powerful local social force.
The delusion, and betrayal, is the fact that reconciling this contradiction is no longer
the driving force of American politics. Neoliberal ideology has short circuited the political
system- on should we say, perfected it in that the ruling elite in America never intended to
share power with the unwashed masses. With the destruction of a functioning two party system,
even the pretense cannot be upheld any longer. Without a viable opposition party, the power
of private property can do as it pleases- and is doing it.
In America, we just had lots of space to spread out into and put off the day of reckoning.
Well, that day has arrived.
You mention barn raising, but that is an Amish tradition, to my limited understanding, the
Amish rejected American culture and wished to separate themselves from the broader culture to
ensure that their values could be preserved. It is an honest attempt to live christian
values. They are a-political and want to be left alone. I can't say much for other christian
denominations other than they are connected at the hip to capitalist values. That is not
working out so well on a cognitive dissonance level.
The cooperation that you speak of is more along socialist lines. And once again on an
intuitive level, most sane and healthy human beings, this is their normal state. The default
desire is to aid a person in need or to take satisfaction from assisting your neighbor
instead of abusing them. This natural human desire is prevented from becoming embodied in a
political force because that would spell the end to individual opulence, and we can't have
that. Charity is acceptable, a natural state of care and social equality is unacceptable.
The question is can you have a secular society that is dedicated to human care? Or a
theocratic society that does not become bogged down in religious dogma. American Democracy
seemed to point in that direction but appears to have stalled out due to resistance and lack
of trying.
Big Brother guarantees is code language for destroying the social responsibilities
embodied in New Deal legislation. Functioning Democracy is supposed to protect from
corruption by being able to vote the crooks out. This becomes impossible when the crooks take
control of the government and citizens are convinced that their government itself is the
problem. You have the revolving door policy that we see today. National government captured
by special interests.
Until a two-pronged attack can be instituted on a large scale- communities taking care of
one another along with demand for honest representation by the government, only small scale
resistance will be possible. Evil and hardship will prevail.
As far as a greater level of self-reliance and not placing all one's hopes in corruptible
governments I definitely think that's what the radical labor movement aimed at, a lot of
bottom up left movements do, just have limited power these days. This is fighting back to
reclaim the wealth the 1% (or 1% of the 1%) have captured.
Charity likely doesn't even work with such inequality for several reasons: Although you
can always give a dollar to a homeless person, charity fails to do that much good when almost
all of the wealth in a society is controlled by fewer and fewer people to a greater and
greater degree. A bunch of paupers can only do so much in helping each other (except in
trying to fight to reclaim the wealth from the 1% of the 1%). They can't do much else when
the very few control the businesses, the agriculture, own most of the property and use their
charity (Bill Gate's charity as it were) as a means of control (whatever little good it may
or may not also do).
Has this happened in other elections? Is this a first? The counterpart of this story is
the nuts and bolts of how the U.S. press is controlled by various interests.
This is a story which should not disappear down the memory hole.
" This was something that when I was vice chair of the DNC I didn't have knowledge of the
details, but it was something that some folks were actually talking about and were concerned
about at that time"
Boy, is there a big question mark hanging over THAT. Apparently she didn't respond to the
rumors by asking impertinent questions. And if the vice-chair didn't know who really owned
the joint, it was a purely ornamental office. Rather like Ellison's now.
Brazile said in her Politico article that even she had a hard time finding out what was
going on. She said she couldn't even issue a press release without an okay from Brooklyn.
I knew the cat was in the bag the moment nearly all of the super delegates publicly
supported Hillary Clinton before a single primary was held. (Are you listening, Sen. Shumer?)
I also knew it had to be a quid pro quo because it was obvious they were doing it for
campaign money for their re-elections. A lot of this appeared in print long before Donna
Brazile "discovered" the affirming document. This, and the way Bernie supporters were treated
at the convention, is why I will never give the DNC a penny.
Tulsi seemed a bit tongue tied on some questions in her position and not knowing what was
going on? Not credible to me.
She gets credit for quitting and endorsing Bernie, and big credit for anti war, but she does
not have history as a progressive, though moving in that direction.
Similarly Liz is no progressive irrespective of anti bank position, though similarly inching
in that direction.
Both want to move up, seem to be sensing changing winds.
If Bernie runs, who would he pick? Both usefully female, but neither brings any ev's he won't
get anyway. Tulsi brings looks and youth and she endorsed Liz better at treasury, and she
might be happy there.
I think Liz would be a great Treasury Secretary. As for Bernie's VP pick, I think that
Tulsi would, ahem, appeal to a certain portion of our male electorate.
I also think that he could also do well by choosing Nina Turner as his VP. Unlike Tulsi,
whose oratorical style puts me to sleep, Nina knows how to sign, seal, and DELIVER a
speech.
Gabbard is a co-sponsor of all 4, and Jayapal is a co-sponsor of all but HR1587. I believe
you that Gabbard isn't always progressive, but she does pretty well most of the time, and
(for now) she's better than Jayapal on the very dangerous issue of antibiotic overuse.
I don't know people taking positions on things that aren't likely to pass isn't all that.
Ok if enough Dems were on board and they controlled congress or some Reps were AND they had a
president who wouldn't veto then maybe Medicare for All etc. Even getting enough Dems on
board to pass it even if they had the majority is a long way from where we are now.
However a constitutional amendment is in a whole other category of unlikely than that as
the requirement to get one passed are super majorities we are never going to see. So some of
the former may be difficult and mostly grandstanding at this point, but I really regard the
last as impossible.
Another way to take a public position is to refuse to co-sponsor high profile bills such
as these. People in the PACs notice if a member of Congress co-sponsors something that they
don't like, or if the member chooses to avoid co-sponsoring it.
Of course none of these bills will pass in the current Congress. However, it is important
to get some momentum for them so that they will have a greater chance in future Congresses,
and co-sponsorship is a way to generate some of that momentum.
HR676 has been introduced in every Congress since 2003, and this is the first Congress in
which it has gained more than 100 co-sponsors. HR1587 has also been introduced since 2003,
although it has always had a different bill number. Its number of co-sponsors has gone up and
down.
Perhaps too many people are paying too much attention to Trump's twitter account, and not
enough attention to the wonkish reality of how bills can become laws. People need to push
their Representatives to support these bills.
DNC has long stood for Democratic National CLUB not Committee. Under Perez, I see little
evidence of movement toward a "democratic" "committee." This is not about Anti-Sanders it is
apparently about maintaining Clintonism when the electorate wants more progressivism. DNC is
pushing many of us to vote for a qualified Republican over a Clintonite Democrat. That is
very stupid – very sad.
Good laws make a good society, bad laws make a bad society. Good people make better laws
than bad people.
All people are good, but some do more bad, sure, go ahead and think of it that way.
I only get to vote for people.
"The Democrats, the longer they talk about identity politics, I got 'em. I want them to
talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with
economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats." Steve Bannon
It's not often your opponent does you the favor of telling you why you are losing. I
pissed away some money on the Democrats last election (not because I liked Hillary; I just
despise Trump). What I got for my money was four or five emails a day asking for more money.
That and the ignominious, gut-wrenching loss. Many of the emails were from Donna Brazile and
almost all of them were about identity politics issues, usually tsk-tsk'ing some nasty thing
Trump said about one group or another. I remember thinking how dumb this was. They already
had the identity politics voters and getting them to turn out was going to be a ground game
play. While they sang to their choir, Trump and Bannon were out energizing an aggrieved white
middle and working class, which could have been Hillary's. Non-stop ads with Trump's ugly
face on the screens of Pennsylvania and Ohio saying "you're fired" would have been good.
Every time the Democrats waxed indignant about an identity issue, they lost some more
aggrieved white voters, who took the message as further confirmation that the Dems really
didn't care about them and their problems. Trump walked right in. Comey's timing, the
Russians, etc all mattered, but net net the Democrats gave Trump the win. The top of their
organization is full of people who seem to be better at identity politics than anything else,
except maybe backstabbing. They're crap at strategy.
I strongly encourage those who have Democratic friends and relatives to be sure that those
friends and relatives have seen the article by Donna Brazile. Don't be afraid to be a pest
(although I do recommend politeness). Many of those friends and relatives will be voting in
primaries next year, and they need to know what is happening in the Democratic party.
It doesn't just indict Hillary, although that is what gets the focus, it is a condemnation
of Obama as well for leaving the Dem party in so much debt. So Obama as well sacrificed the
Dem party for his own campaign. By slightly different means (running up debt rather than
funneling money) but to the same end. What a self-seeking bunch, to the destruction of even
their own party, the Dem top ticket has been (yea cheeto is no better, but that's it's own
thing).
DNC Bylaws state that the Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national
officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and
evenhandedness during the Democratic Party
Presidential nominating process.
Since that obviously didn't happen, I would assert that Hillary being the Democrat nominee
is null and void.
When they rig an election, everyone participates in the election (voting or running) is a
victim.
Even people watching it become victimized (like the quiz shows in the 1950s, TV viewers
were victims).
(So, you, me and all the other guys had the primary election stolen.)
And if Donna Brazile tells you it's rigged, it's not up to you, but up to all of us, to
absorb the insider information (you can't withhold all those secret details) and to decide on
the verdict.
"The victory fund agreement was signed in August 2015 and widely reported during the
course of the campaign, amplifying the friction between Sanders and the DNC that had already
been fueled by disagreements over the primary debate schedule and access to the party's voter
database."
oh well then nothing to see here, let's just go back to bashing russia.
Wasn't Brazile the one who said that while the DNC is supposed to be neutral, she was
working on behalf of Clinton over Bernie? So as we all knew, then and now, grifters gotta
grift and Brazile is no better than anyone else at the DNC who keeps failing upwards and
being rewarded for her part in the grift.
The real question is so much Russian influence as the US intelligence agencies influence on 2016 presidential elections. Brennan
in particular. He bet of Hillary Clinton and lost. After that he was instrumental in launching "color revolution" against Trump. In
which the the critical step was to appoint "special prosecutor".
Notable quotes:
"... But even more is emerging that could take the Russia story in a totally new direction -- namely that the infamous dossier compiled
by former British Secret Intelligence Service officer Christopher Steele was bought and paid for by a law firm , Perkins Coie, working
on behalf of both the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). ..."
"... The extent to which the Steele Dossier influenced the intelligence underpinning Mueller's probe has yet to be determined with
any certainty. In January, the U.S. intelligence community published the unclassified ICA, which was derived from a compilation of intelligence
reports and assessments conducted by the FBI, CIA, and NSA. Many of the allegations made in the ICA mirror reporting contained in the
Steele Dossier. So striking are the similarities that there are real concerns among some senior Republican lawmakers that the ICA merely
reflects "echoes" of the Steele Dossier reported back via liaison with foreign intelligence services who had access to it (namely the
British Secret Intelligence Service) or whose own sources were also utilized by Steele. ..."
"... An examination of the nexus between the dossier and the publication of the Russian ICA, however, shows that Litt was less than
truthful in his denials. Material from the Steele Dossier was, in fact, shared with the FBI and U.S. intelligence community in July
of 2016, and seems to have been the driving force behind the intelligence briefings provided to the so-called Gang of Eight who served
as the initial impetus for an investigation into Russian meddling that eventually morphed into the 2017 Russian ICA. ..."
"... Moreover, while Perkins Coie had its hands all over the dossier, it was also massaging the Russian hack narrative for mainstream
media primetime. ..."
"... The political law practice of Perkins Coie was started in 1981 under the leadership of Bob Bauer , who went on to become the
White House Counsel to President Barack Obama. Today, the practice is headed by Marc Elias , who has been described as "the Democrats'
go-to attorney an indispensable figure in the party." Elias oversees the work of 18 attorneys representing nearly every Democratic senator,
as well as the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and Hillary for America, which oversaw the Clinton campaign. ..."
"... Sussman, after coordinating with Wasserman-Schultz, approached the FBI and tried to get them to publicly attribute the intrusion
to Russia. ..."
"... When the FBI refused, citing a need to gain access to the DNC servers before it could make that call, Sussman balked and, again
with the full support of the DNC, instead coordinated a massive publicity effort intended to link Russia to the DNC breach through an
exclusive to the Washington Pos t ..."
"... According to the Washington Post , in early August 2016, the CIA director John Brennan came into possession of "sourcing deep
inside the Russian government that detailed Russian President Vladimir Putin's direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and
discredit the U.S. presidential race." This intelligence was briefed to the Gang of Eight. Almost immediately, information derived from
this briefing began to leak to the media. "Russia's hacking appeared aimed at helping Mr. Trump win the November election," officials
with knowledge of Brennan's intelligence told the New York Times . The intelligence, referred to as "bombshell," allegedly "captured
Putin's specific instructions on the operation's audacious objectives -- defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton,
and help elect her opponent, Donald Trump." ..."
"... The question is was the investigation supposed to uncover whatever it uncovere, or was it supposed to fabricate the discovery?
If it was fabrication, yes, they should be condemned. ..."
"... My best guess is that some part of the US intelligence community is involved in the election manipulation. Overthrowing foreign
governments or undermining the EU is one thing, colluding with a foreign power to manipulate the US election is quite another. Note,
by the way, the absence of any reference to George Papadopulous or Viktor Yanukovych. ..."
"... But it is obvious that most of the Beltway including the spook world badly wants a proxy war with Russia, Iran, and Syria.
As usual we are killing people overseas under Presidents of both parties and as usual the United States of narcissism can only complain
about what dastardly foreigners allegedly did to us. ..."
"... Someone help me out here. If Clinton (or her very close associates) pay huge bucks to Russians to get dirt (even if it is made
up dirt) on Trump, that is good, because it hurts Trump. But if Trump associates simply have conversations with Russians, full stop
(cf. Michael Flynn, or anyone else who spoke with the Russian ambassador), that is criminal. Is this not sort of a double standard?
..."
"... We're expected to believe Crowdstrike's report on Russian hacking but we can't examine the evidence. We're expected to believe
that Perkins Coie went rogue and decided to spend $12 million without informing any of its clients. ..."
"... What a bunch of hogwash. There's a cover up here, but it's not what the complicit media is portraying. The cover up is of the
past 8 years of misdeeds by the Deep State, the Clintons and the Obama Administration. ..."
"... I think the story is even more obvious than this. They wanted to spy on aspects of the Trump campaign but they legally couldn't.
The FBI told them they needed a reason to tap the phones and read the mail. They paid a guy to put together a dossier that would allow
them to get FISA warrants to do the spying they wanted to do illegally. They just needed the dossier to say certain things to get it
past a FISA judge. They did this and tapped his phones and read his emails and texts for the purpose of beating him in the election.
It is really that simple of a story. ..."
"... Given Hillary's past pay to play lobbying and her disregard for national security, it would seem appropriate to have investigate
if members of the Clinton campaign had contacts with the Russian Ambassador or Russian "operatives. We now know that the dossier relied
on collaboration with Russian officials. ..."
"... In my opinion, Mueller has disgraced his former and present positions by collaborating in this conjured affair that obfuscates
the real crimes occurring during the Obama administration. ..."
"... Crooked Hillary and her klan never thought for a second they wouldn't be able to cover up democrat crimes. The Clinton Crime
Family is in full panic mode. No one seems to remember why Mueller quit as director of the FBI. He was disgusted by the Obama administration
covering up lawlessness. ..."
"... Why didn't the FBI insist on examining the DNC servers? Something's not right. ..."
"... I voted for Clinton, but as the lesser evil on various issues, chiefly domestic and environmental. Clinton is not in Putin's
pocket. She is in the pocket of Netanyahu, and the Saudis. Trump doesn't really seem to be in Putin's pocket -- he has neocons and others
working hard to ensure that he gets into a confrontation with Iran. Basically he too is in the pocket of the Israelis and the Saudis.
..."
"... The mainstream ignores this. The countries with real influence on our policies don't have to favor one party over the other.
They have them both in their pocket. ..."
"... As time goes on, I don't think Russia "meddled" in US elections as much as US politicians of both parties corruptly attempted
to rig the elections. Seems to me that the demonization of Russia is bi-partisan because the US military industrial complex needs a
"bogey man" to justify its billions$$$$ and just about ALL politicians need that money to stay in power. ..."
The Democratic Law Firm Behind the Russian Collusion Narrative How a high-powered practice contracted oppo-research
on Trump -- and then pushed a hack story.
Credit: Shutterstock/ Mark Van Scyoc The ongoing investigation
headed by Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller into alleged collusion between the campaign of then-candidate Donald Trump and the Russian
government has moved into a new phase, with a focus on
purported money laundering. On Monday,
indictments were filed against
former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his longtime associate Rick Gates.
But even more is emerging that could take the Russia story in a totally new direction -- namely that the infamous dossier
compiled by former British Secret Intelligence Service officer Christopher Steele was
bought and paid for by a law firm , Perkins Coie, working on behalf of both the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National
Committee (DNC).
The current controversy isn't so much over the contents of the dossier -- despite some of the reporting, none of the relevant
claims contained within have been verified. Rather, the issue in question is how opposition research derived from foreign intelligence
sources and paid for by the Clinton campaign and the DNC ended up influencing the decision to prepare the January 2017
Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) into alleged
Russian interference in the 2016 election, the contents of that assessment, and the subsequent investigations by the U.S. Congress
and a special prosecutor.
The extent to which the Steele Dossier influenced the intelligence underpinning Mueller's probe has yet to be determined with
any certainty. In January, the U.S. intelligence community published the unclassified ICA, which was derived from a compilation of
intelligence reports and assessments conducted by the FBI, CIA, and NSA. Many of the allegations made in the ICA mirror reporting
contained in the Steele Dossier. So striking are the similarities that there are
real
concerns among some senior Republican lawmakers that the ICA merely reflects "echoes" of the Steele Dossier reported back via
liaison with foreign intelligence services who had access to it (namely the British Secret Intelligence Service) or whose own sources
were also utilized by Steele.
According to Robert Litt , who served as general counsel
to former Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper, this mirroring was nothing more than coincidence. "The dossier itself,"
Litt wrote in a recent Lawfare blog , "played
absolutely no role in the coordinated intelligence assessment that Russia interfered in our election. That assessment, which was
released in unclassified form in January but which contained much more detail in the classified version that has been briefed to
Congress, was based entirely on other sources and analysis."
Moreover, Litt noted, the decision in December 2016 to brief President-elect Trump on the existence of the Steele Dossier and
provide him with a two-page summary of that document, was not a reflection that "the Intelligence Community had relied on it in any
way, or even made any determination that the information it contained was reliable and accurate." It was rather, Litt said, a need
to share with Trump the fact that the document existed and was being passed around Congress and the media.
An examination of the nexus between the dossier and the publication of the Russian ICA, however, shows that Litt was less
than truthful in his denials. Material from the Steele Dossier was, in fact, shared with the FBI and U.S. intelligence community
in July of 2016, and seems to have been the driving force behind the intelligence briefings provided to the so-called
Gang of Eight who served as the initial impetus for an investigation into Russian meddling that eventually morphed into the 2017
Russian ICA.
Moreover, while Perkins Coie had its hands all over the dossier, it was also massaging the Russian hack narrative for mainstream
media primetime.
It was in the latter two roles that Elias, acting on behalf of his clients, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington, D.C.-based company
that, according to its website , "provides premium research, strategic intelligence,
and due diligence services." Fusion GPS had previously been contracted by the
Washington Free Beacon "to provide research on multiple candidates in the Republican presidential primary." However, when it became clear that Trump
was going to secure the Republican Party nomination, the contract with Fusion GPS was terminated. According to
a letter sent by Perkins Coie to Fusion
GPS sometime in March 2016, Glenn Simpson, the co-founder of Fusion GPS, met with Elias and lobbied for the job of conducting
opposition research on behalf of the Clinton campaign. In April 2016, Simpson's company was retained by the firm through the end
of the election cycle.
Perkins Coie is also home to Michael
Sussman , a partner in the firm's Privacy and Data Security Practice, who was retained by the DNC to respond to the cyber-penetration
of their server in the spring of 2016. When, in late April 2016, the DNC discovered that its servers had been breached, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz,
then chairwoman of the DNC, turned to Perkins Coie and Sussman for help. Sussman chaired the meetings at the DNC regarding the breach,
and, on May 4, 2016,
he reached out to Shawn Henry , a former FBI agent who headed the incident response unit for the private cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike,
for assistance in mitigating the fallout from the breach. According to CrowdStrike, it was immediately able to detect the presence
of hostile malware that it identified as Russian in origin. Sussman, after coordinating with Wasserman-Schultz, approached the
FBI and tried to get them to publicly attribute the intrusion to Russia.
When the FBI refused, citing a need to gain access to the DNC servers before it could make that call, Sussman balked and,
again with the full support of the DNC, instead coordinated a massive publicity effort intended to link Russia to the DNC breach
through
an exclusive to the Washington Pos t , which was published in concert with a dramatic CrowdStrike technical report
detailing the intrusion, ominously named
"Bears in the Midst."
This public relations campaign started the media frenzy over the alleged Russian hacking of the DNC server, enabling every facet
of the story that followed to be painted with a Russian brush -- normally with
a spokesperson from either
the DNC or Hillary for America taking the lead in promulgating the story.
It was about this same time that Elias decided to expand the scope of Fusion GPS's opposition research against Trump, going beyond
the simple mining of open-source information that had been the hallmark of the firm's work up until that time, and instead delving
into the active collection of information using methodologies more akin to the work of spy agencies. The person
Fusion GPS turned to for this task was Steele
Key persons within the Clinton campaign and the DNC denied any knowledge of either the decision by Perkins Coie to hire Fusion
GPS for the purpose of gathering opposition research, or to tap Steele to conduct this task. Elias reportedly made use of money already
paid to the firm by the Clinton campaign and the DNC to fund the work of Fusion GPS, creating the conditions for deniability on the
part of his clients. This decision meant that Perkins Coie, as a firm, had ownership of the Steele Dossier; expenditures of firm
assets require the approval of either the
management or executive committee
of the firm (Elias sits on the executive committee).
But as far as intelligence products go, the Steele Dossier is as sketchy as it gets. It's an amalgam of poorly written "reports"
cobbled together from what
Vanity Fair called "angry émigrés," "wheeling and dealing oligarchs," and "political dissidents with well-honed axes
to grind." These are precisely the kind of sources intelligence professionals operating in Russia in the early 1990s -- Steele was
assigned to Moscow from 1990 to 1993 -- would have had access to. Such sources also produce information that professional analysts
normally treat with more than a modicum of skepticism when preparing national-level intelligence products.
The very first report produced by Steele, dated June 20, 2016, was chock full of the kind of salacious details justifying its
explosive title, "Republican Candidate Donald Trump's Activities in Russia and Compromising Relationship with the Kremlin." The substantive
charges leveled in the report centered on three unnamed sources -- a senior Foreign Ministry official, a former top-level Russian
intelligence officer, and a senior Russian financial official -- whom Steele accessed through a "trusted compatriot." The report
alleged that Russia had been feeding the Trump campaign "valuable intelligence" on Clinton, and that this effort was supported and
directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin. A second report, dated June 26, 2016, focused exclusively on "Russian State Sponsored
and Other Cyber Offensive (Criminal) Operations."
These reports were delivered to Elias at a critical time -- on July 22,
when Wikileaks released thousands of emails believed to have been sources from the DNC hack . These emails detailed the internal
deliberations of the DNC that proved to be embarrassing to both Clinton and the DNC leadership -- Wasserman-Schultz was compelled
to resign due to the revelations set forth in these emails. This leak took place on the eve of the Democratic National Convention
when Clinton was to be selected as the Democrats' candidate for president. The Clinton campaign blamed Russia. "Russian state actors,"
Robby Mook, the Clinton campaign manager told the press , "were feeding the email to hackers for the purpose of helping Donald
Trump."
If Elias thought the publication of the DNC emails would spur the U.S. intelligence community to join both the DNC and the Clinton
campaign in pointing an accusatory finger at Russia, he would be disappointed. When questioned by CNN's Jim Sciutto at the
2016 Aspen
Security Forum as to whether or not the DNI shared the White House's view that there was no doubt Russia was behind the hack
of the DNC emails, Clapper responded, "I don't think we are quite ready to make a call on attribution I don't think we are ready
to make a public call on that yet." Noting that there was still some uncertainty about exactly who was behind the DNC cyber-penetration,
Clapper stated that he was taken aback by the media's "hyperventilation" over the DNC email issue, pointing out that the intelligence
community did not "know enough to ascribe motivation" at that time.
According to the
Washington Post , in early August 2016, the CIA director John Brennan came into possession of "sourcing deep inside the
Russian government that detailed Russian President Vladimir Putin's direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit
the U.S. presidential race." This intelligence was briefed to the Gang of Eight. Almost immediately, information derived from this
briefing began to leak to the media. "Russia's hacking appeared aimed at helping Mr. Trump win the November election," officials
with knowledge of Brennan's intelligence told
the New York Times
. The intelligence, referred to as "bombshell," allegedly "captured Putin's specific instructions on the operation's audacious objectives
-- defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and help elect her opponent, Donald Trump."
This intelligence, allegedly from a "human source" linked to a foreign intelligence service, is at the center of the current spate
of Russian meddling investigations. Was this source a product of the CIA's own efforts, as DNI General Counsel Litt contends, or
was this an "echo" of the work done by Steele? The answer may lie in the actions of both Elias and Steele, who in the aftermath of
the Democratic National Convention, and on the heels of the statement by DNI Clapper that he wasn't ready to commit to Russian attribution,
shared the first two reports with both the FBI and members of the intelligence community.
Steele also sat down with U.S. officials to discuss the details of these reports , which presumably included the sourcing that
was used.
The parallels between the information contained in the initial report filed by Steele and the "bombshell" intelligence that prompted
Brennan's decision to brief the Gang of Eight are too close to be casually dismissed. Of particular note is Steele's "Source C,"
a senior Russian "financial official" who had "overheard Putin talking" on at least two occasions. Was this the source that Brennan
cited when it came to Putin's "specific instructions"? The cause and effect relationship between the decision by Marc Elias to brief
U.S. intelligence officials on the aspects of the Steele Dossier, and Brennan's coming into possession of intelligence that virtually
mirrors the reporting by Steele, cannot be dismissed out of hand.
The future of the Trump presidency will be determined by the various investigations currently underway. Those efforts have been
influenced, in one way or another, by reporting sourced to Perkins Coie, including the designation of Russia as the responsible party
behind the DNC cyber-breach and the Steele Dossier. These investigations are linked in their unquestioning embrace of the conclusions
set forth in the 2017 Russia Intelligence Community Assessment that Russia was, in fact, meddling in the election. However, the genesis
of that finding, both in terms of Russian involvement in the DNC hack and the "bombshell" intelligence introduced by Brennan in August
2016, has gone largely unquestioned by the investigators.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control
treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of Deal
of the Century: How Iran Blocked the West's Road to War (Clarity Press, 2017). MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR
The question is was the investigation supposed to uncover whatever it uncovere, or was it supposed to fabricate the discovery?
If it was fabrication, yes, they should be condemned. But if it was a question of "tell us what you find, good, bad, or indifferent"
then uncovering what might be treasonable activity would be called a patriotic act.
All of this and not one mention of how much of the controversy Donald Trump could defuse by simply releasing his tax returns and
allowing more transparency into his financial relationships with the Russian oligarchy.
Ritter's underlying 'logic' here extended would have us believe Alan Turin's breaking of the Enigma Machine was done in collusion
with Nazi U-boat commanders.
The spooks are still scared silly of Russiagate. "Hillary paid" doesn't mean "Hillary fabricated". That Mr Ritter is reduced to
such a manifestly silly argument shows just how spooked the spooks are. My best guess is that some part of the US intelligence
community is involved in the election manipulation. Overthrowing foreign governments or undermining the EU is one thing, colluding
with a foreign power to manipulate the US election is quite another. Note, by the way, the absence of any reference to George
Papadopulous or Viktor Yanukovych.
Given that Russia's insiders (not to mention former-officials) are no more lined up with Putin than US counterparts and political
actors are behind any current US administration or opponent, within and without the party in power, there are presumably Russian
actors who would like to undermine Putin.
To the extent "the Russians" may be behind particular efforts – including information/disinformation – related to the 2016
US election, might they not have sought to undermine foreign and (Russian) domestic proponents of US-Russian detente?
" Overthrowing foreign governments or undermining the EU is one thing, colluding with a foreign power to manipulate the
US election is quite another. "
This is a joke. I have no concern one way or the other about whether Trump colluded with Russia – if laws were broken, prosecute
the lot of them. But it is obvious that most of the Beltway including the spook world badly wants a proxy war with Russia,
Iran, and Syria. As usual we are killing people overseas under Presidents of both parties and as usual the United States of narcissism
can only complain about what dastardly foreigners allegedly did to us.
In DC we have a vicious fight between the McCain-Clinton forces and the Trump forces. It's a choice between warmongers.
Donald (the left leaning one), I agree with your concluding comment that we are left with a choice between two warmongers, no
question about that. However if you look at the corruption in the deep state in the Uranium One deal, how it was approved and
now nobody, I mean nobody knows anything about FBI informant and gag order on him for the last 8 years it is just mind boggling.
Oh well after all these years I think the African dictators have more integrity than our elected officials.
Someone help me out here. If Clinton (or her very close associates) pay huge bucks to Russians to get dirt (even if it is
made up dirt) on Trump, that is good, because it hurts Trump. But if Trump associates simply have conversations with Russians,
full stop (cf. Michael Flynn, or anyone else who spoke with the Russian ambassador), that is criminal. Is this not sort of a double
standard?
I've worked at large law firms, been a partner at several and litigated against Perkins Coie, so I know a bit about them. Knowing
the industry and this firm in particular, I can say without reservation that this statement is ridiculous: "Elias reportedly made
use of money already paid to the firm by the Clinton campaign and the DNC to fund the work of Fusion GPS, creating the conditions
for deniability on the part of his clients." That does not and would not happen with a $12 million expense.
Mr. Ritter does not come out and say it, but there's a plausible explanation for all of this Russia nonsense we've been hearing
about for the past year. Until the day after the election, 99.9% of Democrats were convinced that Hillary Clinton would win. Once
enshrined in office, all of the misdeeds that they'd been getting away with for the past decade -- the Clinton Foundation, Uranium
One, the Pay-to-Play politics, etc. -- would be swept under the rug.
November came, and that didn't happen. Democrats were both floored and caught with their pants down. Now, all of their dirty
laundry was going to come out into the open. It was only a matter of time.
So, what did they do? The same thing Democrats always do. The best defense is an offense. 'Always accuse your opponents of
doing whatever wrong you've committed.' All of the sudden, it wasn't just that 'Russians hacked the election.' It became, 'the
Trump campaign secretly colluded with the Russians.' The Steele dossier was leaked, the FBI was briefed which in turn briefed
Obama, the Gang of Eight and Trump. Next, a Special Prosecutor had to be appointed to investigate.
But, where does it all lead? Back to Hillary, through Perkins Coie, and through many of the same Deep State players who were
complicit in the misdeeds.
We now learn that Comey, Mueller and Rosenstein all knew about Russians attempting to buy influence through donations to the
Clinton "charity," but they turned a blind eye when Uranium One was up for approval.
We now learn that Clinton and the DNC paid for the Steele dossier then fed it to Comey, who leaked it.
We're expected to believe Crowdstrike's report on Russian hacking but we can't examine the evidence. We're expected to
believe that Perkins Coie went rogue and decided to spend $12 million without informing any of its clients.
What a bunch of hogwash. There's a cover up here, but it's not what the complicit media is portraying. The cover up is
of the past 8 years of misdeeds by the Deep State, the Clintons and the Obama Administration.
I find it curious that Crooked Mueller charged two republicans just as Crooked Hillary and the DNC were identified for paying
Russians for smear documents! America First!
How is it not true? Reports indicate that Mr. Steele did indeed use paid sources within Russia to compile the "dossier" on Trump.
Steele used money paid by the Clinton campaign labeled as "legal fees". There is a reason Hillary, DWS, Podesta and the others
have all lied.
I think the story is even more obvious than this. They wanted to spy on aspects of the Trump campaign but they legally couldn't.
The FBI told them they needed a reason to tap the phones and read the mail. They paid a guy to put together a dossier that would
allow them to get FISA warrants to do the spying they wanted to do illegally. They just needed the dossier to say certain things
to get it past a FISA judge. They did this and tapped his phones and read his emails and texts for the purpose of beating him
in the election. It is really that simple of a story.
Did Obama's White House Counsel Bauer and Perkins Coie's Elias engage in a conspiracy to smear Trump and benefit the Clinton campaign?
Did they orchestrate a campaign trick, using the Fusion GPS dossier and an insider leaking DNC emails to Wikileaks,that falsely
smeared the Trump team?
Hillary and Fusion GPS both lobbied against business restrictions proposed and imposed by the Magnitsky legislation and both
received bonuses and payments from Russian entities with ties to the Putin gang.
Given Hillary's past pay to play lobbying and her disregard for national security, it would seem appropriate to have investigate
if members of the Clinton campaign had contacts with the Russian Ambassador or Russian "operatives. We now know that the dossier
relied on collaboration with Russian officials.
Given that several levels under the 17 intelligence heads of the Obama administration, including former FBI Director Mueller,
participated in suppressing known Russian bribery, obfuscated and obstructed the investigation into Hillary's national security
violations & pay to play schemes, and apparently conspired using a dossier, containing Russian supplied information, to throw
the last Presidential election, it is time to bring the Obama political appointees and Clinton campaign officials to justice and
stop the interference affecting the Trump administration.
In my opinion, Mueller has disgraced his former and present positions by collaborating in this conjured affair that obfuscates
the real crimes occurring during the Obama administration.
The Russian SVR RF was no doubt inside the DNC's server, just as it was no doubt inside of Hillary Clinton's private unsecured
email server on which she did all of her State Department business.
But that does not necessarily mean that the SVR RF released the damning evidence about the corruption of the DNC & its machinations
to influence the outcome of the Election to Wikileaks. I believe Seth Rich was the source of that damning evidence.
Since there was allegedly some evidence of the Russian hacking, the DNC conveniently blamed the Wikileaks story on them.
But the fact the Democrats refused to turn over the supposedly hacked DNC server to the FBI suggests there is something seriously
wrong with the Democ"rats" story.
Crooked Hillary and her klan never thought for a second they wouldn't be able to cover up democrat crimes. The Clinton Crime
Family is in full panic mode. No one seems to remember why Mueller quit as director of the FBI. He was disgusted by the Obama
administration covering up lawlessness.
All of this and not one mention of how much of the controversy Hillary Clinton could defuse by simply releasing all of the government
emails she kept on a private server in order to keep them away from FOIA requests and allowing more transparency into her financial
relationships with the Russian oligarchy.
Nice try at deflection, but it is not likely to stop Muller because he has an actual brain. On the other hand, the comments indicate
that the conspiracy types are on board. Now I have it on good authority that there are ties between Steele and Benghazi as well
so it is time to wrap this all up together into a unified story.
Since most of the posters here seem to be partisan I'm sure that no one will like my preference: Lock both Trump and HRC up and
put them in the same cell to save us money. They are both crooked and any attempt to accuse one and defend the other is futile.
Karen Finney, formerly of the Clinton 2016 campaign, on October 29th:
"I think what's important, though, is less who funded it than what was in the dossier."
In the same interview:
"We also learned this week that Cambridge Analytica, the company that was basically the data company for the [Trump] campaign,
reached out to Julian Assange of Wikileaks."
Did everybody catch that?
In today's Democratic Party, it is perfectly acceptable to pay foreign sources for dirt, fabricated or not, on your domestic
political opponent.
But it is totally unacceptable to reach out to Wikileaks, with no money involved, for dirt on your domestic political opponent.
I'll note that Wikileaks has relied on whistle-blower sources and has not been shown to have published any false information in
its entire 10-year existence.
The Russian SVR RF was likely inside the DNC's server, just as it was likely inside of Hillary Clinton's private unsecured email
server on which she did all of her State Department business.
But that does not necessarily mean that the SVR RF released the evidence about the rotten corruption of the DNC & its machinations
to influence the outcome of the Election to Wikileaks. I believe Seth Rich was the source of that evidence.
Since there was allegedly some evidence of the Russian hacking, the DNC conveniently blamed the Wikileaks story on them.
But the fact the Democrats refused to turn over the supposedly hacked DNC server to the FBI suggests that there is something
seriously wrong with the Democ"rats" story.
To all of those who think that paying a foreign informant money to give you info is the same thing as accepting help from a foreign
government, you have some screws lose.
Furthermore, the help that Trump received was in the form of emails that have been stolen from an American citizen, a federal
offence.
The whole Uranium one non story is based on a book that his own author admitted he has no evidence of malfeasance by HRC ,
and who was paid for his effort by the Mercers.
Also, the Uranium cannot be exported outside the USA anyway, because the law prevents it, no matter who owns the company
To all those who think what Hillary campaign did is the same thing as what Trump campaign did: Can you with a straight face think
that Hillary is in Putin's pocket? I don't think so. The issue, if you're being honest, is that a lot of people on the other side
can easily see Trump being in Putin's pocket. And so far he (Trump) has done nothing to disprove that. Remember the Glee that
the neocons had when Trump ordered a few missiles at Syria..guess what nothing came off it and Assad is still very much in power
and no one cares anymore (an outcome that I am fine with). You think things would have been the same if Hillary was in power?
But at the end of the day, we're left to wonder whether Trump is doing Putin's bidding Just because so far he has done nothing
that has been antagonistic towards Russian interests (Iran notwithstanding because nothing is going to come off it, all it is
going to do is make US look impotent, which will be fine by Putin).
If only Sanders had ever exclaimed something like "The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn Russians!"
If there is any kind of actual evidence of state actors in the various efforts to force transparency on the Clinton campaign
and the DNC, it is now tainted by the association with Steele, Simpson, Elias, which appear to have repeatedly acted against client
privileges and privacy – peddling results paid for by one client to another, leaking information paid for by clients to the press,
Congress, the FBI – or have acted with client permission, while a former "spy" is accessing and potentially endangering networks
maintained by his former employer, a foreign intelligence service known for its ability to find yellowcake.
Only the Democrats can show such staggering ineptitude.
The plot needs some new, exciting turn at this point. Let us speculate that the Steele Dossier was in fact a false flag operation,
allowing "Russians" to discredit not one, but two presidential campaigns, not one, but two presidential candidates, a twofer that
makes whomever becomes President look like an idiot. One of the most ridiculous propositions of this whole affair has been the
claim that Putin would seriously care which incompetent and corrupt American gets to prosecute the self-inflicted ruin of this
blighted nation for the next four years.
@Virginia Farmer : "Lock both Trump and HRC up and put them in the same cell to save us money. They are both crooked and any attempt
to accuse one and defend the other is futile."
"To all those who think what Hillary campaign did is the same thing as what Trump campaign did: Can you with a straight face think
that Hillary is in Putin's pocket?"
I'm not very partisan. I voted for Clinton, but as the lesser evil on various issues, chiefly domestic and environmental.
Clinton is not in Putin's pocket. She is in the pocket of Netanyahu, and the Saudis. Trump doesn't really seem to be in Putin's
pocket -- he has neocons and others working hard to ensure that he gets into a confrontation with Iran. Basically he too is in
the pocket of the Israelis and the Saudis.
The mainstream ignores this. The countries with real influence on our policies don't have to favor one party over the other.
They have them both in their pocket.
Yeah, I can't keep up with all the twists and turns. I read just enough to see both sides ( the partisan ones) live in closed
cognitive universes. I suspect there is plenty of corruption and dishonesty to go around, even if we restricted ourselves to real
or alleged Russian ties. But I wonder what would turn up if we really looked into how our foreign policy sausage is made?
In my annoyance I overstated it a little, but this thread is a good example of what I was saying about a lot of the liberal
commenters on TAC. I don't read a lot of these comments and see people who are giving the article much thought.
BTW I was about to write the exact same thing to JR you did regarding the Saudis and the Israelis.
As time goes on, I don't think Russia "meddled" in US elections as much as US politicians of both parties corruptly attempted
to rig the elections. Seems to me that the demonization of Russia is bi-partisan because the US military industrial complex needs
a "bogey man" to justify its billions$$$$ and just about ALL politicians need that money to stay in power.
It was approximately one year ago, when angry tweeters alleged that Jack Dorsey et al., were
purposefully censoring and "suppressing" certain content on Twitter, namely anything to do with
the leaked DNC and John Podesta emails , as well as hashtags critical of Hillary Clinton
while
"shadow-banning" pro-Donald Trump content. We can now confirm that at least one part of the
above was true, because during today's Senate hearing, Twitter admitted it "buried", which is
another word for censored, significant portions of tweets related to hacked emails from the
Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chair John Podesta in the months heading
into the 2016 presidential campaign.
As Daily Caller's Peter Hasson reports, Twitter's systems hid 48 percent of tweets using the
#DNCLeak hashtag and 25 percent of tweets using #PodestaEmails , Twitter general counsel Sean
Edgett said in his written
testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.
Before the election, we also detected and took action on activity relating to hashtags that
have since been reported as manifestations of efforts to interfere with the 2016 election. For
example, our automated spam detection systems helped mitigate the impact of automated Tweets
promoting the #PodestaEmails hashtag , which originated with Wikileaks' publication of
thousands of emails from the Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta's Gmail account.
The core of the hashtag was propagated by Wikileaks, whose account sent out a series of 118
original Tweets containing variants on the hashtag #PodestaEmails referencing the daily
installments of the emails released on the Wikileaks website. In the two months preceding the
election, around 57,000 users posted approximately 426,000 unique Tweets containing variations
of the #PodestaEmails hashtag.
Approximately one quarter (25%) of those Tweets received internal tags from our automation
detection systems that hid them from searches.
As described in greater detail below, our systems detected and hid just under half (48%) of
the Tweets relating to variants of another notable hashtag, #DNCLeak, which concerned the
disclosure of leaked emails from the Democratic National Committee
And yet, this glaring act of censorship was not aimed at the sources of the alleged
propaganda, but the content: Just 2% of the tweets using the #DNCLeak hashtag came from
"potentially Russian-linked accounts," Edgett said.
He also explained that Twitter hid the tweets as " part of our general efforts at the time
to fight automation and spam on our platform across all areas.
...And Hillary still lost?
Just over a year ago, on the same day that Donald Trump's "grab them by the pussy tape" was
released, WikiLeaks dumped over 30,000 hacked Podesta emails, which were damaging to Democratic
nominee Hillary Clinton, throughout the election. A prior Wikileak of DNC emails, which
revealed party officials secretly aided Hillary Clinton during her primary battle against
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders , eventually cost then-DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Shultz her
job. The leaks also exposed supposedly "neutral" journalists as pro-Clinton partisans.
The U.S. intelligence community concluded that Russian operatives were behind the original
hacking of both the DNC and Podesta emails, which were part of Russian influence operations
meant to disrupt the American electoral system.
* * * A question emerges: did Jack Dorsey, with his arbitrary decision to censor specific
content damaging to Democrats, interfere with the election, and a funnier question: if Hillary
lost with Twitter censoring anti-Hillary content, what would the outcome have been if Twitter
actually respected the First Amendment?
I mean, just how bad does a candidate have TO REALLY SUCK when, they have the
establishment media panting on their every word, they're outspending the opponent 2:1 and
they've got the intelligence apparatus of a world superpower spying on the opponent for them
...and she still loses?...lol.
Wow... Just plain ol' fuggin' wow... And this is EXACTLY the reason we can't allow these organizations, FB, Twitter, Google, to
control everything on the net. This is so fucking dangerous to our freedom and the new media, that these pricks are
creating and then censuring. And what the fuck do we do?
Google is getting a 1000 journanalists together to start 'creating' news. What do we do
when this monster starts to bury alternative, unwanted thought. The snowflakes will be in charge.
Fire up the ovens! 'Cause that's where people like you and me are gonna end up if we don't
stop this, somehow.
They already control everything on the Web. Fuckbook and Goolag filter everything,
preventing you from finding and seeing what you want. They only allow you to see what they
want you to see.
I have found from many observations that our liberals are incapable of allowing anyone to
have his own convictions and immediately answer their opponent with abuse or something worse.
FEYODOR DOSTOYEVSKY, THE IDIOT (1868)
The government doesn't need to squash the 1st Amendment, their crony capitalist tech
monopolies will do it for them in exchange for not being regulated.
Scapegoating is a predictable social phenomenon during bad economic times.
In looks like DemoRats are supported by the Clinton faction in intelligence agencies,
especially CIA (which also controls the MSM), while Trump is supported by Pentagon brass. So
deposing Trump is more difficult in view of resources (including the number of contractors and
lobbyists) Pentagon has, even in comparison with CIA
That's why the color revolution initiated by DemoRats run into some difficulties.
So the dream of Trump impeachment so far remain a pipe dram, despite all Mueller dirt
digging. Exposure of Stele Dossier actually was a big set back for DemoRats.
At the same time military in Trump administration are definitely conducting slow purge of
Clinton loyalists from CIA and State Department. Brennan's Muslim Brotherhood sympathisers also
will be "downsized". They already were shown the door in Syria.
Notable quotes:
"... Stunned by the defection of working-class whites, many Democrats respond by calling these Trump voters "stupid" and hoping that Russia-gate will be the "deus ex machina" to restore Democratic power, as poet Phil Rockstroh explains. ..."
"... Recently, Democratic Party elites have purged progressives from positions of power within the Party; have been exposed in creating and promulgating, and swallowing whole the dodgy Russian Dossier subterfuge; ..."
"... Desperate liberals have convinced themselves that the risible, Russiagate fool's mythos will provide a deus ex machina miracle to rid the (sham) republic from the likes of boxy-suit-clad, two-legged toxic waste dump who ascended to the presidency due to the Democratic Party gaming their primary and nomination process for a candidate who performed the seemingly impossible -- to wit, preventing the craven Trump from defeating himself. ..."
"... The supercilious mindset is the result of an insularity borne of privilege. Moreover, when do liberals ever converse, one on one, with members of the laboring class, unless, of course, the situation involves the de facto master/servant relationship involved in a service industry exchange? ..."
"... On a personal basis, liberals with whom I used to clash when I was a resident of Manhattan, almost to a person, were completely removed from and, worse, utterly incurious, about the lives of the working class. ..."
"... The Liberal Class have, on an historical basis, acted as the buffer zone between leftist, minority, and laboring-class aspirations and the capitalist over-class -- i.e., the bestower of liberacrat privilege. As the man limned in lyric, "same as it ever was." Thus we come upon a reason for the mistrust held by people languishing on the boot-on-the-neck side of the capitalist class divide for economically privileged liberals. ..."
"... Thus we arrive at the question: How can they display such a yawning disconnect from reality? And we shamble into the tawdry reality: The Democratic Party elite and their cynical operatives possess the sum total of nada desire to be connected with anyone other than their economic elite benefactors -- withal, the only constituency to whom they possess any degree of fealty. ..."
"... Thus Democratic partisans cling to the salvation fantasy that an act of deus ex machina will soon be at hand. But how many times now has Trump's trajectory toward impeachment been assured by some new revelation yet nothing substantive comes of the vaporous evidence? ..."
"... The crackbrained fantasies shield Democratic partisans from being buffeted by the reckoning: They are affiliated with the go-to Party of Wall Street and of neoliberal and militarist imperium. ..."
"... Liberals had the Wall Street bagman and multicultural imperialist Obama's back. At present, after his two terms, he is luxuriating in the cash-redolent embrace of his High Dollar benefactors ..."
"... Unlike impoverished Blanche, blown and buffeted by circumstance into the seedy precincts of (un-gentrified) New Orleans' French Quarter, it is difficult to work up any degree of sympathy for contemporary Democrats, enclosed as they are in their insular, bristling, psychical citadels, from where they unloose volleys of supercilious scorn upon those who remain unmoved by their partisan casuistry and are rankled by the condescension they direct at those who are not graced with their privileged status. ..."
"... The careerism of the "respected" mass media commentators, journalists and talking heads could lead the world to nuclear war. Many of these whores know exactly what they're doing. Many of them know there was no attempt by the Kremlin to "hack" the election or otherwise interfere in the election but they feed the public repetitive nonsense over and over and over again. ..."
"... Washington has been virtually taken over by a militaristic-Zionist cabal that's currently dead set on destabilizing relationships among nuclear powers. The demonization towards the Kremlin at a time when the major media are fomenting a witch hunt atmosphere is breathtaking to behold. That liberals -- in their hatred of the big bad Trumpenstein -- are going along with this terrifying group think is one of the more irrational and incredible dynamics I've ever witnessed in my decades of following the politico-economic scene. ..."
"... I had been a lifelong Democrat, but after I got fooled by Obama, I left the party. ..."
"... Working class has been totally decimated. Poverty class is the norm. 50 percent of us are below the poverty line .Average incomes are at historical lows 30 thousand Fiat Us dollars per annum. The widest economic gap since the Gilded age. That in itself says alot. The so called liberal intellectual class /progressive has become the new propaganda wing for pax-amaericana. This is where the Right meets the left and fuse into this hydra like dystopia and incoherent dissonance. ..."
"... Gramsci used to refer to Trotsky as the whore of the fascist. Globalism under the guises of our progressives and social justice warriors have become the new totalitarian norm filled with confirmation bias and naked ignorance. They have created this glass bubble of reality that suits the masters of the universe and we the sheeple just sit by and watch the new Orwellian night mare. ..."
"... To paraphrase JFK – workers of America, blame not yourselves, blame capitalism, the economic system that keeps you down, down, down. ..."
"... Workers now blame the Democratic Party, their one time advocate. It's easy to see why. The elitist New Democrats think ordinary working people are beneath them, yet they kiss up to Wall Street, Big Pharma, and the military-industrial-security complex. Most Democrats I know care more about their investment in the soaring stock market than they do about the plight of American workers, whose quality of life and economic security is rapidly slipping away. ..."
"... Scapegoating is a predictable social phenomenon during bad economic times. For three-fourths of America, these are terrible economic times. They are bogged down by credit card debt, student loans, etc. They can't find any good paying jobs now that deindustrialization, offshoring, and the financialization of the economy has taken place. Which is worse: scapegoating or the short-term greed of the Wall-Street oligarchs, who hide their money overseas to avoid paying taxes, who fight against worker rights, who recklessly gamble with other people's money and expect the government to bail them out when they screw up? ..."
"... While it is true that the Democratic party is corrupt, millions of people such as yours truly have had affordable health care premiums for the last three years because of the Dems policy initiative. They also paid dearly for it in the following election. It's easy for the author – living in a country that's had a public health care system since the late 19th century – to lob stones. ..."
"... Democrats are terrible, but the Republicans are even worse. Somehow that doesn't make me feel good about the Democrats, who have become the Republican Lite-Party. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama did more to move the country to the Right than any Republican could have done. ..."
"... Every single accomplishment of Bill Clinton was originally a Republican idea. ObamaCare came out a Republican think tank. Obama's TPP is a Republican program. Also, today Democrats are bigger warmongers than the Republicans. I most respectfully turn in my voter registration card. I am now a progressive Independent. ..."
"... Obama totally caved to the insurers' interests when he approved the federal version of "Romney-care" which we had in Massachusetts, after many, many people, including doctors, had urged him to institute single payer. So I don't buy that argument that "At least we got Obamacare from the Democrats". ..."
Stunned
by the defection of working-class whites, many Democrats respond by calling these Trump voters
"stupid" and hoping that Russia-gate will be the "deus ex machina" to restore Democratic power,
as poet Phil Rockstroh explains.
Recently, Democratic Party elites have purged progressives from positions of power
within the Party; have been exposed in creating and promulgating, and swallowing whole the
dodgy Russian Dossier subterfuge; and have gone round-heeled for war criminal and
torturer-in-chief George Bush the Lesser -- yet Democratic partisans and lesser-of-two-evils,
fainting-couch jockeys still retail in the fiction that the Democrats present a viable
alternative to their more crass Republican doppelgängers.
It must take hours of dedicated practice to become such virtuosos of self-deception.
Desperate liberals have convinced themselves that the risible, Russiagate fool's mythos
will provide a deus ex machina miracle to rid the (sham) republic from the likes of
boxy-suit-clad, two-legged toxic waste dump who ascended to the presidency due to the
Democratic Party gaming their primary and nomination process for a candidate who performed the
seemingly impossible -- to wit, preventing the craven Trump from defeating himself.
The best thing Republicans have going for them is, the Democrats themselves, from their
corrupt-to-their-reeking core leadership class down to their willfully and belligerently obtuse
rank-and-file. In particular, professional and political-class liberals' refusal even to
acknowledge the grim plight of the besieged U.S. working class, and when they deign to notice
their economic lessers, at all, they, as a rule, evince an aura of condescension and scorn.
Apropos, I recall a piece published in the New York Times after Trump's "pussy grabbing"
palaver came to light, late in the 2016 presidential campaign. Quoting from the article,
headlined: "Inside Trump Tower, an Increasingly Upset and Alone Donald Trump," published Oct 9,
2016:
"But the real source of comfort to Mr. Trump seemed to be the small band of supporters
waving Trump signs on the Fifth Avenue sidewalk outside the building. His fans clashed with
people walking by, including a woman who told a female Trump supporter that she should go
back to her 'trailer.'"
It is a given that Trump's misogynist remarks displayed the very emblem of mouth-breather
inanity. Yet the demeaning jibe bandied by the passing pedestrian, who I'm certain would
self-identify as "progressive" in her politics, was emblematic of liberal classism. When was
the last time you witnessed an affluent liberal expressing umbrage in regard to their caste's
proclivity for class-based shaming?
The supercilious mindset is the result of an insularity borne of privilege. Moreover,
when do liberals ever converse, one on one, with members of the laboring class, unless, of
course, the situation involves the de facto master/servant relationship involved in a service
industry exchange?
On a personal basis, liberals with whom I used to clash when I was a resident of
Manhattan, almost to a person, were completely removed from and, worse, utterly incurious,
about the lives of the working class. When traveling around my native South, for example,
when visiting my wife's family in the rural South Carolina Low Country, I found the people
there far more receptive to a socialist critique of the capitalist order than that of liberals.
Why? Unlike upscale liberals, the working class, on a day-by-day basis, endure perpetual
humiliation under depraved capitalism.
Why do liberals refuse to acknowledge class-based deprivation as a defining factor in the
angst and animus of the laboring class?
In short, an honest reckoning would cause Liberalcrats to acknowledge classism is, as is the
case with sexism and racism, hurtful, destructive, and flat-out reprehensible. Moreover, an
acknowledgement would call them to account for their own privilege thus revealing the
imperative to make amends and provide restitution for their complicity in the oppression
inflicted on the less fortunate by capitalism, the system that is the source of liberal
affluence and the progenitor of their snobbery.
A Buffer for the Rich
The Liberal Class have, on an historical basis, acted as the buffer zone between
leftist, minority, and laboring-class aspirations and the capitalist over-class -- i.e., the
bestower of liberacrat privilege. As the man limned in lyric, "same as it ever was." Thus we
come upon a reason for the mistrust held by people languishing on the boot-on-the-neck side of
the capitalist class divide for economically privileged liberals.
Moreover, when was a last time you noticed a laboring class person parroting that the
meany-pants Russian Bear ate poor, little Hillary's homework fool's mythos? The Cold War 2.0
tall tale that avers:
"Putin has penetrated the precious bodily fluids of the U.S. electoral system," as a
Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper of the Liberal Class might rant, thereby coming off like a
liberal version of Alex Jones reading the minutes of a John Birch Society meeting, circa 1955,
on communist infiltration of the Ladies' Auxiliary Bingo Club, due to reports of an inordinate
number of winners wearing red poodle skirts.
In short, there is a howling, class chasm between the cultural criteria that separates
affluent liberals from the struggling laboring class. How could sneaky Vladi and his fake
news-wielding squads of internet Cossacks be responsible for the neoliberal economy, comprised
of low wage, no benefits, no future mcjobs, that plague the working life of the latter? Thus
the Russiagate storyline holds little resonance for downscale working people.
The rise of rightist demagogues and their angst-ridden, resentment-reeking followers, both
on an historical and present day basis, can be traced to a primary source: the loss of hope and
the daily doses of humiliation inflicted on the working class by capitalist economic despotism.
In the hollow regions of the psyche where hope has been banished, rage rises and fills the
aching void.
Adding to the host of miseries, an odious aspect of the capitalist greedscape imparts, in
both an overt and subliminal basis, the insidious message: The psychical injuries inflicted by
the economic order are caused by personal failings. If internalized, concomitant feelings of
shame will torment the mind of the sufferer -- feelings freighted with intense self-reproach
that tend to manifest themselves in a host of pathologies, e.g., intense anxiety and severe
depression.
Hence, the dark art of shame displacement, in the form of racist and xenophobic tropes, can
and will be retailed by demagogues. Don't blame the capitalist Plundering Class, they exhort,
instead blame immigrants and minorities (who, in reality, are also victims of capitalism's
inherent depravities) for your dismal prospects. Build an unscalable border wall, deport the
interlopers en masse, put an end to the practice of "reverse racism" (of which, polls reveal
the majority of white people, in utter defiance of reality, believe is widespread) then
America's greatness will be restored and the usurped futures of hard-working, true Americans
will be seized back from undeserving hordes of interlopers.
A deft demagogue's tropes of blame shifting can serve to dissipate feelings of aloneness and
mitigate the miasmic shame attendant to capitalist economic despotism, a phenomenon that
liberals, and history confirms the tragic fact, ignore at the peril of all concerned.
Russia-gate to the Rescue
And what is the Democrats plan? From all appearances, a full spectrum deployment of more of
the same.
Thus we arrive at the question: How can they display such a yawning disconnect from
reality? And we shamble into the tawdry reality: The Democratic Party elite and their cynical
operatives possess the sum total of nada desire to be connected with anyone other than their
economic elite benefactors -- withal, the only constituency to whom they possess any degree of
fealty.
Thus Democratic partisans cling to the salvation fantasy that an act of deus ex machina
will soon be at hand. But how many times now has Trump's trajectory toward impeachment been
assured by some new revelation yet nothing substantive comes of the vaporous evidence?
Present-day Democrats bring to mind the image of a sad, aged prom queen, passed over by
time, possessed by magical-thinking-borne fantasies involving the appearance of an imaginary
gentleman suitor whose arrival will restore her faded glory.
The crackbrained fantasies shield Democratic partisans from being buffeted by the
reckoning: They are affiliated with the go-to Party of Wall Street and of neoliberal and
militarist imperium.
It comes down to this: Almost everyone, at this point, sees through Trump's popinjay ways.
Barack Obama, aka former President Citigroup von Drone, was a far more effective con man. How
so? Liberals had the Wall Street bagman and multicultural imperialist Obama's back. At
present, after his two terms, he is luxuriating in the cash-redolent embrace of his High Dollar
benefactors , as all the while, bedecked in their broken tiara and torn prom dress
regalia, Democratic Party loyalist pine away for another sweet lie-proffering, political
Lothario to replace the likes of Obama's charming vapidity.
"I don't want realism. I want magic" -- Blanche DuBois, from Tennessee William stage play,
"A Streetcar Named Desire."
What a cringe-inducing sight it is. One almost could be moved to pity in regard to
Democrats' Blanche DuBois theatrics. But, of course, gentle, vulnerable Blanche never acted as
an apologist for drone murder nor blamed Russian meddling for her troubled plight.
Unlike impoverished Blanche, blown and buffeted by circumstance into the seedy precincts
of (un-gentrified) New Orleans' French Quarter, it is difficult to work up any degree of
sympathy for contemporary Democrats, enclosed as they are in their insular, bristling,
psychical citadels, from where they unloose volleys of supercilious scorn upon those who remain
unmoved by their partisan casuistry and are rankled by the condescension they direct at those
who are not graced with their privileged status.
Thanks Phil R. Yes the demodogs party is dead but it's leaders are still cashing in on the
same old song and dance. If the cash stops coming who knows just maybe it will become the
party of the people but only be kidnapped again by money. Money has no place in politics.
On the other hand, politics is all about money (one way or another), since time immorial.
(Even Native Americans had wars to survive – as did all Native Peoples worldwide, but
was that the same as "all about money", as it is these days?)
Brad Owen , November 1, 2017 at 7:15 am
The Beaver Wars of the 1600s have been forgotten, as competing Amerindian Nations were
egged on by the (British Empire was it? or the French Empire?? does it make any difference?)
to bring in the Beaver pelts in exchange for useful European wares (which, supposedly, lead
to the practice of scalping-as-proof-of-a-kill of defiant anti-imperial colonists??). I've
read where it was primarily the Beaver and his natural water-management ways that made this
Continent an Emerald Jewel. Who knew back then?
Brad Owen , November 1, 2017 at 7:27 am
Everyone's too busy with "smash & grab" capitalism, and the day's hall of booty, to
think about other things, I guess.
DFC , October 31, 2017 at 9:34 pm
This whole article can be summed up by this 6 minute video from a liberal Brit here:
President Trump: How & Why.. (trigger warning)
h**ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs
It is hysterical, but 100% on the mark. IMHO (NSFW)
Drew Hunkins , October 31, 2017 at 6:09 pm
The careerism of the "respected" mass media commentators, journalists and talking heads
could lead the world to nuclear war. Many of these whores know exactly what they're doing. Many of them know there was no
attempt by the Kremlin to "hack" the election or otherwise interfere in the election but they
feed the public repetitive nonsense over and over and over again.
That otherwise liberal minded, intelligent people are buying into this dangerous group
think is one of the more incredible things I've ever witnessed.
People's critical thinking faculties have left them. Otherwise intelligent people are
bereft of critical thinking skills when it comes to the big bad Trumpenstein and it's
horrifying to see this all play out.
Attack Trump for the right reasons, NOT because he desire rapprochement with Moscow and
dared to suggest the Washington empire should be reined in a bit. (Yes, he's a train wreck
when it comes to Iran, and he should be duly admonished for it, but that's NOT the reason the
mainstream media are going after him.)
Right now we need doves in Washington (if there are any left) trying their damnedest to
have a dialogue with Moscow. Just very recently the imbecilic Pence was at a nuclear launch
site in Minot ND pontificating to the assembled media and personnel about how they must be
fully prepared to launch! This is preposterous and dangerous lunacy.
Washington has been virtually taken over by a militaristic-Zionist cabal that's currently
dead set on destabilizing relationships among nuclear powers. The demonization towards the
Kremlin at a time when the major media are fomenting a witch hunt atmosphere is breathtaking
to behold. That liberals -- in their hatred of the big bad Trumpenstein -- are going along with this
terrifying group think is one of the more irrational and incredible dynamics I've ever
witnessed in my decades of following the politico-economic scene.
Hate Trump for the right reasons. Don't fall for a Paul Singer, Bill Kristol, et. al.,
orchestrated propaganda campaign.
Fitzgerald said the mark of a true intellectual is to hold two opposing views in one's
mind simultaneously and maintain the ability to function.
Abe , October 31, 2017 at 6:22 pm
Blanche DuBois: "I'm very adaptable to circumstances."
D.H. Fabian , October 31, 2017 at 6:37 pm
I've no idea if there was a "defection of white working class people." I personally doubt
it. What I do know: The Dem voting base had long consisted of the masses -- poor and middle
class, workers and the jobless, for the common good. The Clinton wing split this base wide
apart in the 1990s, middle class vs. poor, and the Obama years served to confirmed that this
split is permanent. With this, much work was done to increase racial tensions. Democrats
divided and conquered the Democratic Party.
Diane Pfaeffle , October 31, 2017 at 6:47 pm
I just find this to be nonsense. Why not call both political parties to the wood shed, why
are democrats so different from Republicans? We need to have an open discussion about how
both of our political parties are failing us.
I think of myself as a liberal, not a Democrat. I could give a rat's ass about the
Democratic Party. I listened to Perez double talk a reporter about questions on the Trump
Dossier. I watched Chris Hayes last night make a fool of himself interviewing yet again the
crazy Carter Page. I come here and read your meaningless rant about Democrats, and understand
completely why this country is in the position it is. Not only am I disgusted with
Republicans and Democrats, I am also tired of listening to the likes of you.
M. L. , October 31, 2017 at 9:47 pm
Diane, I think I know why this makes people feel defensive. I had been a lifelong
Democrat, but after I got fooled by Obama, I left the party. I consider myself "liberal" too,
especially socially. But I do think the author has good points. Though he seems to have a
disdainful attitude himself, perhaps due to some hard knocks he himself has experienced over
his lifetime, I definitely understand the argument he is making. This past election season
was so brutal.
I lost a couple of good friends because they could not abide my criticism of
Hillary and the Dems in general. They were furious at me for not voting for her. They, like
myself, are decidedly middle class with good educations. I know I have been priveledged to
have gone to college and thrived as a master's prepared NP for many years. But I see exactly
what he is saying about liberals and Dems in particular, who just never give a thought to our
country's despicable, destructive imperialism or the suffering of many of the working classes
among us. As a nurse, I saw it all up close and it was personal. Our country's leaders have
not had concern for our common good for decades now. Most of my friends can hear my socialist
points of view and my criticisms of our duopoly; they do not get offended. But some of them
are really quite obstinate. They are very comfortable and they do NOT like the fact that they
support bellicose, inhumane, and corrupt politicians "thrown in their faces."
FDR says it all. post Stevenson and JFK the dems died. We saw abit of it during the Carter
regime but by that time pax-amaericana settled in.
The so called liberals /progressives like most things related to politics and economics and i
might add sociology is living in a dangerous mind set of confirmation bias. Left right
paradigm has been polluted to the point it no longer means anything. Just think of the Reagan
regime when the masters of the universe came up with thew phrase REAGAN DEMOCRATS.
Working
class has been totally decimated. Poverty class is the norm. 50 percent of us are below the
poverty line .Average incomes are at historical lows 30 thousand Fiat Us dollars per annum.
The widest economic gap since the Gilded age. That in itself says alot. The so called liberal
intellectual class /progressive has become the new propaganda wing for pax-amaericana. This
is where the Right meets the left and fuse into this hydra like dystopia and incoherent
dissonance.
Here is where the Likes of Gianbattista Vico and Antonio Gramsci become more relevant today
than during their time.. Vico the father of national tribalisitic sovereignty and Gramsci the
father of debunking the marxist mythology of dialectical materialism.
Gramsci used to refer to Trotsky as the whore of the fascist. Globalism under the guises of
our progressives and social justice warriors have become the new totalitarian norm filled
with confirmation bias and naked ignorance. They have created this glass bubble of reality
that suits the masters of the universe and we the sheeple just sit by and watch the new
Orwellian night mare.
This new political cycle will bring the death to both parties be it the RNC or the DNC. Trump
has been a godsend and has basically taken us behind the Curtain of the Wizard of (OZ)
pax-Americana. the only people left believing this smoke and mirror and pony show are the
progressives the die hard america is great crowd .
jacobo , October 31, 2017 at 10:28 pm
To paraphrase JFK – workers of America, blame not yourselves, blame capitalism, the
economic system that keeps you down, down, down.
Unfortunately, for the survival of all
living beings, rather than attempt to figure out why and how the system is doing them in,
it's much easier and seemingly more direct to look for flesh & blood scapegoats
(immigrants, blacks, jews,etc. etc.) Not that it's all so complicated or that the answers
aren't available, but that for those feeling the pain of self-doubt and shame, scapegoating
allows a quick (albeit, temporary) fix for their psychic misery. On the other hand, even when
the worker figures things out, what then? Overthrow the system? Yes, but that's no easy task,
surely nothing the individual worker can accomplish by herself, requires organization, mass
participation as well as an agreed upon plan and vision. So much easier to seek immediate
lessening of one's suffering through scapegoating. Still, for the survival of all living
beings, change the world we must. How? Somehow, we must find a way to prove to the workers
that we not only understand their dire plight, but would like to sit down with them so that
together we might work out what needs to be done.
mike k , November 1, 2017 at 7:33 am
What to do? That's the ghost that hovers over our detailed analyses of all that's out of
joint with our times. That's the seemingly insoluble koan that haunts our dreams and waking
hours. A deeply asleep mass consciousness mightily resists being awakened to the danger
staring us in the face – we just don't want to see it
Larry Gates , November 1, 2017 at 12:28 pm
Workers now blame the Democratic Party, their one time advocate. It's easy to see why. The
elitist New Democrats think ordinary working people are beneath them, yet they kiss up to
Wall Street, Big Pharma, and the military-industrial-security complex. Most Democrats I know
care more about their investment in the soaring stock market than they do about the plight of
American workers, whose quality of life and economic security is rapidly slipping away.
Scapegoating is a predictable social phenomenon during bad economic times. For
three-fourths of America, these are terrible economic times. They are bogged down by credit
card debt, student loans, etc. They can't find any good paying jobs now that
deindustrialization, offshoring, and the financialization of the economy has taken place.
Which is worse: scapegoating or the short-term greed of the Wall-Street oligarchs, who hide
their money overseas to avoid paying taxes, who fight against worker rights, who recklessly
gamble with other people's money and expect the government to bail them out when they screw
up?
No political revolution is going to come from the elitist, well-educated professional
class who now control the Democratic Party. Intellectuals on the Left will have to reach out
to ordinary people who work from paycheck to paycheck. Hillary ignored them, and Hillary
lost.
Dave P. , November 1, 2017 at 1:18 pm
Larry Gates –
Excellent Comments. Perfectly said and very true. All my liberal friends are exactly as
you said. They are all well off and looking day and night at their stock portfolios and
investments, and looking down on the deplorables and all others below them like labor type
people which are mostly Hispanic here in California. In fact, some of them employ these
people in their homes. Many of these social friends come from homes which were rather well
off .
In my own home, there is always this bickering whenever we have labor or service people
like carpet cleaners, painters work in our home. I pay them generously or tip them if they
work for a company or other owners of business. My wife – a liberal and a very
committed Hillary devotee – always argues with me for overpaying/tipping them and not
concerned about money. Yet we go out and easily burn over a hundred dollars for dinner. It
depends from which background we come from and what we learned in our young age – my
parents were dirt poor farmers owning little over an acre of land. All these workers in
California and elsewhere and Hillary's deplorables are being exploited to run this War
Economy for the benefit of the upper classes and super rich.
It is a very good article, though quite a few words in it are rather complicated. A person
like me has to consult dictionary to find the meaning which becomes annoying. I hope that
Phil Rockstroh use simple words in his next article so that even Hillary's deplorables can
understand it easily.
Wm. Boyce , November 1, 2017 at 12:19 pm
While it is true that the Democratic party is corrupt, millions of people such as yours
truly have had affordable health care premiums for the last three years because of the Dems
policy initiative. They also paid dearly for it in the following election. It's easy for the
author – living in a country that's had a public health care system since the late 19th
century – to lob stones.
I don't think there's any comparison between the Republican party's corruption and the
Dems – the Democrats are rank amateurs compared with the current bunch of criminals
running the country. I'm amazed that so many people on this board are so out of touch.
Larry Gates , November 1, 2017 at 12:39 pm
Democrats are terrible, but the Republicans are even worse. Somehow that doesn't make me
feel good about the Democrats, who have become the Republican Lite-Party. Bill Clinton and
Barack Obama did more to move the country to the Right than any Republican could have done.
Every single accomplishment of Bill Clinton was originally a Republican idea. ObamaCare came
out a Republican think tank. Obama's TPP is a Republican program. Also, today Democrats are
bigger warmongers than the Republicans. I most respectfully turn in my voter registration
card. I am now a progressive Independent.
I worked in health care for years, and both parties ensured that health care was poorly
done for average Americans. FDR wanted a national health care plan as part of the New Deal,
but it's a wonder he got the New Deal through at all with Big Business mobilized against him.
Obama totally caved to the insurers' interests when he approved the federal version of
"Romney-care" which we had in Massachusetts, after many, many people, including doctors, had
urged him to institute single payer. So I don't buy that argument that "At least we got
Obamacare from the Democrats". And what Democrats are doing now with the Russia hysteria is
equal to wiping out what anyone might have thought made them "better than Republicans". Both
parties are in bed with Wall Street, Corporate Capitalism, and Warmongers.
"... "It's difficult to imagine that a campaign chairman, that the head of the DNC would not know of an expenditure of this magnitude and significance. But perhaps there's something more going on here. But certainly it's worth additional questioning of those two witnesses," ..."
"... "more than anyone." ..."
"... On the same day, Elias' law firm, Perkins Coie, which represented the Clinton campaign and the DNC, confirmed it had hired Fusion GPS in April 2016. The funding arrangement brokered in the spring of 2016 lasted until right before the election, AP reported earlier this week, citing sources familiar with the matter. ..."
"... The document, compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, alleged a compromising relationship between Trump and the Kremlin. It was finalized in December 2016, and published online by BuzzFeed in January. It contained unsubstantiated claims of links and allegations of deals between Moscow and the Trump campaign. ..."
"... It was funded initially by a Republican-funded journalism website, The Washington Free Beacon. However, the website insisted the enquiry had no Russian angle at that time. The alleged collusion between Trump and Russia became the focal point of the research after it was taken over by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). ..."
"... The Clinton campaign paid more than $5.6 million to Perkins Coie, recording the expenditures as "legal services," ..."
"... "legal and compliance consulting" ..."
"... "fake dossier," ..."
"... "Never seen such Republican ANGER & UNITY as I have concerning the lack of investigation on Clinton made Fake Dossier," ..."
"... "so much GUILT by Democrats/Clinton, and now the facts are pouring out." ..."
Several top Democrats should be summoned to testify before the US Senate Intelligence
Committee on the infamous Trump-Russia dossier, US Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) has said. Her
remarks were prompted by new revelations linking the file to the Democratic Party and the
Clinton campaign, Collins, who is a member of the Senate's Intelligence Committee, was emphatic
that Hillary Clinton's election campaign manager, John Podesta, and the former head of the
Democratic National Committee (DNC), Debbie Wasserman Schultz, "absolutely need to be
recalled."
She added that they were most likely aware of the Democrats role in the preparation of this
document.
"It's difficult to imagine that a campaign chairman, that the head of the DNC would not
know of an expenditure of this magnitude and significance. But perhaps there's something more
going on here. But certainly it's worth additional questioning of those two witnesses,"
she told CBS' Face the Nation.
She said further that Marc Elias, a lawyer representing Hillary for America and the DNC,
should be questioned "more than anyone." On Tuesday, the Washington Post alleged that
Elias retained research firm Fusion GPS in April 2016 to continue research into Trump's alleged
coordination with Russia; and which later became known as the Steele dossier.
On the same day, Elias' law firm, Perkins Coie, which represented the Clinton campaign
and the DNC, confirmed it had hired Fusion GPS in April 2016. The funding arrangement brokered
in the spring of 2016 lasted until right before the election, AP reported earlier this week,
citing sources familiar with the matter.
The document, compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, alleged a compromising
relationship between Trump and the Kremlin. It was finalized in December 2016, and published
online by BuzzFeed in January. It contained unsubstantiated claims of links and allegations of
deals between Moscow and the Trump campaign.
It was funded initially by a Republican-funded journalism website, The Washington Free
Beacon. However, the website insisted the enquiry had no Russian angle at that time. The
alleged collusion between Trump and Russia became the focal point of the research after it was
taken over by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).
The Clinton campaign paid more than $5.6 million to Perkins Coie, recording the
expenditures as "legal services," according to the Federal Election Commission. The
DNC paid the law firm more than $2.9 million for "legal and compliance consulting" and
reported $66,500 for research consulting.
Taking note of the recent revelations concerning the dossier, the US House Intelligence
Committee has been granted access to Fusion GPS bank account records as part of its
investigation into the alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
On Sunday, Donald Trump lashed out in a series of tweets at the dossier and said something
should be done about Hillary Clinton's links to the "fake dossier," as the US
president put it.
"Never seen such Republican ANGER & UNITY as I have concerning the lack of
investigation on Clinton made Fake Dossier," he wrote, later adding, that there is "so
much GUILT by Democrats/Clinton, and now the facts are pouring out."
Never seen such Republican ANGER & UNITY as I have concerning the lack of
investigation on Clinton made Fake Dossier (now $12,000,000?),....
Earlier this week, Trump said it is "commonly agreed" that there was no collusion
between his presidential bid and the Russian government, and accused Clinton of being the one
who really colluded with Russia.
Throughout What Happened , Clinton gives us a taste of her literary influences,
beginning each section, and each chapter, and sometimes inserting inside of chapters,
quotations from Harriet Tubman, Friedrich Nietzsche, A League of Their Own , Rainer
Maria Rilke, Eleanor Roosevelt, TS Eliot, George Bernard Shaw, Carl Sandburg, "a sign in my
house", Nora Ephron, Muriel Rukeyser, JM Barrie, Mary Ann Shaffer, Annie Barrows, Ralph Waldo
Emerson, Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, Flannery O'Connor, WB Yeats, "a Chinese proverb", "an African
proverb", Fyodor Dostoevsky, Robert Frost, John F. Kennedy, Nelson Mandela , Henry James, and Pope
John XIII. I do not know who any of those people are. It seems I've lost them along with every
other person in this book. But from the quotations, you can tell that each of them is an
advocate for kindness, perseverance, truth, and decency. You can see how each of them helped
shape Clinton and her thoughts.
After learning so much about Clinton, it is difficult to read her account of the campaign
itself when it arrives slightly more than halfway through the book. It is terrible to witness
the tragedy unfold. Clinton ran for president, she says early on, because she "thought I would
be good at the job." Others agree, including the current president, Barack Obama , who announces at her
convention that she is the most qualified candidate to ever run despite -- Clinton notes --
their disagreement on issues including environmental regulation and an unspecified conflict in
Syria (their respective positions are not detailed; however, my research indicates that Clinton
was widely believed to be "the most progressive candidate" in history, so one imagines that she
disapproved of President Obama's bellicose stance on the issue). But despite her
qualifications, or perhaps due to them, Clinton endures a cruelty and depth of opposition
unlike anything endured by a candidate for the presidency before her.
First, she faces a primary against a disruptive charlatan. Senator Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat, she
tells us, but a socialist attempting to "disrupt" the party. Sanders is at once nearly
identical to Clinton on the issues ("because we agreed on so much, Bernie couldn't make an
argument against me in this area on policy, so he had to resort to innuendo and impugning my
character," she writes) and hopelessly reactionary -- a man willing to compromise on Clinton's
key issues of gun violence and racial justice in order to give free "ponies", "magic abs", and
taxpayer-funded college education to rich children. Sanders' supporters are vicious -- Clinton
calls them "Bernie Bros" twice in her book -- and go so far as to boo her at the Democratic
National Convention. Sanders himself, despite campaigning for Clinton (something she graciously
"appreciated"), refused to endorse her for nearly a month after the end of their contest.
Despite Clinton's record and character, Sanders attacked her integrity even after the delegate
math is done. This shameless new anti-Clinton strategy "[paves] the way for Donald Trump's
'Crooked Hillary' campaign" during the general and does "lasting damage" to the party.
None of this compares to what comes next. In a section called "Frustration," Clinton reveals
that it was not only her Republican opponent who she was up against in the general election
last year. Beyond Trump, Clinton must contend with a news media that operates under special
"Clinton rules" designed to make all of her behavior appear nefarious, most notably a server
management issue during her time at the State Department. She is attacked by Republican
congressmen and Senators, who haul her before pointless special committees in order to score
cheap political points on TV. She is "knifed" by FBI director James Comey, whose release of a
damning and unprecedented letter only days before the election costs Clinton essential margins
in several states. Beyond all of this, Clinton faces an unprecedented espionage effort by a man
named Vladimir Putin. Putin, Clinton tells us, has a personal grudge against her born of her
previous work as Secretary of State and in order to keep her from the presidency, he orders
Russian intelligence services to attack her candidacy on all fronts.
The Russians seed propaganda through American social media networks. They steal internal
emails from her campaign and release them at the most damaging possible times. They hack voting
systems and even collaborate directly with members of Trump's campaign. This was an act of war,
Clinton writes, and one cannot help but sense an unspoken anger at President Obama, who knew
what was going on, but chose not to make a public declaration.
In other reviews of What Happened, I have seen the claim that Clinton refuses to take
responsibility for her loss. Perhaps this is in reference to some other book or statement long
since lost to my memory, because in this book, it simply isn't true. In nearly every chapter,
Clinton repeats some version of the idea that the blame for losing the 2016 election rests with
her alone. It is only that given everything else we learn -- given the "tribalism" of the
electorate, the vendetta of the Russians, the opposition that she, like all subversive figures,
faced from even her own state's secret police -- given all of those things and how all of those
things are invariably mentioned either immediately before or immediately after any moment when
Clinton takes responsibility for her defeat, given all of that it is difficult to escape the
impression that while she might take the blame, no reasonable person would put the blame on
Clinton.
Indeed the strangest element of What Happened is the widespread belief, both within and
without the Clinton campaign, that she would win. I can only take her word that this was widely
believed, but it is difficult to fathom. The Clinton I discovered in these pages was a radical.
From the moment she left her position as president of Wellesley's Republican club (a detail she
mentioned, much to my shock, in the book's final pages), Clinton fought relentlessly against
the entrenched, reactionary forces of her nation. As a young woman, she demonstrated against
the imperial war in Vietnam. As an attorney, she was on the front lines against Jim Crow. In
public service, she stood up not only to despots like Vladimir Putin, but to the most powerful
corporations in the United States, proposing redistributive taxes and "truly universal" health
care, even flirting with a guaranteed basic income funded by capital derivatives from
nationalized resource services.
Writing about the decline of American labor solidarity, Clinton writes that "being part of a
union is an important part of someone's personal identity. It helps shape the way you view the
world and think about politics. When that's gone, it means a lot of people stop identifying
primarily as workers -- and voting accordingly -- and start identifying and voting as white,
male, rural, or all of the above." This account of class-consciousness puts Clinton to the left
of even celebrated American essayist Ta-Nehisi Coates. How could anyone be naïve enough to
believe that her victory was guaranteed? She was a radical taking on the establishment and the
establishment is never more vicious than when it is protecting itself from a figure who has
proven herself willing and able to defeat them. For the Clinton of What Happened to win the
Presidency in a country like the United States would have been miraculous. Nothing in the
history I can remember suggests that this was ever likely.
Hillary
Clinton 's presidential campaign was accused of breaking election rules Wednesday as she
and fellow Democrats faced fallout from the disclosure that her campaign and party operatives
paid for research used in a salacious anti- Trump dossier.
President Trump called the revelation "a
disgrace," and the head of the House investigative committee said he wants
to know whether the FBI relied on the
dossier in its counterintelligence work.
"It's very sad what they've done with this fake dossier," Mr. Trump told reporters at the
White House. "The Democrats always denied it. Hillary Clinton always denied it.
I think it's a disgrace. It's a very sad commentary on politics in this country."
The dossier, first reported on late in the presidential campaign and eventually published in
its entirety by BuzzFeed after the election, contained a series of unsubstantiated and often
salacious accusations against Mr. Trump , including supposed
contacts between his associates and Russian officials.
The 35-page document was compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, who was hired by
research firm Fusion GPS.
Law firm Perkins Coie, which handled legal work for the Clinton campaign, admitted Tuesday
that it paid Fusion "to perform a variety of research services" as part of its work for
Mrs.
Clinton .
... ... ...
Operatives for Mr. Trump 's chief opponents during
the Republican primary have denied involvement in the dossier, but Mr. Trump said it was a
possibility.
"Yes, it might have started with the Republicans early on in the primaries. I think I would
know, but let's find out who it is," he told reporters. "If I were to guess, I have one name in
mind."
But given the revelations about Democrats' involvement and fresh investigations into a
uranium deal with a Russian firm approved by the Obama administration, Mr. Trump said the Russia
controversy has "turned around" on the Democrats.
"This was the Democrats coming up with an excuse for losing an election. They lost it very
badly," he said. "They didn't know what to say, so they made up the whole Russia hoax. Now it's
turning out that the whole hoax is turned around."
... ... ...
House Speaker
Paul D. Ryan, Wisconsin Republican, accused the executive branch of stonewalling Congress from
obtaining documents related to the Trump dossier. He said the FBI and Justice
Department have not complied with requests from congressional members for documents related to
the dossier.
"... Michael Sussmann, a lawyer from the same firm that hired Fusion GPS on order of Democrats, hired the Crowdstrike cyber-outlet to investigate the leak of DNC emails. Crowdstrike and the DNC denied the FBI access to the relevant servers but asserted that "Russian hacking" was the source of the leak. ..."
"... The "Trump dossier" was opposition research ordered up and paid for by the Clinton/DNC mafia. Most of its content was obviously fake or patched together from publicly known facts. But it took up to now for U.S. media to point that out. The fake dossier, paid for by the Democrats, was used by the FBI under Obama to get FISA warrants to spy on Republican party operatives. ..."
"... We noted in January that the dossier was additionally used by the British and American deep state to sabotage Trump's plans for better relations with Russia (see original for source quotes): ..."
"... Steele then decided to hand the papers to the FBI and to talk to its agents hoping they would start an official investigation. He cleared his move (or was ordered to proceed?) at the highest level of the British government ..."
"... When Steele's first move with the FBI in October did note deliver the hoped for results an attempt to stove pipe them through Senator John McCain was launched. A "former" British ambassador to Moscow arranged the hand over ..."
"... The MI6 is well known for launching fakes on behalf of the British government. ..."
"... After Trump unexpectedly won the election a new effort was launched to publish the smears. The Director of National Intelligence decided (or was ordered to) "brief" the President, the President elect and Congress on the obviously dubious accusations ..."
"... After the election the Democrats stopped paying for new Steele reports. But by then efforts to make the fake Steele reports public and to thereby sabotage Trump policies turned into high gear. McCain had already been involved in distributing the report and it was he or the Brits who who paid for the last fake report Steele delivered: ..."
"... What I want to know is why the Washington Post has switched sides and is publishing something approaching the truth. Do they know a whole lot more malfeasance by the Clintons is about to be uncovered and are doing their best to protect their "journalistic" "reputation?" ..."
"... In the WaPo link, it was pretty specific. The political lobbies hire law firms to subcontract intelligence in order to maintain "confidentiality agreements". If the confidentiality agreement legitimizes defying the laws and orders of not only the legislative branch, but the collective government, it becomes clear the corporations regulate government, not the other way around. ..."
"... Yikes. I recall reading that Steele's contacts were 'Eastern Europeans', this doesn't rule out Ukrainians. Okay, maybe there really are some Russians looking for a quick buck. The point is that we are not even close to establishing ties to 'the Kremlin' but this doesn't stop MSM commentators from going there, a lot. ..."
"... When considered in conjunction with the increasing awareness of the close relationship between Western intelligence agencies and terrorism, a big part of why Russia is the bogeyman du juor in both the US and UK is revealed. The continued rapacious plunder of Western societies for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many requires an external threat to justify eternal war, police state tactics such as surveillance and militarization of police forces, the reduction of civil liberties, and expanded austerity measures in the name of "security". ..."
"... For the Dem lackeys at CNN attacking Trump with false charges was "news," their hero Obama's farewell speech was not. ..."
"... When the agency //MI6// was plunged into panic over the poisoning of its agent Alexander Litvinenko in 2006, the then chief, Sir John Scarlett, needed a trusted senior officer to plot a way through the minefield ahead – so he turned to Steele. It was Steele, sources say, who correctly and quickly realised that Litvinenko's death was a Russian state "hit". ..... ;) ..."
"... Reading a large part of the Podesta e-mails showed how completely terminally incompetent and out of touch the whole Dem. apparatus is. One usually likes to think that crooks and Mafia types are wily beasts who figure the angles and have several pots boiling and are good at juggling different scenarios and disculpating themselves. Your dem leader can be dumb as a brick, corrupt to the bone, a high-level sadist, all no problem - even adulation awaits. ..."
"... I recall the strenuous effort put forth to sell the "Magic Bullet" verdict of the Warren Commission, which allows me to repeat what Russia's Foreign Ministry said about the USA's trustworthiness: "They lie without shame," lying that began in earnest in 1945, escalating ever since. http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/2920164 ..."
"... Why did Clapper and Brennan peddle so hard the Russians colluded with Trump meme? Why did they fear Trump so much? ..."
"... Yes, the big question why did the top officials in the intelligence agencies in the US and UK try so hard to take down Trump? ..."
"... I think it's because Donald Trump fired them. Nothing like dropping a deuce in the room on the way out. ..."
"... IMO, the cash flow to MIC on both sides of the Atlantic. No bogeyman, no wars, no new toys and no treats. War is a money racket. ..."
"... Trump campaigned on America First; rebuild factories and infrastructure, less foreign wars, detente with Russia. These promises were taken seriously and Russiagate was unwrapped. See how quickly, after his taking the oath of office, he fell in line with the junta? Really, do you think he selected his cabinet people? ..."
"... I take it to mean Trump was a threat to the establishment, or at least a majority of the establishment that controls MSM and CIA (then again it is more likely the CIA control the establiushment and media). The threat has now passed and the Trump Putin meme is being wound back. A few scapegoats from the swamp may lose their heads but thats about it. ..."
"... The secret world has always shielded incompetence. The Wilderness of Mirrors is the only place where you can generate the myth of quality through withholding the facts of your actions. One suspects that the CIA is saturated with incompetence. Part of the reason that it hated to see it in the Brits. ..."
"... The dossier is a US fabrication, merely using the lackeys du jour . All useful analysis will flow from this. ..."
Hillary Clinton campaign cut-out hires the (former?) British intelligence agent Steele to pay
money to (former?) Russian intelligence agents and high-level Kremlin employees for dirt
about Donald Trump. They deliver some fairy tales. The resulting dossier is peddled far and
wide throughout Washington DC with the intent of damaging Trump.
There was never evidence that Steele indeed talked to any Russian, or really had contact
with his claimed sources. He has been for years persona non grata in Moscow and could not visit
the country.
Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a
Washington firm, to conduct the research.
..,
After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence
officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people,
who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Told ya so ...
Michael Sussmann, a lawyer from the same firm that hired Fusion GPS on order of Democrats,
hired the
Crowdstrike cyber-outlet to investigate the leak of DNC emails. Crowdstrike and the DNC denied
the FBI access to the relevant servers but asserted that "Russian hacking" was the source of
the leak.
The "Trump dossier" was opposition research ordered up and paid for by the Clinton/DNC
mafia. Most of its content was
obviously fake or patched together from publicly known facts. But it took up to now for
U.S. media to point that out. The fake dossier, paid for by the Democrats, was used by the FBI
under Obama to get FISA warrants to spy on Republican party operatives.
We noted in January that the dossier was
additionally used by the British and American deep state to sabotage Trump's plans for
better relations with Russia (see original for source quotes):
The "former" desk officer for Russia in the British MI6 Christopher Steele was the one who
prepared the 35
pages of obviously false claims about Russian connections with and kompromat against
Trump. There are so many inconsistencies in these pages that anyone knowledgeable about the
workings in Moscow
could immediately identify it as fake .
...
Steele spread the fakes throughout the press corps in Washington DC but no media published
them because these were obviously false accusations.
Steele then decided to hand the papers to the FBI and to talk to its agents hoping they
would start an official investigation. He cleared his move (or was ordered to proceed?) at
the highest level of the British government :
... When Steele's first move with the FBI in October did note deliver the hoped for results an
attempt to stove pipe them through Senator John McCain was launched. A "former" British
ambassador to Moscow
arranged the hand over :
... The MI6 is well
known for launching fakes on behalf of the British government.
Even the second, more official handover to the FBI still did not result in the hoped for
publication of the allegations. But by that time Clinton was widely expect to win the
election anyway so no further steps were taken.
After Trump unexpectedly won the election a new effort was launched to publish the smears.
The Director of National Intelligence decided (or was ordered to) "brief" the President, the
President elect and Congress on the obviously dubious accusations.
It was this decision that made sure that the papers would eventually be published. As the
NYT noted
:
...
Only after Clapper or others leaked to CNN about the briefing of Obama, Trump and Congress,
did CNN
publish about the 35 pages :
...
The attack was a deep state attempt to stage a
coup against Trump :
After the election the Democrats stopped paying for new Steele reports. But by then efforts
to make the fake Steele reports public and to thereby sabotage Trump policies turned into high
gear. McCain had already
been involved in distributing the report and it
was he or the Brits who who paid for the last fake report Steele delivered:
Let me remind you of the basic facts about the Dossier--It consists of 13 separate reports.
The first is dated 20 June 2016. That date is important because it shows that it took a
little more than two months [after the Democrats started paying] for Fusion GPS to generate
its first report on Trump's alleged Russian activities. If Fusion GPS already had something
in the can then I would expect them to have put something out in early May. Eleven more
reports were generated between 26 July and 19 October 2016. That tracks with the letter from
Perkins Coie that the engagement by the Clinton Campaign ended at the end of October.
But there is a big problem and unanswered question--The Dossier includes a final report
that is dated 13 December 2016. Who paid for this? Was it John McCain?
The purpose of the final fake report Steele added to the dossier was to provide "evidence"
that Trump was involved in the "Russian hacking" of the DNC:
What I want to know is why the Washington Post has switched sides and is publishing something
approaching the truth. Do they know a whole lot more malfeasance by the Clintons is about to
be uncovered and are doing their best to protect their "journalistic" "reputation?"
Wake me when someone actually goes to gaol for any of this... yawn...
The protected class has been the protected class for centuries, and shall, without drastic
beyond planetary intervention, remain the protected class for centuries more.
Seems HMSS Agent '.007' didn't quite deliver to "Q" this time... sad state of affairs that
the former once somewhat 'great' Britain has fallen so low in the IQ stakes that they would
even think such contrived rubbish would work. Hubris or desperation? What a laugh! Judging by
the MSM emissions I'd suggest we have a whole generation of policy cretins in 'da service'.
Pure Putin Envy, I suspect: gone blind with geopolitical onanism.
And, can we now assume, as this DC delicacy boils in the cauldron for a few weeks, that we
will soon see Julian Assange make his prison break? He must have enough material in encrypted
dead-man locks on the Clinton Gang et al to get a free pass from diplomatic 'jail' AND
gift his kind South American hosts some diplomatic credits to cash-in down London Town.
....and instantly the anti trump msm leak that a person close to Trump have once contacted
Wikileaks. Sigh.
The clinton paid for dossier is so implacting, or should be, because the media wont cover it
as they should, they will bury it.
The western msm is done, its so corrupt and propagandistic its amazing that not more people
take note of this.
The sad thing is just like you said you brought this up last year. This was being said
throughout last year prior to the POTUS election and had all good investigative reporting
behind it. Now that the court case comes out the msm along with all their pupp[ets are
spouting out this stuff. Everybody with a scintilla of grey matter since mid 2016 new full
well that the whole xenophobic narrative was total BS.Just like the Syrian civil war
narrative was all BS or Benghazi /Qadaffi slaughtering his people. To this day the sheeple
are in this Orwellian stupor. It is dangerous and troubling. We are living like zombies with
no critical thinking or capacity to cal out BS and lies . For heavens sake will the people
wake up and stop supporting this BS and start voting with our brains. Political system is
dead the economy is dead society is sick so we being the 99 percent by shear numbers should
be able to demand and garner change.
You ever notice how everybody can deny it all except for the few unfortunate souls who have
to go into hiding?
My thought is the intelligence community includes the US, UK and Russia, and that's just a
short list. They're all collaborating, and they are the immortal institutions we identify as
"corporations" and "think tanks" regulating government. The idea "the people" have influence
is absurd until one considers all those institutions consist of communities of people.
In the WaPo link, it was pretty specific. The political lobbies hire law firms to
subcontract intelligence in order to maintain "confidentiality agreements". If the
confidentiality agreement legitimizes defying the laws and orders of not only the legislative
branch, but the collective government, it becomes clear the corporations regulate government,
not the other way around.
The alleged Prague connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda came through an alleged meeting
between September 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and Iraqi consulate Ahmad Samir al-Ani in April
2001.
Has someone been watching too many "Cold War" spy movies or is the Czech counterintelligence
service's head stuck so far up Washington's arse they can't see anything. If they'd said it
was Prague, OK perhaps it would have had a bit more credibility.
Russians behind dossier: Anyone else notice that as this story is being reported that Russia (the victim) is being
blamed for the Dossier?
In its most blatant form it goes like this ... 'HRC colluded with the Kremlin against
Trump'. The way they connect the dots; HRC -> DNC -> Steele -> 'alleged Russian
contacts' = Kremlin.
Yikes. I recall reading that Steele's contacts were 'Eastern Europeans', this doesn't rule
out Ukrainians. Okay, maybe there really are some Russians looking for a quick buck. The
point is that we are not even close to establishing ties to 'the Kremlin' but this doesn't
stop MSM commentators from going there, a lot.
This government is not spending enough to meet the risks, threats, nor the opportunities
identified in its own National Defence and Security Strategy.
Politicians go where the power - the money - is. Clinton/Democrats decided to ride the
wave they did not start it. It does get very silly with
Boris Johnson as the top clown .
Anyone who threatens to challenge the status quo of the ruling establishment with a move to
the left will be discredited, and in the event they can't have their character assassinated,
their person will be assassinated instead. See Paul Wellstone, Dr. David Kelly, Pat Tillman,
John Lennon, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, JFK, RFK, etc, almost ad infinitum.
When considered in conjunction with the increasing awareness of the close relationship
between Western intelligence agencies and terrorism, a big part of why Russia is the bogeyman
du juor in both the US and UK is revealed. The continued rapacious plunder of Western
societies for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many requires an external threat
to justify eternal war, police state tactics such as surveillance and militarization of
police forces, the reduction of civil liberties, and expanded austerity measures in the name
of "security".
Both Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party and what should have been Bernie Sanders' Democratic
Party were threatening to turn back the clock on the Neoliberal/Neoconservative (see:
Zionist) strategy of consolidating both capital and power through divisive politics,
unfettered predatory capitalism, and war; all enabled by a well-orchestrated campaign of
fear, xenophobia, and state-sponsored terror.
Until we root out the Zionist menace from our governments, industries, media, and - in a
hat-tip to psychohistorian - our treasuries, we will continue to toil in an artificially
divided society wherein we work for the benefit of a self-proclaimed chosen few, all the
while being tricked into fighting their wars which are of no benefit to us and then being
given the bill for those wars.
I haven't owned a teevee in years, but I happened to be in a motel room the night that Obama
gave his farewell speech a year or so ago.
After the conclusion of the speech, FoxNews thoroughly critiqued the speech. Switching over
to CNN, Trump's "fake news" network, the speech wasn't covered at all. Instead they covered
the dossier in depth, with several "journalists" droning on and on about all the collusion
evidence.
Which just goes to prove that Trump was correct (again). For the Dem lackeys at CNN attacking
Trump with false charges was "news," their hero Obama's farewell speech was not.
Posted by: somebody | Oct 26, 2017 9:48:32 AM | 14
The link in that post requires utmost caution, and should not be opened if your mental
health can be compromised by an excessive dollop of nonsense. Finding two consecutive
sentences with a consistent thread of though is pretty hard. Look at this:
We should consider renewing attempts to expand the UN Security Council to include India,
Brazil, Germany and Japan, and to promote the idea of a rapid reaction force under its
control, however difficult this might prove to be. Our two new aircraft carriers HMS Queen
Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales along with the French carrier in production could play a
leading role in a naval version.
So, "we need" to expand UNSC and the navy. What is the connection? New council members do not
seem useful for the naval expansion (why do not postulate a Brazilian aircraft carrier?!),
and vice versa. And where those aircraft carriers are supposed to go? A new Crimean war? If
you seriously want to address threats to democracy and everything we find good and dear, we
should target Tuvalu, but for that it suffices to have a ship that has, say, 20 berths for
marine infantry, and, most importantly, resolve -- sadly lacking.
This belongs to a genre of political analysis that is boldly nonsensical. Typically, there
is a call for clarity followed by mental spaghetti. And/or a call for boldness followed by
verbiage that is offensive only in its lack of content. But what makes this article somewhat
unique is the sheer number of sentences that come without explanation and go absolutely
nowhere. Why suddenly UNSC expansion? What would improve with two new aircraft carriers owned
by European powers? The threats that have to be addressed are cyber attacks, Islamic
terrorism and Russia undermining the growth of democracy in Ukraine.
The author also mentions his childhood in Nigerian countryside together with the British
need to prevent any single power dominating over continental Europe. The latter would suggest
the need to reduce American influence, the former ????
When the agency //MI6// was plunged into panic over the poisoning of its agent
Alexander Litvinenko in 2006, the then chief, Sir John Scarlett, needed a trusted senior
officer to plot a way through the minefield ahead – so he turned to Steele. It was
Steele, sources say, who correctly and quickly realised that Litvinenko's death was a Russian
state "hit". ..... ;)
Steele quit MI6 (wiki) in 2009 and tried to monetize his 'knowledge' and 'subservience' in
private cos., > hack to the highest bidder type.
The relations between Fusion GPS and Orbis https://orbisbi.com - see the symbolic images (Steele a
co-founder) remain murky imho but there you go, such private cos. can make money off paying
hubris-deluded clients who require! this or that.
Reading a large part of the Podesta e-mails showed how completely terminally incompetent
and out of touch the whole Dem. apparatus is. One usually likes to think that crooks and
Mafia types are wily beasts who figure the angles and have several pots boiling and are good
at juggling different scenarios and disculpating themselves. Your dem leader can be dumb as a
brick, corrupt to the bone, a high-level sadist, all no problem - even adulation
awaits.
The media have to keep running Russia stories--so much so that it seems they ultimately come
round to the point where they're biting the hand that fed them.
Twitter just banned RT and Sputnik from having ads!
Freedom of speech folks, its not worth anything these days. Twitter is nothing but a deep
state empire tool.
@27 karlof1.. but the optics look good for the continued smear of russia... man, this endless
msm story gets very boring.. all it tells me is how decrepit the western msm is at this point
groveling in the ditch 24/7...
Movie Producers are fighting to get another blockbuster "based a true story"
Who will publish the script first of " A Kink in Moscow"? the UK or the USA?
"And there's absolutely zero evidence for them to use as a basis for the bans."
Indeed, will Twitter now ban western msm on their respective reporting of Russia? No of
course not, what a friggin joke. In fact its not a joke its pretty damn scary this censorship
and masshysteria against Russia and these days clearly tells us
who spread propaganda in our soceity and who enable it (Twitter). Its nothing but a tool of
CIA/FBI now. No doubt about that.
Sick McCarthyism is alive 2017, who would have thought? Apparently the western
establishment thought that he was more than right.
To be clear on my part, my opinion is that all major turmoil, wars and financial crises
lead to the Rothchilds.
Do you do PR for Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan? I only ask 'cos Rothschilds ain't what they
used to be by a few million miles and if anyone is responsible for all major turmoil, wars
and financial crises, it's Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan. Stop with the dumb conspiracy
theories, there is enough real shit in the world to be bothered about for many, many
lifetimes.
When a Big Lie is exposed, or simply goes flat like an automobile tire with multiple
pinhole-prick slow leaks, the Big Liars have a damage control strategy: Go Bigger!
This may be a semantic quibble, but to me even blithely characterizing the Steele dossier
as "opposition research" is a mendacious euphemism.
There's a well-known, and perhaps apocryphal, story that Lyndon Johnson once directed his
aides to spread the rumor that his opponent in a Texas election enjoyed physical relations
with barnyard animals. When his staffers allegedly objected that this assertion could never
be proved, Johnson supposedly replied "I know that. I just want to hear him deny
it."
By present-day standards, LBJ's ploy would be characterized as perfectly legitimate
"opposition research".
Judging from preliminary indications, the deluded or desperate anti-Trump resistance and
Democratic Party Establishment may double down and, incredibly, "own" the scurrilous smear.
Not just by dignifying the dirty trick as "normal", i.e. nominally routine, "ethical"
opposition research, but by implying that the fabrications it contains are indeed a "smoking
gun" that ought to be sufficient to fatally undermine Trump's presidency after all.
As I've been remarking more and more lately, a literary committee composed of Jonathan
Swift, Lewis Carroll, Mark Twain, Joseph Heller, Mikhail Bulgakov, and Kurt Vonnegut couldn't
create a more surrealistic and bizarre political landscape.
@Christian Chuba #12
"Eastern Europeans" -> think Ukraine, or more specifically the SBU (Ukraine CIA). The link
with McCain and the Democratic party becomes more clear then (Nuland).
to Ghostship: Have a read "Web of Debt" by Ellen Hodgson Brown and "Beyond Banksters" by
Joyce Helson. The references they provide will get you started. Another excellent reference
is "Secrets of the Federal Reserve" by Eustace Mullins.
When you start researching the issue of the crippling financial debts that characterize
western countries then it comes evident the primary cause is a predatory private banking
system. Private money manufactures financial crises and wars to coerce governments to impose
local and foreign policies that promote only the interests of private money and which only
has destructive and negative consequences for the 99%. You may not like it hear it and but
all money leads to the House of Rothschild and it's net worth reported to be several hundred
TRILLION!
An undeniable truth. But what do we know about those?
The so called "Democratic Party" is the equivalent of the grand old NSDAP. As with the
original, its followers are as die hard Fascists, as were the good Germans looking the other
way when the truth became obvious.
While I don't believe it will go on for centuries, the callousness and gullibility of the
American people makes them perfect Fascists.
Sieg Heil is the only greeting missing when addressing The Führer. Well, actually the
person's soaking wet dream has always been to be the first Führerin of all times.
Thatcher sucked at it, so the position is still vacant.
The question is, when will we hear the equivalent of "Sieg Heil meine Führerin"?
I recall the strenuous effort put forth to sell the "Magic Bullet" verdict of the Warren
Commission, which allows me to repeat what Russia's Foreign Ministry said about the USA's
trustworthiness: "They lie without shame," lying that began in earnest in 1945, escalating
ever since. http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/2920164
Trump declares opioid epidemic a National Emergency. Guess he needs to sanction the CIA's
opium growing project in Afghanistan along with that organization's top officers. After all,
that's what he did to Venezuela for far lesser offences.
I'll try this again w/o link
--from The Saker: Re-visiting Russian counter-propaganda methods
What I propose to do today is to share with you a few recent examples of what Russian
households are regularly exposed to.
By now, you must have heard about the CNN report about how the evil Russkies used Pokemon
to destabilize and subvert the USA. If not, here it is: (video)
In Russia this report was in instant mega-success: the video was translated and
rebroadcasted on every single TV channel. Margarita Simonian, the brilliant director of
Russia Today, was asked during a live show "be truthful and confess – what is your
relationship with Pokemon, do they work for you?" to which she replied "I feed them"
– the audience burst in laughter.
The Russian Pokemon was just the latest in a long series of absolutely insane,
terminally paranoid and rabidly russophobic reports released by the western Ziomedia, all
of which were instantly translated into Russian and rebroadcasted by the Russian media.
One of the techniques regularly used on Russian talkshows is to show a short report
about the latest crazy nonsense coming out of the United States or Europe and then ask a
pro-US guests to react to it. The "liberals" (in the Russian political meaning of this
word, that is a hopelessly naïve pro-western person who loves to trash everything
Russian and who hates Putin and those who support him) are intensely embarrassed and
usually either simply admit that this is crazy nonsense or try to find some crazy nonsense
in the Russian media (and there is plenty of that too) to show that "we are just as bad".
Needless to say, no matter what escape route is chosen, the "liberal" ends up looking like
a total idiot or a traitor.
Why did Clapper and Brennan peddle so hard the Russians colluded with Trump meme? Why did
they fear Trump so much?
The FISA warrant to intercept Trump campaign officials was issued on the basis of the fake
Steele dossier smear. And then Susan Rice used her position to unmask all the participants in
those intercepts.
Yes, the big question why did the top officials in the intelligence agencies in the US and
UK try so hard to take down Trump?
as far as i've been able to tell, no one has linked to this TRNN interview w/ marcy wheeler,
a.k.a. "emptywheel" on the subject. if the transcript was close to correct, her rant was
totally illogical, even w/ aaron maté pushing back pretty hard.
'Democrats Funded the Steele Dossier that Fueled Russiagate'; After months of obfuscation,
the Washington Post reveals that the Clinton campaign and the DNC funded the infamous Steele
dossier at the heart of Russiagate. Empty Wheel's Marcy Wheeler and TRNN's Aaron Mate
discuss
while understanding that TRNN is a 'progressive' (whatever that means any more: librul?)
site in general, at least the comments below reflected how anti-roosian, anti-putin
emptywheel is. and illogical.
In reply to ab initio | Oct 26, 2017 7:46:15 PM | 51
I think it's because Donald Trump fired them. Nothing like dropping a deuce in the room on
the way out.
"...why did the top officials in the intelligence agencies in the US and UK try so hard to
take down Trump?"
Russia too I say. It may not have been a take down so much as an (failed)attempt to become
his handlers. The "dossier" became useless once it was opened to the public. Who are Donald
Trump's handlers? Do we have a puppet, or do we have a puppeteer in Donald Trump?
IMO, the cash flow to MIC on both sides of the Atlantic. No bogeyman, no wars, no new toys
and no treats. War is a money racket.
Trump campaigned on America First; rebuild factories and infrastructure, less foreign
wars, detente with Russia. These promises were taken seriously and Russiagate was
unwrapped.
See how quickly, after his taking the oath of office, he fell in line with the junta? Really,
do you think he selected his cabinet people?
A day of reckoning abides HRC, CF, Mueller, Clapper, Brennan and cohorts. When you dig a
hole for your enemy make sure you also dig one for yourself.
In 2010, Uranium One was labelled a conspiracy theory.
Interesting times ahead.
Now WSJ, Wapo, are all over it. At least NYT wrote on the deal and money flow in April 2015 noting HRC's wish to be
president, Very detailed article but who would believe? Read up on details: timelines, the Canadian connection and the money flow..
NYT: Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
Have a read "Web of Debt" by Ellen Hodgson Brown and "Beyond Banksters" by Joyce Helson.
The references they provide will get you started. Another excellent reference is "Secrets
of the Federal Reserve" by Eustace Mullins.
I don't need to as I previously worked for a number of financial institutions in the City
of London and I'm well aware of all the shit that banks and bankers get up to.
You may not like it hear it and but all money leads to the House of Rothschild and it's net
worth reported to be several hundred TRILLION!
Go on believing that crap if you want to but I'd be interested to know exactly what you
mean by the "House of Rothschild" other than a 1934 film. Also exactly who is reporting that
it's worth several hundred trillion although I notice you don't say what currency their
fortune is in but if it's Zimbabwean dollars that'd mean they're worth less than five dollars
bearing in mind that all Zimbabweans were almost certainly undecillionaires back in 2009.
ab initio | Oct 26, 2017 7:46:15 PM | 51 "Yes, the big question why did the top officials in
the intelligence agencies in the US and UK try so hard to take down Trump?"
I take it to mean Trump was a threat to the establishment, or at least a majority of the
establishment that controls MSM and CIA (then again it is more likely the CIA control the
establiushment and media). The threat has now passed and the Trump Putin meme is being wound
back. A few scapegoats from the swamp may lose their heads but thats about it.
Tillerson now treading the straight and narrow and fully on board for regime change
...
Since by all indications it took Romans a coupla centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire
to accept they were no longer top dog, eg the so-called 'dark ages' when the rule of roman
law disintegrated took a few hundred years to really kick off, we shouldn't be surprised that
many englanders struggle to accept their role of just being another beta in the pack. However
what interests me more is the group so well described by recently dubbed Aotearoan deputy PM
Winston Peters, as 'waka jumpers'. (a waka being the te reo name for a canoe).
Peters coined the term back in 1999 when the coalition government between the conservative
National Party and the Peters' formed New Zealand First Party, broke down and the government
lacked the numbers to guarantee supply etc. Some NZF MP's jumped ship over to the Natz
ignoring the policies under which the public gave them their electoral mandate.
Instead they took up bullshit cabinet positions which gave them increased salaries, all
sorts of travel perks for them and their families as well as the title 'Right Honourable'
etc. Needless to say there was no power attached to these new roles - nobody is gonna trust a
traitor - apart from which the Natz Party would have been deep in the doo-doo if they gave
actual power to outsiders while so many hacks 'n whores queued up dutifully in the National
Party waiting for their turn at copping a decent earner. That government limped along for
about 18 months before Helen Clark's Labour mob arseholed them.
Now the term waka jumpers shouldn't just be hung around the necks of the obvious target,
politicians - not when there are low lifes such as Rupert Murdoch, who swap nationalities
about as often as some change their underwear.
Murdoch kicked off existence as an australian then became an englander when he wanted to
dominate english TV and print media - that got him through quite a few british
parliamentary inquiries into media ownership. By the time he was ready to set up Fox and
still enjoy his print media ownership in amerika, Murdoch became an amerikan citizens. That
didn't affect his brit holdings cos once his buyouts had been approved there was no mechanism
for taking ownership back again.
The amerikan citizenship wasn't intended to be permanent, I have no doubt his marriage to
a NewsCorp executive based in Hongkong who 'just by chance' had PRC citizenship was the
beginning of a switch to a Chinese passport for old Rupe. However it rapidly became obvious
that such a move would cost fox big with its looney toons audience, so instead he set about
solving the expansion into China another way.
Murdoch got Star TV, plus China based web portals up and running without having to swap
nationality again - presumably by way of the 'three B's - bullying, blackmailing and
bribing.
That allowed him to give the Chinese missus the flick, so then he decided to do some PR
damage limitation in england & amerika by hooking up with Jaggers seconds, the Anglo
Amerikan Jerry Hall.
Many waka jumpers don't have to swap passports they follow the money eschewing any regard
for their compatriots in the process, and are the biggest obstacle to the notion of one world
that there is.
I reckon there would be nothing better than getting rid of borders and the associated
tyranny over individuals, except there are just too many arsehats out there who would twist
everything up, squirm thru loopholes and screw the rest of us over, so before that happens
more power must be devolved downwards and equality of education, opportunity etc must be much
more robustly organised. Then it makes sense, but any shift before that point and the usual
arseholes are gonna pull their usual strokes.
In this case most brits would be appalled that their establishment got so heavily involved
in another nation's electoral process, but no one asked them. Typically just as happens in
amerika, the call to take a side was made by a self-interested shadow state which has
entirely too much, too poorly defined power.
Issues of nationalism should be put to one side where that is possible, while all of us
ordinary human beings work together to flush the parasites outta their hidey holes.
@ Debsisdead who wrote:
Issues of nationalism should be put to one side where that is possible, while all of us
ordinary human beings work together to flush the parasites outta their hidey holes.
I agree! The cry for nationalism is a cry for further control by playing countries off
each other.....divide and conquer.
I would hope we can evolve to working terms for anthropological groupings of our species
that transcends nationalism but can be agreed upon as representing cultural significance and
cohesive regional identity.
Or maybe Trump will evolve the world to be a proper empire with galactic uniforms and
badges and stuff for all the MIC....to fit with the game show meme....
Interesting thread. Rich with turmoil. But very real, I think, and exploring ground that is
not that firm.
We know the Brits have been the "Step'n Fetchit" guy for the US spooks for a long time. We
gather that several decades ago, Langley used to be impressed by the English insouciance,
until the moles that tore holes in the UK fabric - Burgess, MacLean, Blunt etc. - destroyed
that old colonial myth of "effortless superiority", and revealed the worst quality of all,
incompetence.
The secret world has always shielded incompetence. The Wilderness of Mirrors is the only
place where you can generate the myth of quality through withholding the facts of your
actions. One suspects that the CIA is saturated with incompetence. Part of the reason that it
hated to see it in the Brits.
But the SAS could do things for the CIA that didn't need to get reported to the
legislatures of either country. So Britain could do a few hit jobs and earn a few points, a
few shekels. And MI6 must surely have been yearning to crawl back under the US intel umbrella
for a long, long time, until it regained trust somehow - probably from actions of unspeakable
subservience. So it's apparent that the relationship - at this point in history - between the
two spook enterprises is master and servant, US > UK.
A Le Carre fan could tell you all this, and plenty of analyses in the public sphere
could confirm it. So, in sum, there's absolutely no mystery why, or in what hierarchy of
relationship, the UK spooks would work for the US spooks.
The dossier is a US fabrication, merely using the lackeys du jour . All useful
analysis will flow from this.
Comey is actually a politician. And he definitely wanted to keep Russiagate hot, and probably was
instrumental in creating it ... As this situation suits him political desire for higher autonomy from
Justice Department
Notable quotes:
"... James Comey asserted in his extraordinary testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee that the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is authorized to override Justice Department oversight procedures, a questionable claim which if true would raise serious questions about long-standing rules aimed at preventing abuses by federal law enforcement officials. ..."
"... The former head of the FBI told the Senate panel that he believed he had received a direction from the president in February that the FBI end its investigation of Michael Flynn's alleged involvement with Russia -- a direction with which he and his kitchen-cabinet of "FBI senior leadership" unilaterally decided not to comply. The Comey cabinet then decided that it would not report the receipt of this direction to Attorney General Jeff Sessions or any other Justice Department superior. ..."
"... Rosenstein criticized Comey's decision to act without consultation from the Department of Justice as usurping the Attorney General's authority and an attempt to "supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department. Comey had violated a "well-established process" for how to deal with situations where to Attorney General faces a conflict of interest, according to Rosenstein. ..."
"... "The Director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General's authority on July 5, 2016," Rosenstein wrote. "The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department . ..."
"... Comey's assertion that the FBI can override standard protocols could endanger that independence, according to a former high-ranking federal law enforcement official. ..."
"... "Mr. Comey is describing an FBI director who essentially answers to no one. But the police powers of the government are awesome and often abused, and the only way to prevent or correct abuses is to report to elected officials who are accountable to voters. A director must resist intervention to obstruct an investigation, but he and the agency must be politically accountable or risk becoming the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover," the Wall Street Journal wrote . ..."
"... A 2005 report from the FBI's Office of Inspector General on the Department of Justice's guidelines for FBI investigations stated, "Attorneys General and FBI leadership have uniformly agreed that the Attorney General Guidelines are necessary and desirable, and they have referred to the FBI's adherence to the Attorney General Guidelines as the reason why the FBI should not be subjected to a general legislative charter or to statutory control over the exercise of some of its most intrusive authorities. " ..."
James Comey asserted in his extraordinary testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee
that the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is authorized to override Justice Department
oversight procedures, a questionable claim which if true would raise serious questions about long-standing
rules aimed at preventing abuses by federal law enforcement officials.
The former head of the FBI told the Senate panel that he believed he had received a direction
from the president in February that the FBI end its investigation of Michael Flynn's alleged involvement
with Russia -- a direction with which he and his kitchen-cabinet of "FBI senior leadership" unilaterally
decided not to comply. The Comey cabinet then decided that it would not report the receipt of this
direction to Attorney General Jeff Sessions or any other Justice Department superior.
The group decided that it could override standard FBI protocol and possibly legal obligations
to report the incident because of its expectations that Sessions would recuse himself from the Russia
matter, although that recusal would not come until weeks later. The Comey cabinet also decided that
it wasn't obligated to approach the acting Deputy Attorney General because he would likely be replaced
soon.
"We concluded it made little sense to report it to Attorney General Sessions, who we expected
would likely recuse himself from involvement in Russia-related investigations. (He did so two weeks
later.) The Deputy Attorney General's role was then filled in an acting capacity by a United States
Attorney, who would also not be long in the role," Comey said. "After discussing the matter, we decided
to keep it very closely held, resolving to figure out what to do with it down the road as our investigation
progressed."
According to three different former federal law enforcement officials, who spoke on the condition
of anonymity, there is no precedent for the director of the FBI to refuse to inform a Deputy Attorney
General of a matter because of his or her "acting" status nor to use the expectation of a recusal
as a basis for withholding information.
"This is an extraordinary usurpation of power. Not something you'd expect from the supposedly
by-the-books guys at the top of the FBI," one of those officials told Breitbart News.
The closest precedent to the Comey cabinet's decision to conceal information from Justice Department
superiors is likely Comey's widely criticized earlier decision to go public about the investigation
of Hillary Clinton's emails. That decision received a sharp rebuke in the May 9 memo by Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein that formed the basis for Comey's firing by Trump.
Rosenstein criticized Comey's decision to act without consultation from the Department of
Justice as usurping the Attorney General's authority and an attempt to "supplant federal prosecutors
and assume command of the Justice Department. Comey had violated a "well-established process" for
how to deal with situations where to Attorney General faces a conflict of interest, according to
Rosenstein.
"The Director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General's authority on July 5, 2016," Rosenstein
wrote. "The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed attorney General Loretta
Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and
assume command of the Justice Department . There is a well-established process for other
officials to step in when a conflict requires the recusal of the Attorney General. On July 5, however,
the Director announced his own conclusions about the nation's most sensitive criminal investigation,
without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders."
Comey's testimony on Thursday seemed to double-down on this defense, which amounts to a claim
that the FBI's top agents can act outside of the ordinary processes intended to establish oversight
and accountability at the nation's top law enforcement agency.
The FBI's adherence to Department of Justice guidelines and instructions from Attorneys General
has been a centerpiece of its ongoing independence, often cited by officials as a reason why the
FBI does not need a general legislative charter that would restrict or control by statute its authority.
Comey's assertion that the FBI can override standard protocols could endanger that independence,
according to a former high-ranking federal law enforcement official.
"He's not only put the credibility of the bureau in doubt, he's now putting the entire basis for
our independence in jeopardy," the official said.
The official pointed to an editorial in the Wall Street Journal as explaining the dangers of an
FBI that decides not to inform the Department of Justice of its activities.
"Mr. Comey is describing an FBI director who essentially answers to no one. But the police
powers of the government are awesome and often abused, and the only way to prevent or correct abuses
is to report to elected officials who are accountable to voters. A director must resist intervention
to obstruct an investigation, but he and the agency must be politically accountable or risk becoming
the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover," the
Wall Street
Journal wrote .
A 2005 report from the FBI's
Office of Inspector General on the Department of Justice's guidelines for FBI investigations stated,
"Attorneys General and FBI leadership have uniformly agreed that the Attorney General Guidelines
are necessary and desirable, and they have referred to the FBI's adherence to the Attorney General
Guidelines as the reason why the FBI should not be subjected to a general legislative charter or
to statutory control over the exercise of some of its most intrusive authorities. "
This is an interesting old article by guardian which suggest that Trump thought the Steele memo
was a blatant attempt to blackmail him launched against him by intelligence agencies. He proved to be
half-right. FBI was involved with Steele dossier and probably paid some money. It is unclear if
MI6 was involved but Steele would be really reckless if he did his job without consulting the agency.
This is not a regular report -- that was a direct interference into US election. The paper hint that
Steele source might be Ukrainians, not Russians.
Unverified and blighted with factual errors damaging
rumor/insinuation was picked up by media to damage Trump. This is so "color regulation style"
that it hurts.
Notable quotes:
"... Shift from measured tone to 'hysterical hostility' at press conference could destroy relationship with agencies Trump likened to Nazi Germany ..."
"... Clapper had denounced "the false and fictitious report that was illegally circulated". ..."
"... Before CNN reported that aspects of the dossier, acquired by the FBI in December from the Arizona Republican senator John McCain, ..."
"... Trump had previously referred to an intelligence " as the witch-hunt " and threw the CIA's fatefully erroneous 2002 assessment that Iraq possessed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction back in the agency's face. ..."
Shift from measured
tone to 'hysterical hostility' at press conference could destroy relationship with agencies Trump
likened to Nazi Germany
, experts say
A shaky
detente between
Donald
Trump
and the intelligence agencies he will soon control has broken down, as Trump wrongly accused
US intelligence of leaking an unverified, salacious document to damage his nascent presidency.
At a press conference on Wednesday, Trump said that "who knows, but maybe the intelligence agencies"
were responsible for the document, which he said would be "a tremendous blot on their record".
Earlier, Trump likened the intelligence agencies to "
Nazi Germany",
in a tweet, saying they "never should have allowed this fake news to 'leak' to the public. One
last shot at me".
... ... ...
James Clapper, US director of national intelligence, said he told Trump on Wednesday evening that
the [US] intelligence community had not been responsible for the leaking of the documents.
"I emphasized that this document is not a US intelligence community product and that I do not
believe the leaks came from within the IC," Clapper said in a statement. Trump referred to the call
in a tweet first thing on Thursday morning, which said
Clapper had denounced "the false and fictitious
report that was illegally circulated".
Before CNN reported that aspects of the dossier,
acquired by the FBI in December
from the Arizona Republican senator John McCain,
were briefed
to Barack Obama and Trump, no news organization had published the accusations, which purport to reveal
compromising information Russia possesses on Trump. Trump has denied them, and
NBC later reported
that the material was prepared for the Trump briefing, but not discussed.
Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee and a consistent critic of
spycraft excesses, told the Guardian it was "profoundly dangerous" for Trump to continue his feud
with the agencies.
"The president is responsible for vital decisions about national security, including decisions
about whether to go to war, which depend on the broad collection activities and reasoned analysis
of the intelligence community. A scenario in which the president dismisses the intelligence community,
or worse, accuses it of treachery, is profoundly dangerous," Wyden said.
... ... ...
Trump's outburst was a departure from the moderated tone he had taken on the intelligence agencies
since Friday, when he met with the director of national intelligence, James Clapper; FBI director
James Comey; NSA director Mike Rogers and CIA director John Brennan to discuss their
joint conclusion
that Russia had intervened extensively in the 2016 election to benefit Trump.
Trump had previously referred to an intelligence "
as the
witch-hunt
" and threw the CIA's fatefully erroneous 2002 assessment that Iraq possessed stockpiles
of weapons of mass destruction back in the agency's face.
Clapper and Rogers had warned of plummeting
morale within the intelligence community ahead of Trump's presidency. After the meeting, Trump spoke
of his "tremendous respect for the work and service done by the men and women of this community".
At his press conference on Wednesday, Trump simultaneously accepted and diminished the intelligence
assessment that Russia was responsible for the Democratic National Committee hack, saying "I think
it was Russia" and later adding the caveat: "
You know what? It could be others also.
"...
"... Also: "Now she is making what bar-napkin math suggests must be at least $700,000 a night." Since the theatre had 3,500 seats, and the reporter paid $200 for a seat in the top row of the upper balcony, he could be right about Clinton's gross. I'd love a transcript of one of these things . ..."
"Fear and loathing on Hillary Clinton's grievance tour" [
The Week ].
"Why, if you believe that miscellaneous 'Russians' -- at one point she referred to a generic character
named 'Igor,' which is funny if your level of engagement with Russian culture does not extend far
beyond Rocky and Bullwinkle horizons -- bought Twitter ads in the hope of targeting 60-
and 70-something union retirees in Macomb County, Michigan, would you not think you really
won?
Also: "Now she is making what bar-napkin math suggests must be at least $700,000 a night."
Since the theatre had 3,500 seats, and the reporter paid $200 for a seat in the top row of the upper
balcony, he could be right about Clinton's gross. I'd love a transcript of one of these things .
Hillary has achieved Mother Goddess status simply by achieving nothing -- except tons of cash.
The devotees of a cult are by definition deaf, blind and dumb. The deity encourages their fervour
daily by bestowing glamor and celebrity on their dull, everyday lives.
Regarding this piece: "Politics is not all that complicated. It is a game of incentives.
And, right now there is no incentive for Republicans to split from the President" [Amy
Walter, Cook Political Report].
I have to say thank you for putting me on to her writing. To my mind though the most
important point in the piece is this one:
Here's why this matters: Angry people vote. Complacent people sometimes vote and
sometimes don't. And dispirited or disillusioned people stay home.
That is the basics of all victories. If the DNC cared about winning as opposed to
fundraising they would take that to heart. But signing up voters it seems,is just not what
they *do* only slinging tote bags.
Portside article about NAFTA, unions, and Canadian unions: Here is a paragraph from the
underlying article at New York Magazine about the three sponsors:
On Wednesday, Democratic senators Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, and Kirsten Gillibrand
announced their agreement -- and introduced legislation to ban "right-to-work" laws
throughout the United States.
[NY Mag article is dated 20 Sept 2017]
The sooner we collectively kill off the feudal idea of "right to work," the better. Right
now, though, we're only what -- sixty, seventy–years too late?
Why didn't Democrats pass legislation in 2009 to eliminate it?
It was one of the few policies that I could think of what would actually, you know, help
the win elections. But then I realized the the purpose of the DNC isn't actually to win
elections, it's to raise money from Wall Street, Hollywood and Silcon Valley to pay for
consultants.
Why didn't Democrats pass legislation in 2009 to eliminate it?
Yeah, Captain Hope'N-Change failed to deliver labor any meaningful legislation during his
eight years in office.
Labor was essentially told "We put some friendly faces on the NLRB and in the judiciary.
Be thankful, and forget about card check or right to work preemption."
And it's a bad look anyway. With the basically insurmountable barriers to organizing under
the Wagner Act these days, a focus on making sure the money keeps flowing, much of it ending
up in the Ds campaign coffers. How about repealing Taft-Hartley?
Maybe unions would be better off with less bureaucracy and more member participation. Do
it like the Wobs: you come to the meeting, you pay your dues, you voice your opinion and you
vote.
The Closed Shop
Jurisdictional Strikes
Secondary Boycotts
Common Situs Picketing
A Ban on Right-to-Work
A Ban on presidential interventions in strikes
Supervisor's Unions
Employer Nuetrality
Hopefully this happens before I die. I would absolutely love to see the yacht and learjet
owning class in tears!
They not only write themselves they've already been written and burned into the brain.
True or not, there they are. So what are you risking?
The thing is the D-time is well past the point (no House, no Senate, no Pres, vanishing
amount of Govs, vanishing amount of State leges..) where saying "That's not true!!" can be
considered a winning strategy, even if you could show me what you've won by saying it.
How about "hell yeah that's how we feel, America rocked (when we had strong labor)". Stand
up to the bully for once, again whaddya got to lose now. I often wonder what Steve Gilliard
would say at this point, he always made sure that us white people realized that something was
better than nothing when you were looking at absolutely nothing at all . but things have sunk
so low would he still feel that what has become nothing more than an orderly, but continuous
retreat should be sustained? Or is it time to dig in and really declare full throated
opposition?
(like the rest of your post, just think the time to avoid things is past)
Henry Moon Pie: So? Let's repeal the Wagner Act and Taft-Hartley. And let's not pre-defeat
ourselves.
Just as Lambert keeps reminding us, Who would have though five years ago that the momentum
is now toward single-payer health insurance even if the current couple of bills don't pass?
For years, John Conyers carried on the fight almost single-handedly. And now we have
influential physicians stumping for single-payer.
"... After it was revealed that Rob Goldstone - the man who arranged the now infamous Trump Jr. " setup " with a shady Russian attorney, is associated with Fusion GPS - the firm behind the largely discredited 35 page Trump-Russia dossier, the co-founder of Fusion GPS abruptly canceled his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee next week to testify in the ongoing probe into Russian influence in the 2016 election, according to Politico . ..."
Co-Founder Of Trump-Russia Dossier Firm Cancels Testimony While
Lynch Claims Ignorance
The ongoing efforts to bring down Donald Trump are unraveling at an accelerating pace...
Glenn Simpson, Fusion GPS Co-Founder
After it was revealed that
Rob
Goldstone
- the man who arranged the now infamous Trump Jr. "
setup
" with a shady Russian attorney, is associated with Fusion GPS - the firm behind the
largely discredited 35 page Trump-Russia dossier, the co-founder of Fusion GPS abruptly
canceled his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee next week to testify in the
ongoing probe into Russian influence in the 2016 election, according to
Politico
.
The committee announced Wednesday that Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS was scheduled to
voluntarily appear on July 19.
During the 2016 US election, Simpson's firm hired former British spy Christopher Steele to
produce the 35 page dossier, accusing then-candidate Donald Trump of all sorts of salacious
dealings with Russians. When Steele couldn't verify it's claims, the FBI
refused to pay him $50,000
for the report - which didn't stop John McCain from
hand-delivering it
to former FBI director James Comey, or the Obama Administration from
using it to start spying on Trump associate
Carter
Page
.
That's two attempts to take down President Trump involving Fusion GPS.
A spokesman for the President's legal team told The Independent they now believed Ms
Veselnitskaya and her colleagues had misrepresented who they were and who they worked for.
"Specifically, we have learned that the person who sought the meeting is associated with
Fusion GPS, a firm which according to public reports, was retained by Democratic operatives to
develop opposition research on the President and which commissioned the phony Steele dossier ."
-Mark Corallo
Perhaps sensing he's totally screwed and now a huge liability to the deep state, Simpson
canceled his testimony next week.
Loretta Lynch Knows Nothing
After it
The Hill
at a press conference during his visit to France, stating "She [Veselnitskaya] was
here because of Lynch, following up with "Nothing happened from the meeting... Zero happened
from the meeting, and honestly I think the press made a big deal over something that many
people would do."
Lynch distanced herself in a Thursday statement, with a spokesperson claiming that the
former Attorney General "does not have any personal knowledge of Ms. Veselnitskaya's
travel."
The spokesperson did not go into detail about Veselnitskaya's case, but followed up by
saying "The State Department issues visas, and the Department of Homeland Security oversees
entry to the United States at airports."
After Lynch's DOJ allowed Veselnitskaya into the country to participate in a lawsuit and
nothing more , she had the now infamous meeting at Trump tower, met with current and former
lawmakers from both parties, and was spotted in primo front-row seating at a House Foreign
Affairs committee hearing on Russia.
The Moscow lawyer had been turned down for a visa to enter the U.S. lawfully but then was
granted special immigration parole by then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch for the limited
purpose of helping a company owned by Russian businessman Denis Katsyv, her client, defend
itself against a Justice Department asset forfeiture case in federal court in New York
City.
During a court hearing in early January 2016, as Veselnitskaya's permission to stay in the
country was about to expire, federal prosecutors described how rare the grant of parole
immigration was as Veselnitskaya pleaded for more time to remain in the United States.
"In October the government bypassed ?the normal visa process and gave a type of
extraordinary ?permission to enter the country called immigration parole," Assistant U.S.
Attorney Paul Monteleoni explained to the judge during a hearing on Jan. 6, 2016.
".. Lynch distanced herself in a Thursday statement, with a spokesperson claiming that the
former Attorney General "does not have any personal knowledge of Ms. Veselnitskaya's
travel."...
I suspect Loretta got some coachin' from Slippery Bill on the tarmac, how to say something
that only a fool would believe means anything.
" I do not have any personal knowledge of Ms Veselnitskaya's .... breakfast plans" what
does that mean?
The drunk on DNC propaganda religious MSNBC ultra left watchers are going to get very
agitated screaming "show trials" when their heroes start doing the orange jumpsuit frog
march. That is when it will get ugly in the streets and on the DC mall. Cheer up comrades, it
is going to get a lot worse.
This whole shit storm will be over soon, because if they peel back the final layer to this
story, they will find that the entire apparatus of Washington, DC is on the take.
and Veselnitskaya is linked to the Bill Browder/Edmund Safra Hermitage Capital Hedge Fund
through her work for people affected by Magnitsky Act........this swamp is certainly deep but
it is hard to know who is a swamp monster and who is being dragged in
How is $ 6 million "pennies on the dollar"? If the U.S. was at one time seeking $ 12
million, is a settlement for half that amount unusual as pre-trial settlements go?
Also how she now insists that it's State and DHS that handle this stuff, while in filed
court briefs in January, DOJ was all breathless about what an extraordinary, rare exemption
Ms. V received, direct from the AG.
Someone is lying. But then, lawyers are involved so I guess it's inevitable.
"... When I first read the memos, I knew none of the backstory, and looked forward to the salacious content to bring this clown down, particularly any facts showing that the Trump people had prior knowledge of the Russian hacks - a Watergate-sized story, if true, even if the effects of the hacks on the election are being overblown. But with nearly 40 years of investigative experience, mostly on international issues, the wording of the memos quickly caused me to slam on the breaks, because they were worded in such a way as to make confirmation of the charges impossible. The rule involved in making professional judgments on these kinds of things is simple: you look for information that can be proven either true or false, and from that factual template, you then build out one incontrovertible fact at a time. These memoranda had no such facts, with the possible exception of Cohen's trip to Prague, which the FBI told the WSJ was false. ..."
... think it was wrong for BuzzFeed to publish it and the media company
bears responsibility for this debacle, which has made the entire profession look even worse and generated
sympathy for, of all people, Donald Trump.
Simpson's firm is being berated at the moment but there are a lot
of companies in Washington who do the same thing - namely produce political and business intelligence
for paying clients - and they operate openly and everyone, including journalists, know who they are.
In terms of political intelligence, there are firms who work for Democrats and firms that work for
Republicans, and some who work for both. The Democrats don't have a monopoly on these firms as one
might imagine from the current hysteria.
... ... ...
As has been widely reported, the Trump dossier had circulated for
many months - at least as far back as August - and even though there was a fever on the part of the
media to get anti-Trump stories into print, everyone with the exception of David Corn of Mother
Jones declined to write about the "dossier," and even he only referred to parts of it. The fact
that dozens of journalists reviewed these documents and declined to use them, on the grounds that
their allegations could not be verified shows that the information contained within them was very
shaky.
I read the documents online and it's clear that they are thinly sourced and there
were apparently serious errors in them, for example the bit about Trump's attorney's trip to
Prague...
... ... ...
Whatever you think of Trump, he won this embarrassing election under
the rules of the game. (And yes, Hillary won the popular vote and in a serious democracy she would
have been declared the winner, but we are stuck for the time being with the Electoral College.) The
Golden Showers story is quite a sensational accusation to make given that he was about 10 days out
from inauguration. If Hillary had won the election would Buzzfeed have posted an unproven dossier
on her that alleged she had hired prostitutes during an overseas trip to Ukraine? I seriously doubt
it, especially given Buzzfeed's notable pro-Hillary tilt during the campaign.
... ... ...
When Chuck Todd accused Smith of publishing "fake news," he suggested
that BuzzFeed was just being a good Internet news organization and not letting the media and political
elite keep information from the public. This would be easier to take more seriously if BuzzFeed is
not so obviously a part of the media elite and doesn't fraternize so comfortably with the political
elite like most other news outlets. BuzzFeed was chasing clicks and that's fine, but dressing this
up as public service doesn't cut it and especially given the political calculations involved.
BuzzFeed's other excuse was that the documents were already being
talked about and were referred to in the Intelligence Community's very dubious report on Trump. But
the documents appear to have been given to various agencies by political figures seeking to burn
Trump, which BuzzFeed was only too happy to help out with. So it appears that Trump's political enemies
and media enemies were working together to get this information out before the inauguration.
I'd also note here one peculiar, and possibly unethical, thing about
the New York Times' behavior here. The Times, like everyone but BuzzFeed, didn't
publish the report but they wrote quite a bit about it. In an early story it said that they would
not identify the research firm behind the leaked memos because of "a confidential source agreement
with The New York Times." Then it revealed the firm's name in a later story and edited the earlier
one to take out the line about their confidential source agreement.
So it looks like the Times violated a confidentiality agreement, which
is pretty troubling...
... ... ...
Note: I'd strongly urge anyone following this story to friend long-time investigative
journalist and researcher Craig Pyes on Facebook. ....
Here is an excerpt:
When I first read the memos, I knew none of the backstory, and looked forward
to the salacious content to bring this clown down, particularly any facts showing that the Trump
people had prior knowledge of the Russian hacks - a Watergate-sized story, if true, even if the
effects of the hacks on the election are being overblown. But with nearly 40 years of investigative
experience, mostly on international issues, the wording of the memos quickly caused me to slam
on the breaks, because they were worded in such a way as to make confirmation of the charges impossible.
The rule involved in making professional judgments on these kinds of things is simple: you look
for information that can be proven either true or false, and from that factual template, you then
build out one incontrovertible fact at a time. These memoranda had no such facts, with the possible
exception of Cohen's trip to Prague, which the FBI told the WSJ was false.
"... Warning that a "soft coup" is being waged against Donald Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that he sees attempts in the United States to "delegitimize" US President-elect Donald Trump using "Maidan-style" methods previously used in Ukraine, where readers will recall president Yanukovich was ousted in 2014 following a violent coup, which many suspect was conducted under the auspices of the US State Department and assorted US intelligence operations. ..."
"... Putin said he doesn't believe that Donald Trump met with prostitutes in Russia, calling the accusations part of a campaign to undermine the election result, and suggested that an internal political struggle is underway in the United States despite the fact that the presidential election is over, and added that reports of alleged Russian dossier on Trump are fake as "our security services do not chase every US billionaire." ..."
Warning that a "soft coup" is being waged against Donald Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin
said that he sees attempts in the United States to "delegitimize" US President-elect Donald Trump
using "Maidan-style" methods previously used in Ukraine, where readers will recall president Yanukovich
was ousted in 2014 following a violent coup, which many suspect was conducted under the auspices
of the US State Department and assorted US intelligence operations.
Putin said he doesn't believe that Donald Trump met with prostitutes in Russia, calling the
accusations part of a campaign to undermine the election result, and
suggested that an internal political struggle is underway in the United States despite the fact
that the presidential election is over, and added that reports of alleged Russian dossier on Trump
are fake as "our security services do not chase every US billionaire."
Unsubstantiated allegations made against Trump are "obvious fabrications," Putin told reporters
in the Kremlin on Tuesday. "People who order fakes of the type now circulating against the U.S. president-elect,
who concoct them and use them in a political battle, are worse than prostitutes because they don't
have any moral boundaries at all," he said.
The Russian president,
cited by BBG, said that Trump wasn't a politician when he visited Moscow in the past and Russian
officials weren't aware that he held any political ambitions.
"... As Lambert has remarked, this is not the behavior of a confident elite. ..."
"... Trump has responded that Steele is a "failed spy". That is not an impetuous tweet. It's the assessment of both US and British intelligence agencies, including MI6, for which Steele worked undercover in Moscow between 1994 and 1996. His cover was blown; he was evacuated; and as British intelligence sources report this week, Steele has been unable to enter Russia for a decade. "No Russian with official links and knowledge would risk communicating with Steele for fear of being detected by Russian counter-intelligence," said an intelligence source in London, Said another: "I met [Steele] a couple of times and thought that for a relatively undistinguished man who never made very senior rank he was a smug, arrogant s.o.b. So I don't work with him. The description of his being the top expert on Russia in MI6 is bollocks. " ..."
"... The Steele dossier contains 35 pages, commencing on June 20, 2016, and ending on December 13, 2016. The published form can be read here . It comprises 17 reports. But the file numbering from 2016/ 080 to 2016/166 implies there were 86 such reports altogether, so only one in five has become public. What was in the remaining 67 reports is unknown. Unknown, too, is whether it's possible that over six months Steele was producing reports on Russia at the rate of 11 per month, 3 per week, one every two days. ..."
"... A London newspaper claims Steele was paid £200,000 for his job. The newspaper also claims that a friend of Steele "who does not want to be named, says he sold them in instalments at $15,000 (£12,300) a time every three weeks to anti-Trump Republicans looking for dirt on the tycoon in the run-up to the presidential nomination." This means there were no other reports in the series; the numbering was intended to mislead. That's not all. ..."
"... Steele's career in Russian intelligence at MI6 had hit the rocks in 2006, and never recovered. That was the year in which the Russian Security Service (FSB) publicly exposed an MI6 operation in Moscow. Russian informants recruited by the British were passed messages and money, and dropped their information in containers fabricated to look like fake rocks in a public park. Steele was on the MI6 desk in London when the operation was blown. Although the FSB announcement was denied in London at the time, the British prime ministry confirmed its veracity in 2012. Read more on Steele's fake rock operation here , and the attempt by the Financial Times to cover it up by blaming Putin for fabricating the story. ..."
As Lambert has remarked, this is not the behavior of a confident elite.
By John Helmer , the
longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist
to direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also been
a professor of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States,
and Asia. He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to
establish himself in Russia. Originally published at
Dances with Bears
Almost everyone goes to bed at night. Some get up to urinate. The older, less continent ones
can't get up easily, so they urinate on themselves. If properly cared for, they do so in what
is known in the geriatric product market as roll-ups.
A small minority arrange to be urinated upon by others, though not usually on the bed they
aim to sleep in. This may be an erotic pleasure for you, a perversion to the next man. The name
for it is Golden Showers. If conducted between consenting adults, it's not a crime. Paying for
it may be a crime, depending on the local law on procuring. In the Russian criminal code it's
not a felony but a misdemeanour with a fine so small it usually isn't enforced by the police;
certainly not in expensive big-city hotels.
A claim is being widely reported in the US media which supported Hillary Clinton for president
that President-elect Donald Trump paid for at least two ladies to urinate on the bed in the presidential
suite of the Ritz Carlton Hotel of Moscow. A former British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6)
agent named Christopher Steele has reported the episode in a memorandum dated June 20, 2016, because
he was paid by a US client to do it; and also because he was paid to speculate that the Russian
Security Service (FSB) filmed it, and has been blackmailing Trump ever since.
Trump has responded that Steele is a "failed spy". That is not an impetuous tweet. It's the
assessment of both US and British intelligence agencies, including MI6, for which Steele worked
undercover in Moscow between 1994 and 1996. His cover was blown; he was evacuated; and as British
intelligence sources report this week, Steele has been unable to enter Russia for a decade. "No
Russian with official links and knowledge would risk communicating with Steele for fear of being
detected by Russian counter-intelligence," said an intelligence source in London, Said another:
"I met [Steele] a couple of times and thought that for a relatively undistinguished man who never
made very senior rank he was a smug, arrogant s.o.b. So I don't work with him. The description
of his being the top expert on Russia in MI6 is bollocks. "
The story of the Obama-Trump bed, according to Steele, comes from 2013. Another story, the
one of the Putin bed on which Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi had sex with a prostitute
in Rome, dates from 2009. The true part has been verified with a tape the lady made of Berlusconi
boasting about the source of the bed as he exercised himself on it. Dmitry Peskov, spokesman for
Putin then and now, says the Trump-Obama bed story is "a complete fake. It's total nonsense."
But about the Putin-Berlusconi bed, he said at the time: "We reject this information. I am not
in a position to explain." In short, that bedtime story may be
true .
The Steele dossier contains 35 pages, commencing on June 20, 2016, and ending on December 13,
2016. The published form can be read
here . It comprises 17 reports. But the file numbering from 2016/ 080 to 2016/166 implies
there were 86 such reports altogether, so only one in five has become public. What was in the
remaining 67 reports is unknown. Unknown, too, is whether it's possible that over six months Steele
was producing reports on Russia at the rate of 11 per month, 3 per week, one every two days.
A London newspaper
claims Steele was paid £200,000 for his job. The newspaper also claims that a friend of Steele
"who does not want to be named, says he sold them in instalments at $15,000 (£12,300) a time every
three weeks to anti-Trump Republicans looking for dirt on the tycoon in the run-up to the presidential
nomination." This means there were no other reports in the series; the numbering was intended
to mislead. That's not all.
The Guardian newspaper, the Financial Times and US newspapers claim the dossier has been circulating
"for months and acquired a kind of legendary status among journalists, lawmakers, and intelligence
officials who have seen them",
according to one reporter.
According
to Financial Times reporter Courtney Weaver, she "investigated some of the allegations contained
in the report but was unable to confirm them." She has published them, nonetheless. For more on
Weaver's record for veracity in Moscow, read
this .
A source at a London due diligence firm which is larger and better known than Steele's
Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd. says "standard
due diligence means getting to the truth. It's confidential to the client, and not leaked. There
are also black jobs, white jobs, and red jobs. Black means the client wants you to dig up dirt
on the target, and make it look credible for publishing in the press. White means the client wants
you to clear him of the wrongdoing which he's being accused of in the media or the marketplace;
it's also leaked to the press. A red job is where the client pays the due diligence firm to hire
a journalist to find out what he knows and what he's likely to publish, in order to bribe or stop
him. The Steele dossier on Trump is an obvious black job. Too obvious."
Steele's career in Russian intelligence at MI6 had hit the rocks in 2006, and never recovered.
That was the year in which the Russian Security Service (FSB) publicly exposed an MI6 operation
in Moscow. Russian informants recruited by the British were passed messages and money, and dropped
their information in containers fabricated to look like fake rocks in a public park. Steele was
on the MI6 desk in London when the operation was blown. Although the FSB announcement was denied
in London at the time, the British prime ministry confirmed its veracity in 2012. Read more on
Steele's fake rock operation here
, and the attempt by the Financial Times to cover it up by blaming Putin for fabricating the story.
The wet bed story, as Steele reported it to his client who then leaked it to the media, looks
like this:
The June 20, 2016, memo, which started the wet bed story, reports seven sources, identified
as Source A through G. No other report in the dossier has as many sources; some of the original
seven reappear in the series. Look carefully to detect what the Clinton media have missed.
Source D isn't Russian at all. He is American; Steele reports him as a "close associate of
Trump who organized and managed his trips to Moscow". D claims to have been "present"; there is
a bedside armchair in the Ritz Carlton photograph, so "present" is possible.
Source E's identity has been blacked out in the first memo, but he is identified elsewhere
in the series as another American – a "Russian émigré figure close to Trump's campaign team" –
not to Trump himself. Within the space of a paragraph, however, he turns into an "émigré associate
of Trump". Several memos and weeks later, on August 10, this source has become "the ethnic Russian
associate of Trump".
The others reported by Steele to have been in on the wet bed story include Source F, "a female
staffer at the hotel when Trump stayed there". From the dossier it appears she told her story
to an American who was an "ethnic Russian operative" of the company run by Source E, the émigré.
So Source F isn't a direct or independent source at all. If this is beginning to bewilder you,
it should. The only sources for the wet bed story turn out to be Americans, not Russians at all.
Just how difficult it was for Steele to pinpoint Trump's sexual activities in Russia, as well
as his business, is indicated by the September 14 memo in the file. This claims to report Trump's
visits to St. Petersburg. No dates have been given. One source, termed as a Russian from the "local
services and tourist industry", reportedly told "a trusted Russian compatriot", three years after
the event, that Trump had "participated in sex parties in the city". How many people make a sex
party isn't reported; two may have sufficed. The memo reports no trace because "all direct witnesses
had recently been 'silenced', i.e., bribed or coerced to disappear".
Trump posed for this photograph during the Miss Universe pageant, one of his business
affairs in Moscow in November 2013. Source:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-russia-moscow-miss-universe-223173 In a
European newspaper
published on January 15, Trump confirmed this was the occasion for the wet bed story. Trump
said: "I just got a letter from people that went to Russia with me - did you see that letter -
very rich people, they went with me, they said you were with us, I was with them, I wasn't even
here when they said such false stuff. I left, I wasn't even there . . . I was there for the Miss
Universe contest, got up, got my stuff and I left - I wasn't even there - it's all." .
The same report by Steele admits it was "hard to prove" what business, if any, Trump had done
in St. Petersburg. The allegation that, in order to make no reportable real estate transactions,
Trump had "paid bribes to further his interests through affiliated companies", is presented in
the dossier as evidence of Trump's corruption. Steele was taking £12,000 to portray the businessman
as someone so inexperienced as to pay bribes before he had a deal, not during or after completion.
Steele's only Russian sources have no reported knowledge of Trump's sexual conduct. They include
two people reported as serving government officials – Source A, a "senior Foreign Ministry figure";
and Source G, a "senior Kremlin official". One is a retiree – a "former top level Russian intelligence
officer still active inside the Kremlin"; and one is "an official close to the Presidential Administration
head [Sergei] Ivanov". That makes four who British intelligence sources are certain had no contact
at all with Steele, his company, or foreigners. A source with direct knowledge of operations says:
"Basic rule [of MI6] is that you are probably identified after a couple of jobs. Then in any other
visit you might infect anyone you associate with." Second rule, according to this source, is that
by the time his cover was blown in 1996 Steele had "infected everyone he had been associated with
in Moscow." Since then all he has been able to collect is hearsay three or four times removed
from its origin.
Among Steele's kibitzers, he names a businessman, a "senior Russian financial officer"; "two
well-placed and established Kremlin sources", a "Kremlin insider", a "well-placed Russian figure",
and a "close associate of Rosneft President and Putin ally Igor Sechin". The duo claims that Peskov,
the presidential spokesman, had "botched" his role in the military coup in Turkey on July 15,
2016, and was in trouble with chief of staff Ivanov, the Russian intelligence agencies and Putin.
Steele's sources provided "no further details" so they didn't know what Peskov had done.
Steele failed to check the record. Had he done so, he would have discovered that Peskov made
a public denial of Middle East press reports claiming Russian military intelligence had warned
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of the plot against him, enabling him to survive. ""I don't
have such information and I don't know the sources, to which the news agency Fars is referring,"
Peskov declared . This was either
a less than convincing denial of the truth, or an incredulous falsehood. Either way, no Russian
source, civilian or military, has suggested Peskov had done anything remarkable. "If Peskov botched
that one," said a source in a position to know, "he does the same all the time. What's news about
that?"
The "Kremlin insider" – not an official, not a retiree, possibly a journalist – is presented
by Steele in a memo of October 19, 2016, as his only source for reporting that Trump's lawyer,
Michael Cohen, had met secretly with Kremlin officials "in the attempt to prevent the full details
of Trump's relationship with Russia being exposed." The "insider" had revealed what he knew "speaking
in confidence to a longstanding compatriot friend". However, between the two of them they didn't
know which Kremlin officials Cohen had met; where; when; or what had been discussed. The "insider"
did confide that Ivanov's replacement as chief of the presidential staff by his deputy, Anton
Vaino, on August 12, 2016, and Sergei Kirienko's transfer from the state nuclear power holding
Rosatom to deputy chief of the staff at the Kremlin on October 5 were both connected to the same
thing – the "need to cover up Kremlin's Trump support operation".
Ivanov, extreme left, has remained an active member of the National Security Council, as
this council session of January 13
shows . Russian
gossip and speculation on the reasons for Ivanov's exit from the chief of staff post were voluminous
at the time, including as many personal as policy and political reasons. Steele selected the story
his client asked for with a blind attribution in a crowd; added the adjective "Kremlin"; and submitted
a fresh invoice for £12,000.
The source "close" to Sechin was reported as saying that during a visit to Moscow in July 2016,
Carter Page, a sometime advisor to Trump, had met Sechin, and been told that Sechin "continued
to believe that Trump could win the US presidency". Sechin reportedly also told Page that if Trump
lifted US sanctions on Rosneft, he would offer "Page/Trump's associates the brokerage [sic] of
up to a 19 per cent (privatised) stake in Rosneft in return." This was reported on October 18.
On December 12 Carter, back in Moscow, told Russian reporters he had revisited Rosneft: "I had
the opportunity to meet with some of the top managers of the company Rosneft. The recent Rosneft
deal, in which the Qatar Fund and Glencore could take part is unfortunately a good example of
how American private companies are limited to a great degree due to the influence of sanctions."
Page added
: "The most classic example [of fake news] was of course the claims of my contacts with Igor
Ivanovich [Sechin] which would have been a great honor but nevertheless did not take place."
That Sechin and his associates at Rosneft had been scouring the global markets for a formula
to privatize a 19.5% stake in Rosneft had been well-known for months. No news either was Page's
personal interest in Russian deal-making to support his one-man business,
Global Energy Capital LLC
. Steele has run the two stories together for a client who knew neither, and for reporters at
the Clinton media who didn't check. Page's comments in Moscow reveal he has failed to understand
the "privatization" Sechin was intending. For details, read
this .
If Steele's operations were as well-known to the Russian services as the fake rock caper, the
Russians were capable of planting disinformation intended to confuse or mislead Steele and his
clientele, as well as the long line of Americans arriving in Moscow to advertise themselves as
Trump advisors. "Intelligence is not evidence, and Steele would have known, better than anyone,
that the information he was gathering was not fact and could be wrong", the Guardian has
reported . In Moscow Russian sources say Page has made a record of wishful thinking and hustling
for a job in the new administration; in Washington Trump's announcement of one has yet to be made.
Russian and western intelligence sources say there is one point the Steele dossier reports
more accurately than the report
issued on January 6 by the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence. That's entitled
"Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections". Although Air Force Lieutenant-General
James Clapper, the departing Director of National Intelligence (below, left), and his subordinates,
who authored this paper, refer to "Russia's intelligence services" – plural – they claim the operations
against civilian targets were conducted by just one, the military intelligence organization, GRU.
Watch carefully as the Clapper group slips from what it knows about military cyber warfare
(signals interception, weapons jamming) into civilian email hacking. "We assess with high confidence
that the GRU used the Guccifer 2.0 persona, DCLeaks.com, and Wikileaks to release victim data
obtained in cyber operations We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired
from the DNC [Democratic National Committee] and senior Democratic officials to Wikileaks."
Steele's dossier reports that the Russian information campaign was run very differently, and
from several different sources. In overall command, next to Putin, was his chief of staff until
August, Ivanov. Surveillance of Americans in Russia, including electronic and photographic, was
the responsibility of the FSB. The Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) was in charge of "targeting
foreign, especially western governments, penetrating leading foreign business corporations, especially
banks."
Peskov's role was to arrange for media publication of kompromat on Clinton and "black PR",
collected by the FSB and SVR. According to a "former intelligence officer, the FSB was the lead
organization within the Russian state apparatus for cyber operations." Not a word about the GRU.
The FSB, according to Steele, was reportedly in charge of "using botnets and porn traffic to
transmit viruses, plant bugs, steal data, and conduct 'altering operations' against the Democratic
party leadership. There is no mention of GRU. In Clapper's version, "Romanian hackers" were GRU
agents. In Steele's version they were "paid by both Trump's team and the Kremlin, though their
orders and ultimate loyalty lay with Ivanov as Head of the PA [Presidential Administration]."
The Steele memo No. 095 of July 2016 even admits there were "Trump moles" and "agents/facilitators
within the Democratic Party structure itself" who leaked internal Clinton campaign emails. The
Trump team, it is also reported, provided the Russians with the information that was their highest
priority – "the activities of [Russian] business oligarchs and their families' activities and
assets in the US." Memo no. 097 of July 30 repeats that "Putin's priority requirement had been
for intelligence on the activities, business and otherwise, in the US of leading Russian oligarchs
and their families." This didn't come from a Russian source. According to Steele, the source was
an American, who was also a Russian émigré, and who was "speaking in confidence to a trusted [American]
associate."
Both the Clapper and Steele dossiers depend on a great deal of speaking in confidence to trusted
associates, but they can't both be right about which Russian agency was in charge of which US
operation. A London associate of Steele's, who doesn't trust him, comments: "I am sure in this
case he left no stone unturned in his search for the truth. Steele and his associates became so
fixated on the import of what he had on his hands, he lost track of the fact that these are compelling
STORIES. Being plausible is vitally important, but that doesn't make the stories true. And if
not true, well they are dust. "
"There may have been only one Trump bed, but there are so many fleas."
As I commented about Mr. Steele several days ago, he must be a relative of the famous Remington
Steele. In true family tradition, both Steeles are products of falsehood. They bring a "little
joy into (peoples) humdrum lives," and "feel (their) hard work ain't been in vain for nuthin,"
to paraphrase that shining star in the firmament, Lina Lamont. All that's missing here is the
obligatory disclaimer; "This product sold for entertainment purposes only." That the "product"
is being bruited about as "real" and of consequence is the basic deception intended.
What should be of worry here is the fact that what passes for journalism today is actually
"disinfotainment." The Paris Revue it ain't.
Thanks for the debunking although Golden Showers Gate is so last week. Perhaps come Friday
the looney sitzkrieg period will finally be over and our famously free press can start reporting
some real stuff.
I know but I thought readers would still appreciate the fine detail, particularly regarding
Steele, since the later efforts to prop up the story revolved around finding some folks to
vouch for him.
Plus – if a patently fake (although plausible) story is not completely debunked, the problem
is that its after-effects linger on in people's consciousness for a long time
I put the odds at 99% that in 2020 we are still seeing polls indicating 50% of Americans
believe Russia hacks or influences America. 75% of Ds and 25% of Rs. In 2021, depending on
election outcome, the ratios may switch, or stay the same. Assuming we didn't have WW3 before
then.
By all means, thank you. Helmer always shines light from unusual directions, and the perspective
shown by looking in formerly unexamined nooks and crannies is always, well, illuminating.
It can't be hacking because Pedestal gave whomever his password. And it can't be espionage
because the DNC is a private organization. It can't be subversion because all the information
that was released was true, unlike the top secret smear campaign on Trump. Can't wait for Trump's
summary of hacking.
I only skimmed through this but thanks. Have had a couple of conversations with people about
this, uh, situation. People who despise Trump really really want to believe it from the bottom
of their hearts, and the fact that Mr. Steele is former MI6 just adds to their fervent belief
in this legend.
A buncha hooey, if ya ask me. From the get-go, Steele seemed desparate to me. He hasn't
been in Russia in quite a long time. I fail to see him as a credible source.
As "b" at Moon of Alabama has said, there's plenty of concerns about Trump, and we should
all be vigilent in witnessing what he does and responding accordingly. This crap is just more
distraction from actually paying attention to Trump's cabinet picks and their vetting process.
How much time has been wasted hyperventilating about golden showers, while some of these cabinet
weasels slip through the congressional vetting process without even having their ethics reviews
completed? Where's the outrage over that? As usual: crickets.
I'm so DONE with the Democratic party and their antics. They're appear to me to be signalling
that they're not intending to really play hard ball with Trump and, you know, actually do the
job that we are paying them to do. Rather they'd prefer to waste time, money and other resources
by trying to play "gotcha" with Trump overy stupid stuff.
This. Is the real point. The media is splashing around noisily like swimmers in a bidet
while some very nasty pieces of work are being installed in the highest office in the federal
bureaucracy. And then there's the new congress. You've got to be scouring the news every day
to catch word of the bills they are writing. As if nothing has changed, and the impact on our
lives will remain small and distant.
+1 yes and also the new Congress Maybe Trump is just a big fat DISTRACTION (although that
remains to be seen of course, I have no absolute certainty on what he will do after Jan 20,
but perhaps it really is all distraction even if unplanned).
And maybe Congress (and the appointees) hold the real power (and they are a piece of work!!!
And people bother protesting Trump and yet by the lack of such go around normalizing these
horrible, possibly even worse than Trump, Republicans that aren't Trump – people like Paul
Ryan).
Steele reminds me of a character in
The Tailor of
Panama , by John Le Carré. That book also could be used relative to
Curveball , who featured in our recent Iraq adventures.
There is an obvious demand for more books that allow us to predict the future.
I did want to find a true fact. Didn't ever believe the Golden Shower story. We know that
the Trump organization sold real estate in NYC to Russian Oligarchs. We can believe that Putin
would have motives to discover who of his orbits bought what & for how much.
Black, White, Red categories of jobs is of use to a fiction spy story writer.
Every big residential real estate developer in NYC sells condos to Russians. Selling real
estate to someone does not give them a hold over you. Let us not forget that the Chinese are
yuuge real estate buyers too but Trump has been rattling China's cage.
The link to the fake rock story, and apparently all the other links to Helmer's website.
Appear to be broken. Or his site is down. I was interested in that, seems like some real Spy
vs. Spy type stuff.
"... "It now turns out that the phony allegations against me were put together by my political opponents and a failed spy afraid of being sued," Trump wrote on Twitter Friday morning, adding , "Totally made up facts by sleazebag political operatives, both Democrats and Republicans – FAKE NEWS!" ..."
"... According to the New York Times , a wealthy Republican donor funded political opposition group Fusion GPS to investigate Trump. The investigation was continued by Hillary Clinton's Democratic supporters, and the group hired Steele to investigate Trump. ..."
President-elect Donald Trump continued excoriating the forces behind the published document
of unsubstantiated accusations of compromising behavior, accusing his political rivals for leaking
the document prepared by a private investigator.
"It now turns out that the phony allegations against me were put together by my political opponents
and a failed spy afraid of being sued," Trump
wrote
on Twitter Friday morning,
adding
, "Totally made up facts by sleazebag political operatives, both Democrats and Republicans
– FAKE NEWS!"
The Wall Street Journal
reported that former British spy Christopher Steele, now the director of a private investigation
firm, prepared the document.
According to the
New York Times , a wealthy Republican donor funded political opposition group Fusion
GPS to investigate Trump. The investigation was continued by Hillary Clinton's Democratic supporters,
and the group hired Steele to investigate Trump.
Trump again
pointed
to Russian
denials of possessing information on him and suggested "intelligence" sources released
it.
"... This is the faction that is now engaged in open warfare against the duly elected and already widely disliked president-elect, Donald Trump. They are using classic Cold War dirty tactics and the defining ingredients of what has until recently been denounced as "Fake News." ..."
"... Their most valuable instrument is the U.S. media, much of which reflexively reveres, serves, believes, and sides with hidden intelligence officials. And Democrats, still reeling from their unexpected and traumatic election loss as well as a systemic collapse of their party , seemingly divorced further and further from reason with each passing day, are willing - eager ..."
"... What's with the USIC vs. Trump infowar? One way to look at it: The United States Intelligence community on the one hand, and Trump, Inc. on the other, are two feuding organized crime families. ..."
"... Are the elites fighting for the pieces of the shrinking pie? We trapped in the valley are the Greek peasant watching the frivolities and the infighting of the Olympian Gods and Goddesses atop the mountain permanently occupied by those heavenly celebrities reincarnated as the 1% . ..."
"... The "Trump Memo" furor is an example of how the controlled media manufactures fake news by using a devious technique known as "leading with rebuttal"- whereby defamatory, unproved, and unprovable allegations can be publicized without fear of legal action, a former journalist with one of the large media corporations has revealed. read the rest at the link ..."
"... It's interesting that this "#SteeleGate" scandal hit the MSM just after the announcement of the appointment of RFK, Jr. to a new commission on vaccines and scientific rigor in Big Pharma (it's not that rigorous). "I'm a germophobe", said the teetotalling never-vaccinated President-elect. ..."
"... Widely-disliked by MSM victims, which I admit is most everyone. The MSM and their owners declared war against Donald Trump a long time ago, and they're not going to let a little thing like losing a presidential election get in the way. ..."
IN JANUARY, 1961, Dwight Eisenhower delivered
his farewell
address after serving two terms as U.S. president; the five-star general chose to warn Americans
of this specific threat to democracy: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." That warning
was issued prior to the decadelong escalation of the Vietnam War, three more decades of Cold War
mania, and the post-9/11 era, all of which radically expanded that unelected faction's power even
further.
This is the faction that is now engaged in open warfare against the duly elected and
already widely disliked president-elect, Donald Trump. They are using classic Cold War dirty
tactics and the defining ingredients of what has until recently been denounced as "Fake News."
Their most valuable instrument is the U.S. media, much of which reflexively reveres, serves,
believes, and sides with hidden intelligence officials. And Democrats, still reeling from their
unexpected and traumatic election loss as well as
a systemic collapse of their party , seemingly divorced further and further from reason with
each passing day, are willing - eager - to embrace any claim, cheer any tactic, align
with any villain, regardless of how unsupported, tawdry and damaging those behaviors might be.
The serious dangers posed by a Trump presidency are numerous and manifest. There are a wide
array of legitimate and effective tactics for combatting those threats: from bipartisan congressional
coalitions and constitutional legal challenges to citizen uprisings and sustained and aggressive
civil disobedience. All of those strategies have periodically proven themselves effective in times
of political crisis or authoritarian overreach.
But cheering for the CIA and its shadowy allies to unilaterally subvert the U.S. election
and impose its own policy dictates on the elected president is both warped and self-destructive.
Empowering the very entities that have produced the most shameful atrocities and systemic deceit
over the last six decades is desperation of the worst kind. Demanding that evidence-free, anonymous
assertions be instantly venerated as Truth - despite emanating from the very precincts designed
to propagandize and lie - is an assault on journalism, democracy, and basic human rationality.
And casually branding domestic adversaries who refuse to go along as traitors and disloyal foreign
operatives is morally bankrupt and certain to backfire on those doing it.
January 11, 2017 "Their ability to falsify is unlimited": Douglas Valentine provides background
for understanding "USIC v Trump"
What's with the USIC vs. Trump infowar? One way to look at it: The United States Intelligence
community on the one hand, and Trump, Inc. on the other, are two feuding organized crime families.
Are the elites fighting for the pieces of the shrinking pie? We trapped in the valley are
the Greek peasant watching the frivolities and the infighting of the Olympian Gods and Goddesses
atop the mountain permanently occupied by those heavenly celebrities reincarnated as the 1%
.
Here is an article outlining a journalistic technique getting some more notoriety these days:
The "Trump Memo" furor is an example of how the controlled media manufactures fake news by
using a devious technique known as "leading with rebuttal"- whereby defamatory, unproved, and
unprovable allegations can be publicized without fear of legal action, a former journalist with
one of the large media corporations has revealed. read the rest at the link
If any of the significant claims in this "dossier" turn out to be provably false - such
as Cohen's trip to Prague - many people will conclude, with Trump's encouragement, that large
media outlets (CNN and BuzzFeed) and anti-Trump factions inside the government (CIA) are deploying
"Fake News" to destroy him. In the eyes of many people, that will forever discredit - render
impotent - future journalistic exposés
LOL! The horse is long gone from that stable, I think.
Plenty to dislike about Greenwald, but he is certainly very intelligent and competent, and
almost always makes good points well, in his writings. In some ways, he clearly is more genuinely
principled than most on the left who make loud noises about supposed principles that they never
adhere to when it's inconvenient to do so.
If Christopher Steele's body is found in mysterious circumstances, say with a ricin pellet
or polonium poisoning, then I think we have to worry something is afoot.
"If Christopher Steele's body is found in mysterious circumstances, say with a ricin pellet
or polonium poisoning, then I think we have to worry something is afoot."
If the CIA have indeed declared war on DJT, Steele's in more danger from them than from
the FSB. After all , a death like that would 'prove' Steele correct.
Here is an article outlining a journalistic technique getting some more notoriety these days:
The "Trump Memo" furor is an example of how the controlled media manufactures fake news
by using a devious technique known as "leading with rebuttal"- whereby defamatory, unproved,
and unprovable allegations can be publicized without fear of legal action, a former journalist
with one of the large media corporations has revealed. read the rest at the link
NYTimes follows the script word for word, doubles down:
TODAY's HEADLINES:
How a Sensational, Unverified Dossier Became a Crisis for Donald Trump
By SCOTT SHANE, NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and MATTHEW ROSENBERG
"The consequences of the dossier, put together by a former British spy named Christopher Steele,
are incalculable and will play out long past Inauguration Day."
Carlos Slim's Blog (CSB = the NYT) calls Steele "respected". By whom? Typical journalistic
sleight-of-hand.
It's interesting that this "#SteeleGate" scandal hit the MSM just after the announcement
of the appointment of RFK, Jr. to a new commission on vaccines and scientific rigor in Big
Pharma (it's not that rigorous). "I'm a germophobe", said the teetotalling never-vaccinated
President-elect.
NYTimes follows the script word for word, doubles down:
TODAY's HEADLINES:
How a Sensational, Unverified Dossier Became a Crisis for Donald Trump
By SCOTT SHANE, NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and MATTHEW ROSENBERG
"The consequences of the dossier, put together by a former British spy named Christopher Steele,
are incalculable and will play out long past Inauguration Day."
http://tinyurl.com/ztkodcj
-- one question, tho: I thought public figures could not initiate libel suits ???
Carlos Slim's Blog (CSB = the NYT) calls Steele "respected". By whom? Typical journalistic
sleight-of-hand.
It's interesting that this "#SteeleGate" scandal hit the MSM just after the announcement
of the appointment of RFK, Jr. to a new commission on vaccines and scientific rigor in Big
Pharma (it's not that rigorous). "I'm a germophobe", said the teetotalling never-vaccinated
President-elect.
open warfare against the duly elected and already widely disliked president-elect
Widely-disliked by MSM victims, which I admit is most everyone. The MSM and their owners
declared war against Donald Trump a long time ago, and they're not going to let a little thing
like losing a presidential election get in the way.
It's going to be like this for a while, I daresay. Dig in for a long fight. But don't give
up. Never give up.
Lets support our soon to be President! To hell with the rubbish from the MSM. I don't watch
them, don't have cable,(I give a better use to the savings, take the family out at least once
a month), and my window to the world is the Internet!
January 11, 2017 "Their ability to falsify is unlimited": Douglas Valentine provides background
for understanding "USIC v Trump"
What's with the USIC vs. Trump infowar? One way to look at it: The United States Intelligence
community on the one hand, and Trump, Inc. on the other, are two feuding organized crime families.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/01/11/falsify/
Are the elites fighting for the pieces of the shrinking pie? We trapped in the valley are
the Greek peasant watching the frivolities and the infighting of the Olympian Gods and Goddesses
atop the mountain permanently occupied by those heavenly celebrities reincarnated as the 1%
.
open warfare against the duly elected and already widely disliked president-elect
Widely-disliked by MSM victims, which I admit is most everyone. The MSM and their owners declared
war against Donald Trump a long time ago, and they're not going to let a little thing like
losing a presidential election get in the way.
It's going to be like this for a while, I daresay. Dig in for a long fight. But don't give
up. Never give up.
Lets support our soon to be President! To hell with the rubbish from the MSM. I don't watch
them, don't have cable,(I give a better use to the savings, take the family out at least once
a month), and my window to the world is the Internet!
This "dossier" is what Steve Sailer calls, of social justice warrior bully tactics, a "hate
hoax."
And we all know how irresistible hate hoaxes are and how valuable as propaganda hate hoaxes
are to the Invade The World / Invite The World E$tabli$hment $ellout schmucks who hold the Megaphone
– the same schmucks who bury their follow-up reports that admit that they were wrong about the
"truth" of such "incidents" that are, of course, the usual series of hate hoaxes.
The same schmucks whose Megaphone told us that Saddam's nonexistent WMD's and yellowcake formed
a genuine casus belli , that Trayvon Martin was a cute innocent juvenile murdered deliberately
by a "White Hispanic," that "Hands Up, Don't Shoot!" were all gospel truth.
If Christopher Steele's body is found in mysterious circumstances, say with a ricin pellet
or polonium poisoning, then I think we have to worry something is afoot.
"If Christopher Steele's body is found in mysterious circumstances, say with a ricin
pellet or polonium poisoning, then I think we have to worry something is afoot."
If the CIA have indeed declared war on DJT, Steele's in more danger from them than from
the FSB. After all , a death like that would 'prove' Steele correct.
The Deeps State better mind their manners lest DT send a busload of Hillbilly's over to get
midevil on their skinny asses. Don't think they won't know where to look or how to get er done.
Heads will be on pikes if they don't watch themselves.
"The deep state was responsible for Trump" – remember how convincing that sounded a month ago?
What happened? Not much at all. The 'show', as it were, goes on. Now we're to suspect the "deep
state was for Trump before they were again' Trump." Entertained yet? They hope so. A great fear
of the dictorial oligarchy is that the average rube will doubt the presentation of team sports
via the courtesans in elected office and their whore/megaphones in the ministry of truth. The
show must go on. Alternatively, Americans can decide they're no longer interested. Look out!
I would hesitate to credit the 1% as lead instigators in this orgy of chaos; they are mainly
above the fray. I would look to their minions who appear terrified the boat may leave and their
tickets canceled. But it is a splendid display of puerility; we are truly shameless. Imagine
this country faced with a real crisis; no don't. We still must pretend we are sane and nobody
around the world is listening and watching the show. Altogether now: WE'RE NUMBER ONE!
Today the
Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC)
alleging the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign committee
violated campaign finance law by failing to accurately disclose the purpose and recipient of
payments for the dossier of research alleging connections between then-candidate Donald Trump
and Russia. The CLC's complaint asserts that by effectively hiding these payments from public
scrutiny the DNC and Clinton "undermined the vital public information role of campaign
disclosures."
On October 24, The Washington Post revealed that the DNC and Hillary for America paid
opposition research firm Fusion GPS to dig into Trump's Russia ties, but routed the money
through the law firm Perkins Coie and described the purpose as "legal services" on their FEC
reports rather than research. By law, campaign and party committees must disclose the reason
money is spent and its recipient.
"By filing misleading reports, the DNC and Clinton campaign undermined the vital public
information role of campaign disclosures," said Adav Noti, senior director, trial litigation
and strategy at CLC, who previously served as the FEC's Associate General Counsel for Policy.
"Voters need campaign disclosure laws to be enforced so they can hold candidates accountable
for how they raise and spend money. The FEC must investigate this apparent violation and take
appropriate action."
"Questions about who paid for this dossier are the subject of intense public interest, and
this is precisely the information that FEC reports are supposed to provide," said Brendan
Fischer, director, federal and FEC reform at CLC. "Payments by a campaign or party committee to
an opposition research firm are legal, as long as those payments are accurately disclosed. But
describing payments for opposition research as 'legal services' is entirely misleading and
subverts the reporting requirements."
While details of the payment arrangements remain
scarce, FEC records indicate that the Hillary campaign and the DNC paid a total of $12 million
to Perkins Coie for "legal services." Marc Elias, a Perkins partner and general counsel for
Hillary's campaign, then used some portion of those funds to turn around and hire Fusion GPS
who then contracted with a former British spy, Christopher Steele, to compile the now-infamous
dossier. Per the
Daily Caller :
It was revealed on Tuesday that the Clinton campaign and DNC began paying Fusion GPS, the
research firm that commissioned the dossier, last April to continue research it was conducting
on Trump. The Washington Post reported that Fusion approached lawyers at Perkins Coie, the firm
that represented the campaign and DNC, offering to sell its investigative services.
Marc Elias, a Perkins Coie partner, and the general counsel for the campaign and DNC,
oversaw the operation, according to The Post.
It is not clear how much Democrats, through Perkins Coie, paid Fusion for the project, which
lasted until early November. Federal Election Commission records show that the campaign and DNC
paid the law firm $12 million during the election cycle.
Ironically, most of the sources listed in the dossier were based in Russia and include a
"senior Kremlin official" as well as other "close associates of Vladimir Putin." Moreover, as
CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell notes, it's h ighly likely that some portion of the $12
million paid to Perkins Coie by the DNC and Hillary campaign made it's way into the pockets of
those "senior Kremlin officials" as compensation for the services.
In the dossier, Steele cites numerous anonymous sources, many of which work in the upper
echelons of the Russian government.
The first two sources cited in the dossier's first memo, dated June 20, 2016, are "a senior
Russian Foreign Ministry figure" and "a former top level Russian intelligence officer still
active inside the Kremlin."
A third source is referred to as "a senior Russian financial official." Other sources in the
dossier are described as "a senior Kremlin official" and sources close to Igor Sechin, the head
of Russian oil giant Rosneft and a close associate of Vladimir Putin's.
To summarize, after a full year of mainstream media hysteria over alleged Trump-Russia
collusion, it now appears as though the Hillary campaign may have been the only one to funnel
cash to "Kremlin operatives" in return for political dirt...
Of course, we have no doubt that Hillary was in the dark about all of these
arrangements.
trump will closely (hillery's undoing) follow suit as a 'Protest far greater than the
final days of the Vietnam Era' sweep the country....--- wanting war with NK (China &
Russia).
The long-help suspicions that Andrew McCabe is intimately involved in this dossier
procurement are gaining traction:
"...FBI insiders say fired FBI Director James Comey and Andrew McCabe , deputy FBI
director, used Bureau funds to underwrite the controversial dossier on President Donald Trump
during the 2016 presidential election, sources confirm.
And the deal to dig dirt on a presidential candidate was put together with the help of
Sen. John McCain, sources said.
These new revelations in fact might be the worst kept secrets in Washington, D.C. but now
rank-and-file FBI agents want the Bureau to come clean on its relationship with the author of
the problematic Trump dossier, former British spy Christopher Steele..."
"...Senate investigators are demanding to see records of communications between Fusion GPS
and the FBI and the Justice Department, including any contacts with former Attorney General
Loretta Lynch , now under congressional investigation for possibly obstructing the Hillary
Clinton email probe, and deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe , who is under investigation by
the Senate and the Justice inspector general for failing to recuse himself despite financial
and political connections to the Clinton campaign through his Democratic activist wife.
Senate investigators have singled out McCabe as the FBI official who negotiated with
Steele..."
"...Steele hadn't worked in Moscow since the 1990s and didn't actually travel there to
gather intelligence on Trump firsthand. He relied on third-hand "friend of friend" sourcing.
In fact, most of his claimed Russian sources spoke not directly to him but "in confidence to
a trusted compatriot" who, in turn, spoke to Steele -- and always anonymously.
But his main source may have been Google. Most of the information branded as
"intelligence" was merely rehashed from news headlines or cut and pasted -- replete with
errors -- from Wikipedia.
In fact, much of the seemingly cloak-and-dagger information connecting Trump and his
campaign advisers to Russia had already been reported in the media at the time Steele wrote
his monthly reports..."
"... Mr. McCabe's appearance of a partisan conflict of interest relating to Clinton
associates only magnifies the importance of those questions. That is particularly true if Mr.
McCabe was involved in approving or establishing the FBI's reported arrangement with Mr.
Steele, or if Mr. McCabe vouched for or otherwise relied on the politically-funded dossier in
the course of the investigation. Simply put, the American people should know if the FBI's
second-in-command relied on Democrat-funded opposition research to justify an investigation
of the Republican presidential campaign...."
Now it is clear that Steele dossier was clearly a British intelligence services fake ordered and
paid by DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign... And now we know who paid for it. and we know
who tried to "spread the news". Atlantic tried to embellish actions of DNC and Hillary Clinton
campaign but there were clearly against the law.
Not that different from Iraq WMD and uranium purchase story
Notable quotes:
"... Other reporting, including from my colleague Rosie Gray , has already begun to poke holes in the assertions contained in the dossier. Trump denied the report on Twitter, writing, "FAKE NEWS - A TOTAL POLITICAL WITCH HUNT!" Now that the documents are in the public domain, the work under way within some news organizations to suss out what is true in the report will likely accelerate. ..."
"... Lawfare ..."
"... That raises a range of potential objections. First, it unfairly forces a public figure -- Trump, in this case -- to respond to a set of allegations that might or might not be entirely scurrilous; the reporters, by their own admission, do not know. ..."
Late Tuesday afternoon, CNN published a story reporting that intelligence officials had given
Trump, President Obama, and eight top members of Congress a two-page memo, summarizing allegations
that Russian agents claimed they had compromising information on Trump. (If you're finding this chain
difficult to follow, you're not alone;
I tried to parse the story in some detail here .) CNN said officials had given no indication
that they believed the material in the memo to be accurate. That memo, in turn, was based on 35 pages
of materials gathered by a former British intelligence operative who had gathered them while conducting
opposition research for various Trump opponents, both Republicans and Democrats.
The story left many questions unanswered -- most importantly, whether the claims were accurate,
but also just what the claims were; CNN said it was withholding the contents of the memo because
it could not independently verify the allegations.
The second question was answered in short order, when BuzzFeed
posted a PDF of the 35-page dossier a little after 6 p.m. Even in their posting, BuzzFeed
acknowledged some misgivings about the document, admitting that it was full of unverified claims.
"It is not just unconfirmed: It includes some clear errors," the story noted. Verified or not, the
claims were highly explosive, and in some cases quite graphic. Because they are not verified, I will
not summarize them here, though they can be read at BuzzFeed or in any other number of places.
Other reporting,
including from my colleague Rosie Gray , has already begun to poke holes in the assertions contained
in the dossier. Trump denied the report on Twitter, writing, "FAKE NEWS - A TOTAL POLITICAL WITCH
HUNT!" Now that the documents are in the public domain, the work under way within some news organizations
to suss out what is true in the report will likely accelerate.
Sensing that the decision to publish would be controversial, BuzzFeed editor-in-chief
Ben Smith wrote a memo to staff explaining the thinking, and
then posted it
on Twitter .
"Our presumption is to be transparent in our journalism and to share what we have with our readers.
We have always erred on the side of publishing. In this case, the document was in wide circulation
at the highest levels of American government and media," Smith wrote. "Publishing this document was
not an easy or simple call, and people of good will may disagree with our choice. But publishing
the dossier reflects how we see the job of reporters in 2017."
Smith alluded to the document's wide circulation, a nod to the fact that many outlets have either
acquired or been offered the chance to view it -- a group that includes CNN, Politico (
whose Ken Vogel said he'd chased the story ), and Lawfare
. David Corn of Mother Jones also
published a story based on information collected by the British intelligence operative in October.
Smith's reasoning is sincere and considered, but the conclusion is highly dubious. Even more perturbing
was the reasoning in the published story. "Now BuzzFeed News is publishing the
full document so that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect
that have circulated at the highest levels of the US government," the story stated.
That raises a range of potential objections. First, it unfairly forces a public figure --
Trump, in this case -- to respond to a set of allegations that might or might not be entirely scurrilous;
the reporters, by their own admission, do not know. Second, the appeal to "transparency" notwithstanding,
this represents an abdication of the basic responsibility of journalism. The reporter's job is not
to simply dump as much information as possible into the public domain, though that can at times be
useful too, as some of WikiLeaks' revelations have shown. It is to gather information, sift through
it, and determine what is true and what is not. The point of a professional journalist corps is to
have people whose job it is to do that work on behalf of society, and who can cultivate sources and
expertise to help them adjudicate it. A pluralistic press corps is necessary to avoid monolithic
thinking among reporters, but transparent transmission of misinformation is no more helpful or clarifying
than no information at all.
Looks like the US Senate is a real can of worms...
Notable quotes:
"... One involved the media, which in October were given and encouraged to publish the "report" by the authors of the report (or their sponsors), purportedly a former British intelligence officer working for a private intelligence company ..."
"... Remember, we have a dubious report constructed for the purpose of discrediting Donald Trump, which was first commissioned by one of his Republican primary rivals and later completed under the patronage of someone in Hillary's camp. ..."
"... Enter John McCain. According to media reports, the dossier was handed to Sen. McCain -- again, a strong Trump opponent and proponent of conflict with Russia -- by a former UK ambassador (who presumably received it from the source, a former British intelligence officer). ..."
"... Senator McCain is the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, one of the most powerful members of the US Senate. Consider the impact of being handed a strange report by some private intelligence-firm-for-hire or a media outlet versus being handed a report by one of the most powerful men in the US government. McCain's involving himself in the case gave the report a sense of legitimacy that it would not otherwise have had. Was this "laundering" intentional on his part? We do not know, but given his position on Trump and Russia that possibility must be considered. ..."
"... So great was the pressure on McCain to come clean on his decision to meet privately with the FBI Director to hand over this report that he released a statement earlier today portraying himself as nothing more than a good citizen, passing information to the proper authorities for them to act on if they see fit. ..."
We all know what money laundering is. When you need to hide the fact that the money in your possession
comes by way of nefarious sources, you transfer it through legitimate sources and it appears clean
on the other end. It's standard practice among thieves, extortionists, drug dealers, and the like.
The same practice can even be used to "clean" intelligence that comes by dubious sources, and
sometimes even US Senators may involve themselves in such dark activities. Case in point US Senator
John McCain (R-AZ), whose virulent opposition to Donald Trump is outmatched only by his total dedication
to fomenting a new cold (or hot?) war with Russia.
While the world was caught up in the more salacious passages from a purported opposition research
report on Donald Trump showing all manner of collusion with Putin's Russia -- and Russia's possession
of blackmail-able kompromat
on Trump -- something very interesting was revealed about the custody of the information.
The "dossier" on Trump seemed to follow two chains of custody. One involved the media, which in October
were given and encouraged to publish the "report" by the authors of the report (or their sponsors),
purportedly a former British intelligence officer working for a private intelligence company. Only
David Corn of Mother Jones bit, and his resulting story picked over the report to construct a mess
of innuendo on Trump's relation to Russia that was short on any evidence.
The other chain of custody is what interests us. Remember, we have a dubious report constructed
for the purpose of discrediting Donald Trump, which was first commissioned by one of his Republican
primary rivals and later completed under the patronage of someone in Hillary's camp. It was created
for a specific political purpose, which may have tainted its reception among more objective governmental
sources had that been known.
Enter John McCain. According to
media reports, the dossier was handed to Sen. McCain -- again, a strong Trump opponent and proponent
of conflict with Russia -- by a former UK ambassador (who presumably received it from the source,
a former British intelligence officer).
Senator McCain then felt duty-bound to bring this "intelligence report" directly (and privately)
to the personal attention of FBI Director James Comey. From this hand-off to Comey, the report then
became part of the Intelligence Community's assessment of Russian interference in the US presidential
election.
Senator McCain is the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, one of the most powerful
members of the US Senate. Consider the impact of being handed a strange report by some private intelligence-firm-for-hire
or a media outlet versus being handed a report by one of the most powerful men in the US government.
McCain's involving himself in the case gave the report a sense of legitimacy that it would not otherwise
have had. Was this "laundering" intentional on his part? We do not know, but given his position on
Trump and Russia that possibility must be considered.
So great was the pressure on McCain to come clean on his decision to meet privately with the
FBI Director to hand over this report that he
released a statement earlier today portraying himself as nothing more than a good citizen, passing
information to the proper authorities for them to act on if they see fit.
"... For Donald Trump, all attempts to gain a foothold in the USSR and then in Russia in 30 years of travel and negotiations failed. Moscow did not have a Trump Tower of its own, although Trump boasted every time that he had met the most important people and was just about to invest hundreds of millions in a project that would undoubtedly be successful. ..."
"... Trumps' largest business success in Russia was the presentation of a Trump Vodka at the Millionaire Fair 2007 in Moscow. This project was also a cleansing; In 2009 the sale of Trump Vodka was discontinued. ..."
"... puts his name on stuff ..."
"... (2) Zhirinovsky Is The Very Last Person Putin Would Use For A Proxy ..."
"... Such a delicate plan – to reach the election of a President of the US by means of Zhirinovsky – ensures a skeptical smile for every Russian at best. He is already seventy and has been at the head of a party with a misleading name for nearly thirty years. The Liberal Democratic Party is neither liberal nor democratic. If their policies are somehow characterized, then as right-wing populism. Zhirinovsky is known for shrill statements; He threatened, for example, to destroy the US by means of "gravitational weapons". ..."
"... Why Would Russian Intelligence Agencies Sources Have Talked to Steele? ..."
"... But the report, published on the BuzzFeed Internet portal, is full of inconsistencies and contradictions. The problem is not even that there are a lot of false facts. Even the assumption that agents of the Russian secret services are discussing the details with a former secretary of a hostile secret service in the midst of a highly secret operation by which a future President of the US is to be discredited appears strange. ..."
"... Exactly. For the intelligence community and Democrat reliance on Steele's dossier to be plausible, you have to assume 10-foot tall Russkis (1) with incredibly sophisticated strategic, operational, and technical capabilities, who have (2) performed the greatest intelligence feat of the 21st and ..."
"... Donald Trump went on Howard Stern for, like, decades. The stuff that's right out there for whoever wants to roll those tapes is just as "compromising" as anything in the dodgy dossier, or the "grab her by the pussy" tape, for that matter. As Kowaljow points out, none of it was mortally wounding to Trump; after all, if you're a volatility voter who wants to kick over the table in a rigged game, you don't care about the niceties. ..."
"... transition ..."
"... And that's before we get to ObamaCare, financial regulation, gutting or owning the CIA (which Trump needs to do, and fast), trade policy, NATO, China, and a myriad of other stories, all rich with human interest, powerful narratives, and plenty of potential for scandal. Any one of them worthy of A1 coverage, just like the Inaugural crowd size dogpile that's been going on for days. ..."
"... Instead, the press seems to be reproducing the last gasps of the Clinton campaign, which were all about the evils of Trump, the man. That tactic failed the Clinton campaign, again because volatility voters weren't concerned with the niceties. And the same tactic is failing the press now. ..."
In any case, a link to the following story in Hamburg's ridiculously sober-sided Die Zeit came
over the transom:
So schockiert von Trump wie alle anderen ("So shocked by Trump like everyone else"). The reporter
is Alexej Kowaljow
, a Russian journalist based in Moscow. Before anyone goes "ZOMG! The dude is Russian
!", everything Kowaljow writes is based on open sources or common-sense information presumably available
to citizens of any nation. The bottom line for me is that if the world is coming to believe that
Americans are idiots, it's not necessarily because Americans elected Trump as President.
I'm going to lay out two claims and two questions from Kowaljow's piece. In each case, I'll quote
the conventional, Steele and intelligence community-derived wisdom in our famously free press, and
then I'll quote Kowaljow. I think Kowaljow wins each time. Easily. I don't think Google Translate
handles irony well, but I sense that Kowaljow is deploying it freely.
(1) Trump's Supposed Business Dealings in Russia Are Commercial Puffery
Here's
the
section on Russia in Time's article on Trump's business dealings; it's representative. I'm going
to quote it all so you can savor it. Read it carefully.
Donald Trump's Many, Many Business Dealings in 1 Map
Russia
"For the record, I have ZERO investments in Russia," Trump
tweeted
in July, one day before he called on the country to "find" a batch of emails deleted from
Hillary Clinton's private server. Nonetheless, Russia's extraordinary meddling in the 2016 U.S.
election-a declassified report released by U.S. intelligence agencies in January disclosed that
intercepted conversations captured senior Russian officials celebrating Trump's win-as well as
Trump's complimentary remarks about Russian President have stirred widespread questions about
the President-elect's pursuit of closer ties with Moscow. Several members of Trump's inner circle
have business links to Russia, including former campaign manager Paul Manafort, who
consulted for pro-Russia politicians in the Ukraine. Former foreign policy adviser Carter
Page worked in Russia and
maintains ties there.
During the presidential transition, former Georgia Congressman and Trump campaign surrogate
Jack Kingston
told a gathering of businessmen in Moscow that the President-elect could lift U.S. sanctions.
According to his own son, Trump has long relied on Russian customers as a source of income.
"Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets," Donald Trump
Jr.
told a Manhattan real estate conference in 2008 , according to an account posted on the website
of trade publication eTurboNews. "We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia."
Back to map .
Read that again, if you can stand it. Do you see the name of an actual business, owned by Trump?
Do you see the name of any businessperson who closed a deal with Trump? Do you, in fact, see any
reporting at all? At most, you see commercial puffery by Trump the Younger: "Russians [in Russia?]
make up a pretty [qualifier] disproportionate [whatever that means] cross-section [whatever that
means] of a lot of [qualifier] our assets."
Now Kowaljow (via Google Translate, so forgive any solecisms):
For Donald Trump, all attempts to gain a foothold in the USSR and then in Russia in 30
years of travel and negotiations failed. Moscow did not have a Trump Tower of its own, although
Trump boasted every time that he had met the most important people and was just about to invest
hundreds of millions in a project that would undoubtedly be successful.
Trumps' largest business success in Russia was the presentation of a Trump Vodka at the
Millionaire Fair 2007 in Moscow. This project was also a cleansing; In 2009 the sale of Trump
Vodka was discontinued.
Because think about it: Trump puts his name on stuff . Towers in Manhattan, hotels, casinos,
golf courses, steaks. Anything in Russia with Trump's name on it? Besides the failed vodka venture?
No? Case closed, then.
(2) Zhirinovsky Is The Very Last Person Putin Would Use For A Proxy
Five reasons intel community believes Russia interfered in election
The attacks dovetailed with other Russian disinformation campaigns
The report covers more than just the hacking effort. It also contains a detailed list account
of information warfare against the United States from Russia through other means.
Political party leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who the report lists as a "pro-Kremlin proxy,"
said before the election that, if Trump won, Russia would 'drink champagne' to celebrate their
new ability to advance in Syria and Ukraine.
Now Kowaljow:
The report of the American intelligence services on the Russian interference in the US elections,
published at the beginning of January, was notoriously neglected by Russians, because the name
of Vladimir Zhirinovsky was mentioned among the "propaganda activities of Russia", which had announced
that in the event of an election victory of Trump champagne to want to drink.
Such a delicate plan – to reach the election of a President of the US by means of Zhirinovsky
– ensures a skeptical smile for every Russian at best. He is already seventy and has been at the
head of a party with a misleading name for nearly thirty years. The Liberal Democratic Party is
neither liberal nor democratic. If their policies are somehow characterized, then as right-wing
populism. Zhirinovsky is known for shrill statements; He threatened, for example, to destroy the
US by means of "gravitational weapons".
If, therefore, the Kremlin had indeed had the treacherous plan of helping Trump to power, it
would scarcely have been made known about Zhirinovsky.
The American equivalent would be. Give me a moment to think of an American politician who's both
so delusional and such a laughingstock that no American President could possibly
consider using them as a proxy in a devilishly complex informational warfare campaign Sara Palin?
Anthony Weiner? Debbie Wasserman Schultz? Na ga happen.
And now to the two questions.
(3) Why Would Russian Intelligence Agencies Sources Have Talked to Steele?
Kowaljow:
But the report, published on the BuzzFeed Internet portal, is full of inconsistencies and
contradictions. The problem is not even that there are a lot of false facts. Even the assumption
that agents of the Russian secret services are discussing the details with a former secretary
of a hostile secret service in the midst of a highly secret operation by which a future President
of the US is to be discredited appears strange.
Exactly. For the intelligence community and Democrat reliance on Steele's dossier to be plausible,
you have to assume 10-foot tall Russkis (1) with incredibly sophisticated strategic, operational,
and technical capabilities, who have (2) performed the greatest intelligence feat of the 21st
and 20th centuries, suborning the President of the United States, and whose intelligence agencies
are (3) leakly like a sieve. Does that make sense? (Of course, the devilish Russkis could have fed
Steele bad data, knowing he'd then feed it to the American intelligence agencies, who would lap it
up, but that's another narrative.)
(4) How Do You Compromise the Uncompromisable?
Funny how suddenly the word kompromat was everywhere, wasn't it? So sophisticated. Everybody
loves to learn a new word! Regarding the "Golden Showers" - more sophistication! - Kowaljow writes:
But even if such a compromise should exist, what sense should it have, since the most piquant
details have long been publicly discussed in public, and had no effect on the votes of the elected
president? Like all the other scandals trumps, which passed through the election campaign, they
also remained unresolved, including those who were concerned about sex.
This also includes what is known as a compromise, compromising material, that is, video shots
of the unsightly nature, which can destroy both the political career and the life of a person.
The word Kompromat shines today – as in the past Perestroika – in all headlines; It was not invented
in Russia, of course. But in Russia in the Yeltsin era, when the great clans in the power gave
bitter fights and intensively used the media, works of this kind have ended more than just a brilliant
career. General Prosecutor Jurij Skuratov was dismissed after a video had been shown in the country-wide
television channels: There, a person "who looks like the prosecutor's office" had sex with two
prostitutes.
Donald Trump went on Howard Stern for, like, decades. The stuff that's right out there for
whoever wants to roll those tapes is just as "compromising" as anything in the dodgy dossier, or
the "grab her by the pussy" tape, for that matter. As Kowaljow points out, none of it was mortally
wounding to Trump; after all, if you're a volatility voter who wants to kick over the table in a
rigged game, you don't care about the niceties.
Conclusion
It would be nice, wouldn't it, if our famously free press was actually covering the Trump
transition , instead of acting like their newsrooms are mountain redoubts for an irrendentist
Clinton campaign. It would be nice, for example, to know:
The content and impact of Trump's Executive Orders.
Ditto, regulations.
Personnel decisions below the Cabinet level. Who are the Flexians?
Obama policies that will remain in place, because both party establishments support them.
Charters, for example.
Republican inroads in Silicon Valley.
The future of the IRS, since Republicans have an axe to grind with it.
Mismatch between State expectations for infrastructure and Trump's implementation
And that's before we get to ObamaCare, financial regulation, gutting or owning the CIA (which
Trump needs to do, and fast), trade policy, NATO, China, and a myriad of other stories, all rich
with human interest, powerful narratives, and plenty of potential for scandal. Any one of them worthy
of A1 coverage, just like the Inaugural crowd size dogpile that's been going on for days.
Instead, the press seems to be reproducing the last gasps of the Clinton campaign, which were
all about the evils of Trump, the man. That tactic failed the Clinton campaign, again because volatility
voters weren't concerned with the niceties. And the same tactic is failing the press now. Failing
unless, of course, you're the sort of sleaze merchant who
downsizes the newsroom because, hey, it's all about the clicks.
"... BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said Mr Steele had previously been an intelligence officer - rather than agent - in MI6, who would have run a team of agents as an intelligence gatherer. ..."
"... Intelligence agencies considered the claims relevant enough to brief both Mr Trump and President Obama last week. ..."
"... But the allegations have not been independently substantiated or verified and some details have been challenged as incorrect by those who are mentioned. ..."
"... Mr Trump himself was briefed about the existence of the allegations by the US intelligence community last week but has since described them as fake news, accusing the US intelligence services of leaking the dossier. ..."
An ex-MI6 officer who is believed to have prepared memos claiming Russia has compromising material
on US President-elect Donald Trump is now in hiding, the BBC understands.
Christopher Steele, who runs a London-based intelligence firm, is believed to have left his home
this week.
The memos contain unsubstantiated claims that Russian security officials have compromising material
on Mr Trump.
The US president-elect said the claims were "fake news" and "phoney stuff".
Mr Steele has been widely named as the author of a series of memos - which have been published
as a dossier in some US media - containing extensive allegations about Mr Trump's personal life and
his campaign's relationship with the Russian state.
... ... ...
BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said Mr Steele had previously been an intelligence officer
- rather than agent - in MI6, who would have run a team of agents as an intelligence gatherer.
However, as Mr Steele was now working in the private sector, our correspondent said, there was
"probably a fair bit of money involved" in the commissioning of the reports.
He said there was no evidence to substantiate the allegations and it was still possible the dossier
had been based on what "people had said" about Mr Trump "without any proof".
Donald J. Tump Twit
@realDonaldTrump
James Clapper called me yesterday to denounce the false and fictitious report that was illegally
circulated. Made up, phony facts. Too bad!
... ... ...
Obama briefing
The 35-page dossier on Mr Trump - which is believed to have been commissioned initially by Republicans
opposed to Mr Trump - has been circulating in Washington for some time.
Media organisations, uncertain of its credibility, initially held back from publication. However,
the entire series of reports has now been posted online, with Mr Steele named as the author.
Intelligence agencies considered the claims relevant enough to brief both Mr Trump and President
Obama last week.
But the allegations have not been independently substantiated or verified and some details have
been challenged as incorrect by those who are mentioned.
Mr Trump himself was briefed about the existence of the allegations by the US intelligence community
last week but has since described them as fake news, accusing the US intelligence services of leaking
the dossier.
So guardian clearly supports Steele dossier. Nice... So the guy clearly tried to influence
the US election and Guardian neoliberal honchos and their Russophobic presstitutes (like Luke
Harding) are OK with it. They just complain about Russian influence. British elite hypocrisy in action...
Notable quotes:
"... Published in January by BuzzFeed , the dossier suggested that Donald Trump's team had colluded with Russian intelligence before the US election to sabotage Hillary Clinton's campaign. Citing unidentified sources, it said Trump had been "compromised" by Russia's FSB spy agency during a trip to Moscow in 2013. ..."
"... Trump dismissed the dossier as fake news and said Steele was a "failed spy". Vladimir Putin also rejected the dossier. His spokesman Dmitry Peskov claimed Russia did not collect kompromat – compromising material – on Trump or anyone else. ..."
"... As head of MI6's Russia desk, Steele led the inquiry into Litvinenko's polonium poisoning, quickly concluding that this was a Russian state plot. He did not meet Litvinenko and was not his case officer, friends said. ..."
Christopher Steele speaks publicly for first time since the file was revealed and thanks
supporters for 'kind messages'
The former MI6 agent behind the
controversial Trump dossier has returned to work, nearly two months after its publication caused
an international scandal and furious denials from Washington and Moscow.
Christopher Steele posed for a photograph outside the office of his business intelligence company
Orbis in Victoria, London on Tuesday. Speaking for the first time since his
dossier was revealed , Steele said he had received messages of support.
"I'm now going to be focusing my efforts on supporting the broader interests of our company here,"
he told the Press Association. "I'd like to say a warm thank you to everyone who sent me kind messages
and support over the last few weeks."
Steele, who left British intelligence in 2009 and co-founded Orbis with an MI6 colleague, said
he would not comment substantively on the contents of the dossier: "Just to add, I won't be making
any further statements or comments at this time."
Published in January by BuzzFeed , the dossier suggested that Donald Trump's team had colluded
with Russian intelligence before the US election to sabotage Hillary Clinton's campaign. Citing unidentified
sources, it said Trump had been "compromised" by Russia's FSB spy agency during a trip to Moscow
in 2013.
It alleged that Trump was secretly videoed with Russian prostitutes in a suite in the Ritz-Carlton
hotel in Moscow. The prostitutes allegedly urinated on the bed used by Barack Obama during a presidential
visit.
Trump dismissed the dossier as fake news and said Steele was a "failed spy". Vladimir Putin
also rejected the dossier. His spokesman Dmitry Peskov claimed
Russia did not collect
kompromat – compromising material – on Trump or anyone else.
Steele's friends say he has been keen to go back to work for some weeks. They insist he has not
been in hiding but has been keeping a low profile to avoid paparazzi who have been camped outside
his family home in Surrey.
Several of the lurid stories about him that have appeared in the press have been wrong, said friends.
The stories include claims that Steele met Alexander Litvinenko, the Russian dissident who was murdered
in 2006 with a radioactive cup of tea,
probably on Putin's orders .
As head of MI6's Russia desk, Steele led the inquiry into Litvinenko's polonium poisoning,
quickly concluding that this was a Russian state plot. He did not meet Litvinenko and was not his
case officer, friends said.
"... Despite more than twelve months of non-stop charges against the Russians, and claims of Trump's collusion with Russia, not a shred of hard evidence has yet been presented to back these allegations, which are at the heart of the coup plot being run against the President. ..."
"... Brennan set up a task force to look into the Russian meddling charges after a former British Ambassador to Moscow, Sir Andrew Wood, delivered a fraudulent dossier, prepared by an "ex"-MI6 operative, to Brennan, through anti-Trump Senator John McCain. ..."
In a desperate attempt to defend its collapsing "Russiagate" narrative, the Washington Post launched
an attack on The Nation magazine for its August 9 article by Patrick Lawrence, "A New Report Raises
Big Questions About Last Year's DNC Hack." Lawrence's article, in the most prestigious left/progressive
magazine in the U.S., broke the attempted media blackout of the memo sent by the Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) on July 24 to President Trump, which effectively refutes the claims
of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election, allegedly through "hacking" Democratic National Committee
(DNC) emails and releasing them to Wikileaks.
Despite more than twelve months of non-stop charges
against the Russians, and claims of Trump's collusion with Russia, not a shred of hard evidence has
yet been presented to back these allegations, which are at the heart of the coup plot being run against
the President.
The Nation article was followed by a prominent story in Bloomberg News and one in Salon magazine,
which both reported on the Nation article, and the VIPS memo, and how it challenges the narrative
that Trump owes his election victory to Putin and Russia. That story was concocted by leading figures
in British intelligence, and leaked to the U.S. media by corrupt elements of Obama's intelligence
team, led by the trio of Brennan, Clapper and Comey, as part of the "regime change" against Trump
they launched after his November 2016 election victory.
Brennan set up a task force to look into
the Russian meddling charges after a former British Ambassador to Moscow, Sir Andrew Wood, delivered
a fraudulent dossier, prepared by an "ex"-MI6 operative, to Brennan, through anti-Trump Senator John
McCain.
The attack on The Nation was posted on the Post's "Eric Wemple Blog" on August 15, and is a blatant
attempt to force The Nation's editors to not merely repudiate the Lawrence article, but to join the
campaign against Trump's desire for cooperation with Russia. Wemple's attempt to dismiss the authoritative
report of the VIPS has no substance, and is written to bludgeon the magazine's editors to adopt the
talking points of the coup plotters. As such, it presents the same weak, sophistical argument presented
by the DNC, which released a statement on the VIPS memo which simply reasserted the conclusion reached
by "U.S. intelligence agencies" of Russian interference, adding, "Any suggestion otherwise is false,
and is just another conspiracy theory like those pushed by Trump and his administration."
Such dangerous silliness was countered by Salon's Danielle Ryan, who wrote on August 15,
"For
the media and mainstream liberals to dismiss information presented in The Nation as lacking in evidence
would be breathtakingly ironic, given how little evidence they required to build a narrative" against
Trump and Putin. She concluded that if the VIPS memo is right, "those who pushed the Russia hacking
narrative with little evidence have a lot to answer for."
A Special Report from the Accuracy in Media Center for Investigative Journalism; Cliff Kincaid, Director
The Role of the CIA's John Brennan
In its lengthy feature article on FBI Director James Comey, The
New York Times disingenuously evades the new evidence from the
British press that nails former President Barack Obama's CIA Director John Brennan for using
the "Trump dossier" as weaponized fake intelligence, which he wielded to spearhead an interagency
task force to investigate Trump during and after the election campaign. The Times article's sole
mention of Brennan suppresses any mention of its own reporting by three of the same reporters on
January 19 about the six-agency, anti-Trump task force or working group (and naturally there
is no investigative reporting to dig into the task force's scandalous operations).
But, of course, that was the same New York Times article, in its January 20 print edition, that
headlined the "
Wiretapped Trump Aides ." The Times wants to forget all about that, now that President Trump
has made the Obama "wire tapping" an issue.
The timing and use of the "Trump dossier" suggests that Hillary's agents during the campaign panicked
when Julian Assange announced on
June 12 , 2016, that he would soon release emails from within the Hillary campaign -- unauthorized
and uncensored -- not official State Department releases redacted to protect Hillary.
It seems as if Hillary's backers hired someone to throw together any sleazy garbage that they could
use to blunt the impact, or even nullify the potentially disastrous effects of the Hillary/DNC emails,
which as far as they knew could come out any day or any minute from WikiLeaks. The first Christopher
Steele report in the "dossier," with the vilest allegations of all, was rushed out in record time,
dated barely a week later, on
June 20 .
From their perspective of defending Hillary, it had to be something on Trump so foul, so disgusting,
that no one would pay any attention to what the WikiLeaks emails from Hillary said or disclosed.
Hence, the first "Trump dossier" report concocted on or before June 20 tried to claim Trump hired
prostitutes to "golden shower" (urinate on) the former Obama bed in the Moscow hotel (or as we have
seen, "someone" said "someone else" said Trump "may" have done so, and it "may" have been taped,
maybe in "some year" or other, etc. Our words in quotes). The Hillary funders evidently did not count
on the "Trump dossier" being so repulsive that even the most hate-filled major media, such as The
New York Times and CNN, could not stomach publishing it or risking lawsuits from a billionaire like
Trump. So they simply drew attention to the document without reproducing it, at first only by veiled
allusion.
As the election approached, the increasingly frantic media began leaking out more and more from
the sickening "dossier." (
NYT
, July 29;
Yahoo News September 23;
Mother Jones October 31;
Washington Post November 1,
Newsweek November 4,
Salon November 4, etc.)
In addition to Comey, who took the bait, we have
evidence
that Obama's CIA director
John Brennan was involved in spreading the allegations, briefing Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) (who
turned around and lambasted Comey), and using it and illegal NSA-GCHQ wiretap data to set up an interagency
task force to investigate Trump. Such CIA-led actions were in violation of the CIA charter forbidding
them from carrying out any law enforcement, police or internal security functions (50 U.S. Code 3036(d)(1)).
(AIM
Special Report , April 17)
Trying to make something out of nothing, the illegal intelligence agency leaks suggest that the
CIA has found some minor "aspects" in the "dossier" that are "
corroborated
" by intercepted wiretap communications. But these turned out to be pseudo-corroborations of
long-known matters of public knowledge (such as alleged Trump adviser Carter Page's "secret" visit
to Moscow, actually openly reported in the
press on July 7).
In fact, essentially the same story indicating that a few business meetings in the "dossier" were
"confirmed" by intercepted communications -- but not important facts -- ran in
Yahoo News on September 23, 2016.
So this is old fake news, designed to magnify and exaggerate trivia to suggest the opposite of
what was actually known, which was that nothing incriminating or wrongful about Trump associate's
business activities with Russia had been found -- no "smoking gun." (
AIM
, Febrary 20 and
April 17 , 2017; cf.
Washington Post November 1, 2016; and
CNN )
"... Until now, Susan Rice had always denied spying on Donald Trump and his team both in the transition period and also in the run up to the presidential elections. There have been several times when President Trump has denounced the illegal tappings that the Obama Administration had authorized against him, which the Press in the United States had qualified as completely fabricated. ..."
"... President Richard Nixon had been forced to resign for spying on the Democratic Party's electoral headquarters. However, in the case of Susan Rice, the Congressmen have not "acquired a conviction" that she had committed a federal crime and that she had tried to cover it up. ..."
"... In contrast, President Obama's team is presenting the tappings ordered by Susan Rice as wholly legitimate in the context of an investigation into possible Russian interferences. Furthermore, it is a fact that the United Arab Emirates has organized at the same time, a meeting in the Seychelles, between someone close to President Putin and Erik Prince (former director of Blackwater, military advisor to the Emirates and brother of the current Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos). ..."
Susan Rice, the former National Security Advisor, has admitted before the House of Representatives'
Intelligence Committee that during the transition period, she had spied on Donald Trump and his team
when they were in Trump Tower, New York. She also admitted that she had had the names of Donald Trump,
Jared Kushner, Michael Flynn and Steve Bannon deleted from summaries of the tappings.
Mrs Rice has guaranteed that her intention was not to find out the secret plans of the Team Trump.
She just was trying to figure out what the United Arab Emirates was up to, and was hoping to gather
relevant information from the content of an interview that the President Elect was supposed to have
given to the Prince and heir to the throne of Abu Dhabi.
Until now, Susan Rice had always denied spying on Donald Trump and his team both in the transition
period and also in the run up to the presidential elections. There have been several times when President
Trump has denounced the illegal tappings that the Obama Administration had authorized against him,
which the Press in the United States had qualified as completely fabricated.
President Richard Nixon had been forced to resign for spying on the Democratic Party's electoral
headquarters. However, in the case of Susan Rice, the Congressmen have not "acquired a conviction"
that she had committed a federal crime and that she had tried to cover it up.
In contrast, President Obama's team is presenting the tappings ordered by Susan Rice as wholly
legitimate in the context of an investigation into possible Russian interferences. Furthermore, it
is a fact that the United Arab Emirates has organized at the same time, a meeting in the Seychelles,
between someone close to President Putin and Erik Prince (former director of Blackwater, military
advisor to the Emirates and brother of the current Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos).
"... Federal law enforcement sources said Bharara was simply following the orders of Attorney General Lynch, who lobbied the State Department to issue the disavowed Russian a B1/B2 non-immigrant visa. This permitted Veselnitskaya entry into the United States for the sole purpose of entrapping Trump associates to use as fuel to commission wiretaps, federal sources said. ..."
"... Veselnitskaya may have been paid as well by the U.S. government, FBI sources said. It was reported last week that Steele, who compiled the Trump dossier was paid at least $100,000 from FBI funds as well. But that came later, after the wiretapping was well underway. ..."
"... Federal sources said the wiretaps on Trump insiders began in late 2015, almost a year before the 2016 election. The targets then were Flynn and Page, sources confirmed. When no smoking gun was recovered from those initial taps, U.S. intelligence agencies moved to broaden the scope through their newly-formed alliance. ..."
"... Intelligence garnered from the British eavesdropping, which again was merely a front for the NSA, was then used in August 2016 to secure a legitimate FISA warrant on Manafort, Trump Jr. and Kushner. That warrant was issued on or about September, 2016, federal sources confirm. ..."
And none of it was very legal. In fact, most of it was very illegal, according to federal law enforcement sources who are blowing
the whistle on a sweeping scheme to undermine the Executive branch and the electorate's choice for president of the United States.
And according to high ranking FBI sources, the Bureau played a definitive role in plotting this sweeping privacy breach. But the
FBI had much help from the NSA, CIA, the Office of of the Director of National Intelligence, Treasury financial crimes division under
DHS, and the Justice Department, federal law enforcement sources confirmed. The Deep State caretakers involved are familiar names:
James Comey (FBI), John Brennan (CIA), James Clapper (ODNI), Loretta Lynch (DOJ), Jeh Johnson (DHS), Admiral Michael Rogers (NSA).
And then-director of GCHQ Robert Hannigan who has since resigned from the esteemed British spy agency.
President Barack Obama's White House too could be implicated, sources said. But while evidence certainly points to involvement
of the Obama administration, sources said they did not have access to definitive intelligence proving such a link.
Here is what we now know, per intelligence gleaned form federal law enforcement sources with insider knowledge of what amounts
to a plot by U.S. intelligence agencies to secure back door and illegal wiretaps of President Trump's associates:
Six U.S. agencies created a stealth task force, spearhead by CIA's Brennan, to run domestic surveillance on Trump associates
and possibly Trump himself.
To feign ignorance and to seemingly operate within U.S. laws, the agencies freelanced the wiretapping of Trump associates
to the British spy agency GCHQ.
The decision to insert GCHQ as a back door to eavesdrop was sparked by the denial of two FISA Court warrant applications filed
by the FBI to seek wiretaps of Trump associates.
GCHQ did not work from London or the UK. In fact the spy agency worked from NSA's headquarters in Fort Meade, MD with direct
NSA supervision and guidance to conduct sweeping surveillance on Trump associates.
The illegal wiretaps were initiated months before the controversial Trump dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher
Steele.
The Justice Department and FBI set up the meeting at Trump Tower between Trump Jr., Manafort and Kushner with controversial
Russian officials to make Trump's associates appear compromised.
Following the Trump Tower sit down, GCHQ began digitally wiretapping Manafort, Trump Jr., and Kushner.
After the concocted meeting by the Deep State, the British spy agency could officially justify wiretapping Trump associates
as an intelligence front for NSA because the Russian lawyer at the meeting Natalia Veselnitskaya was considered an international
security risk and prior to the June sit down was not even allowed entry into the United States or the UK, federal sources said.
By using GCHQ, the NSA and its intelligence partners had carved out a loophole to wiretap Trump without a warrant. While it
is illegal for U.S. agencies to monitor phones and emails of U.S. citizens inside the United States absent a warrant, it is not
illegal for British intelligence to do so. Even if the GCHQ was tapping Trump on U.S. soil at Fort Meade.
The wiretaps, secured through illicit scheming, have been used by U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe of alleged Russian
collusion in the 2016 election, even though the evidence is considered "poisoned fruit."
Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer who spearheaded the Trump Tower meeting with the Trump campaign trio, was previously barred from
entering the United Sates due to her alleged connections to the Russian FSB (the modern replacement of the cold-war-era KGB).
Yet mere days before the June meeting, Veselnitskaya was granted a rare visa to enter the United States from Preet Bharara, the
then U.S. Attorney for the southern district of New York. Bharara could not be reached for comment and did not respond the a Twitter
inquiry on the Russian's visa by True Pundit.
Federal law enforcement sources said Bharara was simply following the orders of Attorney General Lynch, who lobbied the State
Department to issue the disavowed Russian a B1/B2 non-immigrant visa. This permitted Veselnitskaya entry into the United States for
the sole purpose of entrapping Trump associates to use as fuel to commission wiretaps, federal sources said.
Veselnitskaya may have been paid as well by the U.S. government, FBI sources said. It was reported last week that Steele,
who compiled the Trump dossier was paid at least $100,000 from FBI funds as well. But that came later, after the wiretapping was
well underway.
The illegal eavesdropping started long before Steele's dossier. Federal sources said the wiretaps on Trump insiders began
in late 2015, almost a year before the 2016 election. The targets then were Flynn and Page, sources confirmed. When no smoking gun
was recovered from those initial taps, U.S. intelligence agencies moved to broaden the scope through their newly-formed alliance.
Intelligence garnered from the British eavesdropping, which again was merely a front for the NSA, was then used in August
2016 to secure a legitimate FISA warrant on Manafort, Trump Jr. and Kushner. That warrant was issued on or about September, 2016,
federal sources confirm.
It was the third time the cabal of U.S. intelligence agencies sought a FISA warrant for the Trump associates and this time it
was approved.
FBI sources said finally obtaining the FISA warrant was important because it provided the agencies cover for previous illegal
wiretapping which they believed would never be discovered.
"This would make for an incredible string of Senate hearings," one federal law enforcement source said. "I don't think they ever
thought he (Trump) would win and information would come out about how they manipulated evidence."
The level of corruption is too deep and people in the FBI/DOJ are complicit, they are covering up the Elite crimes, they
won't do their job, nothing is going to happen, no one is going to jail.
Yeah. This is who the Russian economist close to Putin was talking about when he sid they aren't worried about Nazis in the
Ukraine, that they are worried about the Nazis in Washington.
Trump knew about this because Mike Rogers tipped him off Nov. 17 in an unannounced meeting at Trump Towers. The next day campaign
operations moved to New Jersey and Clapper sent a letter to Obama demanding Rogers be fired.
Baharra was fired...Comey was fired...Harrington resigned Jan 23...Rogers still has his job.
see more
Neocons still dream of Trump impeachment. Neutering him is not enough... the number of potentially illegal wiretaps of Trump associates
suggests that threr was a plan to derail plan in three letter agencies headquarters (with blessing of Obama). Plan of interfere with
the US election to be exact.
Notable quotes:
"... Reports that the FBI wiretapped former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort are a further sign of the seriousness of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III's investigation. But there's still a great deal we don't know about the implications, if any, for the broader inquiry into possible Russian ties to the Trump campaign. ..."
"... The other import of this news involves the possible implications if Manafort is charged. The New York Times reported Monday that when Manafort's home was searched in July, investigators told him he should expect to be indicted. ..."
"... A typical white-collar investigation often proceeds by building cases against lower-level participants in a scheme -- the little fish -- and then persuading them to cooperate in the investigation of the bigger fish. Trump and his associates therefore may have reason to be concerned about what Manafort could tell investigators, if he were indicted and chose to cooperate. ..."
"... Again, much of this is speculation. Due to grand jury secrecy and the secrecy surrounding the FISA process, we don't know many of the details. And given the typical pace of these investigations, whatever happens likely will not happen quickly. ..."
Then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort at the Republican National Convention. (Matt Rourke/Associated Press)
Reports that the FBI wiretapped former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort are a further sign of the seriousness of special counsel
Robert S. Mueller III's investigation. But there's still a great deal we don't know about the implications, if any, for the broader
inquiry into possible Russian ties to the Trump campaign.
CNN
reported
Monday night that the FBI obtained a warrant to listen in on Manafort's phone calls back in 2014. The warrant was part of an
investigation into U.S. firms that may have performed undisclosed work for the Ukrainian government. The surveillance reportedly
lapsed for a time but was begun again last year when the FBI learned about possible ties between Russian operatives and Trump associates.
This news is a big deal primarily because of what it takes to obtain such a wiretap order. The warrant reportedly was issued under
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. A FISA warrant requires investigators to demonstrate to the FISA court that there is probable
cause to believe the target may be acting as an unlawful foreign agent.
When
news broke last month that Mueller was using a grand jury to conduct his investigation, many reported it with unnecessary breathlessness.
Although a grand jury investigation is certainly significant, a prosecutor does not need court approval or a finding of probable
cause to issue a grand jury subpoena, and Mueller's use of a grand jury
was not unexpected .
A FISA warrant is another matter. It means investigators have demonstrated probable cause to an independent judicial authority.
Obtaining a warrant actually says much more about the strength of the underlying allegations than issuing a grand jury subpoena.
That's also why the search warrant
executed at Manafort's home in July was such a significant step in the investigation. Unlike a grand jury subpoena, the search
warrant required Mueller's team to demonstrate to a judge that a crime probably had been committed.
But it's important not to get too far in front of the story. The FBI surveillance of Manafort reportedly began in 2014, long before
he was working as Trump's campaign manager. So the initial allegations, at least, appear to have involved potential crimes having
nothing to do with the Trump campaign. And most or all of the surveillance apparently took place before Mueller was even appointed
and was not at his direction.
Mueller's involvement now does suggest that the current focus relates to Manafort's role in the Trump campaign. But we don't know
exactly how, if at all, any alleged crimes by Manafort relate to his work in that role. And we don't know whether any other individuals
involved in the campaign are potentially implicated.
We also don't know what evidence was obtained as a result of the surveillance. The fact that warrants were issued does not mean
any evidence of criminal conduct was actually found.
The other import of this news involves the possible implications if Manafort is charged. The New York Times
reported
Monday that when Manafort's home was searched in July, investigators told him he should expect to be indicted. Even if Mueller
were to indict Manafort for crimes not directly related to the Trump campaign, it would be a significant development. A typical
white-collar investigation often proceeds by building cases against lower-level participants in a scheme -- the little fish -- and
then persuading them to cooperate in the investigation of the bigger fish. Trump and his associates therefore may have reason to
be concerned about what Manafort could tell investigators, if he were indicted and chose to cooperate.
Again, much of this is speculation. Due to grand jury secrecy and the secrecy surrounding the FISA process, we don't know
many of the details. And given the typical pace of these investigations, whatever happens likely will not happen quickly.
But news of the FISA surveillance is the latest evidence that Mueller's investigation is serious, aggressive and will be with
us for some time.
Randall D. Eliason teaches white-collar criminal law at George Washington University Law School.
The neoliberal "the new class" to which Clintons belong like nomenklatura in the USSR are above the law.
Notable quotes:
"... After months of inexplicable delays, the chairman of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), announced moments ago a joint investigation into how the Justice Department handled last year's investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server. ..."
"... Oh goody, Trey Gowdy doing another investigation. Isn't he 0 for many on his investigations. 0 as in zero, nada, nill, squat, zippo. He is another political empty suit with a bad haircut. ..."
"... Well said. The Clinton network leads to the real money in this game. Any real investigation would expose many of the primary players. It would also expose the network for what it is, that being a mechanism to scam both the American people and the people of the world. ..."
"... Perhaps a real investigation will now only be done from outside the system (as the U.S. political system seems utterly incapable of investigating or policing itself). ..."
"... You're probably right, but there's a chance this whole thing could go sidewise on Hillary in a hurry, Weinstein-style. ..."
"... We already know Honest Hill'rey's other IT guy (Bryan Pagliano) ignored subpoenas from congress...twice. ..."
"... Another classic case of "the Boy that cried wolf" for the Trumpettes to believe justice is coming to the Clintons. The House Judiciary and Oversight committees, will turn up nothing, apart from some procedural mistakes. A complete waste of time and tax payer money. Only the Goldfish will be happy over another charade. Killary is immune from normal laws. ..."
"... Potemkin Justice. Not a damn thing will come of it unless they find that one of Hillary's aides parked in a handicapped spot. ..."
"... The TV showed me Trump saying, "She's been through enough" and "They're good people" when referring to Hillary and Bill Clinton. ..."
"... Stopped reading at "they do not recognize wealth, power, or social status." ..."
Hillary's former IT consultant Paul Combetta who admitted to deleting Hillary's emails despite the existence of a Congressional
subpoena, it seems as though James Comey has just had his very own "oh shit" moment.
After months of inexplicable delays, the chairman of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and
Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), announced moments ago a joint investigation into how the Justice Department handled last year's investigation
into Hillary Clinton's private email server.
Among other things, Goodlatte and Gowdy said that the FBI must answer for why it chose to provide public updates in the Clinton
investigation but not in the Trump investigation and why the FBI decided to " appropriate full decision making in respect to charging
or not charging Secretary Clinton," a power typically left to the DOJ.
"Our justice system is represented by a blind-folded woman holding a set of scales. Those scales do not tip to the right or the
left; they do not recognize wealth, power, or social status. The impartiality of our justice system is the bedrock of our republic
and our fellow citizens must have confidence in its objectivity, independence, and evenhandedness. The law is the most equalizing
force in this country. No entity or individual is exempt from oversight.
"Decisions made by the Department of Justice in 2016 have led to a host of outstanding questions that must be answered. These
include, but are not limited to:
FBI's decision to publicly announce the investigation into Secretary Clinton's handling of classified information but not
to publicly announce the investigation into campaign associates of then-candidate Donald Trump;
FBI's decision to notify Congress by formal letter of the status of the investigation both in October and November of 2016;
FBI's decision to appropriate full decision making in respect to charging or not charging Secretary Clinton to the FBI rather
than the DOJ;
FBI's timeline in respect to charging decisions.
'The Committees will review these decisions and others to better understand the reasoning behind how certain conclusions were
drawn. Congress has a constitutional duty to preserve the integrity of our justice system by ensuring transparency and accountability
of actions taken."
Of course, this comes just one day after
Comey revealed his secret Twitter account which led the internet to wildly speculate that he may be running for a political office...which,
these days, being under investigation by multiple Congressional committees might just mean he has a good shot.
Finally, we leave you with one artist's depiction of how the Comey 'investigation' of Hillary's email scandal played out...
"Our justice system is represented by a blind-folded woman holding a set of scales. Those scales do not tip to the right or
the left; they do not recognize wealth, power, or social status. The impartiality of our justice system is the bedrock of our
republic..."
Oh goody, Trey Gowdy doing another investigation. Isn't he 0 for many on his investigations. 0 as in zero, nada, nill,
squat, zippo. He is another political empty suit with a bad haircut.
It's nice publicity to hear that the Congress is "investigating". It's NOT nice to know that the DOJ is doing nothing. Probably
50 top level people at the FBI need to be fired as well as another 50 at DOJ to get the ball rolling toward a Grand Jury. Until
then, it's all eyewash and BULLSHIT!
Well said. The Clinton network leads to the real money in this game. Any real investigation would expose many of the primary
players. It would also expose the network for what it is, that being a mechanism to scam both the American people and the people
of the world.
Perhaps a real investigation will now only be done from outside the system (as the U.S. political system seems utterly
incapable of investigating or policing itself). Though in time all information will surface, as good players leak the info
of the bad players into the open. Which of course is why the corrupt players go after the leakers, as it is one key way they can
be taken down. Also remember that they need the good players in any organization to be used as cover (as those not in the know
can be used to work on legit projects). Once the good players catch on to the ruse and corruption it is, beyond a certain tipping
point, all over, as the leaked information goes from drop to flood. There will simply be no way to deny it.
You're probably right, but there's a chance this whole thing could go sidewise on Hillary in a hurry, Weinstein-style.
If the criminal stench surrounding her gets strong enough, the rats will begin to jump ship. People will stop taking orders
and doing her dirty work. She's wounded right now, if there was ever a time to finish her, it would be now. Where the fuck is
the big-talking Jeff Sessions? I think they got to him--he even LOOKS scared shitless.
It's just not possible to have any respect for these politician people.
We already know Honest Hill'rey's other IT guy (Bryan Pagliano) ignored subpoenas from congress...twice. Remember
Chaffetz "subpoenas are not suggestions"? Yeah, well they are. Chaffetz turned around and sent a letter about this to "attorney
general" jeff sessions and he's done exactly shit about about it. (Look it up, that's a true story)
Then we've got president maverick outsider simply ignoring Julian Assange and Wikileaks while he squeals daily about fake news.
Wikileaks has exposed more fraud than Congress ever has.
Sessions is the Attorney General. Give the man some credit. He recused himself from the Russia/Trump collusion, and this decision
may very well save the republic.
If Sessions was actively involved, half the nation would never accept the findings, no matter the outcome. With Sessions voluntarily
sidelined, the truth will eventually expose the criminal conspirators; all the way to the top.
Wikileaks and Assange have documented proof of criminal behavior from Obama, Lynch, Holder, Hillary, W. Bush, and more. This
will be the biggest scandal to hit the world stage. Ever.
lol Another classic case of "the Boy that cried wolf" for the Trumpettes to believe justice is coming to the Clintons.
The House Judiciary and Oversight committees, will turn up nothing, apart from some procedural mistakes. A complete waste of time
and tax payer money. Only the Goldfish will be happy over another charade. Killary is immune from normal laws.
Congress can't do shit without DOJ and FBI, which are both compromised and corrupt to the core.
That should have been Sessions' first order of business.
He can still get it rolling by firing Rosenstein and replacing him with someone that will do the job.They can strike down the
Comey immunity deals and arrest people for violating Congressional subpeona.
They can also assemble a Grand Jury to indict Rosenstein and Mueller for the Russian collusion conspiracy to commit Espionage
and Sabotage of our National Security resources. Half of Mueller's staff will then be indicted, along with Clinton, Obama, Lynch,
Holder, and Comey.
Replacement of Rosenstein is the crucial first step.
Is this CIA against Hillary Clinton. Did she cross some red line ? Why this revelation
happened now? What changed in deep state to allow such a revelation to surface.
Notable quotes:
"... Though neither the DNC nor the Clinton campaign worked directly with former British spy Christopher Steele as he compiled the document, the fact that Democrats funded the dossier – which includes information primarily gleaned from sources in Russia – ironically suggests the Democrats indirectly leveraged Russian sources to try and spread information of dubious veracity about a political opponent to try and sway an election ..."
"... Even though the scandalous accusations contained within the dossier weren't made public until after the vote, presumably waiting to see what foot the shoe would end up on, this would've provided serious grist for the collusion narrative, which we imagine would've been stretched to include the entire Republican establishment as accomplices. ..."
"... While it's impossible to determine exactly how much money was spent on the dossier, the Clinton campaign paid Perkins Coie – the law firm of Clinton superattorney Marc Elias - $5.6 million in legal fees from June 2015 to December 2016, according to campaign finance records, and the DNC paid the firm $3.6 million in "legal and compliance consulting'' since Nov. 2015. Some of that money was presumably used to pay for the dossier. ..."
"... Steele previously worked in Russia for British intelligence. The dossier, which was primarily compiled in Moscow, is a compilation of reports Steele prepared for Fusion. Allegations contained in the dossier included claims the Russian government collected compromising information about Trump and the Kremlin was engaged in an active effort to assist his campaign for president. ..."
"... House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Dunes has tried to compel Fusion's founders to disclose who paid for the dossier, but all three of them pled the fifth during public testimony last week. Nunes has also tried subpoenaing the firm's bank records. ..."
"... The most salacious accusations contained in the dossier have not been verified, and may never be. Still, after the election, the FBI agreed to pay Steele to continue gathering intelligence about Trump and Russia, but the bureau pulled out of the arrangement after Steele was publicly identified in news reports ..."
Washington Post reported Tuesday that the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton
campaign jointly financed the creation of the infamous "Trump dossier," which helped inspire
the launch of the floundering investigations into whether the Trump campaign colluded with the
Russians.
Though neither the DNC nor the Clinton campaign worked directly with former British spy
Christopher Steele as he compiled the document, the fact that Democrats funded the dossier
– which includes information primarily gleaned from sources in Russia – ironically
suggests the Democrats indirectly leveraged Russian sources to try and spread information of
dubious veracity about a political opponent to try and sway an election.
Sound familiar?
Even though the scandalous accusations contained within the dossier weren't made public
until after the vote, presumably waiting to see what foot the shoe would end up on, this
would've provided serious grist for the collusion narrative, which we imagine would've been
stretched to include the entire Republican establishment as accomplices.
While it's impossible to determine exactly how much money was spent on the dossier, the
Clinton campaign paid Perkins Coie – the law firm of Clinton superattorney Marc Elias -
$5.6 million in legal fees from June 2015 to December 2016, according to campaign finance
records, and the DNC paid the firm $3.6 million in "legal and compliance consulting'' since
Nov. 2015. Some of that money was presumably used to pay for the dossier.
Fusion GPS's work researching Trump began during the Republican presidential primaries when
an unidentified GOP donor reportedly hired the firm to dig into Trump's background. The
Republicans who were involved in the early stages of Fusion's efforts have not yet been
identified. Fusion GPS did not start off looking at Trump's Russia ties, but quickly realized
that those relationships would be a fruitful place to start,
WaPo reported.
Steele previously worked in Russia for British intelligence. The dossier, which was
primarily compiled in Moscow, is a compilation of reports Steele prepared for Fusion.
Allegations contained in the dossier included claims the Russian government collected
compromising information about Trump and the Kremlin was engaged in an active effort to assist
his campaign for president.
Fusion turned over Steele's reports and other research documents to Elias, and it's unclear
how much of it he shared with the campaign.
The revelation about who funded the dossier comes just days after Trump tweeted that the FBI
and DOJ should publicly reveal who hired Fusion GPS. And lo and behold, that information has
now been made public.
Officials behind the now discredited "Dossier" plead the Fifth. Justice Department and/or
FBI should immediately release who paid for it.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Dunes has tried to compel Fusion's founders to
disclose who paid for the dossier, but all three of them pled the fifth during public testimony
last week. Nunes has also tried subpoenaing the firm's bank records.
The most salacious accusations contained in the dossier have not been verified, and may
never be. Still, after the election, the FBI agreed to pay Steele to continue gathering
intelligence about Trump and Russia, but the bureau pulled out of the arrangement after Steele
was publicly identified in news reports. Officials also decided to withhold information from
the dossier in an intelligence community report published in January alleging that Russian
entities had tried to sway the US election on behalf of the Russian government.
Of course, we still don't know who leaked the dossier to Buzzfeed and CNN back in January.
John McCain – one of the primary suspects – has repeatedly denied it, and Fusion
GPS has said in court documents that it didn't share the document with Buzzfeed. However, we do
known that in early January, then-FBI Director James B. Comey presented a two-page summary of
Steele's dossier to President Barack Obama and President-elect Trump.
It therefore strongly suggests that it was the FBI that was instrumental in spreading the
dossier to the media, most of which was too embarrassed to publish it until Buzzfeed came along
and did it... for the clicks.
So to summarize:
Hillary Clinton and the DNC paid to uncover and package dirt, whether factual or not, on
Trump which eventually found its way in the Trump dossier
In doing so, the Clintons and the DNC were effectively collaborating with "deep" sources,
both among the UK spy apparatus and inside Russia
Once Trump won, the FBI was instrumental in "leaking" the dossier to the mainstream media
and select still unknown recipients (the same way Comey "leaked" his personal notebooks just
a few months later, following his termination, to launch a probe of Trump).
The former head of the FBI who was supposed to probe Clinton's State Department - and the
Clinton Foundation - for a bribery and kickback scheme involving Russia's U.S. nuclear
business, is now investigating Trump for Russia collusion instead
But wait, it gets better: as Ken Vogel, formerly the chief investigative reporter at
Politico and currently at the NY Times just reported, " When I tried to report this story,
Clinton campaign lawyer @marceelias pushed back vigorously, saying "You (or your sources)
are wrong."
When I tried to report this story, Clinton campaign lawyer @marceelias pushed back
vigorously, saying "You (or your sources) are wrong." https://t.co/B5BZwoaNhI
Another NYT reporter, Maggie Haberman, confirmed as much saying " Folks involved in
funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year ", and by folks she ultimately
means Hillary Clinton herself.
Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year https://t.co/vXKRV1wRJc
Which in light of the latest news suggests that Clinton was lying, which is not
surprising, especially when considering the recent "revelations" that the Clintons may
themselves have been involved in collusion with Russia over the infamous uranium deal.
Which brings us to the questionable role played by the FBI in all of this, and
ultimately, the role still being played by Robert Mueller. Here is the WSJ
,
Let's give plausible accounts of the known facts, then explain why demands that Robert
Mueller recuse himself from the Russia investigation may not be the fanciful partisan
grandstanding you imagine.
Here's a story consistent with what has been reported in the press -- how reliably
reported is uncertain. Democratic political opponents of Donald Trump financed a British
former spook who spread money among contacts in Russia, who in turn over drinks solicited
stories from their supposedly "connected" sources in Moscow. If these people were really
connected in any meaningful sense, then they made sure the stories they spun were
consistent with the interests of the regime, if not actually scripted by the regime. The
resulting Trump dossier then became a factor in Obama administration decisions to launch an
FBI counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign , and after the election to
trumpet suspicions of Trump collusion with Russia.
We know of a second, possibly even more consequential way the FBI was effectively a
vehicle for Russian meddling in U.S. politics. Authoritative news reports say FBI chief
James Comey's intervention in the Hillary Clinton email matter was prompted by a Russian
intelligence document that his colleagues suspected was a Russian plant.
OK, Mr. Mueller was a former close colleague and leader but no longer part of the FBI
when these events occurred. This may or may not make him a questionable person to lead a
Russia-meddling investigation in which the FBI's own actions are necessarily a concern. But
now we come to the Rosatom disclosures last week in The Hill, a newspaper that covers
Congress.
Here's another story as plausible as we can make it based on credible reporting. After
the Cold War, in its own interest, the U.S. wanted to build bridges to the Russian nuclear
establishment. The Putin government, for national or commercial purposes, agreed and sought
to expand its nuclear business in the U.S.
Ah yes, the Clinton's own Russia collusion narrative which recently emerged to the
surface and which as of today is
being investigated by the House :
The purchase and consolidation of certain assets were facilitated by Canadian
entrepreneurs who gave large sums to the Clinton Foundation, and perhaps arranged a Bill
Clinton speech in Moscow for $500,000. A key transaction had to be approved by Hillary
Clinton's State Department.
Now we learn that, before and during these transactions, the FBI had uncovered a bribery
and kickback scheme involving Russia's U.S. nuclear business, and also received reports of
Russian officials seeking to curry favor through donations to the Clinton Foundation
This criminal activity was apparently not disclosed to agencies vetting the 2010
transfer of U.S. commercial nuclear assets to Russia . The FBI made no move to break up the
scheme until long after the transaction closed. Only five years later, the Justice
Department, in 2015, disclosed a plea deal with the Russian perpetrator so quietly that its
significance was missed until The Hill reported on the FBI investigation last week.
As the WSJ correctly notes, " for anyone who cares to look, the real problem here is
that the FBI itself is so thoroughly implicated in the Russia meddling story ."
Which then shifts the focus to the person who was, and again is, in charge of it all:
former FBI director, and current special prosecutor Robert Mueller:
The agency, when Mr. Mueller headed it, soft-pedaled an investigation highly
embarrassing to Mrs. Clinton as well as the Obama Russia reset policy . More recently, if
just one of two things is true -- Russia sponsored the Trump Dossier, or Russian fake
intelligence prompted Mr. Comey's email intervention -- then Russian operations, via their
impact on the FBI, influenced and continue to influence our politics in a way far more
consequential than any Facebook ad, the preoccupation of John McCain, who apparently cannot
behold a mountain if there's a molehill anywhere nearby.
Which means that Mr. Mueller has the means, motive and opportunity to obfuscate and
distract from matters embarrassing to the FBI, while pleasing a large part of the political
spectrum. He need only confine his focus to the flimsy, disingenuous but popular (with the
media) accusation that the shambolic Trump campaign colluded with the Kremlin.
Mr. Mueller's tenure may not have bridged the two investigations, but James Comey's, Rod
Rosenstein's , Andrew Weissmann's , and Andrew McCabe's did. Mr. Rosenstein appointed Mr.
Mueller as special counsel. Mr. Weissmann now serves on Mr. Mueller's team. Mr. McCabe
remains deputy FBI director. All were involved in the nuclear racketeering matter and the
Russia meddling matter.
The punchline: it's not the Clintons that should be looked at, at least not at first -
their time will come. It's the FBI:
By any normal evidentiary, probative or journalistic measure, the big story here is the
FBI -- its politicized handling of Russian matters, and not competently so. To put it
bluntly, whatever its hip-pocket rationales along the way, the FBI would not have so much
to cover up now if it had not helped give us Mrs. Clinton as Democratic nominee and then,
in all likelihood, inadvertently helped Mr. Trump to the presidency
We eagerly look forward to Trump's furious tweetstorm once he learns of all of this...
and how long before he fires Mueller, in this case with cause.
Another day, another scandal in Washington, DC. Simultaneous opening of inquires that are designed to hurt Hillary and Bill were
complete surprise.
Why now? There was some change on deep state level that is now reflected in this news. Suddenly Uranium 1 scandal comes into the
forfront. And along with Steele dossier it is damaging to Clinton. Were Clintons "Weinsteinalized"? Should be expect "50 women"
phenomena
to be replayed.
There is some storm hitting the US "deep state". The reasons for this storm remains hidden. But attempt of Clintons to preserve
their leadership in Democratic Party after Hillary fiasco in 2016 now are again became questionable.>
Notable quotes:
"... Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier - The Washington Post The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about President Trump's connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin, people familiar with the matter said. ..."
"... After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. ..."
"... Fusion GPS gave Steele's reports and other research documents to Elias, the people familiar with the matter said. It is unclear how or how much of that information was shared with the campaign and the DNC and who in those organizations was aware of the roles of Fusion GPS and Steele ..."
Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier - The Washington Post The Hillary Clinton campaign and
the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about President
Trump's connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin, people familiar with the matter said.
Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the
research.
After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI
and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Elias and his law firm, Perkins Coie, retained the company in April 2016 on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Before
that agreement, Fusion GPS's research into Trump was funded by an unknown Republican client during the GOP primary.
The Clinton campaign and the DNC, through the law firm, continued to fund Fusion GPS's research through the end of October 2016,
days before Election Day.
Former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele compiled the dossier on President Trump's alleged ties to Russia. (Victoria
Jones/AP)
Fusion GPS gave Steele's reports and other research documents to Elias, the people familiar with the matter said. It is unclear
how or how much of that information was shared with the campaign and the DNC and who in those organizations was aware of the roles
of Fusion GPS and Steele. One person close to the matter said the campaign and the DNC were not informed by the law firm of
Fusion GPS's role.
"... With the U.S. government offering tens of millions of dollars to combat Russian "propaganda and disinformation," it's perhaps not surprising that we see "researchers" such as Jonathan Albright of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University making the absurd accusation that the Russians have "basically turned [the Internet] into a sewer." ..."
"... I've been operating on the Internet since 1995 and I can assure you that the Internet has always been "a sewer" -- in that it has been home to crazy conspiracy theories, ugly personal insults, click-bait tabloid "news," and pretty much every vile prejudice you can think of. Whatever some Russians may or may not have done in buying $100,000 in ads on Facebook (compared to its $27 billion in annual revenue) or opening 201 Twitter accounts (out of Twitter's 328 million monthly users), the Russians are not responsible for the sewage coursing through the Internet. ..."
"... Even former Clinton political strategist Mark Penn has acknowledged the absurdity of thinking that such piddling amounts could have any impact on a $2.4 billion presidential campaign, plus all the billions of dollars worth of free-media attention to the conventions, debates, etc. Based on what's known about the Facebook ads, Penn calculated that "the actual electioneering [in battleground states] amounts to about $6,500." ..."
"... In a Wall Street Journal op-ed on Monday, Penn added, "I have 40 years of experience in politics, and this Russian ad buy mostly after the election anyway, simply does not add up to a carefully targeted campaign to move voters. It takes tens of millions of dollars to deliver meaningful messages to the contested portion of the electorate." ..."
"... Occasionally, the U.S. mainstream media even acknowledges that fact. For instance, last November, The New York Times, which was then flogging the Russia-linked "fake news" theme , ran a relatively responsible article about a leading "fake news" Web site that the Times tracked down. It turned out to be an entrepreneurial effort by an unemployed Georgian student using a Web site in Tbilisi to make some money by promoting pro-Trump stories, whether true or not. ..."
"... The owner of the Web site, 22-year-old Beqa Latsabidse, said he had initially tried to push stories favorable to Hillary Clinton but that proved unprofitable so he switched to publishing anti-Clinton and pro-Trump articles, including made-up stories. In other words, the Times found no Russian connection. ..."
"... But the even larger Internet problem is that many "reputable" news sites, such as AOL, lure readers into clicking on some sensationalistic or misleading headline, which takes readers to a story that is often tabloid trash or an extreme exaggeration of what the headline promised. ..."
"... This reality about the Internet should be the larger context in which the Russia-gate story plays out, the miniscule nature of this Russian "meddling" even if these "suspected links to Russia" – as the Times initially described the 470 Facebook pages – turn out to be true. ..."
"... And, there is the issue of who decides what's true. PolitiFact continues to defend its false claim that Hillary Clinton was speaking the truth when – in referencing leaked Democratic emails last October – she claimed that the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies "have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election." ..."
"... That claim was always untrue because a reference to a consensus of the 17 intelligence agencies suggests a National Intelligence Estimate or similar product that seeks the judgments of the entire intelligence community. No NIE or community-wide study was ever done on this topic. ..."
"... Only later – in January 2017 – did a small subset of the intelligence community, what Director of National Intelligence James Clapper described as "hand-picked" analysts from three agencies – the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation – issue an "assessment" blaming the Russians while acknowledging a lack of actual evidence . ..."
"... In other words, the Jan. 6 "assessment" was comparable to the "stovepiped" intelligence that influenced many of the mistaken judgments of President George W. Bush's administration. In "stovepiped" intelligence, a selected group of analysts is closeted away and develops judgments without the benefit of other experts who might offer contradictory evidence or question the groupthink. ..."
Exclusive: As the Russia-gate hysteria spirals down from the implausible to the absurd,
almost every bad thing is blamed on the Russians, even how they turned the previously pristine
Internet into a "sewer," reports Robert Parry.
With the U.S. government offering tens of
millions of dollars to combat Russian "propaganda and disinformation," it's perhaps not
surprising that we see "researchers" such as Jonathan Albright of the Tow Center for Digital
Journalism at Columbia University making the absurd accusation that the Russians have
"basically turned [the Internet] into a sewer."
I've been operating on the Internet since 1995 and I can assure you that the Internet
has always been "a sewer" -- in that it has been home to crazy conspiracy theories, ugly
personal insults, click-bait tabloid "news," and pretty much every vile prejudice you can think
of. Whatever some Russians may or may not have done in buying $100,000 in ads on Facebook
(compared to its $27 billion in annual revenue) or opening 201 Twitter accounts (out of
Twitter's 328 million monthly users), the Russians are not responsible for the sewage coursing
through the Internet.
Americans, Europeans, Asians, Africans and pretty much every other segment of the world's
population didn't need Russian help to turn the Internet into an informational "sewer." But, of
course, fairness and proportionality have no place in today's Russia-gate frenzy.
After all, your "non-governmental organization" or your scholarly "think tank" is not likely
to get a piece of
the $160 million that the U.S. government authorized last December to counter primarily
Russian "propaganda and disinformation" if you explain that the Russians are at most
responsible for a tiny trickle of "sewage" compared to the vast rivers of "sewage" coming from
many other sources.
If you put the Russia-gate controversy in context, you also are not likely to have your
"research"
cited by The Washington Post as Albright did on Thursday because he supposedly found some
links at the home-décor/fashion site Pinterest to a few articles that derived from a few
of the 470 Facebook accounts and pages that Facebook suspects of having a link to Russia and
shut them down. (To put that 470 number into perspective, Facebook has about two billion
monthly users.)
Albright's full quote about the Russians allegedly exploiting various social media platforms
on the Internet was: "They've gone to every possible medium and basically turned it into a
sewer."
But let's look at the facts. According to Facebook, the suspected "Russian-linked" accounts
purchased $100,000 in ads from 2015 to 2017 (compared to Facebook's annual revenue of about $27
billion), with only 44 percent of those ads appearing before the 2016 election and many having
little or nothing to do with politics, which is curious if the Kremlin's goal was to help elect
Donald Trump and defeat Hillary Clinton.
Even former Clinton political strategist Mark Penn has acknowledged the absurdity of
thinking that such piddling amounts could have any impact on a $2.4 billion presidential
campaign, plus all the billions of dollars worth of free-media attention to the conventions,
debates, etc. Based on what's known about the Facebook ads, Penn calculated that "the actual
electioneering [in battleground states] amounts to about $6,500."
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed on Monday, Penn added, "I have 40 years of experience in
politics, and this Russian ad buy mostly after the election anyway, simply does not add up to a
carefully targeted campaign to move voters. It takes tens of millions of dollars to deliver
meaningful messages to the contested portion of the electorate."
Puppies and Pokemon
And, then there is the curious content. According to The New York Times, one of these
"Russian-linked" Facebook groups was dedicated to
photos of "adorable puppies." Of course, the Times tried hard to detect some sinister
motive behind the "puppies" page.
Similarly, CNN went wild over its own
"discovery" that one of the "Russian-linked" pages offered Amazon gift cards to people who
found "Pokémon Go" sites near scenes where police shot unarmed black men -- if you would
name the Pokémon after the victims.
"It's unclear what the people behind the contest hoped to accomplish, though it may have
been to remind people living near places where these incidents had taken place of what had
happened and to upset or anger them," CNN mused, adding:
"CNN has not found any evidence that any Pokémon Go users attempted to enter the
contest, or whether any of the Amazon Gift Cards that were promised were ever awarded -- or,
indeed, whether the people who designed the contest ever had any intention of awarding the
prizes."
So, these dastardly Russians are exploiting "adorable puppies" and want to "remind people"
about unarmed victims of police violence, clearly a masterful strategy to undermine American
democracy or – according to the original Russia-gate narrative – to elect Donald
Trump.
A New York Times article
on Wednesday acknowledged another inconvenient truth that unintentionally added more
perspective to the Russia-gate hysteria.
It turns out that some of the mainstream media's favorite "fact-checking" organizations are
home to Google ads that look like news items and lead readers to phony sites dressed up to
resemble People, Vogue or other legitimate content providers.
"None of the stories were true," the Times reported. "Yet as recently as late last week,
they were being promoted with prominent ads served by Google on PolitiFact and Snopes,
fact-checking sites created precisely to dispel such falsehoods."
There is obvious irony in PolitiFact and Snopes profiting off "fake news" by taking money
for these Google ads. But this reality also underscores the larger reality that fabricated news
articles – whether peddling lies about Melania Trump or a hot new celebrity or outlandish
Russian plots – are driven principally by the profit motive.
The Truth About Fake News
Occasionally, the U.S. mainstream media even acknowledges that fact. For instance, last
November, The New York Times, which was then flogging the
Russia-linked "fake news" theme , ran
a relatively responsible article about a leading "fake news" Web site that the Times
tracked down. It turned out to be an entrepreneurial effort by an unemployed Georgian student
using a Web site in Tbilisi to make some money by promoting pro-Trump stories, whether true or
not.
The owner of the Web site, 22-year-old Beqa Latsabidse, said he had initially tried to push
stories favorable to Hillary Clinton but that proved unprofitable so he switched to publishing
anti-Clinton and pro-Trump articles, including made-up stories. In other words, the Times found
no Russian connection.
The Times article on Wednesday revealed the additional problem of Google ads placed on
mainstream Internet sites leading readers to bogus news sites to get clicks and thus
advertising dollars. And, it turns out that PolitiFact and Snopes were at least unwittingly
profiting off these entrepreneurial ventures by running their ads. Again, there was no claim
here of Russian "links." It was all about good ole American greed.
But the even larger Internet problem is that many "reputable" news sites, such as AOL, lure
readers into clicking on some sensationalistic or misleading headline, which takes readers to a
story that is often tabloid trash or an extreme exaggeration of what the headline promised.
This reality about the Internet should be the larger context in which the Russia-gate story
plays out, the miniscule nature of this Russian "meddling" even if these "suspected links to
Russia" – as the Times initially described the 470 Facebook pages – turn out to be
true.
But there are no lucrative grants going to "researchers" who would put the trickle of
alleged Russian "sewage" into the context of the vast flow of Internet "sewage" that is even
flowing through the esteemed "fact-checking" sites of PolitiFact and Snopes.
There are also higher newspaper sales and better TV ratings if the mainstream media keeps
turning up new angles on Russia-gate, even as some of the old ones fall away as inconsequential
or meaningless (such as the Senate Intelligence Committee dismissing earlier controversies over
Sen. Jeff Sessions's brief meeting with the Russian ambassador at the Mayflower Hotel and minor
changes in the Republican platform).
Saying 'False' Is 'True'
And, there is the issue of who decides what's true. PolitiFact continues to
defend its false claim that Hillary Clinton was speaking the truth when – in
referencing leaked Democratic emails last October – she claimed that the 17 U.S.
intelligence agencies "have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks,
come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our
election."
That claim was always untrue because a reference to a consensus of the 17 intelligence
agencies suggests a National Intelligence Estimate or similar product that seeks the judgments
of the entire intelligence community. No NIE or community-wide study was ever done on this
topic.
Only later – in January 2017 – did a small subset of the intelligence
community, what Director of National Intelligence James Clapper described as
"hand-picked" analysts from three agencies – the Central Intelligence Agency,
National Security Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation – issue an "assessment"
blaming the Russians while acknowledging
a lack of actual evidence .
In other words, the Jan. 6 "assessment" was comparable to the "stovepiped" intelligence
that influenced many of the mistaken judgments of President George W. Bush's administration. In
"stovepiped" intelligence, a selected group of analysts is closeted away and develops judgments
without the benefit of other experts who might offer contradictory evidence or question the
groupthink.
So, in many ways, Clinton's statement was the opposite of true both when she said it in 2016
and later in 2017 when she repeated
it in direct reference to the Jan. 6 assessment. If PolitiFact really cared about facts, it
would have corrected its earlier claim that Clinton was telling the truth, but the
fact-checking organization wouldn't budge -- even after The New York Times and The Associated
Press ran corrections.
In this context, PolitiFact showed its contempt even for conclusive evidence –
testimony from former DNI Clapper (corroborated by former CIA Director John Brennan) that the
17-agency claim was false. Instead, PolitiFact was determined to protect Clinton's false
statement from being described for what it was: false.
Of course, maybe PolitiFact is suffering from the arrogance of its elite status as an
arbiter of truth with its position on Google's First Draft coalition, a collection of
mainstream news outlets and fact-checkers which gets to decide what information is true and
what is not true -- for algorithms that then will exclude or downplay what's deemed
"false."
So, if PolitiFact says something is true – even if it's false – it becomes
"true." Thus, it's perhaps not entirely ironic that PolitiFact would collect money from Google
ads placed on its site by advertisers of fake news.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen
Narrative, either in print here or
as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
David G , October 18, 2017 at 5:57 pm
I bet the Russians are responsible for all the naked lady internet pictures as well. Damn
you, Vladimir Vladimirovich, for polluting our purity.
TS , October 19, 2017 at 5:43 am
Two-thirds of a century ago, Arthur C. Clarke, who besides being a famous SF author,
conceived the concept of the communications satellite, published a short story in which the
Chinese use satellite broadcasting to flood the USA with porn in order spread moral
degeneracy. Wadya think?
Mr. Mueller! Mr. Mueller! Investigate who the owners of YouPorn are!
It's all a Chinese plot, not a Russian one!
Broompilot , October 19, 2017 at 1:55 pm
I second the motion!
Antiwar7 , October 19, 2017 at 7:48 pm
"Mandrake, have you never wondered why I drink only distilled water, or rainwater, and
only pure-grain alcohol?"
richard vajs , October 20, 2017 at 7:50 am
And Vladimir keeps tempting me with offers of money that he found abandoned in Nigerian
banks and mysteriously bequeathed to me.
This sounds eerily similar to newspeak described by George Orwell "1984" in
Sam F , October 18, 2017 at 7:20 pm
The failure of Russia bashers to rank all nations on FB ads and accounts, proves that they
know they are lying. Random Russians (about 2% of the world population) may have spent 100K
on mostly apolitical ads on FB (about 0.0004%) and may have 470 accounts on FB (about
0.000025%). So Russians have far fewer FB ads and accounts per capita than the average
nation. Probably most developed nations have a higher per capita usage of FB, and many
individuals and companies may have a higher total usage of FB.
The fact that 160 million is spent to dig up phony evidence of Russian influence (totaling
about 0.13% of the investigation cost), proves that such "researchers" are paid liars; they
are the ones who should be prosecuted for subversion of democracy for personal gain.
The fact that all views may be found on internet does not make it a "sewer" because one
can view only what is useful. The Dems and Repubs regard the People as a sewer, because they
believe that power=virtue=money no matter how unethically they get it, to rationalize
oligarchy. They keep the most abusive and implausible ads out of mass media only because no
advertiser wants them, but of course they don't want the truth either.
JWalters , October 18, 2017 at 9:03 pm
Add MSNBC to the sources of sewage on the internet. I checked out MSNBC today, and they
are full-throttle on any kind of Russia-phobia. For those who read somewhat widely, it is
obvious they are not even trying to present a balanced picture of the actual evidence. It is
completely one-sided, and includes the trashiest trash of that one side. Their absolute lack
of integrity matches Fox on its worst days.
As someone who formerly watched MSNBC regularly, I am sickened at the obvious capituation
to the criminal Zionists who own the network. Have these people no decency? Apparently not.
Historians will judge them harshly.
Dave P. , October 19, 2017 at 11:28 am
JWalters –
Yes. I completely agree with you. I am beginning to wonder if these people who are
spitting out this trashiest trash at MSNBC from their mouths every day for over a year now
are really sane people. I believe that along with politicians like Adam Schiff, these talk
show hosts have slid into complete madness. The way it is going now, I am afraid that If
these people are not removed, there is a danger of the whole country sliding into some form
of madness.
anonymous , October 20, 2017 at 2:12 pm
"Historians will judge them harshly."
The western civilisation galloped to worldly success on the twin horses of Greed and
Psychopathy. This also provided them the opportunity to write history as they wished.
Are historians judging them harshly now? They are themselves whores to whichever society
they belong to.
Anna , October 19, 2017 at 5:32 pm
Jonathan Albright, the Research Director at the Tow Center for Digital Journalism,
[email protected] . https://towcenter.org/about/who-we-are/
Mr. Albright is preparing for himself a feathered nest among other presstitutes swarming the
many ziocons' "think tanks," like the viciously russophobic (and unprofessional) Atlantic
Council that employs the ignoramus Eliot Higgins (a former salesman of ladies' underwear and
college dropout) and Dmitry Alperovitch of CrowdStrike fame, a Russophobe and threat to the
US national security
One can be sure that Jonathan Albright knows already all the answers (similar to Judy Miller)
and he is not interested in any proven expertise like the one provided by the Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-russia-hack-evidence/
.
Can anyone out there please supply me with a couple of Russian hit pieces that crippled
Hillary´s campaigne. Just askin, because I have never seen one.
Michael K Rohde , October 18, 2017 at 8:29 pm
You obviously haven't looked hard enough. I just finished the book "Shattered" and she had
no problem blaming the Russians when the emails of Podesta came out in the summer. It took
her a day or 2 to figure out that she couldn't blame the Arabs so the Russians were next up.
How could you have missed it?
Sam F , October 18, 2017 at 9:38 pm
He is likely asking for ads from Russia that actually could have served as "hit pieces"
against Clinton, versus her accusations.
I fear we must set aside our sarcasm and understand that this entire Russian narrative has
the ultimate goal of silencing any oppositional news sources to the corporate media. When we
hear that Facebook is seeking to hire people with national security clearances, which is made
to sound as if it's a good, responsible reaction to the "Russian ads" and is cheered on by
people who should know better, we need to get our tongues out of our cheeks and stay
alert.
A good friend, who is an activist battling the fracking industry in Colorado and blogging
about it, was urging people this week to sign petitions demanding more censorship on Facebook
to "prevent Russian propaganda." When I pointed out that, based on the Jan. 6 "report," which
condemned RT America for "criticizing the fracking industry" as proof it was a propaganda
organ, her blog is Russian propaganda. Did that change her mind? Nope. Her response was in
the category of "Better safe."
So, it appears Russia is not replacing "Muslim terrorists" as the "great danger" our
beloved and benevolent government must ask us to hand over our rights to combat. And people
who can't seem to get it through their heads the government is NOT their friend are marching
in lock-step to agree because it never occurs to them they, too, are a target.
Sam F , October 18, 2017 at 7:39 pm
Yes, the purpose of Russia bashing is to distract from the revelations of DNC corruption
by oligarchy (top ten Clinton donors all zionists), attack leakers as opponents of oligarchy,
and attack Russia in hope of benefits to the zionists in the Mideast.
Perhaps you meant to say that "Russia is [not] replacing "Muslim terrorists" as the 'great
danger' our beloved and benevolent government must ask us to hand over our rights to combat."
Or perhaps you meant that the Russia-gate gambit is not working.
Abe , October 18, 2017 at 8:32 pm
American psychologist Gustave Gilbert interviewed high-ranking Nazi leaders during the
International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. In 1947, Gilbert published part of his diary,
consisting of observations taken during interviews, interrogations, "eavesdropping" and
conversations with German prisoners, under the title Nuremberg Diary.
Hermann Goering, one of the most powerful figures in the Nazi Party, was founder of the
Gestapo and Head of the Luftwaffe.
From an 18 April 1946 interview with Gilbert in Goering's jail cell:
Hermann Goering: "Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a
farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back
to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor
in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after
all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple
matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a
Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
Gilbert: "There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter
through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare
wars."
Hermann Goering: "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell
them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Dave P. , October 19, 2017 at 12:44 am
Abe –
Good post. Yes, from all the wars initiated during the last half century what Hermann
Goring said is very true of U.S. The opposition to the Vietnam War later on was largely
because of the draft.
Bertrand Russell in his autobiography describes in length how they prepared the U.K.
public with outrageously false propaganda for War – World War I – against Germany
in 1914. Bertrand Russell was vehemently against the War with Germany and spent some time in
Jail for his activities to oppose the war.
Brad Owen , October 19, 2017 at 3:58 am
Based on what I have read about him, in his own words,on EIR, he was probably opposed to
war with Germany because he was already looking ahead to a revival of the "Imperial Rome"
situation we have in the Trans-Atlantic Community today, with its near-global Empire
(enforced by America), working on breaking up the last holdout:the Eurasian Quarter with
Russia, China, India, Iran, etc.
Dave P. , October 20, 2017 at 2:21 am
Yes Brad, Bertrand Russell did love England and was very proud of English Civilization and
it's contributions to the World. Considering his very aristocratic background, his
contributions to mathematics and Philosophy are laudable. And he was very much involved in
World peace and nuclear disarmament movements.
(Goering quote) ahh yes, sometimes it takes a cynical scoundrel to tell the truth!
T.Walsh , October 20, 2017 at 11:09 am
the major war criminals' trial ended in 1946, with the execution of the 10 major war
criminals taking place on October 16, 1946.
Joe Tedesky , October 18, 2017 at 8:48 pm
Elizabeth for the mere fact you are on this site may possibly be your reason for your
escape from the MSM as it is a propaganda tool, to be used by the Shadow Government to guide
your thought processes. (See YouTube Kevin Shipp for explanation for Shadow Government and
Deep State) other than that I think it safe to say we are living in an Orwellian predicted
state of mass communications, and for sure we are now living in a police state to accompany
our censored news. Joe
Joe Tedesky , October 18, 2017 at 10:02 pm
Here is something I feel may ring your bell when it comes to our maintaining a free press.
Read this .
"From the PR perspective, releasing one anti-Russia story after another helps cement a
narrative far better than an all-at-once approach to controlling the news cycle. The public
is now getting maximum effect from what I believe is a singular and cohesive effort to lay
the groundwork for global legislation to eradicate any dissent and particular dissent that is
pro-Russia or pro-Putin. The way the news cycle works, a campaign is best leveled across two
weeks, a month, or more, so that the desired audience is thoroughly indoctrinated with an
idea or a product. In this case, the product is an Orwellian eradication of freedom of speech
across the swath of the world's most used social media platforms. This is a direct result of
traditional media and the deep state having failed to defeat independents across these
platforms. People unwilling to bow to the CNN, BBC and the controlled media message, more or
less beat the globalist scheme online. So, the only choice and chance for the anti-Russia
message to succeed is with the complete takeover of ALL channels. As further proof of a
collective effort, listen to this Bloomberg interview the other day with Microsoft CEO Brad
Smith on the same "legislation" issues. Smith's rhetoric, syntax, and the flow of his
narrative mirror almost precisely the other social CEOs, the US legislators, and especially
the UK Government dialogue. All these technocrats feign concern over privacy protection and
free speech/free press issues, but their real agenda is the main story."
Here is the link for the rest of the essay to Phil Butler's important news story ..
When you read this keep in mind that the Russians weren't doing any backroom illegal
deals, because the Russians thought that they were dealing on the upside with the Obama White
House State Department. Where you may question this, is where our Obama State Department side
stepped the law to make money for those couple of Americans who fronted this deal. This is
the epitome of hypocrisy of the worst kind.
Disclaimer; please Clinton and Trump supporters try and attempt to see this scandal for
what it is. This fudging of the law to make a path for questionable donations is not a party
platform issue. It is an issue of integrity and honesty. Yes Trump is the worst, but after
you dig into the above link I provided, please don't come back at me screaming partisan
politics. This scandal doesn't deserve a two sided political debate, as much as it deserves
our attention, and what we do all should do about it.
Dave P. , October 19, 2017 at 2:56 pm
Joe Tedesky –
Reading about this Russian Bribery case in buying interest in "Uranium One" reminds me
that Russians came a century or two late into this Capitalist Game. And they must be novices
and rather crude in this business of bribing. This Russia bribery case is just a puddle in
this vast Sea of Corruption to sell weapons, fighter jets, commercial airplanes, and other
things by U.S., U.K., French, Swedes or other Western Nations to the Third World countries
like India, Egypt, Philippines, Indonesia, Nigeria etc. To make a sale of three or four
billion dollars they would bribe the ministers and other officials in those countries
probably with a 100 million dollars easily. Those of us who belong to the two worlds know it
much better. The Indian Newspapers used to be always full of it, whenever I visited.
And the bribe money stays in the Western banks with which those ministers and officials
sons and daughters buy extensive properties in these countries. In fact, these kind of issues
are the topic of conversation at these Ethnic parties of rather prosperous people to which we
do get invited once in a year or so – which minister or official bought what property
and where with this kind or other type of corruption money. There used to be stories about
Egyptian Presidents Sadat and Mubarak's sons playing around in U.S. having bought extensive
properties with the bribe money. For Indian Ministers and Officials U.S., Canada, Australia,
U.K., and New Zealand are the preferred destinations to buy the properties.
And as we know with the corruption money, rich Russians are buying all these homes and
other properties in Spain, U.S., U.K. and other Western Countries. It seems like Putin and
his team have stopped most of big time corruption but it is very hard to stop the other
corruption in this globalized free market economy, especially in countries where corruption
is the norm.
Same is true of these IMF loans to those Third World Countries. Most of the money ends up
in these Western Countries. The working class of those countries end up in paying back the
high interest loans.
This is the World we are trying to defend with these endless wars and Russia-Gate.
Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 11:20 pm
Dave I concur that even the Russians are not beyond corruption, but we are not talking
about the bad habits of the Russians, no we are talking about U.S. officials possibly
breaking the law. I'll bet Dave if I had taken you on a vandalizing spree when we were young
bad ass little hoodlums, and we got caught, that your father wouldn't have come after me, as
much as he would come after you, as he would have given you a well deserved good spanking for
your bad actions. So with that frame of mind I am keeping my focus with this Clinton escapade
right here at home.
I like that you did point out to how the Russians maybe new to this capitalistic new world
they suddenly find themselves in, but I would not doubt that even an old Soviet Commissar
would have reached under the table for a kickback of somekind to enrich himself, if the
occasion had arisen to do so. You know this Dave, that bribery has no political philosophy,
nor does it have a democratic or communist ideology to prevent the corrupted from being
corrupt.
I am not getting my hopes up that justice will be served with this FBI investigation into
Hillary and Bill's uranium finagling. Although I'm surmising this whole thing will get turned
around as a Sessions Trump attack upon the Clintons, and with that this episode of selling
off American assets for personal wealth benefits, will instead fade away from our news cycles
altogether. Just like the torture stuff went missing, and where did that go?
Dave I always look forward to hearing from you, because I think that you and I often have
many a good conversation. Joe
Dave P. , October 20, 2017 at 2:07 am
Yes Joe. I agree with you. The reason I wrote my comments was to make a point that Russian
businessmen are not the only one who are in the bribery business, the businessmen of other
Western Nations are doing the same thing. Yesterday on the Fox News the "Uranium One" bribery
case was the main News. Shawn Hannity was twisting his words to make it look like that it is
Putin who did it, and that it is Putin who gave all this 140 million as bribery to Clinton
Foundation. Actually , I think the 140 millions was given to the Clinton Foundation by the
trustees of the Company in Canada. And Russian officials probably greased the hands of a few
of them too.
Of course Clintons are directly involved in this case. Considering how Hillary Clinton has
been perpetuating this Russia-Gate hysteria, I hope some truth comes out to show that she may
be the real center of this Russia-Gate affair. But way the things in Washington are now,
probably they are going to whitewash the Hillary Clinton's role in this bribery scandal.
Joe Tedesky , October 18, 2017 at 10:55 pm
While my one comment i wanted for you to read is being moderated, and it is an important
comment, read how the Israeli's handle unwanted news broadcasting. When you read this think
of the Kristallnacht episode, and then wonder why the Israeli's would do such a terrible
thing similar to what they had encountered under Hitler's reign.
Be sure to see my comment I left above, which is being moderated. In the meantime go to
NEO New Eastern Outlook and read Phil Butler's shocking story, 'Globalist Counterpunch: Going
for the Media Knockout'.
backwardsevolution , October 19, 2017 at 3:41 am
Joe Tedesky – the Zionists had been working (long before Hitler) on getting the Jews
into Palestine. Read up on the Balfour Declaration. Hitler was helping them get out to
Palestine. During World War II, one of the top German officials (can't remember which one
right now) went to Palestine to have discussions with the Zionists. The Zionists basically
said to him: "Look, you're sending us lazy Jews. These guys aren't interested in
construction. Can't you raise more hell so that the harder-working Jews will want to leave
Germany and come to Palestine?"
I think if we ever find out the truth about what happened, we will be shocked.
Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 9:11 am
Edmund de Rothschild who was a big financier of Zionism in 1934 on the subject of
Palestine had said, "the struggle to put an end to the Wandering Jew, could not have as its
result, the creation of the Wandering Arab."
I personally can't see the legality of the 'Balfour Declaration', but before Zionist
trolls attack me, I must admit I'm no legal scholar.
I'll need to research that episode you speak of about the Germans meeting the Zionist.
It's not an easy part of the Zionist history to study. Unless, you backwardsevolution can
provide some references that would help to learn more about this fuzzy history.
Good to see you posting, for awhile your absence gave me concern that you are doing okay.
Joe
Skip Scott , October 19, 2017 at 8:38 am
Thanks for the links Joe. Both great articles.
Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 9:14 am
Your welcome Skip I'll apologize for my posting all these links, but I kind of went nuts
getting into the subject we are all talking about here, and more. Joe
Joe Tedesky , October 18, 2017 at 11:21 pm
Although this article by the Saker talks about the U.S. being prepared for war against
Iran it speaks to the bigger problem of who is America's puppet master.
Joe start with a book called The Transfer Agreement by Edwin Black
Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 11:25 pm
I put it on my next book to read. Thanks Tannerhouser appreciate your recommendation.
Joe
dfc , October 18, 2017 at 8:55 pm
Elizabeth: Tell your good friend that once they get rid of the Russian propaganda
on Facebook they will coming after those that oppose the Fracking Industry next:
How Hillary Clinton's State Department Sold Fracking to the World
Sorry, but how naive or deeply in the bubble can one be? lol :(
Beverly Voelkelt , October 19, 2017 at 2:50 am
I agree Elizabeth. The ultimate objective is censorship and control, using the pretext of
keeping America safe from external meddling just like they enacted the Patroit Act to protect
us from the terrists they created.
Daniel , October 19, 2017 at 5:04 am
Thank you Elizabeth. Shutting down alternative voices is clearly the end game here.
David G , October 18, 2017 at 6:25 pm
I'm not crazy about Robert Parry's phrase, "the mistaken judgments of President George W.
Bush's administration".
The lying, murdering bastards were lying. It's their parents that made the mistake.
But I'll let it slide.
Tayo , October 18, 2017 at 6:29 pm
I've said this before and I'll say it again: I suggest Mueller focuses on Tinder too. I'm
betting there's something on there. Russians have been known to use honey pot plots.
D.H. Fabian , October 18, 2017 at 6:40 pm
Ah, but who is better at it -- Russia or the US? (And dare we even consider the power of
China to infiltrate political powers and the media?)
anon , October 18, 2017 at 7:46 pm
So do Martians and every other national, religious, and ethnic group on the planet, with
the US out in front. You will not trick more careful thinkers by attacking the target du
jour.
D.H. Fabian , October 18, 2017 at 6:38 pm
Yes, and over the past week or two, it appears that work is being redirected into holding
the vast military behemoth (?), Israel, accountable for our own political/policy choices.
Either way, the US is clearly in its post-reality era.
anon , October 18, 2017 at 7:49 pm
zio-alert
Abe , October 18, 2017 at 10:06 pm
The naked gun of post-reality Hasbara propaganda:
When Israeli influence on US foreign policy choices may be discussed, Hasbara troll "D.H.
Fabian" pops up to insist:
And what do you want to discuss Abe? That there is undue influence from Israel on the US
government? Maybe, but you could say the same thing about the pharmaceuticals, the MIC, big
oil and the bankers, just to begin the list.
If you and others wish to focus in on a single culprit (defined as anyone fighting for
their own self interests), fine. But there are opposing views that believe the picture is
bigger than the one you would like to paint.
Curious , October 19, 2017 at 1:26 am
WC, I don't want to speak for Abe, but I am wondering about your use of the word "maybe".
Since the last count of US politicians was 13 Senators, and 27 House Reps who are dual
citizens of Israel, does that not imply a conflict of interest just in those stats alone?
Israel doesn't allow dual citizenship in their political system as it is a security risk, so
why do we? I will wait for your reply.
WC , October 19, 2017 at 4:23 am
Curious.
I can't speak for the legalities that led to allowing dual citizenship in the House and
Senate, nor why Israel doesn't allow dual citizenship in their political system. Like a lot
of laws it is probably serving someone's best interests. ;)
As for the word "maybe" and how it relates to your overall question. Just because there
are dual citizen reps in government, does that automatically say they all vote in the
interests of Israel exclusively? And even if that were the case what makes them any different
from the rep sold out to the MIC, big oil, pharmaceuticals, bankers, etc., or combination of?
We'd then need to do a study of all of the sold-out politicians and chart the percentage of
each to the various interests they sold out to. At what percentage does Israel come into the
big picture?
No one is denying Israel has a certain influence on the US government, but given all of
the vested interests involved, the US also has a big stake in what happens in the region. I
also don't know what the overall game plan is, not just for the middle east but all of the
sordid shit going on everywhere. If old George is right about "The Big Club", I'm assuming
some group or combination of groups have some master plan for us all, so I am not ready to
label any group, country or entity good or bad at this stage of the game. If this somehow
leaves out the moral question, I am not idealistic enough to believe morality and
Geo-politics often work hand in hand. :)
Brad Owen , October 19, 2017 at 4:41 am
WCs point is valid and correct. The picture is MUCH bigger than a tiny desert country of a
few million Semites ruling the World. The actual picture is the outgrowth of the several,
world-wide, European Empires having united into one, gigantic "Roman Empire" (under
Synarchist directorship) and CAPTURED America, post WWII, to be its enforcer, working to
break the last holdout: the Eurasian Quarter including Iran, into a truly global Empire.
Israel was a strategy of the British Empire to preclude any revival of a Muslim Empire,
threatening its MENA holdings. The enemy is still the British Empire of the 1%er oligarchs in
City-of-London and Wall Street. The fact that NOBODY pays attention to this situation, and
obsesses over Israel, guarantees the success of the Plan.
anon , October 19, 2017 at 7:29 am
No, the problem of Mideast policy and oligarchy control of mass media is entirely due to
zionist influence, including all top ten donors to Clinton 2016. Ukraine and the entire
problem of surrounding and opposing Russia is due primarily to zionist influence, due to
their intervention in the Mideast, although the MIC is happy to join the corruption for war
anywhere. The others on your list "pharmaceuticals, big oil and the bankers" are involved in
other problems.
WC seeks to divert discussion from zionist influence by changing the subject.
anon , October 19, 2017 at 7:33 am
Brad, you will have a hard time explaining why US wars in the Mideast and surrounding
Russia are always for the benefit of Israel, if you think that ancient Venetians and British
aristocracy are running the show. Looks like a diversionary attack to me.
Abe , October 20, 2017 at 2:05 am
The naked solo of "D.H. Fabian" has surged into a Hasbara chorus. Where to begin.
Let's start with "Curious", who definitely does not speak for me.
The "dual citizens" canard is a stellar example of Inverted Hasbara (false flag
"anti-Israel", "anti-Zionist", frequently "anti-Jewish" or "anti-Semitic") propaganda that
gets ramped up whenever needed, but particularly Israel rains bombs on the neighborhood.
Like Conventional Hasbara (overtly pro-Israel or pro-Zionist) propaganda, the primary
purpose of Inverted Hasbara false flag propaganda is to divert attention from Israeli
military and government actions, and to provide cover for Israel Lobby activities
The Inverted Hasbara canard inserted by "Curious" came into prominence after the
Israel-initiated war Lebanon in 2006. Israel's shaky military performance, flooding of south
Lebanon cluster munitions, use of white phosphorus in civilian areas brought censure. Further
Israeli attacks on Gaza brought increasing pressure on the neocon-infested Bush
administration for its backing of Israel.
A Facebook post titled, "List of Politicians with Israeli Dual Citizenship," started
circulating. The post mentioned "U.S. government appointees who hold powerful positions and
who are dual American-Israeli citizens."
With the change of US administration in 2008, new versions of the post appeared with
headlines such as "Israeli Dual Citizens in the U.S. Congress and the Obama Administration."
Common versions included 22 officials currently or previously with the Obama administration,
27 House members and 13 senators.
The posts were false for a variety of reasons, not least of which was the
misrepresentation of Israeli nationality law. Israel does allow its citizens to hold dual (or
multiple) citizenship. A dual national is considered an Israeli citizen for all purposes, and
is entitled to enter Israel without a visa, stay in Israel according to his own desire,
engage in any profession and work with any employer according to Israeli law. An exception is
that under an additional law added to the Basic Law: the Knesset (Article 16A) according to
which Knesset members cannot pledge allegiance unless their foreign citizenship has been
revoked, if possible, under the laws of that country.
The Law of Return grants all Jews the right to immigrate to Israel and almost automatic
Israeli citizenship upon arrival in Israel. In the 1970s the Law of Return was expanded to
grant the same rights to the spouse of a Jew, the children of a Jew and their spouses, and
the grandchildren of a Jew and their spouses, provided that the Jew did not practice a
religion other than Judaism willingly. In 1999, the Supreme Court of Israel ruled that Jews
or the descendants of Jews that actively practice a religion other than Judaism are not
entitled to immigrate to Israel as they would no longer be considered Jews under the Law of
Return, irrespective of their status under halacha (Jewish religious law).
Israeli law distinguishes between the Law of Return, which allows for Jews and their
descendants to immigrate to Israel, and Israel's nationality law, which formally grants
Israeli citizenship. In other words, the Law of Return does not itself determine Israeli
citizenship; it merely allows for Jews and their eligible descendants to permanently live in
Israel. Israel does, however, grant citizenship to those who immigrated under the Law of
Return if the applicant so desires.
A non-Israeli Jew or an eligible descendant of a non-Israeli Jew needs to request approval
to immigrate to Israel, a request which can be denied for a variety of reasons including (but
not limited to) possession of a criminal record, currently infected with a contagious
disease, or otherwise viewed as a threat to Israeli society. Within three months of arriving
in Israel under the Law of Return, immigrants automatically receive Israeli citizenship
unless they explicitly request not to.
In short, knowingly or not, "Curious" is spouting Inverted Hasbara propaganda.
Conventional Hasbara (pro-Israel, pro-Zionist) propagandists constantly attempt to portray
Israeli military threats against its neighbors, Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian
territory, Zionist claims of an "unconditional land grant covenant" for Israel, or the
manipulations of the Israel Lobby, as somehow all based on "the way the world really
works".
"WC" has repeatedly promoted a loony "realism" in the CN comments, claiming for example
that "The Jews aren't doing anything different than the rest have done since the beginning of
time."
The Conventional Hasbara troll refrain is that whatever Israel does "ain't no big
thing".
"D.H. Fabian", "WC" and others are not Hasbara trolls because we somehow "disagree". They
are Hasbara trolls because they promote propaganda for Israel.
Fellow travellers round out the Hasbara chorus.
Commenter anon discourses in absolutes such as "entirely due to zionist influence" and
"always for the benefit of Israel".
Commenter Brad Owen just can't understand why everyone "obsesses" over that "tiny desert
country" when "the Plan" outlined by LaRouche is sooo much more interesting.
Dave P. , October 20, 2017 at 11:55 am
Abe – An excellent analysis – very penetrating. Yes, I understand it very
clearly.
I am one of those who does not have the background in this area. However, reading the
largely British view oriented newspapers since I was fourteen , in a different land where at
that time during 1950's and early 60's, all viewpoints were discussed including the communist
Russian/Soviet side, and the Communist Chinese side too, one develops a balanced outlook on
the World events.
Reading your comments on Israel's citizenship laws, is very eye opening for me. Israel is
a very Racist State, which is kind of the opposite of what Jewish Writers write books in this
country about America being the melting pot. Some of us have already melted here. I sometimes
wonder, Jewish writers are writing all these books, but why don't they melt! Are they special
chosen people?
WC , October 20, 2017 at 4:59 pm
Let me first dispel the notion that I am trying to change the subject, as "anon" would
like to imply. What I am after is a proper perspective as opposed to something blown out of
proportion.
When it comes to the subject of Israel, Jews and Zionism, Abe would appear to be well
versed on the subject. He certainly cleared up "Curious"s question on dual citizenship!
With Abe and others on this site, Zionism is the big daddy culprit in the world today. I,
on the other hand, see it as simply one part of a bigger picture, which I am still trying to
get my head around, but I am quite certain it goes far beyond just a regional issue. In
reading what Abe has to say on this subject over the past few months, he may very well be
right about Zionist influence and a take no prisoners-type of resolve in pursuing their aims
(whatever that may be). But none of this has yet to convince me they are entirely wrong
either.
Which brings us to the subject of morality. Take a second look at what Abe has chosen to
cherry pick from what he sees as the "Hasbara chorus" – all pointing to "trolls" who
(he thinks) are in support of an all powerful and heartless sect. This is what is known as
being overly dramatic and speaks volumes about what Abe (and others on this site) view as the
most objectionable of all – the moral wrongs being committed. For the sake of
clarification "morality" is defined as "principles concerning the distinction between right
and wrong or good and bad behavior". Most of us who are not suffering from a mental disorder
can agree on what constitutes right and wrong at its purist level, but thrown into a world
filled with crime, corruption, greed, graft, hate, lust, sociopaths and psychopaths vying for
power, sectarian violence, a collapsing economy, inner city decay, and all of the vested
special interests jockeying to save their piece of the pie, what is right and wrong becomes
far more convoluted and mired in mud. Simply throwing perfect world idealism at the problem
will not fix it. In fact, it will get you as far as the miles of crucified Christians that
lined the road to Rome. Which is a hell of a way to prove you are so right in a world filled
with so much wrong.
Since the day I "slithered in" here, I have asked the same question over and over –
what are your REAL world solutions to REAL world problems? So far, the chorus of the Church
Of The Perfect World has offered up nothing. :)
Abe , October 20, 2017 at 6:07 pm
Making the same statements over and over again, "WC" is clearly "after" a Hasbara "proper
perspective" on Israel.
For example, in the CN comments on How Syria's Victory Reshapes Mideast (September 30,
2017), "WC" advanced three key Hasbara propaganda talking points concerning the illegal
50-year military occupation of Palestinian territory seized by Israel during the 1967
War:
– Spurious claims about "what realistically (not idealistically) can be done"
– Insistence that "Israel is not going to go back to the 1948 borders"
– Claims that the US "depends on a strong Israeli presence"
A leading canard of Hasbara propaganda and the Israeli right wing Neo-Zionist settlement
movement is the notion of an "unconditional land grant covenant" entitlement for Israel.
Land ownership was far more widespread than depicted in the fictions of Israeli
propaganda. In reality, the Israeli government knowingly confiscated privately owned
Palestinian land and construct a network of outposts and settlements.
Israel's many illegal activities in occupied Palestinian territory encompass Neo-Zionist
settlements, so-called "outposts" and declared "state land".
The United Nations has repeatedly upheld the view that Israel's construction of
settlements constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention (which provides
humanitarian protections for civilians in a war zone).
The 1967 "border" of Israel refers to the Green Line or 1949 Armistice demarcation line set
out in the Armistice Agreements between Israel and Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria after the
1948 Arab–Israeli War.
The Green Line was intended as a demarcation line rather than a permanent border. The 1949
Armistice Agreements were clear (at Arab insistence) that they were not creating permanent
borders. The Egyptian–Israeli agreement, for example, stated that "the Armistice
Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,
and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the
Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question."
Similar provisions are contained in the Armistice Agreements with Jordan and Syria. The
Agreement with Lebanon contained no such provisions, and was treated as the international
border between Israel and Lebanon, stipulating only that forces would be withdrawn to the
Israel–Lebanon border.
United Nations General Assembly Resolutions and statements by many international bodies
refer to the "pre-1967 borders" or the "1967 borders" of Israel and neighboring
countries.
According to international humanitarian law, the establishment of Israeli communities
inside the occupied Palestinian territories – settlements and outposts alike – is
forbidden. Despite this prohibition, Israel began building settlements in the West Bank
almost immediately following its occupation of the area in 1967.
Defenders of Israel's settlement policies, like David Friedman, the current United States
Ambassador to Israel, argue that the controversy over Israeli settlements in occupied
Palestinian territory is overblown.
The Israeli government and Israel Lobby advocates like Ambassador Friedman claim the
built-up area of settlements comprises only around 2% of the West Bank.
This Hasbara "2%" argument is at best ignorant, and at worst deliberately
disingenuous.
The "2%" figure is misleading because it refers restrictively to the amount of land
Israeli settlers have built on, but does not account for the multiple ways these settlements
create a massive, paralytic footprint in the illegally occupied Palestinian territory of the
West Bank.
Since 1967, Israel has taken control of around 50% of the land of the West Bank. And
almost all of that land has been given to the settlers or used for their benefit. Israel has
given almost 10% of the West Bank to settlers – by including it in the "municipal area"
of settlements. And it has given almost 34% of the West Bank to settlers – by placing
it under the jurisdiction of the Settlement "Regional Councils."
In addition, Israel has taken hundreds of kilometers of the West Bank to build
infrastructure to serve the settlements, including a network of roads that crisscross the
entire West Bank, dividing Palestinian cities and towns from each other, and imposing various
barriers to Palestinian movement and access, all for the benefit of the settlements.
Israel has used various means to do this, included by declaring much of the West Bank to
be "state land," taking over additional land for security purposes, and making it nearly
impossible for Palestinians to register claims of ownership to their own land.
The Israeli Supreme Court has repeatedly used the term "belligerent occupation" to
describe Israel's rule over the West Bank and Gaza. Indeed, Israel's Supreme Court ruled that
the question of a previous sovereign claim to the West Bank and Gaza is irrelevant to whether
international laws relating to occupied territories should apply there.
Rather, the proper question – according to Israel's highest court – is one of
effective military control. In the words of the Supreme Court decision, "as long as the
military force exercises control over the territory, the laws of war will apply to it." (see:
HCJ 785/87, Afo v. Commander of IDF Forces in the West Bank).
The Palestinian territories were conquered by Israeli armed forces in the 1967 war.
Whether Israel claims that the war was forced upon it is irrelevant. The Palestinian
territory has been controlled and governed by the Israeli military ever since.
Who claimed the territories before they were occupied is immaterial. What is material is
that before 1967, Israel did not claim the territories.
Ariel Sharon, one of the principal architects of Israel's settlement building policy in
the West Bank and Gaza, recognized this reality. On May 26, 2003, then Israeli Prime Minister
Sharon told fellow Likud Party members: "You may not like the word, but what's happening is
occupation [using the Hebrew word "kibush," which is only used to mean "occupation"]. Holding
3.5 million Palestinians under occupation is a bad thing for Israel, for the Palestinians and
for the Israeli economy."
Whether one believes that these territories are legally occupied or not does not change
the basic facts: Israel is ruling over a population of millions of Palestinians who are not
Israeli citizens. Demographic projections indicate that Jews will soon be a minority in the
land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.
Real world solutions:
An end to the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory.
An end to apartheid government and the beginning of real democracy in Israel.
What can be done now?
United States government sanctions against Israel for its 50-year military occupation of
Palestine, its apartheid social regime, and its arsenal of nuclear weapons.
The United States can require Israel to withdraw its forces to the 1967 line, and honor
the right of return to Palestinians who fled their homeland as a result of Israel's multiple
ethnic cleansing operations.
In addition, the United States can demand that immediately surrender its destabilizing
nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons arsenal or face severe U.S. action.
Hasbara trolls will keep trying to change the subject, continue muttering about "opposing
views" and some "bigger picture" picture", and repeatedly insist that an Israel armed with
weapons of mass destruction routinely attacking its neighbors "ain't no big thing".
Tannenhouser , October 20, 2017 at 10:30 am
Most of the ones in control of "pharmaceuticals, the MIC, big oil and the bankers" are
Israel firsters as well. Round and round we go eh?
This is probably as good a place as any to point out that it isn't just Russophobia at
work; Congress is hard at work to protect Israel's abominable human rights record from public
criticism as well. The Israel Anti-Boycott Act is squarely aimed at criminalizing advocates
of the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement and has 50 co-sponsors in the
Senate. See
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/720?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22israel+anti-boycott+act%22%5D%7D&r=2
wapo says Hamas disarm because us and israel want them to.israel won't disarm
though.Boy.
Curious , October 18, 2017 at 6:44 pm
Thank you Mr Parry for actually taking the time to read the NYT or WaPo for your readers,
so we don't have to. There is only so much disinformation one can cram into our 'cranium soft
drives' regarding journalists with no ethics nor moral rudders.
It reminds me of watching Jon Stewarts Daily Show to check out the perverse drivel on Fox
News since to watch Fox myself would have damaged me beyond repair. Many of my friends are
already Humpty-Dumptied by the volume of fragmented info leeching into their bloodstreams by
140 character news.
Thank you for your fortitude in trying to debunk the news and 'outing' those editors who feel
they are insulated from critical analysis.
dahoit , October 19, 2017 at 12:36 pm
jon stewart?WTF?
Curious , October 19, 2017 at 8:56 pm
Well dahoit,
Just chalk it up to a historical reference as that is around the time I stopped watching TV,
having worked in the biz for some 30 years. I don't miss it either. Jon gave us a lot of
humor and a lot of clever, surreptitious info, and the way they captured the talking points
of the politicians by the use of their fast cuts was remarkable. There was a lot of political
content in a show meant to just be humorous. Sorry you feel otherwise.
fudmier , October 18, 2017 at 6:59 pm
EITHER OR, INC. (EOI) a secret subsidiary of Deep Sewer Election Manipulators, Inc
(DSEMI), a fraudulent make believe Russia company, that changes election outcomes, in foreign
countries, to conform the leadership of the foreign country with Russia foreign policy,
studied the most recent USA candidates and concluded Russia could not have found persons more
suited to Russian foreign policy than the candidates the USA had selected for its American
governed, to vote on. The case is not yet closed, EOI is still trying to decide if there is
or was a difference between the candidates..
Charles Misfeldt , October 18, 2017 at 7:44 pm
Our election process is so completely corrupted I doubt that a few thousand dollars of
Facebook ads that no one pays any attention to could sway the vote, I am much more concerned
about bribery, Israel, American Zionists, racists, corporations, evangelicals, dominionists,
white nationalists, anarchist's, conservatives, war profiteers, gerrymanders, vote purges,
vote repressors, voting machine hackers, seems like Russian's are pretty far down the
list.
Joe Tedesky , October 18, 2017 at 8:52 pm
Now you talking, let's get to the real stuff. Good one Charles. Joe
Peter Loeb , October 19, 2017 at 6:08 am
I don't have "FACEBOOK". Or any other "social media (whatever that may be.)
I don't "tweet" and the technology which we were once told would save
the world, has left me behind. I don't text. I have no smart phone
or cell.
I no longer have a TV of any description. Or cable with millions of things
you don't want to see anyway.
Only my mind is left. For some more years.
(J.M. Keynes: " in the long run we will all be dead."
Perhaps one has to have "social media" to be born in
this generation. Do you need it to exit?
Please accept my thoughts with my "asocial" [media]
appologies.
-- -Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA
My "tweet"/message is only my fear that the NY Yankees
will be in the World Series where I can hate them with complete
impunity. (I was created a fan of the Washington Senators,
morphed into a Brooklyn Dodgers fan so the usually failing
Boston Red Sox fits me well. Being for that so-called "dodgers"
team on the west coast is a forced marriage at best.
Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 9:27 am
Peter screw Facebook and all the rest of that High Tech Big Brother Inc industry, and the
garbage they are promoting.
Also Peter do you have a little Walter Francis O'Malley voodoo doll to stick pins in it? I
also haven't followed baseball since Roberto Clemente died.
We kids use to skip school to go watch Clemente play. In fact in 1957 a young ball player
who the Pirates had acquired in somekind of trade with the Brooklyn Dodgers chased my seven
year old little butt out of right field when I wandered all confused onto the field. That
young rookie who chased my loss little being off the field, was none other than the great
number 21 Roberto Clemente.
Actually the only thing you left out Peter was the Braves moving to Atlanta. Take care
Peter, and let's play more ball in the daylight, and let's make it more affordable game to
watch again. Play ball & BDS. Joe
Thomas Phillips , October 19, 2017 at 12:30 pm
I'm envious now Joe. Roberto Clemente was one of my favorite baseball players. My no. 1
favorite, though, was Willie Mays. And speaking of the Braves moving to Atlanta, my father
took my brother and I there the first year the team was in Atlanta. The Giants were there for
a series with the Braves, and I got to see Mays play (my first and only time). I would have
loved to have been able to skip school and watch Clemente play.
On the subject of concern here, The Hill has a couple of stories on the zerohedge.com
story you referenced above. From what I read, it appears to me that if this is still an open
case with the FBI, Ms. Clinton (and Obama?) could possibly face criminal charges in this
matter. We can only hope. To Peter – I do have an old 1992 console TV, but no cable; so
I have no television to speak of. I have a VHS and DVD player though and watch old movies and
such on the old TV.
Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 2:42 pm
Thomas how cool. My buddies and I would purchase the left field bleacher seats for I think
fifty cents or maybe it was a dollar. Then around the third inning we would boogie on over
into the right field stands overlooking the great Roberto, and yell 'hey Roberto'. From right
field we kids would eye up the empty box seats off of third base. Somewhere about the sixth
or seventh inning we would sneakily slide into those empty box seats along third base side,
where you could see into the Pirate dugout along first. Now the Pirate dugout is along third.
The box seat ushers would back then justbsimply tell us kids to be good, and that they got a
pat on the back from management for filling up those empty box seats, because the television
cameras would pick that up. The best part was, we little hooky players did all of this on our
school lunch money.
About that FBI thing with Hillary I'm hoping this doesn't get written off as just another
Trump attack, and that this doesn't turn into another entertaining Benghazi hearing for
Hillary to elevate her status among her identity groupies. Joe
mark , October 18, 2017 at 7:46 pm
All this nonsense will soon die an evidence-free natural death, but rather than admit to
the lies the MSM will divert the Deplorables with some convenient scandal like the Weinstein
affair.
The effect of all this will be to hammer the final nails in the coffin of the political
establishment and its servile MSM. This process began with the Iraqi WMD lies, and now 6% of
the population believes what it sees in the MSM.
Skip Scott , October 19, 2017 at 8:47 am
mark-
I wish you were right, but with all the money being thrown around, and scumbag Mueller in
the mix, how this will end is anybody's guess. I'm also curious where you got the 6% figure.
Sounds like wishful thinking to me.
Great take Mr Parry
Smoke and mirrors to distract we the sheeple of this dying paradigm. Fascism alive and well
in the land of the free. The sheeple r now entering the critical stage, they have hit 20
percent. Dangerous times for the western masters of the universe. Get ready for more false
flags to keep the sheeple blinded from reality. The recent events globally with regards to
Iran, Syria and the DPRK are all their for distractions add the Russians ate my homework and
viola distraction heaven. But like I said more and more people in the US and the west are
turning off 1/5 to be exact and that spells trouble for the masters. They want war at all
costs 600 percent debt is not a sustainable economic system . IMF warning just the other day
that all it will take is one major European bank to crash and viola. So dangerous and
interesting times we r living. Is it by design in order to get their way.?I would say yes to
that.
Sam F , October 18, 2017 at 9:44 pm
Good notes. Incidentally you may intend the French "voila" rather than the musical
instrument "viola."
Skip Scott , October 20, 2017 at 3:37 pm
Voila, viola. Didn't Curly of the three stooges do a bit on that?
Michael K Rohde , October 18, 2017 at 8:27 pm
Should I say it? Shocker. NYT and HIllary are a potent team. Add on Google and CNN and you
have a formidable propaganda organization that is going to influence millions of American.
Plus Face Book and you have most of America covered without a dissenting voice. I used to be
one of their customers, reading and believing everything they put out until Judith Miller was
exposed with W and Scooter. I confess to a jaundiced eye since then. Unfortunately there
isn't a whole lot out there if you like to read good writers of relevant material. We have a
problem, Houston.
Joe Tedesky , October 18, 2017 at 9:07 pm
If it is possible to consider Russia helped throw the 2016 presidential election with 100k
spent over a three year period, then why not suspect and investigate the American MSM, who
gave Donald Trump 4.9 billion dollars worth of free media coverage? Surely you all may recall
the wall to wall commercial free cable network coverage Trump used to receive during the way
too long of a presidential campaign? Now we are being led to believe that a few haphazard
placed Russian adbuys on FB stool the election from 'it's my turn now boys' Hillary. Here I
must admit that as much as I would love to have a woman President, I would choose almost any
qualified women other than Hillary. But yeah, this Russia-gate nonsense is a creation of the
Shadow Government, who wants so badly to see Putin get thrown out of office, that they would
risk starting WWIII doing it.
Larry Gates , October 18, 2017 at 9:44 pm
A single person started all this nonsense: Hillary Clinton.
No need for America to be influenced to turn the internet into a sewer, America is doing
just fine on that with no help at all. The Russians are just mocking us over there, which is
perfectly understandable. In fact, from what I read, Russians are actually more religious and
concerned about immorality than Americans.
This whole thing is a joke, we know it, it's an attempt to control people, and I for one
am pretty sick of it and don't mind telling anyone just that. Let them sputter, stomp their
feet, or whatever. Keep it up, United States, and you'll be playing in the schoolyard all by
yourself!
Was the article below in corporate media? Link below:
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-- -- -
Thousands of govt docs found on laptop of sex offender married to top Clinton adviser
Published time: 18 Oct, 2017 16:45Edited time: 18 Oct, 2017 18:37 https://www.rt.com/usa/407120-fbi-found-3k-docs-weiner/
It's amazing how the "mainstream media" has pushed this Russian collusion nonsense. What's
more amazing is how every time an article is published my these outlets claiming some new
evidence of Russian collusion, within 24 hours there's evidence to the contrary. I think the
whole Pokemon and Facebook claims are the lowest point in this Russian collusion nonsense.
The worst part is we won't see it end anytime soon
Sam F , October 19, 2017 at 7:38 am
Good points, Sam. There are many named "Sam" so please distinguish your pen name from
mine, perhaps with an initial. Thanks!
Drew Hunkins , October 19, 2017 at 12:46 am
Absolutely crucial and outstanding piece by Mr. Parry. His well thought out dissection of
Politifact is invigorating.
backwardsevolution , October 19, 2017 at 12:52 am
Peter Schweizer, author of "Clinton Cash", has been talking about the biggest Russian
bribe of all, the one no one wants to talk about – Uranium One. This deal may have been
the reason why $145 million ended up in Clinton Foundation coffers, all while Hillary Clinton
was Secretary of State.
Here is Peter Schweizer today on Tucker Carlson's program talking about it:
Her emails showed that HRC's internal polling proved her greatest vulnerability with her
supporters was when they were told the details of her uranium deal.
Skip Scott , October 19, 2017 at 9:03 am
Thanks for the link. Great interview. The real Russia-gate!
Your site has a lot of useful information for myself. I visit regularly. Hope to have more
quality items.
Dave P. , October 19, 2017 at 1:33 am
Joe – I never had interest in conspiracy type stories and narratives like that.
However, after reading the zerohedge article in the link in your post, I am beginning to
seriously doubt the Seth Rich murder investigation findings by the Washington DC police
– I had some misgivings before about it too. I think there was not any significant
involvement by FBI in the case. And the Justice department under Loretta Lynch did not pursue
the investigation.
Knowing all kind of stories in the news about Clintons friend Vince Foster's death during
1990's , and many other episodes in Bill and Hillary Clinton's political life, I wonder about
the power and reach of this couple. And now this article and no investigation of this bribery
and corruption scandal during Obama's presidency. It all smells fishy.
Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 1:58 am
Dave not only as what you had mentioned, but the Seth Rich story seems to have become
taboo in our news. I realize what the Rich family requested, but when did ever a request from
the family ever get honored by the big media ever before? I'm not suggesting anything more,
than why is the Seth Rich murder appearing to be off limits, and further more with Seth's
death being in question and implicated to the Wikileaks 'Hillary Exposures' being Seth one of
those 'leakers', then take responsibility DNC and ask the same questions, or at least answer
the questions asked. I hope that made sense, because somehow it made sense to me.
The suggestion of any alternative to the establish narrative gets tossed to the wind. I
think this drip, drip, flood, of Russia collusion into the gears of American Government is a
way of America's Establishment, who is now in charge, way of going out with a bang. The world
is starting to realize it doesn't need the U.S., and the U.S. is doing everything in it's
power to help further that multi-polar world's growing realization that it doesn't.
Okay Dave. Joe
Dave P. , October 19, 2017 at 2:57 am
Joe, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has the power to initiate investigations into these
cases. However, it seems to me that the Ruling Elite/Deep State does not want to wash the
dirty linen in front of the whole World. It would be very embarrassing; it will show the true
picture of this whole sewage/swamp it is. Jeff Sessions or others in high places, have no
independence at all, even if they want to pursue their own course – which they rarely
do.
It seems like that all these investigations are a kind of smoke screen to hide the real
issues. During 1950's or 60's , people in this country mostly trusted the leaders and elected
officials. And majority of the leaders, whatever their policies or sides they took on issues,
had some integrity, depth, solidity and dignity about them. But it seems to me that these
days politicians do not have any of it. The same is true of the Media. This constant mindless
Russia-Gate hysteria being perpetuated by the elected leaders, Media, and pundits without any
thought or decorum is not worthy of a civilized country. Also, it is not good for the Country
or the World.
Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 9:34 am
Yes Dave the quality of accountability and responsibility in DC is sorely lacking of
concern to be honest, and do the right thing by its citizens. This is another reason why it's
good to talk these things over with you, and many of the others who post comments here.
Joe
Joe,Dave, glad you bring it up Russiagate seems to be providing a full eclipse of any
investigation into the Seth Rich murder and just whatever happened to his laptop?
Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 10:45 am
I think Bob the Rich investigation got filed under 'conspiracy theory do not touch' file.
Joe
backwardsevolution , October 19, 2017 at 1:39 am
Hours ago:
"Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley asked the attorney of a former FBI informant
Wednesday to allow her client to testify before his committee regarding the FBI's
investigation regarding kickbacks and bribery by the Russian state controlled nuclear company
that was approved to purchase twenty percent of United States uranium supply in 2010, Circa
has learned.
In a formal letter, Grassley, an Iowa Republican, asked Victoria Toensing, the lawyer
representing the former FBI informant, to allow her client, who says he worked as a voluntary
informant for the FBI, to be allowed to testify about the "crucial" eyewitness testimony he
provided to the FBI regarding members of the Russian subsidiary and other connected players
from 2009 until the FBI's prosecution of the defendants in 2014. [ ]
FBI officials told Circa the investigation could have prevented the sale of Uranium One,
which controlled 20 percent of U.S. uranium supply under U.S. law. The deal which required
approval by CFIUS, an inter-agency committee who reviews transactions that leads to a change
of control of a U.S. business to a foreign person or entity that may have an impact on the
national security of the United States. At the time of the Uranium One deal the panel was
chaired by then-Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and included then-Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton and then-Attorney General Eric Holder."
This FBI informant was apparently gagged from speaking to Congress by either Loretta Lynch
or Eric Holder (I've heard both names). Why would they have done this?
Sven , October 19, 2017 at 1:44 am
Very well written article
Lee Francis , October 19, 2017 at 2:41 am
The whole Russia-Gate brouhaha has become a monumental bore. How anyone with a modicum of
intelligence and moral integrity can believe this garbage is beyond me. I salute Mr Parry for
his fortitude in clearing the Augean stables of this filth; it reminds of the old Bonnie
Raitt song, to wit – 'It's a dirty job but someone's got to do it." personally I can't
be bothered reading it anymore.
backwardsevolution , October 19, 2017 at 2:51 am
Stefan Molyneux does a great job in this 25-minute video where he outlines the absolute
corruption going on in the Banana Republic of Americastan on both the left and right.
He ends up by saying that all of the same actors (Rosenstein, McCabe, Mueller, Comey,
Lynch, Clinton) who were part of covering up Hillary's unsecured servers and Uranium One are
the very same people who are involved with going after Trump and his supposed collusion with
Russia. Same people. And the media seem to find no end of things to say about the latter,
while virtually ignoring the former.
Yes, Media ignores the other scandal while beating up 24/7 on Russian inference/collusion
in the Presidential Election. It is the same with the Foreign News. There was this more than
10,000 strong torchlit Neo-Nazi March in Kiev last Saturday. The pictures in the Sputnik News
of these neo-Nazis in the march were very threatening. I think that most of the Russians have
probably left West Ukraine. There was not even a mention of this March in the Los Angeles
Times.
However, a week before Alexander Navalny had this protest – 500 figure as given the
Western media – in Moscow. The picture was splashed across the entire page of Los
Angeles Times with a half page article, mostly beating up on Putin.
I rarely watch TV shows. However, this Tuesday, because of the some work going on our
house, I was home most of the day. My wife was watching TV starting in the afternoon well
into the evening – MSNBC, CNN, PBS newshour; Wolg Blitzer, Lawrence O'Donnell, Don
Lemon, Rachel Maddow, and others with all these so called experts invited to the shows. Just
about most of it was about beating up on Trump and Russia as if it is the only news in the
Country and in the World to report. It was really pathetic to hear all these nonsensical lies
and garbage coming out the mouths of these talk show hosts and experts. It is becoming Banana
Republic of Americanistan as you wrote.
backwardsevolution , October 19, 2017 at 4:04 am
Hi, Dave P. Yeah, I swear they have things on the shelf that are ready-to-go stories
whenever there's a lull in the Trump/Russia collusion nonsense. This last week they pulled
Harvey Weinstein off the shelf and crucified the guy (not that he shouldn't have been). If
this Uranium One deal gets legs, watch for some huge false flag to coincidentally appear to
take our minds off of it.
The biggest thing separating a "first world" country from a "third world" country is the
rule of law. Without it, you might as well hoist up a flag with a big yellow banana on it and
call it a day. Bananastan has a nice ring to it.
Cheers, Dave.
Lee Francis , October 19, 2017 at 8:10 am
"There was this more than 10,000 strong torchlit Neo-Nazi March in Kiev last Saturday." It
never happened, well according to the Washington Post (aka Pravda on the Potomac) or New York
Times (aka The Manhattan Beobachter) who, like the rest of the establishment media lie by
omission. Other things that didn't happen – the Odessa fire where 42 anti-Maidan
demonstrators were incinerated by the Banderist mob who actually applauded as the Union
Building went up like a torch with those unfortunate people not only trapped inside with the
entrances barricaded, but those who jumped out of windows to escape the flames (a bit like
9/11 in New York) were clubbed to death as they lie injured on the ground. The film is on
youtube if you can bear to watch it, I could only bear to watch it once. According to the
website of Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh, it was "another bright day in our national
history." A Svoboda parliamentary deputy added, "Bravo, Odessa . Let the Devils burn in
hell." These people are our allies, along of course with Jihadis in the middle east.
In his the British playwright Harold Pinter's last valediction nailed the propaganda
methodology of the western media with the phrase, 'even while it was happening it wasn't
happening.'
Dave P. , October 20, 2017 at 2:31 am
Lee Francis –
yes. The words : 'even while it was happening it wasn't happening.' It is from his Nobel
lecture. I read the text of Nobel Lecture by Harold Pinter at that time – very
passionate lecture. Pinter had terminal throat cancer, he could not go to Sweden. I think he
sent his video of the Nobel lecture to be played.
It will be interesting to see how the so-called left leaning media like MSNBC and CNN spin
the Uranium One/Obama-Clinton State Department story. The right, especially Hannity on Fox,
are on it, also Tucker Carlson who is moderate mostly. When these pundits say "Russia", they
seem to imply "Putin" but that may not be the case. And they always want to imply the US is
beyond corrupt business deals, which is a joke. It's about time the Clinton case is cracked,
but with corruption rampant, who knows?
JeffS , October 19, 2017 at 9:34 am
The targeting of Pokemon Go users was especially nefarious because aren't about half of
those people below voting age? But when they finally are old enough to vote we can say that
they were influenced by Russia! And this is always reported in a serious tone and with a
straight face. I find the aftermath of the 2016 election to be 'Hillary'ous. The obviously
phony from the get-go Russia story was invented out of whole cloth to allow stunned Democrat
voters to engage in some sort extended online group therapy session. After a year many are
still working through the various stages of the grieving process, and some may actually reach
the final stage -- Acceptance (of the 2016 Election results)
mike k , October 19, 2017 at 1:07 pm
Good one!
Jamila Malluf , October 19, 2017 at 12:36 pm
Excellent Report! Consortium needs a video outlet somebody to give these reports. There
are many places other than YouTube you could use and I could become one of your Amateur video
editor :)
mike k , October 19, 2017 at 1:10 pm
The Rulers fear the internet.
Liam , October 19, 2017 at 3:01 pm
#MeToo – A Course In Deductive Reasoning: Separating Fact From Fiction Through The
Child Exploitation Of 8 Year Old Bana Alabed
I was glad to see that when H Clinton was in England, the RT ads all around were making
fun of the blame game. Someone needs to lighten up and stop the ludicrous nonsensical
year-long concentration on blaming Russia for the deep defects in almost all aspects of US
presence in our world. Observe Pres. Putin and nearly every other real leader getting on with
negotiations, agreements, constructive trade deals, ignoring the sinking ship led by the
Trumpet and the Republican Party, while the Dems slide down with them.
Realist , October 19, 2017 at 7:20 pm
I think the "Powers that be" in America actually believed it when Karl Rove announced to
the world that the U.S. government had the godlike power to create any reality of its own
choosing, the facts be damned, and the entire world would come to accept it and live by it,
like it or not. They've been incessantly trying to pound this square peg of a governing
philosophy into holes of a wide spectrum of geometric shapes ever since, believing that mere
proclamation made it so. Russia, China, Iran and any other country that does business with
this troika are evil. Moreover, any country that does not kowtow to Israel, or objects to its
extermination campaign against the Palestinian people, is evil. Even simply pursuing an
independent foreign policy not approved by Washington, as Iraq, Libya and Syria felt entitled
to do, is evil. Why? Because we say so. That should suffice for a reason. Disagree with us at
your peril. We have slaughtered millions of "evil-doers" in Middle Eastern Islamic states who
dared to disagree, and we have economically strapped our own "allies" in Europe to put the
screws to Russia. The key to escape from this predicament is how much more blowback, in terms
of displaced peoples, violated human rights, abridged sovereignty and shattered economies, is
Europe willing to tolerate in the wake of Washington's megalomaniacal dictates before it
stands up to the bully and stops supporting the madness. When does Macron, Merkel and May
(assuming they are the leaders whom others will follow in Europe) say "enough" and start
making demands on Washington, and not just on Washington's declared "enemies?"
And, if the internet has indeed become the world's "cloaca maxima," I'd say first look to
its inventors, founders, chief administrators and major users of the service, all of which
reside in the United States. In terms of volume, Russia is but a small-time user of the
service. If the object is to re-create a society such as described in the novel "1984," it is
certainly possible to censor the damned thing to the point where its just a tool of tyranny.
The "distinguished" men and corporations basically running the internet planetwide have
already conferred such authority to the Chinese government. Anything they don't want their
people to see is filtered out, compliments of Microsoft, Google, Facebook and the other heavy
hitters. Just looking at trends, rhetoric and the fact that the infrastructure is mostly
privately-owned, I can see the same thing coming to the West, unless the users demand
otherwise, vociferously and en masse.
Tannenhouser , October 20, 2017 at 4:19 pm
Trump is running point on the distraction op currently being run, to distract from the
actual crimes committed by the Blue section of the ruling political party. So far he played
his part brilliantly, knowingly or unknowingly, matters not.
Readers of Consortium News come from around the world, from very small towns with
populations in the few 1,000's to major cities with populations in the millions, and
everything size category in between. In each of those categories of population size, the
power is controlled by those possessing the greatest wealth inside that particular
population, whether small town, medium, semi-large or major city. One can describe each
category of population center as pyramidal in power structure, with those at the top of the
pyramid the wealthiest few who "pull the strings" of societies, and, as relates to war and
peace, the people who literally fire the first shots.
Identify those at the top of the world category pyramid, call them out for their war
crimes, and then humanity has a fighting chance for peace.
Curious , October 19, 2017 at 7:56 pm
For WC,
Thank you for your answer to my question. The 'reply' tab is gone on the thread so I will
reply here.
I believe I was trying to figure out the difference between "lawmakers" and the corporate
entities you mentioned. Obviously the lawmakers are heavily influenced by the money and the
lobbyists from the large corps which muddies the waters and makes it even more difficult to
find clarity between politicians and the big money players. When the US sends our military
into sovereign countries against international law, it's fair to ask whether it is at the
behest of corporate interests, or even Israels' geopolitical agenda, especially in the Middle
East.
The large corps you mentioned don't have the legal authority to send our military to foreign
lands and perform duties that have nothing to do with US defense (or do they?) and that is
why I try to understand the distinction between 40 dual citizens of Israel within the
'lawmakers' of our country and large corporations. When Israels 'allowance' from US tax
payers goes remarkably up in value, one has to wonder how and why that occurs when our own
country is suffering. That's all I wonder about. I won't distract any more from Mr. Parrys'
article.
GM , October 19, 2017 at 9:31 pm
If I recall correctly, Politifact is owned by the majority owners of the St Petersburg
times, which family is a major big Clinton donor.
Kevin Beck , October 20, 2017 at 9:01 am
I am curious whether Russia is really able to employ all these "marketing geniuses" to
affect elections throughout the world. If so, then America's greatest ad agencies need to
look to Moscow for new recruits, instead of within our business schools.
Maybe Politifact declares it? stance is based on an alternative fact?
But greetings from Finland. In here is in full swing a MSM war against so called fake
media, never mind the fact that many are the stories in fake media that have turned out to be
the truth -- or that we are supposed to be a civilized country with free speech.
Our government with the support of the MSM is using a term hatespeech to silence all
tongues telling a different tale; some convictions have been given even though our law does
not recognise hatespeech as a crime. The police nor the courts can not define exactly what
hatespeech is -- so it is what they want it to be.
"... "We know Russian agents used Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and even Pinterest to place targeted attack ads and negative stories intended not to hurt just me but to fan the flames of division in our society. Russians posed as Americans pretending to be LGBT and gun rights activists, even Muslims, saying things they knew would cause distress." ..."
"... She said some of the basics of the Russian interference in the 2016 election had been known, but "we were in the dark about the weaponisation of social media". She cited new research from Columbia University showing that attack ads on Facebook paid for in roubles were seen by 10 million people in crucial swing states and had been shared up to 340m times. ..."
"... Clinton said the matter of whether Trump's campaign cooperated with Russian interference was a subject for congressional investigation. But she called for anyone found guilty of such cooperation with Moscow to be subject to civil and criminal law. "The Russians are still playing on anything and everything they can to turn Americans against each other," she said. ..."
"... "In addition to hacking our elections, they are hacking our discourse and our unity. We are in the middle of a global struggle between liberal democracy and a rising tide of illiberalism and authoritarianism. This is a kind of new cold war and it is just getting starting." ..."
This power hungry woman are just plain vanilla incompetent: "The Russian campaign was
leading to nationalism in Europe, democratic backsliding in Hungary and Poland, and a loss of
faith in democracy, she said."
Democrats had urged her to be silent after
her defeat to Trump but she was not going to go away, said Clinton. She vowed to play her part
in an attempt to win back Democratic seats in the forthcoming midterm elections. She admitted
she "just collapsed with real grief and disappointment" after her election defeat.
Clinton, who is touring the country to promote What Happened – her memoir reflecting
on the election defeat, told the BBC's Andrew Marr: "Looking at the Brexit vote now, it was a
precursor to some extent of what happened to us in the United States."
She decried the amount of fabricated information voters were given: "You know, the big lie
is a very potent tool and we've somewhat kept it at bay in western democracies, partly because
of the freedom of the press. There has to be some basic level of fact and evidence in all parts
of our society."
She urged Britain to be cautious about striking a trade deal with Trump, saying he did not
believe in free trade.
In other comments during the Cheltenham literary festival, she accused the Kremlin of waging
an information war throughout the 2016 US election process. The tactics "were a clear and
present danger to western democracy and it is right out of the Putin playbook", she said.
"We know Russian agents used Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and even Pinterest to place targeted
attack ads and negative stories intended not to hurt just me but to fan the flames of division
in our society. Russians posed as Americans pretending to be LGBT and gun rights activists,
even Muslims, saying things they knew would cause distress."
She said some of the basics of the Russian interference in the 2016 election had been known,
but "we were in the dark about the weaponisation of social media". She cited new research from
Columbia University showing that attack ads on Facebook paid for in roubles were seen by 10
million people in crucial swing states and had been shared up to 340m times.
Clinton said the matter of whether Trump's campaign cooperated with Russian interference was
a subject for congressional investigation. But she called for anyone found guilty of such
cooperation with Moscow to be subject to civil and criminal law. "The Russians are still
playing on anything and everything they can to turn Americans against each other," she
said.
"In addition to hacking our elections, they are hacking our discourse and our unity. We are
in the middle of a global struggle between liberal democracy and a rising tide of illiberalism
and authoritarianism. This is a kind of new cold war and it is just getting starting."
The Russian campaign was leading to nationalism in Europe, democratic backsliding in Hungary
and Poland, and a loss of faith in democracy, she said.
In an interview with the ABC's Four Corners program, to air on
Monday night, Clinton alleges that Assange cooperated with the Russian president, Vladimir Putin , to
disrupt the US election and damage her campaign for president.
"WikiLeaks is unfortunately now practically a fully owned subsidiary of Russian
intelligence," Clinton
told the ABC's Sarah Ferguson .
Describing Putin as a "dictator", Clinton said the damaging email leaks that crippled her
2016 candidacy were part of a coordinated operation against her, directed by the Russian
government.
Our intelligence community and other observers of Russia and Putin have said he held a grudge
against me because as secretary of state, I stood up against some of his actions, his
authoritarianism," Clinton told the ABC.
"But it's much bigger than that. He wants to destabilise democracy, he wants to undermine
America, he wants to go after the Atlantic alliance, and we consider Australia an extension of
that."
WikiLeaks received
thousands of hacked emails from accounts connected to the Democratic campaign allegedly stolen
by Russian operatives. The emails were released during a four-month period in the lead-up to
the US election.
Emails from the Clinton campaign chairman, John Podesta, were leaked on the same day –
7 October 2016 – the director of national intelligence and the secretary of homeland
security released a statement concluding the Russian government had been attempting to
interfere in the election.
Clinton told the ABC she believed the email leak was coordinated to disrupt the influence of
the Access Hollywood tape.
"WikiLeaks, which in the world in which we find ourselves promised hidden information,
promised some kind of secret that might be of influence, was a very clever, diabolical response
to the Hollywood Access tape," she said. "And I've no doubt in my mind that there was some
communication if not coordination to drop those the first time in response to the Hollywood
Access tape."
"I think he is part nihilist, part anarchist, part exhibitionist, part opportunist, who is
either actually on the payroll of the Kremlin or in some way supporting their propaganda
objectives, because of his resentment toward the United States, toward Europe," she said.
"He's like a lot of the voices that we're hearing now, which are expressing appreciation for
the macho authoritarianism of a Putin. And they claim to be acting in furtherance of
transparency, except they never go after the Kremlin or people on that side of the political
ledger."
Assange has denied the emails came from the Russian government or any other "state
parties".
In response to Clinton's comments, Assange said on Twitter there was "something wrong with
Hillary Clinton".
"It is not just her constant lying," he wrote. "It is not just that she throws off menacing
glares and seethes thwarted entitlement.
"Something much darker rides along with it. A cold creepiness rarely seen."
Julian Assange 🔹 (@JulianAssange)
There's something wrong with Hillary Clinton. It is not just her constant lying. It is not
just that she throws off menacing glares and seethes thwarted entitlement. Watch closely.
Something much darker rides along with it. A cold creepiness rarely seen. https://t.co/JNw2dkXgdu
Those two "propaganda solders" from Yale release outright lies about "stealing information
from 90,000 voting
records in the state of Illinois alone. " as it this is a fact. Looks like those
students learned quickly from their Yale "color revolution" teachers ;-)
The USA perfected election interference technique in dozen of color revolution
in xUSSR republics and other areas of the globe. Actually the first color revolution was organized
in 1974.
Now DemoRats (neoliberal Democrats of Clinton wing of the party) and elements of intelligence agencies and MS who support them simply can not
quit... Now quitting involved potential significant PR damage... McCarthyism has its own internal
dynamics. The danger for DemoRats (neoliberal Democrats of Clinton wing of the party) now is that
if Russian were investigated why Israelis and Saudies (along with other Gulf monarchies) were
not.
In the past few weeks, we have learned that the Russian government
reached more than 10 million Americans with a misinformation campaign on Facebook, and that
hackers
targeted 21 state election systems , stealing information from 90,000 voting
records in the state of Illinois alone. These are just the latest of many revelations about
Russia's unprecedented interference in the election.
It is cold comfort that we have no evidence so far that Moscow actually manipulated vote
tallies to change the election's outcome.
But what if it emerges that Russian operatives were successful on that front as well?
Setting Trump aside, what if a foreign government succeeds in the future in electing an
American president through active vote manipulation?
The Constitution offers no clear way to remedy such a disaster.
Any evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia raises its own set of important
issues -- now being assiduously investigated by special counsel Robert Mueller. But the
disturbing scenario in which hackers manipulate election results, conceivably rendering the
true vote tally unrecoverable, would pose a unique threat to a foundational principle of our
democracy: rule by the consent of the governed. We would in no sense have a government "by the
people."
Although such a constitutional crisis now seems all too plausible, we have yet to seriously
consider provisions that might protect our democracy -- measures that could allow us to reverse
such a result.
... ... ...
Vinay Nayak and Samuel Breidbart are students at Yale Law School.
When people stop to trust MSM, rumor mill emerges as a substitute. Neoliberal MSM lost people
trust. Now what ?
Notable quotes:
"... But social media manipulation did not begin or end with the election. As early as 2011, the US government hired a public relations firm to develop a " persona management tool " that would develop and control fake profiles on social media for political purposes. ..."
"... The British parent company of Cambridge Analytica, Strategic Communications Laboratories (SCL), has been a client of the government for years, working with the Department of Defense, and The Washington Post ..."
"... There is also growing awareness of hundreds of thousands of so-called "sleeper" bots: Accounts that have tweeted only once or twice for Trump, and which now sit silently, waiting for a trigger -- a key political moment -- to spread disinformation and drown out opposing views. ..."
Now the focus is less on Trump's extensive personal social media following and more on the roles
that Facebook and Twitter may have played in alleged Russian interference in the election. Congress
is calling on Facebook and Twitter to
disclose details about how they may have been used by Russia-linked entities to try to influence
the election in favor of Trump.
But despite the much-publicized case in the U.S., the pervasiveness of these political strategies
on social media, from the distribution of disinformation to organized attacks on opponents, the tactics
remain largely unknown to the public, as invisible as they are invasive. Citizens are exposed to
them the world over, often without ever realizing it.
Drawing on two recent reports by the Oxford Internet Institute (OII) and independent research,
Newsweek has outlined the covert ways in which states and other political actors use social
media to manipulate public opinion around the world, focusing on six illustrative examples: the U.S.,
Azerbaijan, Israel, China, Russia and the U.K.
It reveals how "Cyber-troops" -- the name given to this new political force by the OII -- are
enlisted by states, militaries and parties to secure power and undermine opponents, through a combination
of public funding, private contracts and volunteers, and how bots -- fake accounts that purport to
be real people -- can produce as many as 1,000 social media posts a day.
By generating an illusion of support for an idea or candidate in this way, bots drive up actual
support by sparking a bandwagon effect -- making something or someone seem normal and like a palatable,
common-sense option. As the director of the OII, Philip Howard,
argues : "If you use enough of them, of bots and people, and cleverly link them together, you
are what's legitimate. You are creating truth."
On social media, the consensus goes to whoever has the strongest set of resources to make it.
The U.S.: Rise of the bots
America sees a wider range of actors attempting to shape and manipulate public opinion online
than any country -- with governments, political parties, and individual organizations all involved.
In its report, the OII describes 2016's Trump vs. Hillary Clinton presidential contest as a "
watershed moment " when social media manipulation was "at an all-time high."
Many of the forces at play have been well-reported: whether the hundreds of thousands of bots
or the right-wing sites like Breitbart distributing divisive stories. In Michigan, in the days before
the election, fake news was shared
as widely as professional journalism . Meanwhile firms like Cambridge Analytica, self-described
specialists in "election management," worked for Trump to target swing voters, mainly on Facebook.
While Hillary Clinton's campaign also engaged in such tactics, with big-data and pro-Clinton bots
multiplying in number as her campaign progressed, Trump's team proved the most effective. Overall,
pro-Trump bots generated five times as much activity at
key moments of the campaign as pro-Clinton ones. These Twitter bots -- which often had zero followers
-- copied each other's messages and sent out advertisements alongside political content. They regularly
retweeted Dan Scavino, Trump's social media director.
One high-ranking Republican Party figure told OII that campaigning on social media was like "the
Wild West." "Anything goes as long as your candidate is getting the most attention," he said. And
it worked: A Harvard study concluded that overall Trump
received 15 percent more media coverage than Clinton.
Targeted advertising to specific demographics was also central to Trump's strategy. Clinton
spent two and a half times more than Trump on television adverts and had a 73% share of nationally
focused digital ads.
But Trump's team, led by Cambridge Analytica for the final months, focused on sub-groups. In one
famous example, an anti-Clinton ad that repeated her notorious speech from 1996 describing so-called
"super-predators" was shown exclusively to African-American voters on Facebook in areas where the
Republicans hoped to suppress the Democrat vote -- and again, it worked.
"It's well known that President Obama's campaign pioneered the use of microtargeting in 2012,"
a spokesperson for Cambridge Analytica tells Newsweek . "But big data and new ad tech are
now revolutionizing communications and marketing, and Cambridge Analytica is at the forefront of
this paradigm shift."
"Communication enhances democracy, not endangers it. We enable voters to have their concerns
heard, and we help political candidates communicate their policy positions."
The firm argues that its partnership with American right-wing candidates -- first Ted Cruz and
then Trump -- is purely circumstantial. "We work in politics, but we're not political," the spokesperson
said.
The company is part-owned by the family of Robert Mercer, which was one of Trump's major donors,
while Stephen K. Bannon sat on the company's board until he was appointed White House chief strategist
(he was dismissed from his post seven months later). According to Bannon's March federal financial
disclosure, he held shares worth as much as
$5 million in the company . On October 11, it was also revealed that the House Intelligence Committee
has asked the company to provide information for its ongoing probe into Russian interference.
But social media manipulation did not begin or end with the election. As early as 2011, the
US government hired a public relations firm to develop a "
persona management tool " that would develop and control fake profiles on social media for political
purposes.
The British parent company of Cambridge Analytica, Strategic Communications Laboratories (SCL),
has been a client of the government for years, working with the Department of Defense, and The
Washington Post
reports that it recently secured work with the State Department.
There is also growing awareness of hundreds of thousands of so-called "sleeper" bots: Accounts
that have tweeted only once or twice for Trump, and which now sit silently, waiting for a trigger
-- a key political moment -- to spread disinformation and drown out opposing views.
Emilio Ferrara, an Assistant Research Professor at the University of Southern California
Computer Science department, even
suggests
the possibility of "a black-market for reusable political disinformation bots," ready to be utilitized
wherever they are needed, the world over. These fears appeared to be confirmed by
reports that the same bots used to back Trump were then deployed against eventual winner Emmanuel
Macron in this year's French presidential election.
Anybody who subscript of NYT, or WaPo after this fiasco is simply paying money for state
propaganda.
Notable quotes:
"... Committee Chairman Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.) admitted as much in a press conference last Wednesday when he said: "We feel very confident that the ICA's accuracy is going to be supported by our committee. " ..."
"... Burr's statement is an example of "confirmation bias" which is the tendency to interpret information in a way that confirms one's own preexisting beliefs. In this case, Burr and his co-chair, Senator Mark Warner have already accepted the findings of a hastily slapped-together Intelligence report that was the work of "hand-picked" analysts who were likely chosen to produce conclusions that jibed with a particular political agenda. ..."
"... This is the basic claim of Russia meddling that has yet to be proved. As you can see, the charge is mixed with liberal doses of mind-reading mumbo-jumbo that reveal the authors' lack of objectivity. There's a considerable amount of speculation about Putin's motives and preferences which are based on pure conjecture. It's a bit shocking that professional analysts -- who are charged with providing our leaders with rock-solid intelligence related to matters of national security -- would indulge in this type of opinionated blather and psycho-babble. ..."
"... The ICA reads more like the text from a morning talk show than an Intelligence report. And what is it about this report that Burr finds so persuasive? It's beyond me. The report's greatest strength seems to be that no one has ever read it. If they had, they'd realize that it's nonsense. ..."
"... How can the committee conduct "100 interviews, comprising 250 hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts" without producing a shred of evidence that Russia meddled in the elections? How is that possible? The Committee's job is to prove its case not to merely pour over the minutia related to the investigation. No one really cares how many people testified or how much paperwork was involved. What people want is proof that Russia interfered with the elections or that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow. That's the whole point of this exercise. And, on the collusion matter, at least we have something new to report. In a rare moment of candor, Burr blurted out this gem: "There are concerns that we continue to pursue. Collusion? The committee continues to look into all evidence to see if there was any hint of collusion. Now, I'm not going to even discuss any initial findings because we haven't any." ..."
"... Let's cut to the chase: The committee is not getting to the bottom of the Russia hacking matter, because they don't want to get to the bottom of it. It's that simple. ..."
"... Brennan not only helped select the hand-picked analysts who authored the ICA, he also clearly has an animus towards Russia due to his frustrated attempt to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al Assad which was thwarted by Putin. In other words, Brennan has a motive to mislead the Committee. He's biased. He has an ax to grind. In contrast, Assange has firsthand knowledge of what actually transpired with the DNC emails because he was the recipient of those emails. Has Assange been contacted by the Committee or asked to testify via Skype? ..."
"... It should be obvious by now that the real intention of the briefing was not to provide the public with more information, facts or evidence of Russian hacking, but to use the prestigious setting as a platform for disseminating more disinformation aimed at vilifying an emerging rival (Russia) that has blocked Washington's aggression in Ukraine and Syria, and threatens to unite the most populous and prosperous region in the world (Eurasia) into one massive free trade zone spanning from Lisbon to Vladivostok. Reasonable people must now consider the possibility that the Russia hacking narrative is an Information Operation (IO) devoid of any real substance which is designed to poison the publics perception of Russia. It is a domestic propaganda campaign that fits perfectly with the "Full Spectrum Dominance" theory of weaponizing media in a way that best achieves one's geopolitical objectives. The American people are again being manipulated so that powerful elites can lead the country to war. ..."
"... If the Senate can 'assess,' so can I! I assess that Hollywood hottie Jenifer Lawrence is secretly in love with me! Although I can't prove this, all of my assessments point to this as being fact. ..."
"... This report is as bogus as the "9/11 Commission Report". Both commissions members were hand-picked by those guys that have a vested interest in the right outcome. ..."
"... In the end, Robert Mueller, an Obama/Clinton/Comey/Brennan stooge, will produce some "evidence" about so-called Russian meddling as far-fetched this may be. And the fawning media will go for it. The American public will get the report, which it deserves. ..."
"... But what is missing is that this "Russian Hacking" story was not nonsense, it worked. After Trump was elected, the establishment panicked and went into full attack mode. The headlines were screaming, thought went out the window, it looked like Trump was going to be hounded out of office by force majeure. Then Trump buckled, and shot those missiles at the Syrian air base, and we are back on track throwing away trillions of dollars on endless pointless winless foreign wars in places of zero strategic interest to us. ..."
"... Having served its purpose, the Russian 'hacking' stories are tapering off, being continued more out of momentum and habit than true focused intent. Oh sure, the corporate press still publicly despises Trump, but the intensity is gone. They are just going through the motions, it is no longer important, just political theater. ..."
"... The people who came up with the Russian hacking story were not stupid. The logical weakness of the claim was never relevant. Unlike Dubya in Iraq, they got what they wanted. Mission accomplished. ..."
"... The inaptly named Intelligence Community just never busts out. However much it has gotten flat out wrong and however much it has flat out missed over the years, however much its blunders and mistakes have cost us and our victims in treasure and blood, it just never busts out. There is always an excuse. The closest the Borg ever came to any gesture towards accountability was the Church committee post Watergate, ancient history, lessons purposefully buried and lost to the legions of bureaucrats blundering their way through the last 40 years. ..."
"... Good article on something everyone who is well researched and truth seeking already knows; the Russian Collusion story is a hatchet job by incompetent political hacks. The only power they USED to have is an obsessive never give up faith in the power of lying. ..."
"... So what ? Truth is no longer an issue in USA politics: Christopher Lasch, 'The Culture of Narcissism, American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations', 1979, 1980, London ..."
"... Even today there was another AP hit piece about those 201 Russian Twitter handles, and zero perspective about the kind of math that renders 201 out of 24 billion a speck of dust. You really have to depend on a dumbed down population to get them to buy this stuff. ..."
"... If all we hear are endless allusions to what are just opinions, meetings, plans, criticism, etc what is being investigated? This is literally suggesting that some in Washington and US media are not mature enough, smart enough, or sane enough to be taken seriously. How are they planning to recover the basic level of rationality after this fiasco? ..."
The Senate Intelligence Committee has made it clear that it is not conducting an open and
independent investigation of alleged Russian hacking, but making a determined effort to support
a theory that was presented in the January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment.
Committee Chairman Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.) admitted as much in a press conference
last Wednesday when he said: "We feel very confident that the ICA's accuracy is going to be
supported by our committee. "
Burr's statement is an example of "confirmation bias" which is the tendency to interpret
information in a way that confirms one's own preexisting beliefs. In this case, Burr and his
co-chair, Senator Mark Warner have already accepted the findings of a hastily slapped-together
Intelligence report that was the work of "hand-picked" analysts who were likely chosen to
produce conclusions that jibed with a particular political agenda. In other words, the
intelligence was fixed to fit the policy. Burr of course has tried to conceal his prejudice by
pointing to the number of witnesses the Committee has interviewed and the volume of work that's
been produced. This is from an article at The Nation:
Since January 23, the committee and its staff have conducted more than 100 interviews,
comprising 250 hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts, and reviewed
more than 100,000 documents relevant to Russiagate. The staff, said Warner, has collectively
spent a total of 57 hours per day, seven days a week, since the committee opened its inquiry,
going through documents and transcripts, interviewing witnesses, and analyzing both
classified and unclassified material.
It all sounds very impressive, but if the goal is merely to lend credibility to unverified
assumptions, then what's the point? Let's take a look at a few excerpts from the report and see
whether Burr and Warner are justified in "feeling confident" in the ICA's accuracy. From the
Intelligence Community Assessment:
We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at
the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US
democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential
presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference
for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.
This is the basic claim of Russia meddling that has yet to be proved. As you can see,
the charge is mixed with liberal doses of mind-reading mumbo-jumbo that reveal the authors'
lack of objectivity. There's a considerable amount of speculation about Putin's motives and
preferences which are based on pure conjecture. It's a bit shocking that professional analysts
-- who are charged with providing our leaders with rock-solid intelligence related to matters
of national security -- would indulge in this type of opinionated blather and
psycho-babble. It's also shocking that Burr and Warner think this gibberish should be
taken seriously.
Here's more from the ICA:
Putin most likely wanted to discredit Secretary Clinton because he has publicly blamed her
since 2011 for inciting mass protests against his regime in late 2011 and early 2012, and
because he holds a grudge for comments he almost certainly saw as disparaging him.
More mind-reading, more groundless speculation, more guessing what Putin thinks or doesn't
think. The ICA reads more like the text from a morning talk show than an Intelligence
report. And what is it about this report that Burr finds so persuasive? It's beyond me. The
report's greatest strength seems to be that no one has ever read it. If they had, they'd
realize that it's nonsense. Also, it would have been better if the ICA's authors had
avoided the amateur psychoanalysis and stuck to the point, Russia hacking. Dabbling in the
former seriously impacts the report's credibility.
To their credit, however, Burr and Warner have questioned all of the analysts who
contributed to the report. Check out this excerpt from The Nation:
"We have interviewed everybody who had a hand or a voice in the creation of the ICA," said
Burr. "We've spent nine times the amount of time that the IC [intelligence community] spent
putting the ICA together. We have reviewed all the supporting evidence that went into it and,
in addition to that, the things that went on the cutting-room floor that they may not have
found appropriate for the ICA, but we may have found relevant to our investigation." Burr
added that the committee's review included "highly classified intelligence reporting," and
they've interviewed every official in the Obama administration who had anything to do with
putting it together. ("Democrats and Republicans in Congress Agree: Russia Did It", The
Nation)
That's great, but where' the beef? How can the committee conduct "100 interviews,
comprising 250 hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts" without
producing a shred of evidence that Russia meddled in the elections? How is that possible? The
Committee's job is to prove its case not to merely pour over the minutia related to the
investigation. No one really cares how many people testified or how much paperwork was
involved. What people want is proof that Russia interfered with the elections or that members
of the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow. That's the whole point of this exercise. And, on
the collusion matter, at least we have something new to report. In a rare moment of candor,
Burr blurted out this gem: "There are concerns that we continue to pursue. Collusion? The
committee continues to look into all evidence to see if there was any hint of collusion. Now,
I'm not going to even discuss any initial findings because we haven't any."
Think about that. After "100 interviews, 250 hours of testimony, and 4000 transcript pages"
there's not the slightest hint of collusion. It's mindboggling. Why isn't this front page news?
Why haven't the New York Times or Washington Post run this in their headlines, after all,
they've hyped every other part of this story?
Could it be that Burr's admission doesn't mesh with the media's "Russia did it" narrative so
they decided to scrub the story altogether?
But it's not just collusion we're talking about here, there's also the broader issue of
Russia meddling. And what was striking about the press conference is that –after all the
interviews, all the testimony, and all the stacks of transcripts– the Committee has come
up with nothing; no eyewitness testimony supporting the original claims, no smoking gun, no
proof of domestic espionage, no evidence of Russian complicity, nothing. One big goose egg.
So here's a question for critical minded readers:
If the Senate Intelligence Committee has not found any proof that Russia hacked the 2016
elections, then why do senators' Burr and Warner still believe the ICA is reliable? It doesn't
really make sense, does it? Don't they require evidence to draw their conclusions? And doesn't
the burden of truth fall on the prosecution (or the investigators in this case)? Isn't a man
innocent until proven guilty or doesn't that rule apply to Russia?
Let's cut to the chase: The committee is not getting to the bottom of the Russia hacking
matter, because they don't want to get to the bottom of it. It's that simple. That's why
they have excluded any witnesses that may upset their preconceived theory of what happened.
Why, for example, would the committee chose to interview former CIA Director John Brennan
rather than WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange? Brennan not only helped select the
hand-picked analysts who authored the ICA, he also clearly has an animus towards Russia due to
his frustrated attempt to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al Assad which was thwarted by
Putin. In other words, Brennan has a motive to mislead the Committee. He's biased. He has an ax
to grind. In contrast, Assange has firsthand knowledge of what actually transpired with the DNC
emails because he was the recipient of those emails. Has Assange been contacted by the
Committee or asked to testify via Skype?
Don't bet on it.
What about former UK ambassador Craig Murray, a WikiLeaks colleague, who has repeatedly
admitted that he knows the source of the DNC emails. Murray hasn't been asked to testify nor
has he even been contacted by the FBI on the matter. Apparently, the FBI has no interest in a
credible witness who can disprove the politically-motivated theory expounded in the ICA.
Then there's 30-year CIA analyst Ray McGovern and his group of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern has done extensive research on the topic and has
produced solid evidence that the DNC emails were "leaked" by an insider, not "hacked" by a
foreign government. McGovern's work squares with Assange and Murray's claim that Russia did not
hack the 2016 elections. Has McGovern been invited to testify?
How about Skip Folden, retired IBM Program Manager and Information Technology expert, whose
excellent report titled "Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge" also disproves the
hacking theory, as does The Nation's Patrick Lawrence whose riveting article at The Nation
titled "A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year's DNC Hack" which thoroughly
obliterates the central claims of the ICA.
Finally, there's California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher who met with Assange in August at
the Ecuadorian embassy in London and who was assured that Assange would provide hard evidence
(in the form of "a computer drive or other data-storage device") that the Russians were not
involved in the DNC email scandal.
Wouldn't you think that senate investigators would want to talk to a trusted colleague and
credible witness like Rohrabacher who said he could produce solid proof that the scandal, that
has dominated the headlines and roiled Washington for the better part of a year, was bogus?
Apparently not. Apparently Burr and his colleagues would rather avoid any witness or
evidence that conflicts with their increasingly-threadbare thesis.
So what conclusions can we draw from the Committee's behavior? Are Burr and Warner really
conducting an open and independent investigation of alleged Russia hacking or is this just a
witch hunt?
It should be obvious by now that the real intention of the briefing was not to provide
the public with more information, facts or evidence of Russian hacking, but to use the
prestigious setting as a platform for disseminating more disinformation aimed at vilifying an
emerging rival (Russia) that has blocked Washington's aggression in Ukraine and Syria, and
threatens to unite the most populous and prosperous region in the world (Eurasia) into one
massive free trade zone spanning from Lisbon to Vladivostok. Reasonable people must now
consider the possibility that the Russia hacking narrative is an Information Operation (IO)
devoid of any real substance which is designed to poison the publics perception of Russia. It
is a domestic propaganda campaign that fits perfectly with the "Full Spectrum Dominance" theory
of weaponizing media in a way that best achieves one's geopolitical objectives. The American
people are again being manipulated so that powerful elites can lead the country to war.
Where is this going? At some point in the next few years there will be a 'damning' report
that will regurgitate what has already been endlessly publicised: VIP's meet each other (the
horror!), somehow DNC emails got published, Facebook sold ads to 'Russia-linked' users, and
Pokemon Go, whatever. That will be described in sinister terms and RT will be thrown in. How
dare RT not to have the same views as CNN?
But what then? Let's even say that Trump is removed – he is at this point so
emasculated that keeping him in the White House is the most stabilising thing the
establishment could do. Is Congress going to declare a war on Russia? Or more sanctions? Are
they going to ban RT? Break diplomatic relations? None of that makes sense because any of
those moves would be more costly than beneficial, some dramatically so. Therefore nothing
will happen.
All that will remain is permanent bitterness towards Russia, and vice-versa. And much
reduced ability to do what the West has done for 75 years: heavy interference and media
campaigns inside foreign countries to influence elections. If 'meddling' is so bad, the
biggest meddlers – by far – will be less able to meddle. So how is this hysteria
helping?
Sanity in public life is a precious thing. Once abandoned, all kinds of strange things
start happening. Yeah, Pokemon GO – Putin was personally naming the characters to 'sow
division'. It sounds like something Stalin would accuse his 'cosmopolitan' enemies of doing.
This is really embarrassing.
Incorrect parsing of reality. It was not about getting Trump but it was about making Trump
administration to severe relations with Russia. It began with having Gen. Flynn fired. This
mission was accomplished. We have now worse relations with Russia than at the end of Obama
administration.
If the Senate can 'assess,' so can I! I assess that Hollywood hottie Jenifer Lawrence is secretly in love with me! Although I
can't prove this, all of my assessments point to this as being fact.
I have been convinced of the ridiculousness of the Russian-hacking/collusion
narrative/scandal since it was created in 2016.
I, too, smelled a rat and figured that it was all BS right from the get go. So much so
that I haven't followed it a bit. In fact it's so ridiculous on its face, that I have not and
probably will not, waste time reading the article even though MW is a good guy, an
unimpeachable source, a true journalist, and a fine writer.
Bless you, Mr Whitney, for having the energy to document what is no doubt a pack of lies
from the usual suspects.
I stumbled on this yesterday, and it suggests, to no one's surprise, that it's always
deja vu all over again. You'd think our "high IQ" masters would show a little
originality once in a while, and that we, "Low IQ" as we are, would finally learn that it's
all BS from the get-go.
Note the date.:
THESE books all belong to that literature of Katzenjammer which now flourishes so
amazingly in the United States t hey all embody attempts to find out what is the matter
with the Republic. I wish I could add that one or another of them solves the problem, or at
least contributes something to its illumination , but that would be going somewhat
beyond the facts.
-H.L. Mencken, Autopsy (4 Reviews), , September 1927 , pp. 123-125 –
PDF
This makes me suspect that Mike Whitney is a censorious coward on the model of Razib
Khan (thankfully expelled from unz.com) or even worse Paul Craig Roberts (who prohibits
comments entirely).
While I agree with you about the latter two, and have written them off accordingly, along
with Mercer, who I suspect "edits" (really, "purges" ) her comments too, I highly doubt that
MW falls into the same categories as those mentioned. At least MW doesn't use the word,
"insouciant" 3 or 4 times in every article!
If I am wrong and this article is simply strangely unpopular please let me know and I
will apologize.
The article isn't so much unpopular as the subject is wearying. It's the same crud all
over again,obviously false, and I suspect virtually everyone knows it. It's utterly boring
and I give MW a lot of credit for having the persistence to even face the mindless mess, let
alone think and write about it. He really is to be admired for that.
I've always thought it was a distraction as usual from other much more more important
things but utu has a better take on it.
it was about making Trump administration to severe relations with Russia. It began with
having Gen. Flynn fired. This mission was accomplished. We have now worse relations with
Russia than at the end of Obama administration. [ed note:And Flynn is gone too.]
I think that's a "Bingo!" and I also think you better formulate an apology and plan on
getting on yer knees to deliver it!
PS: I'm curious as to why you think this is of much interest at all. (Aside from utu's
take.)
We don't know who this author really is but, once again, what's interesting is that so
many people are still so scared of an investigation which is supposedly producing "no
evidence" (leaving aside Trump Junior's evidence, of course). If all this was a load of
nonsense, why make such a fuss about it? If there's nothing to this, an "effort to support a
theory", however "determined" will come up with nothing. The frantic attempts to kill off
Russiagate suggest that those who are making such attempts know, or believe, that there
actually is something to it which has not yet come to light. Probably something pretty dirty
by the sound of it. What if some part of the US intelligence services took part in the
manipulation of the election, either in collusion with the Russians or posing as Russians,
and Putin can prove it? That would certainly explain the plethora of retired intelligence
agents who are so assiduously defending a foreign government. If Putin really is innocent,
the common sense way to prove it is to let Russiagate take its natural course.
Reasonable people must now consider the possibility that the Russia hacking narrative is
an Information Operation (IO) devoid of any real substance which is designed to poison the
publics perception of Russia.
Really? Only "now"?! I thought it was pretty much clear from the beginning.
This report is as bogus as the "9/11 Commission Report". Both commissions members were
hand-picked by those guys that have a vested interest in the right outcome.
In the end,
Robert Mueller, an Obama/Clinton/Comey/Brennan stooge, will produce some "evidence" about
so-called Russian meddling as far-fetched this may be. And the fawning media will go for it.
The American public will get the report, which it deserves.
Indeed, well said. But what is missing is that this "Russian Hacking" story was not nonsense, it worked. After Trump was elected, the establishment panicked and went into full attack mode. The
headlines were screaming, thought went out the window, it looked like Trump was going to be
hounded out of office by force majeure. Then Trump buckled, and shot those missiles at the
Syrian air base, and we are back on track throwing away trillions of dollars on endless
pointless winless foreign wars in places of zero strategic interest to us.
Having served its purpose, the Russian 'hacking' stories are tapering off, being continued
more out of momentum and habit than true focused intent. Oh sure, the corporate press still
publicly despises Trump, but the intensity is gone. They are just going through the motions,
it is no longer important, just political theater.
The people who came up with the Russian hacking story were not stupid. The logical
weakness of the claim was never relevant. Unlike Dubya in Iraq, they got what they
wanted. Mission accomplished.
Mike – good article. The inaptly named Intelligence Community just never busts out. However much it has gotten
flat out wrong and however much it has flat out missed over the years, however much its
blunders and mistakes have cost us and our victims in treasure and blood, it just never busts
out. There is always an excuse. The closest the Borg ever came to any gesture towards
accountability was the Church committee post Watergate, ancient history, lessons purposefully
buried and lost to the legions of bureaucrats blundering their way through the last 40
years.
If it can be gotten wrong, the Borg will get it wrong; it will be gotten wrong at the worst
possible time; it will move on to get it wrong again. These are three things that you can
absolutely count on.
Good article on something everyone who is well researched and truth seeking already knows;
the Russian Collusion story is a hatchet job by incompetent political hacks. The only power
they USED to have is an obsessive never give up faith in the power of lying.
So what ?
Truth is no longer an issue in USA politics:
Christopher Lasch, 'The Culture of Narcissism, American Life in an Age of Diminishing
Expectations', 1979, 1980, London
@Mike Whitney Russia collusion does lack credibility, but you're still doing us a great
service by following the twists and turns of this beheaded snake. The details are worth
reading about, even if there isn't much to argue about regarding the conclusion. So thanks
for that.
Even today there was another AP hit piece about those 201 Russian Twitter handles, and
zero perspective about the kind of math that renders 201 out of 24 billion a speck of
dust. You really have to depend on a dumbed down population to get them to buy this stuff.
"If Putin really is innocent, the common sense way to prove it is to let Russiagate take
its natural course."
Innocent of what? What is it exactly that Russia supposedly did? Let me list a few
things that are still perfectly legal in our world (that would include US, I hope):
having an opinion, even if that opinion is not the same as NY Times/CNN/US State
Dept
expressing this opinion publicly, even spending money to spread that opinion
supporting the side in an election that you prefer – even in other countries
(everybody does this all the time, Obama flew to UK to campaign against Brexit)
publishing negative stuff about those you dislike (or who dislike you), e.g. their emails,
accounts, etc
spending money to spread your views – even on 'US-owned' platforms that are otherwise
operating all over the world, e.g. Facebook has 700 million active users, they cannot all be
in US
laughing or celebrating if what you preferred won (champagne for Trump)
meeting with foreigners from a country not in a state of war with you, or – God
forbid! – meeting with their ambassador.
None of the above is either unusual or illegal. It might not look good to some people, but
it is what international life has consisted for at least 200 years. If you call that
'meddling', you just might be too naive for the world as it is.
What is the 'natural course' for the investigation? If all we hear are endless allusions
to what are just opinions, meetings, plans, criticism, etc what is being investigated? This
is literally suggesting that some in Washington and US media are not mature enough, smart
enough, or sane enough to be taken seriously. How are they planning to recover the basic
level of rationality after this fiasco?
Putin named Pokemon GO characters after BLM victims to stir up racial hatreds in US. How
does one answer that? Where would you even start dealing with people who are capable of this
level of nonsense?
"... Now, despite what the Russian propagandists will tell you, this recent outbreak of fascistic behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with these people's frustration with neoliberalism or the supranational Corporatocracy that has been expanding its global empire with total impunity for twenty-five years. And it definitely has nothing at all to do with supranational political unions, or the supersession of national sovereignty by corporate-concocted "free trade" agreements, or the relentless privatization of everything, or the fear that a lot of people have that their cultures are being gradually erased and replaced with a globalized, corporate-friendly, multicultural, market-based culture, which is merely a simulation of culture, and which contains no actual cultural values (because exchange value is its only operative value), but which sells the empty signifiers of their eviscerated cultural values back to them so they can wear their "identities" like designer brands as they hunch together in silence at Starbucks posting pictures of themselves on Facebook. ..."
"... No, this discontent with the political establishment, corporate elites, and the mainstream media has nothing to do with any of that. It's not like global Capitalism, following the collapse of the U.S.S.R. (its last external ideological adversary), has been restructuring the entire planet in accordance with its geopolitical interests, or doing away with national sovereignty, and other nationalistic concepts that no longer serve a useful purpose in a world where a single ideological system (one backed by the most fearsome military in history) reigns completely unopposed. If that were the case, well, it might behoove us to question whether this outbreak of Nazism, racism, and other forms of "hate," was somehow connected to that historical development and maybe even try to articulate some sort of leftist analysis of that. ..."
"... a world where a single ideology rules the planet unopposed from without ..."
"... Brexit is about Britons who want their country back, a movement indeed getting stronger and stronger in EU member states, but ignored by the ruling 'elites'. ..."
"... A lot of these so called "revolutions" are fomented by the elite only to be subverted and perverted by them in the end. They've had a lot of practice co-opting revolutions and independence movements. ..."
"... "Independence" is now so fashionable (as was Communism among the "elite" back in the '30s), that they are even teaching and fostering independence to kids in kindergarten here in the US. That strikes me as most amusing. Imagine "learning" independence in state run brainwashing factories. ..."
Well all right, let's review what happened, or at least the official version of what
happened. Not Hillary Clinton's version of what happened, which Jeffrey St. Clair so
incisively skewered , but the Corporatocracy's version of what happened, which overlaps
with but is even more ridiculous than Clinton's ridiculous version. To do that, we need to
harken back to the peaceful Summer of 2016, (a/k/a the
"Summer of Fear" ), when the United States of America was still a shiny city upon a hill
whose beacon light guided freedom-loving people, the Nazis were still just a bunch of ass
clowns meeting in each other's mother's garages, and Russia was, well Russia was Russia.
Back then, as I'm sure you'll recall, Western democracy, was still primarily being menaced
by the lone
wolf terrorists, for absolutely no conceivable reason, apart from the terrorists' fanatical
desire to brutally murder all non-believers. The global Russo-Nazi Axis had not yet reared its
ugly head. President Obama, who, during his tenure, had single-handedly restored America to the
peaceful, prosperous, progressive paradise it had been before George W. Bush screwed it up, was
on The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon slow
jamming home the TPP . The Wall Street banks had risen from the ashes of the 2008 financial
crisis, and were buying back all the foreclosed homes of the people they had fleeced with
subprime mortgages. American workers were enjoying the freedom and flexibility of the new gig
economy. Electioneering in the United States was underway, but it was early days. It was
already clear that Donald Trump was literally
the Second Coming of Hitler , but no one was terribly worried about him yet. The Republican
Party was in a shambles. Neither Trump nor any of the other contenders had any chance of
winning in November. Nor did Sanders, who had been defeated, fair and square, in the Democratic
primaries, mostly because of
his racist statements and crazy, quasi-Communist ideas. Basically, everything was hunky
dory. Yes, it was going to be terribly sad to have to bid farewell to Obama, who had bailed out
all those bankrupt Americans the Wall Street banks had taken to the cleaners, ended all of Bush
and Cheney's wars, closed down Guantanamo, and just generally served as a multicultural messiah
figure to affluent consumers throughout the free world, but Hope-and-Change was going to
continue. The talking heads were all in agreement Hillary Clinton was going to be President,
and there was nothing anyone could do about it.
Little did we know at the time that an epidemic of Russo-Nazism had been festering just
beneath the surface of freedom-loving Western societies like some neo-fascist sebaceous cyst.
Apparently, millions of theretofore more or less normal citizens throughout the West had been
infected with a virulent strain of Russo-Nazi-engineered virus, because they simultaneously
began exhibiting the hallmark symptoms of what we now know as White Supremacist Behavioral
Disorder, or Fascist Oppositional Disorder (the folks who update the DSM are still arguing over
the official name). It started with the Brexit referendum, spread to America with the election
of Trump, and there have been a rash of outbreaks in Europe, like
the one we're currently experiencing in Germany . These fascistic symptoms have mostly
manifest as people refusing to vote as instructed, and expressing oppressive views on the
Internet, but there have also been more serious crimes, including several assaults and murders
perpetrated by white supremacists (which, of course, never happened when Obama was President,
because the Nazis hadn't been "emboldened" yet).
Now, despite what the Russian propagandists will tell you, this recent outbreak of
fascistic behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with these people's frustration with
neoliberalism or the supranational Corporatocracy that has been expanding its global empire
with total impunity for twenty-five years. And it definitely has nothing at all to do with
supranational political unions, or the supersession of national sovereignty by
corporate-concocted "free trade" agreements, or the relentless privatization of everything, or
the fear that a lot of people have that their cultures are being gradually erased and replaced
with a globalized, corporate-friendly, multicultural, market-based culture, which is merely a
simulation of culture, and which contains no actual cultural values (because exchange value is
its only operative value), but which sells the empty signifiers of their eviscerated cultural
values back to them so they can wear their "identities" like designer brands as they hunch
together in silence at Starbucks posting pictures of themselves on Facebook.
No, this discontent with the political establishment, corporate elites, and the
mainstream media has nothing to do with any of that. It's not like global Capitalism, following
the collapse of the U.S.S.R. (its last external ideological adversary), has been restructuring
the entire planet in accordance with its geopolitical interests, or doing away with national
sovereignty, and other nationalistic concepts that no longer serve a useful purpose in a world
where a single ideological system (one backed by the most fearsome military in history) reigns
completely unopposed. If that were the case, well, it might behoove us to question whether this
outbreak of Nazism, racism, and other forms of "hate," was somehow connected to that historical
development and maybe even try to articulate some sort of leftist analysis of that.
This hypothetical leftist analysis might want to focus on how Capitalism is fundamentally
opposed to Despotism, and is essentially a value-decoding machine which renders everything and
everyone it touches essentially valueless interchangeable commodities whose worth is determined
by market forces, rather than by societies and cultures, or religions, or other despotic
systems (wherein values are established and enforced arbitrarily, by the despot, the church, or
the ruling party, or by a group of people who share an affinity and decide they want to live a
certain way). This is where it would get sort of tricky, because it (i.e., this hypothetical
analysis) would have to delve into the history of Capitalism, and how it evolved out of
medieval Despotism, and how it has been decoding despotic values for something like five
hundred years. This historical delving (which would probably be too long for people to read on
their phones) would demonstrate how Capitalism has been an essentially progressive force in
terms of getting us out of Despotism (which, for most folks, wasn't very much fun) by fomenting
bourgeois revolutions and imposing some semblance of democracy on societies. It would follow
Capitalism's inexorable advance all the way up to the Twentieth Century, in which its final
external ideological adversary, fake Communism, suddenly imploded, delivering us to the world
we now live in a world where a single ideology rules the planet unopposed from without
, and where any opposition to that global ideology can only be internal, or insurgent, in
nature (e.g, terrorism, extremism, and so on). Being a hypothetical leftist analysis,
it would, at this point, need to stress that, despite the fact that Capitalism helped deliver
us from Despotism, and improved the state of society generally (compared to most societies that
preceded it), we nonetheless would like to transcend it, or evolve out of it toward some type
of society where people, and everything else, including the biosphere we live in, are not
interchangeable, valueless commodities exchanged by members of a global corporatocracy who have
no essential values, or beliefs, or principles, other than the worship of money. After having
covered all that, we might want to offer more a nuanced view of the current neo-nationalist
reaction to the Corporatocracy's ongoing efforts to restructure and privatize the rest of the
planet. Not that we would support this reaction, or in any way refrain from calling
neo-nationalism what it is (i.e., reactionary, despotic, and doomed), but this nuanced view
we'd hypothetically offer, by analyzing the larger sociopolitical and historical forces at
play, might help us to see the way forward more clearly, and who knows, maybe eventually
propose some kind of credible leftist alternative to the "global neoliberalism vs.
neo-nationalism" double bind we appear to be hopelessly stuck in at the moment.
Luckily, we don't have to do that (i.e., articulate such a leftist analysis of any such
larger historical forces). Because there is no corporatocracy not really. That's just a fake
word the Russians made up and are spreading around on the Internet to distract us while the
Nazis take over. No, the logical explanation for Trump, Brexit, and anything else that
threatens the expansion of global Capitalism, and the freedom, democracy, and prosperity it
offers, is that millions of people across the world, all at once, for no apparent reason, woke
up one day full-blown fascists and started looking around for repulsive demagogues to swear
fanatical allegiance to. Yes, that makes a lot more sense than all that complicated stuff about
history and hegemonic ideological systems, which is probably just Russian propaganda anyway, in
which case there is absolutely no reason to read any boring year-old pieces, like this one in TheEuropeanFinancialReview , or this report by
Corporate Watch , from way back in the year 2000, about the rise of global corporate
power.
So, apologies for wasting your time with all that pseudo-Marxian gobbledygook. Let's just
pretend this never happened, and get back to more important matters, like statistically proving
that Donald Trump got elected President because of racism, misogyny, transphobia, xenophobia,
or some other type of behavioral disorder, and pulling down Confederate statues, or kneeling
during the National Anthem, or whatever happens to be trending this week. Oh, yeah, and
debating punching Nazis, or people wearing MAGA hats. We definitely need to sort all that out
before we can move ahead with helping the Corporatocracy remove Trump from office, or at least
ensure he remains surrounded by their loyal generals, CEOs, and Goldman Sachs guys until the
next election. Whatever we do, let's not get distracted by that stuff I just distracted you
with. I know, it's tempting, but, given what's at stake, we need to maintain our laser focus on
issues related to identity politics, or else well, you know, the Nazis win.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in
Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing
(USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
Yesterday evening on RT a USA lady, as usual forgot the name, spoke about the USA. In a
matter of fact tone she said things like 'they (Deep State) have got him (Trump) in the
box'.
They, Deep State again, are now wondering if they will continue to try to control the
world, or if they should stop the attempt, and retreat into the USA.
Also as matter of fact she said 'the CIA has always been the instrument of Deep State, from
Kenndy to Nine Eleven'.
Another statement was 'no president ever was in control'.
How USA citizens continue to believe they live in a democracy, I cannot understand.
Yesterday the intentions of the new Dutch government were made public, alas most Dutch
also dot not see that the Netherlands since 2005 no longer is a democracy, just a province of
Brussels.
Brexit is about Britons who want their country back, a movement indeed getting
stronger and stronger in EU member states, but ignored by the ruling 'elites'.
No doubt many do want their country back, but what concerns me is that all of a sudden we
have the concept of "independence" plastered all over the place. Such concepts don't get
promoted unless the ruling elites see ways to turn those sentiments to their favor.
A lot of these so called "revolutions" are fomented by the elite only to be subverted
and perverted by them in the end. They've had a lot of practice co-opting revolutions and
independence movements. (And everything else.)
"Independence" is now so fashionable (as was Communism among the "elite" back in the '30s),
that they are even teaching and fostering independence to kids in kindergarten here in the
US. That strikes me as most amusing. Imagine "learning" independence in state run
brainwashing factories.
"Now, despite what the Russian propagandists will tell you, this recent outbreak of
fascistic behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with these people's frustration with
neoliberalism or the supranational Corporatocracy that has been expanding its global empire
with total impunity for twenty-five years. And it definitely has nothing at all to do with
supranational political unions, or the supersession of national sovereignty by
corporate-concocted "free trade" agreements, or the relentless privatization of everything,
or the fear that a lot of people have that their cultures are being gradually erased and
replaced with a globalized, corporate-friendly, multicultural, market-based culture, which
is merely a simulation of culture, and which contains no actual cultural values (because
exchange value is its only operative value), but which sells the empty signifiers of their
eviscerated cultural values back to them so they can wear their "identities" like designer
brands as they hunch together in silence at Starbucks posting pictures of themselves on
Facebook."
Very impressed with this article, never really paid attention to CJ's articles but that is
now changing!
Neocons already poisoned the well of US-Russian cooperation. They already unleashes witch hunt in
best McCarthyism traditions. What else do they want ? Why they continue to waive this dead chicken?
Notable quotes:
"... people want is proof that Russia interfered with the elections or that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow. That's the whole point of this exercise. And, on the collusion matter, at least we have something new to report. In a rare moment of candor, Burr blurted out this gem: ..."
"... Think about that. After "100 interviews, 250 hours of testimony, and 4000 transcript pages" there's not the slightest hint of collusion. It's mindboggling. Why isn't this front page news? Why haven't the New York Times or Washington Post run this in their headlines, after all, they've hyped every other part of this story? ..."
"... Let's cut to the chase: The committee is not getting to the bottom of the Russia hacking matter, because they don't want to get to the bottom of it. It's that simple. ..."
"... That's why they have excluded any witnesses that may upset their preconceived theory of what happened. Why, for example, would the committee chose to interview former CIA Director John Brennan rather than WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange? Brennan not only helped select the hand-picked analysts who authored the ICA, he also clearly has an animus towards Russia due to his frustrated attempt to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al Assad which was thwarted by Putin. In other words, Brennan has a motive to mislead the Committee. He's biased. He has an ax to grind. In contrast, Assange has firsthand knowledge of what actually transpired with the DNC emails because he was the recipient of those emails. Has Assange been contacted by the Committee or asked to testify via Skype? ..."
"... It should be obvious by now that the real intention of the briefing was not to provide the public with more information, facts or evidence of Russian hacking, but to use the prestigious setting as a platform for disseminating more disinformation aimed at vilifying an emerging rival (Russia) that has blocked Washington's aggression in Ukraine and Syria, and threatens to unite the most populous and prosperous region in the world (Eurasia) into one massive free trade zone spanning from Lisbon to Vladivostok. ..."
"... Reasonable people must now consider the possibility that the Russia hacking narrative is an Information Operation (IO) devoid of any real substance which is designed to poison the publics perception of Russia. It is a domestic propaganda campaign that fits perfectly with the "Full Spectrum Dominance" theory of weaponizing media in a way that best achieves one's geopolitical objectives. The American people are again being manipulated so that powerful elites can lead the country to war. ..."
The Senate Intelligence Committee has made it clear that it is not conducting an open and independent
investigation of alleged Russian hacking, but making a determined effort to support a theory that
was presented in the January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. Committee Chairman Senator
Richard Burr (R-N.C.) admitted as much in a press conference last Wednesday when he said:
We feel very confident that the ICA's accuracy is going to be supported by our committee.
Burr's statement is an example of "confirmation bias" which is the tendency to interpret information
in a way that confirms one's own preexisting beliefs. In this case, Burr and his co-chair, Senator
Mark Warner have already accepted the findings of a hastily slapped-together Intelligence report
that was the work of "hand-picked" analysts who were likely chosen to produce conclusions that jibed
with a particular political agenda. In other words, the intelligence was fixed to fit the policy.
Burr of course has tried to conceal his prejudice by pointing to the number of witnesses the Committee
has interviewed and the volume of work that's been produced. This is from an article at The Nation:
Since January 23, the committee and its staff have conducted more than 100 interviews, comprising
250 hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts, and reviewed more than 100,000
documents relevant to Russiagate. The staff, said Warner, has collectively spent a total of 57
hours per day, seven days a week, since the committee opened its inquiry, going through documents
and transcripts, interviewing witnesses, and analyzing both classified and unclassified material.
It all sounds very impressive, but if the goal is merely to lend credibility to unverified assumptions,
then what's the point?
Let's take a look at a few excerpts from the report and see whether Burr and Warner are justified
in "feeling confident" in the ICA's accuracy.
From the Intelligence Community Assessment:
We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the
US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process,
denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess
Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have
high confidence in these judgments.
This is the basic claim of Russia meddling that has yet to be proved. As you can see, the charge
is mixed with liberal doses of mind-reading mumbo-jumbo that reveal the authors' lack of objectivity.
There's a considerable amount of speculation about Putin's motives and preferences which are based
on pure conjecture. It's a bit shocking that professional analysts– who are charged with providing
our leaders with rock-solid intelligence related to matters of national security– would indulge in
this type of opinionated blather and psycho-babble. It's also shocking that Burr and Warner think
this gibberish should be taken seriously.
Here's more from the ICA:
Putin most likely wanted to discredit Secretary Clinton because he has publicly blamed her
since 2011 for inciting mass protests against his regime in late 2011 and early 2012, and because
he holds a grudge for comments he almost certainly saw as disparaging him.
More mind-reading, more groundless speculation, more guessing what Putin thinks or doesn't think.
The ICA reads more like the text from a morning talk show than an Intelligence report. And what is
it about this report that Burr finds so persuasive? It's beyond me. The report's greatest strength
seems to be that no one has ever read it. If they had, they'd realize that it's nonsense. Also, it
would have been better if the ICA's authors had avoided the amateur psychoanalysis and stuck to the
point, Russia hacking. Dabbling in the former seriously impacts the report's credibility.
To their credit, however, Burr and Warner have questioned all of the analysts who contributed
to the report. Check out this excerpt from The Nation:
"We have interviewed everybody who had a hand or a voice in the creation of the ICA," said
Burr. "We've spent nine times the amount of time that the IC [intelligence community] spent putting
the ICA together. We have reviewed all the supporting evidence that went into it and, in addition
to that, the things that went on the cutting-room floor that they may not have found appropriate
for the ICA, but we may have found relevant to our investigation." Burr added that the committee's
review included "highly classified intelligence reporting," and they've interviewed every official
in the Obama administration who had anything to do with putting it together. ("Democrats and Republicans
in Congress Agree: Russia Did It", The Nation)
That's great, but where' the beef? How can the committee conduct "100 interviews, comprising 250
hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts" without producing a shred of evidence
that Russia meddled in the elections? How is that possible? The Committee's job is to prove its case
not to merely pour over the minutia related to the investigation. No one really cares how many people
testified or how much paperwork was involved. What people want is proof that Russia interfered with
the elections or that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow. That's the whole point
of this exercise. And, on the collusion matter, at least we have something new to report. In a rare
moment of candor, Burr blurted out this gem:
"There are concerns that we continue to pursue. Collusion? The committee continues to look into
all evidence to see if there was any hint of collusion. Now, I'm not going to even discuss any initial
findings because we haven't any."
Think about that. After "100 interviews, 250 hours of testimony, and 4000 transcript pages" there's
not the slightest hint of collusion. It's mindboggling. Why isn't this front page news? Why haven't
the New York Times or Washington Post run this in their headlines, after all, they've hyped every
other part of this story?
Could it be that Burr's admission doesn't mesh with the media's "Russia did it" narrative so they
decided to scrub the story altogether?
But it's not just collusion we're talking about here, there's also the broader issue of Russia
meddling. And what was striking about the press conference is that –after all the interviews, all
the testimony, and all the stacks of transcripts– the Committee has come up with nothing; no eyewitness
testimony supporting the original claims, no smoking gun, no proof of domestic espionage, no evidence
of Russian complicity, nothing. One big goose egg.
So here's a question for critical minded readers:
If the Senate Intelligence Committee has not found any proof that Russia hacked the 2016 elections,
then why do senators' Burr and Warner still believe the ICA is reliable? It doesn't really make sense,
does it? Don't they require evidence to draw their conclusions? And doesn't the burden of truth fall
on the prosecution (or the investigators in this case)? Isn't a man innocent until proven guilty
or doesn't that rule apply to Russia?
Let's cut to the chase: The committee is not getting to the bottom of the Russia hacking matter,
because they don't want to get to the bottom of it. It's that simple.
That's why they have excluded
any witnesses that may upset their preconceived theory of what happened. Why, for example, would
the committee chose to interview former CIA Director John Brennan rather than WikiLeaks founder,
Julian Assange? Brennan not only helped select the hand-picked analysts who authored the ICA, he
also clearly has an animus towards Russia due to his frustrated attempt to overthrow Syrian President
Bashar al Assad which was thwarted by Putin. In other words, Brennan has a motive to mislead the
Committee. He's biased. He has an ax to grind. In contrast, Assange has firsthand knowledge of what
actually transpired with the DNC emails because he was the recipient of those emails. Has Assange
been contacted by the Committee or asked to testify via Skype?
Don't bet on it.
What about former UK ambassador Craig Murray, a WikiLeaks colleague, who has repeatedly admitted
that he knows the source of the DNC emails. Murray hasn't been asked to testify nor has he even been
contacted by the FBI on the matter. Apparently, the FBI has no interest in a credible witness who
can disprove the politically-motivated theory expounded in the ICA.
Then there's 30-year CIA analyst Ray McGovern and his group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals
for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern has done extensive research on the topic and has produced solid evidence
that the DNC emails were "leaked" by an insider, not "hacked" by a foreign government. McGovern's
work squares with Assange and Murray's claim that Russia did not hack the 2016 elections. Has McGovern
been invited to testify?
How about Skip Folden, retired IBM Program Manager and Information Technology expert, whose excellent
report titled "Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge" also disproves the hacking theory,
as does The Nation's Patrick Lawrence whose riveting article at The Nation titled "A New Report Raises
Big Questions About Last Year's DNC Hack" which thoroughly obliterates the central claims of the
ICA.
Finally, there's California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher who met with Assange in August at the
Ecuadorian embassy in London and who was assured that Assange would provide hard evidence (in the
form of "a computer drive or other data-storage device") that the Russians were not involved in the
DNC email scandal.
Wouldn't you think that senate investigators would want to talk to a trusted colleague and credible
witness like Rohrabacher who said he could produce solid proof that the scandal, that has dominated
the headlines and roiled Washington for the better part of a year, was bogus?
Apparently not. Apparently Burr and his colleagues would rather avoid any witness or evidence
that conflicts with their increasingly-threadbare thesis.
So what conclusions can we draw from the Committee's behavior? Are Burr and Warner really conducting
an open and independent investigation of alleged Russia hacking or is this just a witch hunt?
It should be obvious by now that the real intention of the briefing was not to provide the public
with more information, facts or evidence of Russian hacking, but to use the prestigious setting as
a platform for disseminating more disinformation aimed at vilifying an emerging rival (Russia) that
has blocked Washington's aggression in Ukraine and Syria, and threatens to unite the most populous
and prosperous region in the world (Eurasia) into one massive free trade zone spanning from Lisbon
to Vladivostok.
Reasonable people must now consider the possibility that the Russia hacking narrative
is an Information Operation (IO) devoid of any real substance which is designed to poison the publics
perception of Russia. It is a domestic propaganda campaign that fits perfectly with the "Full Spectrum
Dominance" theory of weaponizing media in a way that best achieves one's geopolitical objectives.
The American people are again being manipulated so that powerful elites can lead the country to war.
Chris Hedges, who is doubtless a courageous journalist and an intelligent commentator, suggests
that if we are to discuss the anti-Russia campaign realistically, as baseless in fact, and as
contrived for an effect and to further/protect some particular interests, we can hardly avoid the
question: Who or what interest is served by the anti-Russia campaign?
An interesting observation "The Democratic Party doesn't actually function as a political
party. It's about perpetual mass mobilization and a hyperventilating public relations arm, all paid
for by corporate donors. The base of the party has no real say in the leadership or the policies of
the party, as Bernie Sanders and his followers found out."
The other relevant observation is that there is no American left. It was destroyed as a
political movement. The USA is a right wing country.
Notable quotes:
"... This obsession with Russia is a tactic used by the ruling elite, and in particular the Democratic Party, to avoid facing a very unpleasant reality: that their unpopularity is the outcome of their policies of deindustrialization and the assault against working men and women and poor people of color. ..."
"... It is the result of the slashing of basic government services, including, of course, welfare, that Clinton gutted; deregulation, a decaying infrastructure, including public schools, and the de facto tax boycott by corporations. It is the result of the transformation of the country into an oligarchy. The nativist revolt on the right, and the aborted insurgency within the Democratic Party, makes sense when you see what they have done to the country. ..."
"... The Democratic Party, in particular, is driving this whole Russia witch-hunt. It cannot face its complicity in the destruction of our civil liberties -- and remember, Barack Obama's assault on civil liberties was worse than those carried out by George W. Bush -- and the destruction of our economy and our democratic institutions. ..."
"... Politicians like the Clintons, Pelosi and Schumer are creations of Wall Street. That is why they are so virulent about pushing back against the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party. ..."
"... The Democratic Party doesn't actually function as a political party. It's about perpetual mass mobilization and a hyperventilating public relations arm, all paid for by corporate donors. The base of the party has no real say in the leadership or the policies of the party, as Bernie Sanders and his followers found out. They are props in the sterile political theater. ..."
"... These party elites, consumed by greed, myopia and a deep cynicism, have a death grip on the political process. They're not going to let it go, even if it all implodes. ..."
"... The whole exercise was farcical. The White House would leak some bogus story to Judy Miller or Michael Gordon, and then go on the talk shows to say, 'as the Times reported .' It gave these lies the veneer of independence and reputable journalism. This was a massive institutional failing, and one the paper has never faced. ..."
"... The media's anti-Russia narrative has been embraced by large portions of what presents itself as the "left." ..."
"... Well, don't get me started on the American left. First of all, there is no American left -- not a left that has any kind of seriousness, that understands political or revolutionary theories, that's steeped in economic study, that understands how systems of power work, especially corporate and imperial power. The left is caught up in the same kind of cults of personality that plague the rest of society. It focuses on Trump, as if Trump is the central problem. Trump is a product, a symptom of a failed system and dysfunctional democracy, not the disease. ..."
"... For good measure, they purged the liberal class -- look at what they did to Henry Wallace -- so that Cold War "liberals" equated capitalism with democracy, and imperialism with freedom and liberty. I lived in Switzerland and France. There are still residues of a militant left in Europe, which gives Europeans something to build upon. But here we almost have to begin from scratch. ..."
"... The corporate elites we have to overthrow already hold power. And unless we build a broad, popular resistance movement, which takes a lot of patient organizing among working men and women, we are going to be steadily ground down. ..."
"... The corporate state has made it very hard to make a living if you hold fast to this radical critique. You will never get tenure. You probably won't get academic appointments. You won't win prizes. You won't get grants. ..."
"... The elite schools, and I have taught as a visiting professor at a few of them, such as Princeton and Columbia, replicate the structure and goals of corporations. If you want to even get through a doctoral committee, much less a tenure committee, you must play it really, really safe. You must not challenge the corporate-friendly stance that permeates the institution and is imposed through corporate donations and the dictates of wealthy alumni. Half of the members of most of these trustee boards should be in prison! ..."
"... Speculation in the 17th century in Britain was a crime. Speculators were hanged. And today they run the economy and the country. They have used the capturing of wealth to destroy the intellectual, cultural and artistic life in the country and snuff out our democracy. There is a word for these people: traitors. ..."
But the whole idea that the Russians swung the election to Trump is absurd. It's really premised
on the unproven claim that Russia gave the Podesta emails to WikiLeaks, and the release of these
emails turned tens, or hundreds of thousands, of Clinton supporters towards Trump. This doesn't make
any sense. Either that, or, according to the director of national intelligence, RT America, where
I have a show, got everyone to vote for the Green Party.
This obsession with Russia is a tactic used by the ruling elite, and in particular the Democratic
Party, to avoid facing a very unpleasant reality: that their unpopularity is the outcome of their
policies of deindustrialization and the assault against working men and women and poor people of
color. It is the result of disastrous trade agreements like NAFTA that abolished good-paying union
jobs and shipped them to places like Mexico, where workers without benefits are paid $3.00 an hour.
It is the result of the explosion of a system of mass incarceration, begun by Bill Clinton with the
1994 omnibus crime bill, and the tripling and quadrupling of prison sentences. It is the result of
the slashing of basic government services, including, of course, welfare, that Clinton gutted; deregulation,
a decaying infrastructure, including public schools, and the de facto tax boycott by corporations.
It is the result of the transformation of the country into an oligarchy. The nativist revolt on the
right, and the aborted insurgency within the Democratic Party, makes sense when you see what they
have done to the country.
Police forces have been turned into quasi-military entities that terrorize marginal communities,
where people have been stripped of all of their rights and can be shot with impunity; in fact over
three are killed a day. The state shoots and locks up poor people of color as a form of social control.
They are quite willing to employ the same form of social control on any other segment of the population
that becomes restive.
The Democratic Party, in particular, is driving this whole Russia witch-hunt. It cannot face
its complicity in the destruction of our civil liberties -- and remember, Barack Obama's assault
on civil liberties was worse than those carried out by George W. Bush -- and the destruction of our
economy and our democratic institutions.
Politicians like the Clintons, Pelosi and Schumer are creations of Wall Street. That is why
they are so virulent about pushing back against the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party. Without
Wall Street money, they would not hold political power. The Democratic Party doesn't actually function
as a political party. It's about perpetual mass mobilization and a hyperventilating public relations
arm, all paid for by corporate donors. The base of the party has no real say in the leadership or
the policies of the party, as Bernie Sanders and his followers found out. They are props in the sterile
political theater.
These party elites, consumed by greed, myopia and a deep cynicism, have a death grip on the political
process. They're not going to let it go, even if it all implodes.
... ... ...
DN: Let's come back to this question of the Russian hacking news story. You raised the ability
to generate a story, which has absolutely no factual foundation, nothing but assertions by various
intelligence agencies, presented as an assessment that is beyond question. What is your evaluation
of this?
CH: The commercial broadcast networks, and that includes CNN and MSNBC, are not in the business
of journalism. They hardly do any. Their celebrity correspondents are courtiers to the elite. They
speculate about and amplify court gossip, which is all the accusations about Russia, and they repeat
what they are told to repeat. They sacrifice journalism and truth for ratings and profit. These cable
news shows are one of many revenue streams in a corporate structure. They compete against other revenue
streams. The head of CNN, Jeff Zucker, who helped create the fictional persona of Donald Trump on
"Celebrity Apprentice," has turned politics on CNN into a 24-hour reality show. All nuance, ambiguity,
meaning and depth, along with verifiable fact, are sacrificed for salacious entertainment. Lying,
racism, bigotry and conspiracy theories are given platforms and considered newsworthy, often espoused
by people whose sole quality is that they are unhinged. It is news as burlesque.
I was on the investigative team at the New York Times during the lead-up to the Iraq
War. I was based in Paris and covered Al Qaeda in Europe and the Middle East. Lewis Scooter Libby,
Dick Cheney, Richard Perle and maybe somebody in an intelligence agency, would confirm whatever story
the administration was attempting to pitch. Journalistic rules at the Times say you can't
go with a one-source story. But if you have three or four supposedly independent sources confirming
the same narrative, then you can go with it, which is how they did it. The paper did not break any
rules taught at Columbia journalism school, but everything they wrote was a lie.
The whole exercise was farcical. The White House would leak some bogus story to Judy Miller or
Michael Gordon, and then go on the talk shows to say, 'as the Times reported .' It gave these lies
the veneer of independence and reputable journalism. This was a massive institutional failing, and
one the paper has never faced.
DN: The CIA pitches the story, and then the Times gets the verification from those who
pitch it to them.
CH: It's not always pitched. And not much of this came from the CIA The CIA wasn't buying the
"weapons of mass destruction" hysteria.
DN: It goes the other way too?
CH: Sure. Because if you're trying to have access to a senior official, you'll constantly be putting
in requests, and those officials will decide when they want to see you. And when they want to see
you, it's usually because they have something to sell you.
DN: The media's anti-Russia narrative has been embraced by large portions of what presents itself
as the "left."
CH: Well, don't get me started on the American left. First of all, there is no American left --
not a left that has any kind of seriousness, that understands political or revolutionary theories,
that's steeped in economic study, that understands how systems of power work, especially corporate
and imperial power. The left is caught up in the same kind of cults of personality that plague the
rest of society. It focuses on Trump, as if Trump is the central problem. Trump is a product, a symptom
of a failed system and dysfunctional democracy, not the disease.
If you attempt to debate most of those on the supposedly left, they reduce discussion to this
cartoonish vision of politics.
The serious left in this country was decimated. It started with the suppression of radical movements
under Woodrow Wilson, then the "Red Scares" in the 1920s, when they virtually destroyed our labor
movement and our radical press, and then all of the purges in the 1950s. For good measure, they purged
the liberal class -- look at what they did to Henry Wallace -- so that Cold War "liberals" equated
capitalism with democracy, and imperialism with freedom and liberty. I lived in Switzerland and France.
There are still residues of a militant left in Europe, which gives Europeans something to build upon.
But here we almost have to begin from scratch.
I've battled continuously with Antifa and the Black Bloc. I think they're kind of poster children
for what I would consider phenomenal political immaturity. Resistance is not a form of personal catharsis.
We are not fighting the rise of fascism in the 1930s. The corporate elites we have to overthrow already
hold power. And unless we build a broad, popular resistance movement, which takes a lot of patient
organizing among working men and women, we are going to be steadily ground down.
So Trump's not the problem. But just that sentence alone is going to kill most discussions with
people who consider themselves part of the left.
The corporate state has made it very hard to make a living if you hold fast to this radical critique.
You will never get tenure. You probably won't get academic appointments. You won't win prizes. You
won't get grants. The New York Times , if they review your book, will turn it over to a
dutiful mandarin like George Packer to trash it -- as he did with my last book. The elite schools,
and I have taught as a visiting professor at a few of them, such as Princeton and Columbia, replicate
the structure and goals of corporations. If you want to even get through a doctoral committee, much
less a tenure committee, you must play it really, really safe. You must not challenge the corporate-friendly
stance that permeates the institution and is imposed through corporate donations and the dictates
of wealthy alumni. Half of the members of most of these trustee boards should be in prison!
Speculation in the 17th century in Britain was a crime. Speculators were hanged. And today they
run the economy and the country. They have used the capturing of wealth to destroy the intellectual,
cultural and artistic life in the country and snuff out our democracy. There is a word for these
people: traitors.
Hedges doesn't seem to understand that the "Resistance" is openly and obviously working
FOR Deepstate. They do not resist wars and globalism and monopolistic corporations. They
resist everyone who questions the war. They resist nationalism and localism.
Nothing mysterious or hidden about this, no ulterior motive or bankshot. It's explicitly
stated in every poster and shout and beating.
"... Russia is for and against Trump, and is thus destroying American democracy! We have always been at war with Eurasia! Freedom is slavery! ..."
"... The dangerous projection from the US elites where anyone and anything can be turned into something "evil" through the mere suggestion of any connection to Russia is no longer shocking--but that makes it no less disturbing and insidious. ..."
"... the whole thing is quite laughable, if it wasn't taken so seriously by so many doorknobs... ..."
"... b you are right to continue to focus on this issue. The Russia hysteria is beginning to burn itself out. However the msn and the Democrats are now beginning to focus on Google, Twitter and Facebook instead. Hillary last week gave a talk at Stanford calling for those companies to censure false news reports. If her plan was put into effect one of its targets would obviously be MoA along with hundreds of other outlets on both the left and the right that challenge the usual deep state "news" promoted by the mainstream news monopolies. ..."
"... Identifying all of the ways in which it was rigged is still open to debate, but we know for sure that during the primary the DNC manipulated the schedule for "Super Tuesday" so as to pad Clinton's lead with meaningless red states which would never turn out for her in the general, that numerous states also executed suspect purges of their voter roles in precincts leaning heavily toward Bernie Sanders, and that Clinton fraudulently secured the electoral votes of some 400 so-called "super delegates" in order to create the illusion she had popular support. ..."
"... Furthermore, we know that the DNC itself promoted Trump because they wrongly believed that he would be easier to beat in the general election. If anyone really adulterated our democracy during this election, it was the DNC and, as usual, the corporate media apparatus. But as with any large-scale CYA operation, the first order of business is to distract attention away from the domestic perpetrators by hyping up an external threat and projecting all manner of crimes to this shadowy enemy. ..."
"... If one looks at the recent history of which bills pass in congress, and how close the votes lie, it is very easy to see the BIG LIE that these people represent anything other than the corporate interests that pay them the most money. ..."
"... Trump is a symptom, not the disease. Hillary was the same, and I fully expect the next bunch of politicians to show even more stark symptoms. To expect the MSM to do other than purvey the lies and obfuscate and distract is simply an illogical and fallacious expectation - an expectation that money will never allow to be met. ..."
"... This entire Russiagate thing is a distraction, canard, red herring - pick your noun for falsity. It's purpose is to obfuscate other things the corporations and governments are doing elsewhere. Caveat emptor ..."
After the ludicrous "Russian hacking" claims have died down for lack of evidence, the
attention was moved to even more ludicrous claims of "Russian ads influenced the elections".
Some readers are upset that continue to debunk the nonsense the media spreads around this. But
lies should not stand without response. If only to blame the reporters and media who push this
dreck.
As evidence is also lacking for any "Russian interference" claims the media outlets have
started to push deceiving headlines. These make claims that are not covered at all by the
content of the related pieces. The headlines are effective because less than 20% of the viewers
ever read beyond them.
Google has found no ads that "Russia", the state or nation, has bought. There is also no
evidence that the ads in question interfered in any way with the election. There is evidence
that any of the ads in questions aimed to achieve that. The opener of the piece repeats the
false headline claims. But now we have "Russian agents", not "Russia", which allegedly did
something.
Google has found evidence that Russian agents bought ads on its wide-ranging networks in an
effort to interfere with the 2016 presidential campaign.
The term "Russian agents" is not defined at all. Where these "secret agents" or Public
Relation professionals in Washington DC hired by some Russian entity?
Using accounts believed to be connected to the Russian government, the agents purchased
$4,700 worth of search ads and more traditional display ads, according to a person familiar
with the company's inquiry ...
"Accounts believed to be connected to the Russian government." Believed by
whom? And how is "connected" defined? Isn't any citizen "connected" to his or her
government?
Those believed , connected accounts bought a whopping $4,700 of ads?
Googles 2016 revenue was $89,000,000,000. The total campaign expenditures in 2016 were some
$6,000,000,000. The Clinton campaign spent some $480,000 on social network ads alone. But
something "Russian" spending $4,700 was "interference"?
But wait. There is more:
Google found a separate $53,000 worth of ads with political material that were purchased from
Russian internet addresses, building addresses or with Russian currency. It is not clear
whether any of those were connected to the Russian government, and they may have been
purchased by Russian citizens, the person said.
So now we are on to something. A full $53,000 worth of ads. But ....
The messages of those ads spanned the political spectrum. One account spent $7,000 on ads to
promote a documentary called "You've Been Trumped," a film about Donald J. Trump's efforts to
build a golf course in Scotland along an environmentally sensitive coastline. Another spent
$36,000 on ads questioning whether President Barack Obama needed to resign. Yet another
bought ads to promote political merchandise for Mr. Obama.
The film is anti-Trump. Obama not resigning would have been anti-Trump. Selling Obama
merchandise may have been good business, but is certainly not pro-Trump. So at least $43,000 of
a total of $53,000 mentioned above was spent by believed , connected
"Russians" on ads that promoted anti-Trump material. How does that fit with the claims that
"Russia" wished to get Trump elected? Putin pushed the wrong button?
The allegedly "Russian" Facebook ads were just
a click-bait scheme by some people trying to make money. The allegedly "Russian" Goggle ads
were of a volume that is unlikely to have made any difference in anything. They were also
anti-Trump.
Clinton lost because people on all sides had learned to dislike her policies throughout the
years. She was unelectable. Her party was and is acting against the interest of the common
people. No claim of anything "Russian" can change those facts.
But, But, But
It is OK when the US of A ( via NED, USAID aka CIA covert ops) does it in Iran, some African
countries, South American and even in Western Europe circa the '60's, to elect puppets
Clinton won the election. Trump winning the Electoral College doesn't change that. If anybody
has been repudiated by popular vote, it is Trump. It wasn't a huge win because the Democratic
Party platform of how great the economy is is not going to win big for the good and simply
reason it's BS. And black voters weren't going to turn out for a white candidate. If winning
the election is a moral endorsement and losing is conviction of sin, then it is Clinton who
was the angel and Trump who was the devil in the judgment of the American people. Seeing
Clinton supporters as demons serving evil just means you hate the American people.
Either the Trumpists are getting exactly what they wanted, which exposes them as shameful.
Or they got blindly picked the biggest liar because, stupid. It's a lose/lose situation.
Since the Electoral College has made the election moot, what is the point of savaging Clinton
except a desperate effort to apologize for Trump?
Russia is for and against Trump, and is thus destroying American democracy! We have
always been at war with Eurasia! Freedom is slavery!
The dangerous projection from the US elites where anyone and anything can be turned
into something "evil" through the mere suggestion of any connection to Russia is no longer
shocking--but that makes it no less disturbing and insidious.
if the Dems wanted to campaign for the NEXT election rather than the LAST one, they could try
opposing Trump on an actual issue... but I don't see Clinton doing squat for Puerto Rico, EPA
standards, Black Lives, health care, Yemen, education, etc. The truth is, she and her party
don't oppose Trump on anything except who won the last election and which country to threaten
next.
I stopped listening to Amy Goodman over a year ago when I got sick of hearing nothing but
this partisan BS, though once in a while I turn it on for a few minutes, and Goodman is STILL
going on and on about Trump v Clinton! but today I got to hear Julian Assange tell her off,
so it was worth it.
b you are right to continue to focus on this issue. The Russia hysteria is beginning to
burn itself out. However the msn and the Democrats are now beginning to focus on Google,
Twitter and Facebook instead. Hillary last week gave a talk at Stanford calling for those
companies to censure false news reports. If her plan was put into effect one of its targets
would obviously be MoA along with hundreds of other outlets on both the left and the right
that challenge the usual deep state "news" promoted by the mainstream news monopolies.
Johnson #2. You obviously do not understand the US constitution. It was crafted to
distribute political power to all of the States, not to just those with the largest
populations. That was done deliberately and carefully in order to get the 13 former colonies
to agree to joining a united states. That is why we have the electoral college and why each
of the states have exactly two US senators irrespective of their population. So you want to
abolish the electoral college? Well then change the US constitution. Of course keep in mind
that the constitution has a rule for that process too -- it requires that 2/3 of the states
agree. Good luck with trying that! Well you loyal Hillary sycophants should just go back and
continue to cry in your beers like the pathetic losers that you all are.
The 2016 election, as with every federal election since at least 2000, was rigged.
Identifying all of the ways in which it was rigged is still open to debate, but we
know for sure that during the primary the DNC manipulated the schedule for "Super Tuesday" so
as to pad Clinton's lead with meaningless red states which would never turn out for her in
the general, that numerous states also executed suspect purges of their voter roles in
precincts leaning heavily toward Bernie Sanders, and that Clinton fraudulently secured the
electoral votes of some 400 so-called "super delegates" in order to create the illusion she
had popular support.
Furthermore, we know that the DNC itself promoted Trump because they wrongly believed
that he would be easier to beat in the general election. If anyone really adulterated our
democracy during this election, it was the DNC and, as usual, the corporate media apparatus.
But as with any large-scale CYA operation, the first order of business is to distract
attention away from the domestic perpetrators by hyping up an external threat and projecting
all manner of crimes to this shadowy enemy.
It's been the same tired song and dance in this country since forever, and I don't think
it'll ever change, especially not with almost universal control of the government, media,
finance, and industry by the money-printing fifth column.
If one looks at the recent history of which bills pass in congress, and how close the
votes lie, it is very easy to see the BIG LIE that these people represent anything other than
the corporate interests that pay them the most money.
The 'differences' they postulate and promulgate across media are of things
inconsequential, or of things that can never be wholly resolved with laws and regulations.
When important things arise, they are locked away in committee or alleged 'deadlock'. What
bills do pass are always, not sometimes, but always those that enrich their own pockets in
some way.
Those that believe in either cause, Democrat or Republican, are avoiding the truth staring
them in the face. They prefer the old reality we lived in where news could be controlled via
5 or 6 media outlets. They prefer The Matrix to the reality of where we exist today.
The truth is slowly oozing out, even as these parasitic creatures shovel and shove it back
under rocks and into overflowing waste bins. The result of this is apathy in extremis. This
will continue until a disaster or collapse of some part of the existing system forces people
to act for change.
Trump is a symptom, not the disease. Hillary was the same, and I fully expect the next
bunch of politicians to show even more stark symptoms. To expect the MSM to do other than
purvey the lies and obfuscate and distract is simply an illogical and fallacious expectation
- an expectation that money will never allow to be met.
This entire Russiagate thing is a distraction, canard, red herring - pick your noun
for falsity. It's purpose is to obfuscate other things the corporations and governments are
doing elsewhere. Caveat emptor
The official US doctrine is and has been containment of Russia. that excludes any
friendship. The best that can be done is to avoid WWIII. And due to Putin patience that might be
possible. After Putin is gone, who knows. If nationalist come to power, the neocon might
really feel the depth of Russian anger at the US imperial policies.
Bunch of neocons travel to Moscow to test waters for rapprochement. After then pissed Russia
and launched neo-McCarthyism campaign for the last two years... such a great diplomats.
Those neocons completely poisoned the well and now want to drink clean water. No way.
Notable quotes:
"... President Vladimir Putin's recent hint that the Kremlin could cut another 155 people from the number permitted to work at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow. ..."
"... because Mr. Putin does not seem to feel real pressure from U.S. sanctions, he is unlikely to be disposed to offer major concessions to the United States simply to reach agreement, especially in the runup to Russia's 2018 presidential elections ..."
"... Keep pretending that Russia has hacked your elections. There is zero interest from the US side in improving relations and we know this quite well here. There is no question that the fat defense and intelligence budgets and all the extra power that the spooks now got is a direct outcome of destroyed Russia-US relations. The democrats sour grapes and election rigging cover up with Russiagate is also undeniable. Keep living the lie ..."
"... It is sad that the media, the Democratic party, and the "deep state" are all working together to try to keep the phony Trump-Russia collusion story alive - but it has almost run its course and less and less people believe it. ..."
"... The US doctrine is and has been containment of Russia. That is a very foolish and self defeating way in the 21st century. The West would have been better off when the bankers did not have such controls and the American congress grew real courage and paid down the national debt. ..."
"... I don't know to what degree the author of this article and those he went with have real influence on either side, but we, the American public, have yet to be presented with any real proof that Russia (and specifically its government, directly) actually did anything significant with regard to the election. To the degree that we've been shown any evidence, it appears completely inconsequential, extremely minor dabbling at most. The latest is that "Russia" (nebulously defined) spent $100,000 on Facebook ads... Meanwhile the Clinton campaign spent $1 BILLION. This is a joke. ..."
"... The situation in Ukraine is a million times more of a significant obstacle to improved relations. ..."
"... Russia and US have all the reasons to be adversaries. Because US seeks global domination but will never be able to achieve it as long as Russia exists as subject of global politics. US invests huge resources into making harm to Russia in every possible way. And it been this way at least since Truman administration. ..."
"... NATO cannot save a non-existent failed state. There are at least three different and geographically separate Ukraines. Catholic Galicia has nothing to do with the rest of the country. And the East wants to separate. It is another case of former Yugoslavia. ..."
"... trump was given a choice by the deep state of you either work with us or else... so he has become a puppet of the swamp ..."
Russian officials were largely dismissive of U.S. and European economic sanctions, which some
indirectly credit with significantly strengthening Russia's agricultural sector -- to such an
extent that they claimed Russian products may fiercely compete in Europe if and when the
European Union eases it sanctions and Russia lifts its protectionist counter-sanctions. Indeed,
the U.S. Department of State itself asserted in 2016 that a loss of
"at most 1 percent of GDP can be potentially explained by sanctions" as opposed to declining
global energy prices. The combination of "at most" and "potentially" in this sentence suggests
that there is little empirical evidence that sanctions have caused real damage to Russia's
economy. Moreover, since U.S. sanctions could account for only a small part of this -- because
Europe's economic
relationship with Russia is far larger than America's -- there is no reason to think that
new U.S. sanctions, which have yet to be fully implemented, will make a material difference at
the macroeconomic level. (The State Department did find that sanctioned companies appeared to
lose significant revenue and assets.) Still, some officials did privately admit that the
sanctions undermine Russia's investment climate, especially among foreign investors.
At the same time, however, some officials reacted quite strongly to the Trump
administration's decision to close Russia's consulate in San Francisco, the latest move in an
escalating diplomatic spat that began with the Obama administration's expulsion of thirty-five
Russian diplomats and seizure of two diplomatic properties in December, following a widely
publicized intelligence community report on Russia's election interference.
Even in this area, however, our interlocutors seemed to prefer curtailing the dispute over
extending it -- notwithstanding President Vladimir Putin's recent hint that
the Kremlin could cut another 155 people from the number permitted to work at the U.S. Embassy
in Moscow.
Yet containing this battle between the State Department and Russian Foreign Ministry
bureaucracies may well be the easiest step in working toward a functional U.S.-Russia
relationship. Far more important and more challenging will be addressing Russia's election
interference, which has poisoned the relationship to an extent that Russian officials -- who
describe the matter strictly as a U.S. partisan slugfest brought on by sour-grapes Democrats --
did not seem to appreciate....
... Russia's
diplomatic, economic, military and security officials will each seek to pursue their own
objectives, sometimes contradicting one another. Also, because Mr. Putin does not seem to
feel real pressure from U.S. sanctions, he is unlikely to be disposed to offer major
concessions to the United States simply to reach agreement, especially in the runup to Russia's
2018 presidential elections .
Thus "getting to yes" on these or other issues will take
persistence and creativity.
Paul J. Saunders, associate publisher of the National Interest, is executive director of
the Center for the National Interest.
Keep pretending that Russia has hacked your elections. There is zero interest from the
US side in improving relations and we know this quite well here. There is no question that
the fat defense and intelligence budgets and all the extra power that the spooks now got is a
direct outcome of destroyed Russia-US relations. The democrats sour grapes and election
rigging cover up with Russiagate is also undeniable. Keep living the lie
I agree with you that Russia probably did not hack the US elections. Julian Assange, head
of WikiLeaks, has made it quite clear that he received the Clinton campaign emails from
elsewhere. (and he has a 100% history of being truthful with regard to what he releases) But
I would say to Russia to not give up on better relations with America. It is true that the
"deep state" and the Military Industrial Complex make a lot of money from "bad relations"
with Russia, but I think Trump understands that improving relations will be good for both
sides and potentially save a lot of money for America's citizens. Give it some time.....
Wow, good to hear a sober voice! I have felt some backlash personally in the commercial
world, and it really feels nasty (basically just like racism), especially since I feel like
1/2 American, having lived in the US for 11 years. So this has gone very deep even in private
sector.
Not too sure about good prospects coming up soon. I'm following both the foreign and domestic
policies of the current government in Washington and its a bit scary - Cuba, Nicaragua,
Venezuela, NK, China, Iran - all are becoming enemies, sanctions reintroduced, and all the
ultra-right wing stuff home like getting rid of health insurance, removing all regulations,
now 20% poverty rate in CA, I don't recognize the country I used to live a couple decades
ago!
It is sad that the media, the Democratic party, and the "deep state" are all working
together to try to keep the phony Trump-Russia collusion story alive - but it has almost run
its course and less and less people believe it. It is now looking like it was the Obama Admin's justice department that actually paid for the phony "Trump Dossier" that was used as
an excuse to wiretap the Trump campaign. Once that story blows up (Senator Grassley has
subpoenaed the background docs) I think you will see a rapid improvement in relations.
pavel , Russia made
its choices. The onus is not on the US to pacify Russia with any standard of proof that it
may find convincing. Its up to the US authorities to interpret the Russian actions as being
either confrontational or friendly. Russia has no say over it.
The US doctrine is and has been containment of Russia. That is a very foolish and self
defeating way in the 21st century. The West would have been better off when the bankers did
not have such controls and the American congress grew real courage and paid down the national
debt.
It is testimony to the gross malfeasance of American media and pols (both sides but
especially Ds like both idiotic Clintons) that America has no working relationship with
Russia. The good news, once again in time Trump will be proved right.
I don't know to what degree the author of this article and those he went with have real
influence on either side, but we, the American public, have yet to be presented with any real
proof that Russia (and specifically its government, directly) actually did anything
significant with regard to the election. To the degree that we've been shown any evidence, it
appears completely inconsequential, extremely minor dabbling at most. The latest is that
"Russia" (nebulously defined) spent $100,000 on Facebook ads... Meanwhile the Clinton
campaign spent $1 BILLION. This is a joke.
But apparently this group went over there and acted as if the American people are
outraged. No, dishonest Democrat hacks and never-Trump Republicans inside the Beltway are
obsessed with it, because they hate the outcome of the election and want to discredit Trump.
But they've been fishing for a year and a half and can't find anything, despite furiously
leaking every innuendo they can, that turns out to be a false smear against Trump and
completely falls apart on inspection.
The situation in Ukraine is a million times more of a significant obstacle to improved
relations.
"If Russia can't be trusted to respect the borders of its neighbors, we can't have good
relations."
Says who? Citizen of a country which invaded 100+ countries since 1890, including Russia
twice? Learn how to respect borders and sovereignity or others yourself. Otherwise it is not
going to end well for you.
Given your namesake, I'm not sure what point you think you're making. My point is that
now, today, the US and Russia have no reason to be adversaries. The past is the past. This is
just practical reality. We have allies in Europe who are worried about Russian expansionism.
Again, because of your namesake. If Russia makes moves to its west, relations cannot
improve.
"My point is that now, today, the US and Russia have no reason to be adversaries."
Russia and US have all the reasons to be adversaries. Because US seeks global domination
but will never be able to achieve it as long as Russia exists as subject of global politics.
US invests huge resources into making harm to Russia in every possible way. And it been this
way at least since Truman administration.
'This is just practical reality."
Exactly. And reality is that US stirs up troubles all over the world, including sphere of
vital interests of Russia like Ukraine.
"We have allies in Europe who are worried about Russian expansionism."
Russian expansionism? Oh please, there never was any at all. Its been EXACTLY Europe which
hundreds of times tried to expand into Russia. The only way Russia expanded over centuries
was by defeating and absorbing those who tried to conquer Russia first. If western degenerate
elites will not learn this important lesson, of cource Russia will defeat and absorb the
west. It will be civilizational self defense.
You better leave Russia alone, and stop meddling in its business.
" If Russia makes moves to its west, relations cannot improve."
Russia does not need any improvement in relations with the west. At all. Over centuries we
learned that force is only language you barbarians do understand. You can not be reasoned
with. That is why we will always keep you at the gunpoint. And out gun will always be bigger
than yours.
If you are, presumably, Russian, it doesn't sound as if your government shares your
mindset. Which is good. I can tell you that the American people do not "seek global
domination". And European nations basically have no military to speak of, so the idea that
they would expand into Russia is ridiculous. You are very much stuck far in the past. In the
modern world, with the threat of Islamic terrorism and the rising economic power of China,
the US and Russia, as allies, would be an insurmountable bulwark. To the extent there would
be "global domination", it would be mutual.
As imperfect as our goverment is, it still orders of magnitude more intelligent and
competent than yours. Especialy when it comes to geopolitics. Russia always plays chess,
while your nations can`t handle checkers nowadays.
"American people do not "seek global domination""
Every people has government which it deserves. So do not try to shift blame to your
government as if you are not responsible for it. You gave them mandate.
"European nations basically have no military to speak of"
Nice excuse to expand NATO east it was, wasn`t it? So much for this "Russian expansionism"
B-S.
"so the idea that they would expand into Russia is ridiculous"
Sorry, but we are not buying that. NATO heavily expanded east breaking all past promises.
NATO now tries to sиck in even Ukraine. So please, we are not going to just sit idle
and watch how your goverments loom another 1812 or 1941.
" You are very much stuck far in the past"
Because we have memory. Do not take us for idlots who was born yesterday.
" In the modern world, with the threat of Islamic terrorism "
Which your goverment created and keeps massively supporting. Oh yes we know that better
than you can imagine.
"rising economic power of China"
Nothing wrong with rising economic power of China.
", the US and Russia, as allies,"
US and Russia are not allies.
"To the extent the would be "global domination", it would be mutual."
Russia seeks no global domination. It just wants to be left completely alone on its
backyard and mainland which has size of a planet.
You have plenty of knowledge of history, but no wisdom. I did not say the US is blameless
in the continued conflicts. What I said is that both governments have shown short
sightedness, and are stuck in the past - and you provide an extreme example of someone stuck
in the past.
You have also said numerous things that are not true, but it's not worth the time to
argue. You should go out for a walk, breathe some fresh air and relax.
Yes. Our government used to be naive enough to trust west and expect it to live up their
promises. And yours by poking the Bear in every possible way. When you poking sleeping Bear
with a short sight and shorter stick, do not complain whole situation exploding into your
face.
"and are stuck in the past "
No. Only your government stuck in its past, past dreams about "the end of history" and
unrestrained global domination. Russia exactly learned from the past and moved on, that is
why your elites are panicking trying to hold on to their sweet illusions.
If you had more wisdom and less hostility, you would see that what I'm saying is more
favorable to you than you think. The ideal outcome, ultimately, would be for Russia to join
NATO. Putin has voiced that idea himself, as have past US presidents. But the continual back
and forth of spats been the US, Europe and Russia prevents it. I'm talking about a bigger,
more positive vision of the future, and you can only see small bitterness about the past.
Sane people want peace and prosperity. You do not seem to be one of them.
"The ideal outcome, ultimately, world be for Russia to join NATO."
The ideal outcome, ultimately, would be for NATO to join Russia.
Perfectly without Russia making it the hard way.
"Putin has voiced that idea himself, as have past US presidents. "
Look up what does sarcasm means.
"more positive vision of the future"
Russia has only two allies, its army and fleet. - Tsar Alexander III.
Today its also RuASF and SRF. We do not need any more allies than that. You choose if you
want to be or enemy. It was not Russia who started all this mess.
I've seen Putin talk about this, on video. He was not being sarcastic. You are an extreme
example of the mindset I'm criticizing, on both sides. The people of both of our countries
are not served by it, at all. It's a useless waste of energy and resources.
For any native Russian speaker who has even slightest idea on what happening during
historic period he was talking about his sarcasm was clear and transparent. The very idea of "Russia joining NATO" is an insult.
" The people of both of our countries are not served by it, at all."
We had no choice but to arm ourselves. You however always had. Russia and the USSR used to
lend you a hand with an olive branch many times. You choosen to spit on it.
What is the ultimate outcome of your mindset? Nuclear war, wiping out both countries? You
can't see any better solution?
Your namesake was a mass murderer, of his own people. I'm not sure why I'm arguing with
you. If you actually cared about the Russian people, you would not use that name.
We will not fire it first, but if it will ever come to this, Russia has all means it needs
to win it.
"You can't see any better solution?"
Yes, accept the idea that we are simply not interested in playing your ball. And we are
against you playing your ball on our lawn too. So figuratively speaking, we need you to get
lost from our horizon and never come back without an invitation. Your "civilization" reminds
me of jehovah`s whitness preachers annoying everybody with their nonsense. With the
difference that you tend to kill those who not agree to listen to your gospel.
"Your namesake was a mass murderer, of his own people."
See? Jehova's whitness mode on again. Sorry but he was not any kind of mass murderer, he
is ultimate hero for us Russians, and we do not need you to lecture us on our own history. We
can figure it out ourselves.
" Russia is attempting to subvert the process that stands at the very heart of the US
democratic system"
Still waiting for any real evidence, much less actual proof. As the calendar flips by.
What we've been told so far is that Hillary's $1B campaign was apparently helpless against
a few internet memes, which we're told were sponsored by the Russian government, without any
proof.
Russia is not going to unilaterally apologize for perceived influence in the US election.
Quite the contrary. Their tiny amount of influence will simply continue with tiny Facebook
purchases and commenters as well as RT coverage etc. becoming a permanent fixture of US
politics (if it wasn't before, which it likely was, but as long as Democrats were winning no
one in the media cared).
It shouldn't be hard for a US politician to win an election going up against this small
degree of influence which is probably less influential than that of other foreign countries
in America (Israel, Saudi and China come to mind). Hillary Clinton, however, was just that
awful of a candidate that she needed the whole system rigged for her just to get close. If
even one world power center was against her she couldn't win. One wasn't and she didn't.
Meanwhile Donald Trump's foreign policy is dangerous without Russian rapprochement. We are
antagonizing other rivals that in the past we have had to keep isolated from cooperating with
Russia (Iran, China).
This is what the Russians are waiting for Washington to realize. No current American
policy goal in the world can be achieved cheaply (less than an Iraq War level of engagement
and cost) without a working relationship with Russia. Our strategy becomes a binary trade
off- do we sacrifice our interests everywhere but Europe (Russia) or do we sacrifice them in
Europe for everywhere else?
My sense is that the Trump policy is a natural consequence of the Asian continent becoming
equal to Europe in economic might by 2020 (it already nearly is). We can no longer treat the
rest of the globe as ancillary to our objectives in Europe (although that is certainly our
habit now).
Whoever follows Trump will fall into this same strategic trap. Hemming in Russia is now
quite painful for Washington to accomplish. Ham fisted half measures don't work and bringing
to bear the full measure of our influence entails great sacrifice in areas equally or more
important.
None of the recent terror attacks in Europe and US have been traced to Iran. Please stop
beating the war drum against this country, chances are you will lose again.
Iran is a #1 perceived threat to Israel, and a sponsor to Hezbollah. Beyond Hezbollah
support there is nothing that qualifies Iran as a sponsor of terrorism
Allie, is your worldview formed solely by mainstream media? Have you tried independent
media? You sure you get the other side's story? You know, you can't really claim you
comprehend the situation without hearing both sides?
I can't recall which one it was, but one of the chemical attacks has been proven to be
carried out by rebels. Also, a chemical attack has been proven to be a hoax. Like I said, I
can't recall all the details. If you are interested you are free to look them up.
Russia will never support the imperial ambitions of the USA. The current situation is a
result of a long chain of anti-Russian decisions by the US. The USA tries to assault the
Russian economy, its harming the people, destroying families and futures. No Russian citizen should
forget that.
NATO cannot save a non-existent failed state. There are at least three different and
geographically separate Ukraines. Catholic Galicia has nothing to do with the rest of the
country. And the East wants to separate. It is another case of former Yugoslavia.
" Our NATO training base we are setting up in Ukraine will ensure the Russians do not
encroach. "
Adolf Hitler told something like that around 1944 when the Red Army was steam rolling his
goons and his Ostwall. You are even more deluded than him if you believe that few twirpy
little bases where your deуenerate men will get drunk and do local рrostitutes
can scare RussiaLOL
"Any drain on the Russian economy such as supporting the Crimea is less money for the
military."
Russian economy is booming since 2014. Russian reserves are growing. And Russian average
living standards are higher than US has it. But whatever makes you sleep at nights, keep
dwelling in russophrenic fantasies induced by your elites.
You are deluded if you think living standards in Russia are higher than the USA. It's not
even close. I guess you are spoon fed a steady diet of propaganda. The USA is by far the most
professional military in the world, and this military constantly foils Russian plans at
expansion.
"The USA is by far the most professional military in the world"
US has most expensive military in the world. And most inept. US never won any major war at
all and can not even deal with cave dwellers in Afganistan for 16 long years.
"and this military constantly foils Russian plans at expansion."
Russia has no plans for expansion. And if it ever will get one, nobody on this planet can
stop Russia from successfuly completing it.
Misinformed. Not a verifiable source. The USA has won plenty of wars, including the war to
topple the taliban in Afghanistan. Saying otherwise is nothing more than a talking point of
Russian propaganda. I've seen you say in other posts Russia will eventually reclaim Kiev Rus,
so which one is it? Try not contradicting yourself when debating educated people. You will
lose credibility. Russia literally just expanded to take the Crimea. They tried to expand into
Afghanistan, so you'd think you would have more respect for the USA effort there. Hightailed
it out of there after those goat herders whooped that @ss huh?
You won over the all powerful state of Grenada. Give you that.
Whooped the Taliban? After 16 years you're still stuck there and Trump adding more troops
to America's longest war to date. How long more to beat the goat herders, in your honest
opinion?
Stuck there? We could leave anytime we wanted. If the taliban took control of the country
again we could topple them again. Reconstructing a tribal society is not the same as fighting
a war. The war was over before it started. Unfortunately some people from our side are
benefiting from the status quo, and so allow it to persist. It is a drain on the country, but
not to the point that I'd call it losing a war. Not even close. Would you rather be in some
skyscraper in NYC or some cave in Baluchistan?
The development and production of new weapon systems is the most efficient way to advance
the technology and, in this way, the economic productivity. All the technological
breakthroughs which provided the current prosperity were financed by the governments with
absolutely non-commercial purpose. Therefore, the fact that Russia finally started developing
new weapon systems is quite promising for its future economic progress.
They are spending about 5% of GDP on their military, not counting intelligence agencies
and secret police and the money going towards the "rebels" in Ukraine. For a nation with the
domestic issues of Russia, it's quite a lot. Russia's oligarchs aren't spending that money
because it's a good use of the budget, they're doing it because they need the military to
distract the Russian public abroad and crush opposition at home. It's a sign of weakness, not
strength.
You don't seem to disagree with my point. Developing new weapon system is much more useful
for the economic development than production of consumer goods.
Who's buying? Russia's list of allies is small, many of their new weapon systems are quite
pricey, and that's all technology the US had years ago. And when it comes to low quality,
high quantity guns they are now competing with China.
I don't think you understand what you are talking about. Technological development is a
strategic project, it is ridiculous to discuss it commercially. Private business would have
never paid for the development of jet engines, laser, computer, nuclear reactor and internet.
They are parasites using the technology developed on the taxpayers money for commercial
purpose.
Concerning the customers: the US are still buying the Russian rockets. The Saudis and
Turkey have recently bought anti-aircraft defence systems. Avoid discussing what is beyond
you competence scope.
My, my, someone is feeling tense. Technological development is certainly helpful. It's
less helpful, however, if your competitors are there a few years before you. No enterprise
exists in a vacuum. If the primary strategic objective in Russia's development of technology
is in order to sell it, they will have to arrive there ahead of the US and others. Given
Russia's current situation, that seems... unlikely.
Hmm... I once read a Stratfor's report on the subject I actually know - it was about
business development in Islamic republics of Russia, and at the time I was one of the
analysts in Investment Promotion Agency of Bashkortostan.
The report was strait idiotic - a crazy mince of facts and fiction. I'm pretty sure now these
dudes are in business of making propaganda and have nothing to do with the truth but to turn
it into half-truths.
There is no proof because it didn't happen. The US media was heavily invested in trying to
get Hillary elected (they were even sending her debate questions in advance) - and needed a
scapegoat (the terrible Russians) for her loss. I think the truth will eventually come
out.
The truth has come out - besides having zero evidence of Russian government involvement,
there was no internet transfer of data from the DNC servers, its was a local leak. As you
probably know, DNC didn't allow FBI access to the servers, and instead hired a private firm
to conclude that it was Russian hacking (the zero-evidence conclusions of this private firm
were later used in intelligence agencie's reports). But nobody is listening to this, because
Russiagate is just so beneficial to so many actors.
"Hacking the election". Could you define what that means and present a single shred of
evidence of it? Or we simply follow the Goebelsian "A lie you keep repeating becomes the
truth.."
In the mid 70s, Vladimir Putin and the Russians began the systematic depopulation of
Detroit so that 40 years later Donald J Trump would win Michigan. It's true, ask a
Dimocrat.
Maybe you might want to take a gander at this:
https://www.nytimes.com/201...
But I guess when you're in total denial, any amount of "proof" will be insufficient. All I'd
say to the Russians is, keep it going.
bahaha That's the proof?! That's the best you can come up with? You fail to see that it is
people like you because of your toxic hatred and dogmatism that jump on any crazy theory to
support your hacking claims. The most probable underlying reason-excluding racist
russophobia? You just can't fathom why Trump won. That's the side-effect of reading the
coastal elites narratives instead of focusing on what has been happening on "fly-over
country" for a couple of decades. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Are you serious? You ask for proof, it is provided, and then you just go on pretending it
wasn't? You do realize that with all the resources and technology at the disposal of our
government, the notion of tracking the origins of certain content on the web is not at all
far fetched. And why would any American patriot not be alarmed at the fact that the Russian
government, the offspring of the USSR, our rival from the Cold War period, was involved in a
concerted effort to target voters with information that was proven to be false. This is
information warfare, and you would respond by rewarding the culprit. I hope you don't have
kids. Maybe you Greeks ought to learn how to run your country before commenting on
international affairs.
"You ask for proof, it is provided" Ahh..No, it wasn't. The only thing provided was a
report by US intelligence services-the last entity one could call a neutral party to
this-that basically said, "Trust us, we tell you the truth".
Again, until a shred of evidence is provided, the whole "russiagate" is BS of the first
order. A fact that even mainstream commentators in the US reluctantly begin to accept. e.g.-
"Russiagate Is More Fiction Than Fact"
https://www.thenation.com/a...
As for Greece, thank you for your advice considering us running our country. If you adhered
to the same principle of not being involved in the affairs of our nation-you helped install a
junta in Greece in 1967, you still interfere in our politics-we would refrain from
criticising your foreign policy that has a bad habit of sticking its dirty fingers
everywhere.
I see you buy into the conspiracy theories. In terms of global development, peace and
prosperity, Russia is not on the same page as the USA. One simply has more credibility than
the other. This is for historical reasons which you needlessly discard. Either way, it is not
just an intelligence report. Try browsing the web a bit. Finding Russian misinformation is
not difficult at all. Facebook, a private entity with no dog in this fight, has verified
Russian interference.
I'm sorry about the junta. A part of history I'm not familiar enough with. My
understanding was this was part of the fight against communism. The ends don't justify the
means, but our interests must be protected. Sometimes that means others go under the boot. We
are able to do that because our house is in order, and we are the most powerful country there
ever was. You may hate the fact, but it's the simple truth. No other nation has the same
ability to project power. Intelligent minds wouldn't disagree.
Lol..You simply cherish raw power-just like the naz.s did for that matter. Of course the
US is powerful, the most powerful country in terms of power projection. But being powerful
does not make one right. Your founding fathers remembered that but you have long forgotten
it, corrupted by power.
You actually believe your own megalomanic and delusional propaganda about being morally
"exceptional" with a mandate to do as you like. You are as exceptional as the other empires
before you were and headed to the same direction-decline and fall.
We Greeks have been around for a few millennia. We had our fair share of fights and helped
destroy some empires as well-the Persians, the Ottomans. We also had the distinction of
having our own empire twice-a feat very very few people can claim.
Today on your struggle with Russia no matter what the power balance might look (and it keeps
shifting on Russia's favor), Russia is morally right. But even excluding morality and Russia
and what not, and looking at the raw facts the fate of your Empire seems sealed.
A favorite metric of your money-obsessed society is GDP. In 1945 the US GDP was equal to
almost 50% of the World GDP. In 1990 it was about 25%. Today it is close to 16% and in
relation to the World GDP it keeps falling. Your military is in need of modernization but
more importantly it simply cannot bare the costs of maintaining a global presence, much less
engage in numerous conflicts.
But I think you already know those facts, that is why you shield your argument behind the "we
are the most powerful blah, blah, blah".
As I said, all this is not knew, even the creation of scapegoats-Russia, N.Korea, Iran ,China
etc are typical of every failing Empire, we 've seen this before.
I have a nice Greek term for you, it is a fundamental pillar of our way of viewing the world.
It's called Hubris and the US is so full of it it can't see past its own nose.
I don't cherish power, just understand and respect it. And the USA is full of it, and
admittedly full of hubris too. I wouldn't be quite so certain that the empire is over, but
agreed overstretched. Adjustments are being made, though only time will tell if it is too
little too late. Your reading of history is accurate, but history doesn't predict the future.
It simply provides proper context for discussion. Your entire comment seems more ideological
than logical. Where did I claim exceptionalism? I apologized about the junta, said it wasn't
justified, but acknowledged the underlying dynamics. Your response was to compare me to the
nazis? Wow. I will say this. You think Russia is "right". Good for you. I think it's quite a
bit more complicated. I certainly think the socioeconomic and political systems in be USA are
far superior to that of Russia, not inherently, but because of the institutions that have
been created. Russia has chosen to emphasize nationalism versus the USA where individualism
is still the prevailing ideological force. Nationalism was what the nazis promoted. Luckily I
don't share your assessment about the global balance of power. The USA, land of the free and
home of the brave, will continue to promote its interests abroad for quite some time to
come.
I don't know about "us Russians" because no matter how unfathomable it might seem to you,
not everyone even mildly supportive of Russia is a Russian. I am Greek and I consider Russia
a friendly state, with ties going back 1000 years, a state which is wrongfully demonized by
the Western elites. You claim that everyone speaking vs Putin is targeted somehow. Obivously
you have never been to Russia or spoke to Russians or have the vaguest clue of public
discourse in Russia both online and on the street.
Oh, and in case you missed it, I asked for a single proof of "Russia hacking the election".
Or anyone "hacking the election" for that matter. I did not ask any proof about Russia's
internal politics or whether it conforms to your hypocritical and selective notions of
democracy, ones that you care not apply to a host of tyranical nations you openly
support.
Oh, what a brilliant idea you got there..The one accused being responsible for providing
evidence of his innocence while the accuser having no need to present evidence to support his
case. Just relying on-"but it's Russia! It's evil and all that s..t!"
And neither Putin nor any Russian official ever made such an admission. Hillary lost because
she was a terrible candidate whose own actions fueled a populist backlash against her and the
Washington consensus policies she espoused.
So, you presume that russia is guilty because you don't have any proof of its innocence or
culpability when it comes to assert if there were any interference in America's
elections?
KingOn2K your assertion and the greatest press in the universe repeating continuously that
Russians did it without providing any shred of evidence after more than one and half year of
investigations (Sorry I forgot, they the press do mention that our $100 Billion +
intelligence agencies say so the same guys who got us in the mess in Iraq good luck believing
these guys). In the meanwhile we have an opioid epidemic and crumbling infrastructure.
Mrm Penumathy maybe,
just maybe, it might dawn on Russia that the US is not in any way hinged to Russia. The
status quo would do just fine. Apart from denials and raising a non-sequitur like Iraq the
arguments for a reset don't look convincing. It is always amusing to see arguments on
relative economic strengths coming from Russians when 68% of their exports come from oil
!!
The reason Hillarity was stumbling and falling during the campaign is because Vladimir
Putin and the Russians spiked her GERITOL(R)(TM). It's true, ask a Dimocrat.
In order to become a successful economy as the US needs to have 20 trillion foreign debt?
The Russian economy is not so dependent on oil as it is told on CNN ..
Russia is not bad at earning rocket engines for the USA (rd180) and delivering American
astronauts to the ISS ;)
Economy of Russia - GDP rank 12th (nominal) / 6th (PPP) (2017)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
US Congress allowed to drag itself into this propaganda swamp by politized Intelligence community, which became a major political
player, that can dictate Congress what to do and what not to do. Now it is not that easy to get out of this "intelligence swamp"
Notable quotes:
"... The 2017 ICA on Russia was conceived in an atmosphere of despair and denial, birthed by Democrats and Republicans alike who were stunned by Trump's surprise electoral victory in November 2016. To say that this issue was a political event would be a gross understatement; the 2017 Russian ICA will go down in history as one of the most politicized intelligence documents ever, regardless of the degree of accuracy eventually afforded its contents. The very fact that the document is given the sobriquet "Intelligence Community" is itself a political act, designed to impart a degree of scrutiny and community consensus that simply did not exist when it came to the production of that document, or the classified reports that it was derived from. ..."
"... This was a report prepared by handpicked analysts ..."
"... iven the firestorm of political intrigue and controversy initiated by the publication of this document, the notion of a "general consensus" regarding the level of trust imparted to it by the Senate Select Intelligence Committee does not engender confidence. ..."
"... It was this document that spawned the issue of "collusion." While Sens. Burr and Warner can state that "collusion" is still an open issue, the fact of the matter is that, in this regard, Trump and his campaign advisors have already been found guilty in the court of public opinion, especially among those members of the public and the media who were vehemently opposed to his candidacy and ultimate victory. ..."
"... One need only review the comments of the various Democratic members of the Senate Select Committee, their counterparts serving on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as the various experts and pundits in the media, to underscore the degree to which prejudice has "worked its evil" when it comes to the issue of collusion and the Trump campaign in this regard. ..."
"... purchase of advertisements on various social media platforms, including Facebook and Twitter, by the Russians or their proxies. With regard to these advertisements, Senator Burr painted a dire picture. "It seems," he declared, "that the overall theme of the Russian involvement in the US elections was to create chaos at every level." ..."
"... No one wants to be told that they have been victims of a con; this is especially true when dealing with the sacred trust imparted to the American citizenry by the Constitution of the United States regarding the free and fair election of those who will represent us in higher office. American politics, for better or worse, is about the personal connection a given candidate has with the voter, a gut feeling that this person shares common values and beliefs. ..."
"... the percentage of Americans that participate in national elections is low. Those that do tend to be people who care enough about one or more issues to actually get out and vote. To categorize these dedicated citizens as brain-dead dupes who are susceptible to social media-based click advertisements is an insult to American democracy. ..."
"... There is a world of difference between Russian intelligence services allegedly hacking politically sensitive emails and selectively releasing them for the sole purpose of undermining a given Presidential candidate's electoral prospects, and mimicking social media-based advertisements addressing issues that are already at play in an election. The Russians didn't invent the ongoing debate in the United States over gun control (i.e., the "Second Amendment" issue), race relations (the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri) or immigration ("The Wall"). ..."
"... These were, and remain, core issues that are at the heart of the American domestic political discourse, regardless of where one stands. You either know the issues, or you don't; it is an insult to the American voter to suggest that they are so malleable that $100,000 of targeted social media-based advertisements can swing their vote, even if 10 million of them viewed it. ..."
The 'briefing' is just another exercise in preferred narrative boosting.
The co-chairmen of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence held a press briefing Thursday on the status of their ongoing investigation
into Russian meddling in the American electoral process. Content-wise, the press briefing and the question and answer session were
an exercise in information futility -- they provided little substance and nothing new. The investigation was still ongoing, the senators
explained, and there was still work to be done.
Nine months into the Committee's work, the best Sens. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.), could offer was that there
was "general consensus" among committee members and their staff that they trust the findings of the Intelligence Community Assessment
(ICA) of January 2017, which gave high confidence to the charge that Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election. The issue
of possible collusion between Russia and members of the campaign of Donald Trump, however, "is still open."
Frankly speaking, this isn't good enough.
The 2017 ICA on Russia was conceived in an atmosphere of despair and denial, birthed by Democrats and Republicans alike who
were stunned by Trump's surprise electoral victory in November 2016. To say that this issue was a political event would be a gross
understatement; the 2017 Russian ICA will go down in history as one of the most politicized intelligence documents ever, regardless
of the degree of accuracy eventually afforded its contents. The very fact that the document is given the sobriquet "Intelligence
Community" is itself a political act, designed to impart a degree of scrutiny and community consensus that simply did not exist when
it came to the production of that document, or the classified reports that it was derived from.
This was a report prepared by handpicked analysts from three of the Intelligence Community's sixteen agencies (the
CIA, NSA, and FBI) who operated outside of the National Intelligence Council (the venue for the production of Intelligence Community
products such as the Russian ICA), and void of the direction and supervision of a dedicated National Intelligence Officer. Overcoming
this deficient family tree represents a high hurdle, even before the issue of the credibility of the sources and methods used to
underpin the ICA's findings are discussed. Given the firestorm of political intrigue and controversy initiated by the publication
of this document, the notion of a "general consensus" regarding the level of trust imparted to it by the Senate Select Intelligence
Committee does not engender confidence.
It was this document that spawned the issue of "collusion." While Sens. Burr and Warner can state that "collusion" is still
an open issue, the fact of the matter is that, in this regard, Trump and his campaign advisors have already been found guilty in
the court of public opinion, especially among those members of the public and the media who were vehemently opposed to his candidacy
and ultimate victory. Insofar as the committee's investigation serves as a legitimate search for truth, it does so as a post-conviction
appeal. However, as the distinguished Supreme Court Justice Joseph McKenna noted in his opinion in Berger v. United States
(1921):
The remedy by appeal is inadequate. It comes after the trial, and, if prejudice exist, it has worked its evil and a judgment
of it in a reviewing tribunal is precarious. It goes there fortified by presumptions, and nothing can be more elusive of estimate
or decision than a disposition of a mind in which there is a personal ingredient.
One need only review the comments of the various Democratic members of the Senate Select Committee, their counterparts serving
on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as the various experts and pundits in the media, to underscore the
degree to which prejudice has "worked its evil" when it comes to the issue of collusion and the Trump campaign in this regard.
The two senators proceeded to touch on a new angle recently introduced into their investigation, that of the purchase of advertisements
on various social media platforms, including
Facebook and Twitter, by the
Russians or their proxies. With regard to these advertisements, Senator Burr painted a dire picture. "It seems," he declared, "that
the overall theme of the Russian involvement in the US elections was to create chaos at every level."
No one wants to be told that they have been victims of a con; this is especially true when dealing with the sacred trust imparted
to the American citizenry by the Constitution of the United States regarding the free and fair election of those who will represent
us in higher office. American politics, for better or worse, is about the personal connection a given candidate has with the voter,
a gut feeling that this person shares common values and beliefs.
Nevertheless, the percentage of Americans that participate in national elections is low. Those that do tend to be people who
care enough about one or more issues to actually get out and vote. To categorize these dedicated citizens as brain-dead dupes who
are susceptible to social media-based click advertisements is an insult to American democracy.
There is a world of difference between Russian intelligence services allegedly hacking politically sensitive emails and selectively
releasing them for the sole purpose of undermining a given Presidential candidate's electoral prospects, and mimicking social media-based
advertisements addressing issues that are already at play in an election. The Russians didn't invent the ongoing debate in the United
States over gun control (i.e., the "Second Amendment" issue), race relations (the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri)
or immigration ("The Wall").
These were, and remain, core issues that are at the heart of the American domestic political discourse, regardless of where
one stands. You either know the issues, or you don't; it is an insult to the American voter to suggest that they are so malleable
that $100,000 of targeted social media-based advertisements can swing their vote, even if 10 million of them viewed it.
The take away from the press briefing given by Senator's Burr and Warner was two-fold: One, the Russians meddled, and two, we
don't know if Trump colluded with the Russians. The fact that America is nine months into this investigation with little more to
show now than what could have been said at the start is, in and of itself, an American political tragedy. The Trump administration
has been hobbled by the inertia of this and other investigations derived from the question of Russian meddling. That this process
may yet vindicate President Trump isn't justification for the process itself; in such a case the delay will have hurt more than the
truth. As William Penn, the founder of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, so eloquently noted:
Delays have been more injurious than direct Injustice. They too often starve those they dare not deny. The very Winner is made
a Loser, because he pays twice for his own; like those who purchase Estates Mortgaged before to the full value.
Our law says that to delay Justice is Injustice. Not to have a Right, and not to come of it, differs little. Refuse or Dispatch
is the Duty of a Good Officer.
Senators Burr and Warner, together with their fellow members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and their respective
staffs, would do well to heed those words.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control
treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of "Deal
of the Century: How Iran Blocked the West's Road to War" (Clarity Press, 2017).
The indicted husband-and-wife team of former IT aides to Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman
Schultz sat directly across from each other at the defendants' table in federal court Friday in
Washington, D.C., but refused to look at each other.
Even as they are co-defendants in a U.S. case, Imran Awan's own wife, Hina Alvi, has become
the latest person to accuse him of fraud, filing papers against him in Pakistani court,
according to Pakistani news channel ARY.
The couple were in U.S. court to face bank fraud charges related to sending money to
Pakistan around the time they learned they were under investigation for abuses related to their
work managing IT for members of Congress. Awan was arrested at Dulles Airport in July
attempting to board a flight to Pakistan.
Wasserman Schultz, former chair of the Democratic National Committee, and other House
Democrats have vigorously defended Awan, claiming the Capitol Police might be drumming up
charges
out of
Islamaphobia .
Alvi was arraigned Friday on four felony counts, and Awan, who has already been arraigned,
requested that his GPS monitoring bracelet be taken off -- citing the fact that his wife was in
America as the reason he was not a flight risk.
Yet the couple entered and left the court separately, have different lawyers, and Awan's
lawyer told the judge that the husband and wife are staying "in a one-bedroom apartment and
then also a house."
Pakistani legal papers published
by the news channel show Alvi recently accused Awan of illegally marrying another woman,
and of fraud. "My husband Imran Awan son of Muhammad Ashraf Awan, committed fraud along with
offence of polygamy," she charges in the papers.
Hina's U.S. lawyer, Nikki Lotze, did not dispute the account. "I don't see how that's
newsworthy," Lotze told The Daily Caller News Foundation. The Pakistani legal petition named as
the second wife is a woman who records show told Virginia police she felt like Awan was keeping
her "like a slave."
Awan, his wife and two brothers -- all previously on the payroll of House Democrats --
became subjects of a Capitol Police investigation last year after investigators concluded they
were submitting falsified invoices for equipment and
had transferred "massive" data off a House server. After he was banned from the House
network, Awan left a laptop with the username RepDWS in a Capitol Hill phone booth.
Although
The Washington Post has reported that investigators found that Awan and his relatives made
unauthorized access to a congressional server 5,400 times, Wasserman Schultz has said concern
about the matter was the
stuff of the "right-wing media circus fringe."
Awan and Alvi have been charged with bank fraud involving moving money to Pakistan, but they
have not been charged with crimes related to their work, and the other family members have not
been charged at all. Awan's attorney used Friday's hearing to argue that he "very strongly"
wanted to block prosecutors
from using evidence they found in the Capitol Hill phone booth.
The Pakistani legal motion filed by Alvi states: "A few months ago I got apprised of the
fact that my husband has contracted second marriage secretly, fraudulently and without my
consent with Mst. Sumaira Shehzadi Alias Sumaira Siddique Daughter of Muhammad Akram r/o
Township, Lahore. The second marriage of my husband is illegal, unlawful and without
justification."
"The court has recorded the testimonies of the applicant and other witnesses," the Pakistani
news outlet reported.
... ... ...
The Awan family had access to the full digital files of 45 House members and
their staffs, but Democrats have said they don't believe he would abuse that access, despite a
host of financial red flags, including financial ties to an
Iranian fugitive and money sent to a Pakistani police officer.
In a civil case this year, Awan's stepmother Samina Gilani accused Abid Awan, who was also
on the House payroll, of stealing a $50,000 life insurance policy, and said Awan used his
employment in Congress to intimidate people.
"Imran Awan introduces himself as someone from US Congress or someone from federal
agencies," she charged. He "threatened that he is very powerful and if I ever call the police
[he] will do harm to me and my family members back in Pakistan and one of my cousins here in
Baltimore."
"... I'd like to see this: President Rand Paul, VP Tulsi Gabbard, chief of staff Ron Paul, and Sec. of Defense Wesley Clark, for starters. ..."
"... "In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." ..."
People need to learn, relearn, and talk to others about this. Let's admit it: today's Republicans
& Democrats are just two sides of the same coin. We ought to just call them what they really all
are -- "Neocons."
Both sides need to be replaced by truly independent voters giving strength to an administration
that is neither R nor D, and that should be the Libertarians. Trump is not one, but he's
going to end up making the way for them during his four years.
I'd like to see this: President Rand Paul, VP Tulsi Gabbard, chief of staff Ron Paul, and
Sec. of Defense Wesley Clark, for starters.
It was either Mark Twain or Samuel Clemens who said "In the beginning of a change
the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid
join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."
"... The answer to the question in the title of this article is that Russiagate was created by CIA director John Brennan. The CIA started what is called Russiagate in order to prevent Trump from being able to normalize relations with Russia. The CIA and the military/security complex need an enemy in order to justify their huge budgets and unaccountable power. Russia has been assigned that role. The Democrats joined in as a way of attacking Trump. They hoped to have him tarnished as cooperating with Russia to steal the presidential election from Hillary and to have him impeached. I don't think the Democrats have considered the consequence of further worsening the relations between the US and Russia. ..."
"... The neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony requires the principal goal of US foreign policy to be to prevent the rise of other countries that can serve as a restraint on US unilateralism. This is the main basis for the hostility of US foreign policy toward Russia, and of course there also is the material interests of the military/security complex. ..."
"... Washington is fully aware that there was no Russian interference in the presidential election or in the state elections. The military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Democratic Party are merely using the accusations to serve their own agendas. ..."
"... These selfish agendas are a dire threat to life on earth ..."
"... Reprinted with permission from PaulCraigRoberts.org . ..."
The answer to the question in the title of this article is that Russiagate was created by
CIA director John Brennan. The CIA started what is called Russiagate in order to prevent Trump from
being able to normalize relations with Russia. The CIA and the military/security complex need an
enemy in order to justify their huge budgets and unaccountable power. Russia has been assigned that
role. The Democrats joined in as a way of attacking Trump. They hoped to have him tarnished as cooperating
with Russia to steal the presidential election from Hillary and to have him impeached. I don't think
the Democrats have considered the consequence of further worsening the relations between the US and
Russia.
Public Russia bashing pre-dates Trump. It has been going on privately in neoconservative circles
for years, but appeared publicly during the Obama regime when Russia blocked Washington's plans to
invade Syria and to bomb Iran.
Russia bashing became more intense when Washington's coup in Ukraine failed to deliver Crimea.
Washington had intended for the new Ukrainian regime to evict the Russians from their naval base
on the Black Sea. This goal was frustrated when Crimea voted to rejoin Russia.
The neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony requires the principal goal of US foreign
policy to be to prevent the rise of other countries that can serve as a restraint on US unilateralism.
This is the main basis for the hostility of US foreign policy toward Russia, and of course there
also is the material interests of the military/security complex.
Russia bashing is much larger than merely Russiagate. The danger lies in Washington convincing
Russia that Washington is planning a surprise attack on Russia. With US and NATO bases on Russia's
borders, efforts to arm Ukraine and to include Ukraine and Georgia in NATO provide more evidence
that Washington is surrounding Russia for attack. There is nothing more reckless and irresponsible
than convincing a nuclear power that you are going to attack.
Washington is fully aware that there was no Russian interference in the presidential election
or in the state elections. The military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Democratic
Party are merely using the accusations to serve their own agendas.
These selfish agendas are a dire threat to life on earth .
This is particular dirty campaign to implicate Trump and delegitimize his victory is a part of
color revolution against Trump.
The other noble purpose is to find a scapegoat for the
current problems, especially in Democratic Party, and to preserve Clinton neoliberals rule over
the party for a few more futile years.
Notable quotes:
"... Congress is investigating 3,000 suspicious ads which were run on Facebook. These were claimed to have been bought by "Russia" to influence the U.S. presidential election in favor of Trump. ..."
"... The mini-ads were bought to promote click-bait pages and sites. These pages and sites were created and then promoted to sell further advertisement. The media though, has still not understood the issue. ..."
"... A few thousand users will come and look at a page. Some will 'like' the puppy pictures or the rant against LGBT and further spread the page. Some will click the promoted Google ads. Money then flows into the pockets of the page creator. One can automatize, rinse and repeat this scheme forever. Each such page is a small effort for a small revenue. But the scheme is highly scale-able and parts of it can be automatized. ..."
"... This is, in essence, the same business model traditional media publishers use. One creates "news" and controversies to attract readers. The attention of the readers is then sold to advertisers. The business is no longer a limited to a few rich oligarchic. One no longer needs reporters or a printing press to join in. Anyone can now take part in it. ..."
"... We learned after the election that some youths in Macedonia created whole "news"-websites filled with highly attractive but fake partisan stories. They were not interested in the veracity or political direction of their content. Their only interest was to attract viewers. They made thousands of dollars by selling advertisements on their sites: ..."
"... The teen said his monthly revenue was in the four figures, a considerable sum in a country where the average monthly pay is 360 euros ($383). As he navigated his site's statistics, he dropped nuggets of journalism advice. ..."
"... After the mystery of "Russian" $3 ads for "adorable puppies" pages on Facebook has been solved, Congress and the New York Times will have to move on. There next subject is probably the "Russian influence campaign" on Youtube. ..."
"... Russian Car Crash Compilations have for years attracted millions of viewers. The "Russians" want to increase road rage on U.S. highways. This again will - according to expert Clinton Watts - "amplify divisive political issues across the political spectrum". ..."
"... "Russian interference" in Western faux democracies is just more Fake News that distracts from the real issues. And all those real issues come down to this: the need to reign in the oligarchs. This is very easy to do via progressive taxation (with no loopholes). ..."
"... The two words that the establishment fears most: Progressive Taxation . ..."
"... Great article. I especially like the tactful way that modern clickbait farming is obliquely tied to the MSM business model. Facebook and Google have a lot to answer for. ..."
"... Russia gate, since it is unnecessarily mentally exhausting and intellectually futile, it is namely pure provocation and as such it should be ignored and not proliferated even in its criticism making a fakes news a real news by sole fact of mentioning it on the respectable independent sites. ..."
"... The whole digital media and ad business that have built the Google and Facebook media juggernauts is all a giant scam. Smart advertisers like P&G are recognizing it for what it is and will slowly pullback. It is only a matter of time before others catch on and these companies will bleed ad revenues. ..."
Congress is investigating 3,000 suspicious ads which were run on Facebook. These were
claimed to have been bought by "Russia" to influence the U.S. presidential election in favor of
Trump.
It now turns out that these Facebook ads had nothing to do with the election. The mini-ads
were bought to promote click-bait pages and sites. These pages and sites were created and then
promoted to sell further advertisement. The media though, has still not understood the
issue.
Providing new evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 election, Facebook disclosed on
Wednesday that it had identified more than $100,000 worth of divisive ads on hot-button
issues purchased by a shadowy Russian company linked to the Kremlin.
...
The disclosure adds to the evidence of the broad scope of the Russian influence campaign,
which American intelligence agencies concluded was designed to damage Hillary Clinton and
boost Donald J. Trump during the election.
Like any Congress investigation the current one concerned with Facebook ads is leaking like
a sieve. What oozes out makes little sense.
If "Russia" aimed to make Congress and U.S. media a laughing stock it surely achieved
that.
Today the NYT says that the ads
were posted "in disguise" by "the Russians" to promote variously themed Facebook pages:
There was "Defend the 2nd," a Facebook page for gun-rights supporters, festooned with
firearms and tough rhetoric. There was a rainbow-hued page for gay rights activists, "LGBT
United." There was even a Facebook group for animal lovers with memes of adorable puppies
that spread across the site with the help of paid ads
No one has explained how these pages are supposed to be connected to a Russian "influence"
campaign. It is unexplained how these are supposed to connected to the 2016 election. That is
simply asserted because Facebook said, for unknown reasons, that these ads may have come from
some Russian agency. How Facebook has determined that is not known.
With each detail that leaks from the "Russian ads" investigation the propaganda framework of
"election manipulation" falls further apart:
Late Monday, Facebook said in a post that about 10 million people had seen the ads in
question. About 44 percent of the ads were seen before the 2016 election and the rest after,
the company said
The original story propagandized that "Russia" intended to influence the election in favor
of Trump. But why then was the majority of the ads in questions run later after November 9? And
how would an animal-lovers page with adorable puppy pictures help to achieve Trumps election
victory?
Roughly 25% of the ads were never shown to anyone. That's because advertising auctions are
designed so that ads reach people based on relevance, and certain ads may not reach anyone as
a result.
...
For 50% of the ads, less than $3 was spent; for 99% of the ads, less than $1,000 was spent.
Of the 3,000 ads Facebook originally claimed were "Russian" only 2,200 were ever viewed.
Most of the advertisements were mini-ads which, for the price of a coffee, promoted private
pages related to hobbies and a wide spectrum of controversial issues. The majority of the ads
ran after the election.
All that "adds to the evidence of the broad scope of the Russian influence campaign ...
designed to damage Hillary Clinton and boost Donald J. Trump during the election"?
No.
But the NYT still finds "experts" who believe in the "Russian influence" nonsense and find
the most stupid reasons to justify their claims:
Clinton Watts, a former F.B.I. agent now at the Foreign Policy Research Institute in
Philadelphia, said Russia had been entrepreneurial in trying to develop diverse channels of
influence. Some, like the dogs page, may have been created without a specific goal and held
in reserve for future use.
Puppy pictures for "future use"? Nonsense. Lunacy! The pages described and the ads leading to them are typical click-bait, not a political
influence op.
The for-profit scheme runs as follows: One builds pages with "hot" stuff that attracts lots of viewers. One creates ad-space on
these pages and fills it with Google ads. One promotes the spiked pages by buying $3 Facebook
mini-ads for them.
A few thousand users will come and look at a page. Some will 'like' the puppy pictures or
the rant against LGBT and further spread the page. Some will click the promoted Google ads.
Money then flows into the pockets of the page creator. One can automatize, rinse and repeat this scheme forever. Each such page is a small effort
for a small revenue. But the scheme is highly scale-able and parts of it can be
automatized.
This is, in essence, the same business model traditional media publishers use. One creates
"news" and controversies to attract readers. The attention of the readers is then sold to
advertisers. The business is no longer a limited to a few rich oligarchic. One no longer needs
reporters or a printing press to join in. Anyone can now take part in it.
We learned after
the election that some youths in Macedonia created whole "news"-websites filled with highly
attractive but fake partisan stories. They were not interested in the veracity or political
direction of their content. Their only interest was to attract viewers. They made thousands of
dollars by selling advertisements on their sites:
The teen said his monthly revenue was in the four figures, a considerable sum in a country
where the average monthly pay is 360 euros ($383). As he navigated his site's statistics, he
dropped nuggets of journalism advice.
"You have to write what people want to see, not what you want to show," he said, scrolling
through The Political Insider's stories as a large banner read "ARREST HILLARY NOW."
The 3,000 Facebook ads Congress is investigating are part of a similar scheme. The mini-ads
promoted pages with hot button issues and click-bait puppy pictures. These pages were
themselves created to generate ad-clicks and revenue. As Facebook claims that "Russia" is
behind them, we will likely find some Russian teens who simply repeated the scheme their
Macedonian friends were running on.
With its "Russian influence" scare campaign the NYT follows the same business model. It is
producing fake news which attracts viewers and readers who's attention is then sold to
advertisers. Facebook is also profiting from this. Its current piecemeal release of vague
information keeps its name in the news.
After the mystery of "Russian" $3 ads for "adorable puppies" pages on Facebook has been
solved, Congress and the New York Times will have to move on. There next subject is probably
the "Russian influence campaign" on Youtube.
Russian Car Crash
Compilations have for years attracted millions of viewers. The "Russians" want to increase
road rage on U.S. highways. This again will - according to expert Clinton Watts - "amplify
divisive political issues across the political spectrum".
The car crash compilations, like the puppy pages, are another sign that Russia is waging war
against the people of the United States!
You don't believe that? You should. Trust your experienced politician!
This gets more chilling daily : now we learn Russia targeted Americans on Facebook by
"demographics, geography, gender & interests," across websites & devices, reached
millions, kept going after Nov. An attack on all Americans, not just HRC campaign washingtonpost.com/business/econo
It indeed gets more chilling. It's fall. It also generates ad revenue.
Posted by b on October 3, 2017 at 02:09 PM |
Permalink
"Russian interference" in Western faux democracies is just more Fake News that distracts from
the real issues. And all those real issues come down to this: the need to reign in the
oligarchs.
This is very easy to do via progressive taxation (with no loopholes).
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
The two words that the establishment fears most: Progressive Taxation .
You're presenting a very good concept/meme to understand: Fake news is click bait for
gain.
The same can be said for any sensationalism or shocking event - like the Kurdish
referendum, like the Catalonia referendum, like the Vegas shooting - or like confrontational
or dogmatic comments in threads about those events.
Everywhere we turn someone is trying to game us for some kind of gain. What matters is to
step back from the front lines where our sense is accosted and offended, to step back from
the automatic reflex, and to remember that someone triggered that reflex, deliberately, for
their gain, not ours.
We have to reside in reason and equanimity, because the moment we indulge in our righteous
anger or our strong convictions, the odds are extremely good that someone is playing us.
It's a wicked world, but in fact we live in an age when we can see its meta
characteristics like never before.
Jesus Christ, every friggin day we hear about Russians and then the next the lies falls
apart, STILL the stupid dumb liberal media keep coming up with new conspiracies spread them
as fact, and then try justify them even when they get debunked!
These people are indeed lunatic.
What we see is the biggest psyop., propaganda disinformation campaig ever in the western
media, far more powerful than "nuclear Iraq" of 2003.
Still, and this should be a warning, majority of people in EU/US believe this
nonsense.
I lol'd. But seriously the next step is a false flag implicating Russia. They're getting
nowhere assassinating Russian diplomats and shooting down Russian aircraft, both military and
civilian. Even overthrowing governments who are Russia-friendly hasn't seem to provoke a
response.
But I consider the domestic Russia buzz to be performance art, and I imagine it's become
even grating to some of its participants. How could it not be, unless everyone is heavily
medicated(a lot certainly are)? Anyway it's by design that the western media and the
political classes they serve need a script, they're incapable of discussing actual issues.
Independence has been made quaint.
The line between politics and product marketing has gone.
But no matter if "the Russians" influenced the US election or not - after all that is what
most countries do to each other - the FBI is correct that to be able to target audiences
according to demographics and individual traits is a powerful tool.
The newspapers had a clear agenda. An editorial in The New York Times, headlined In the
Terror by Radio, was used to censure the relatively new medium of radio, which was becoming
a serious competitor in providing news and advertising. "Radio is new but it has adult
responsibilities. It has not mastered itself or the material it uses," said the editorial
leader comment on November 1 1938. In an excellent piece in Slate magazine in 2013,
Jefferson Pooley (associate professor of media and communication at Muhlenberg College) and
Michael J Socolow (associate professor of communication and journalism at the University of
Maine) looked at the continuing popularity of the myth of mass panic and they took to task
NPR's Radiolab programme about the incident and the Radiolab assertion that "The United
States experienced a kind of mass hysteria that we've never seen before." Pooley and
Socolow wrote: "How did the story of panicked listeners begin? Blame America's newspapers.
... AND IT'S NOT A GOOD IDEA TO COPY ORSON WELLES . . . In February 1949, Leonardo Paez and
Eduardo Alcaraz produced a Spanish-language version of Welles's 1938 script for Radio Quito
in Ecuador. The broadcast set off panic. Quito police and fire brigades rushed out of town
to fight the supposed alien invasion force. After it was revealed that the broadcast was
fiction, the panic transformed into a riot. The riot resulted in at least seven deaths,
including those of Paez's girlfriend and nephew. The offices Radio Quito, and El Comercio,
a local newspaper that had participated in the hoax by publishing false reports of
unidentified flying objects in the days preceding the broadcast, were both burned to the
ground.
Jackrabbit 2
No - the two words the Capital system fears the most are SURPLUS VALUE , the control of the
'profit principle' for social not private ends .
Jesus Christ, every friggin day we hear about Russians and then the next the lies falls
apart, STILL the stupid dumb liberal media keep coming up with new conspiracies spread them
as fact, and then try justify them even when they get debunked!
These people are indeed lunatic.
somebody | Oct 3, 2017 3:11:44 PM | 9 The American panic was a myth, the Equadorian panic in 1949 not so much. I listened to this
Radiolab podcast about same ... the details of how they pulled it off in a one-radio station
country pre-internet are interesting and valuable (they widely advertised a very popular music
program which was then "interrupted" by the hoax to ensure near-universal audience (including
the police and other authorities). Very very fews were "in on the joke" and it wasn't a
joke.
whole page on WooW:
http://www.radiolab.org/story/91622-war-of-the-worlds/
Great article.
I especially like the tactful way that modern clickbait farming is obliquely tied to the MSM
business model.
Facebook and Google have a lot to answer for.
"Lankford shocked the world this week by revealing that "Russian Internet trolls" were
stoking the NFL kneeling debate. ... Conservative outlets like Breitbart and Newsmax and
Fox played up the "Russians stoked the kneeling controversy" angle because it was in their
interest to suggest that domestic support for kneeling protests is less than what it
appears....
The Post reported that Lankford's office had cited one of "Boston Antifa's"
tweets. But the example offered read suspiciously like a young net-savvy American goofing
on antifa stereotypes "More gender inclusivity with NFL fans and gluten free options at
stadiums We're liking the new NFL #NewNFL #TakeAKnee #TakeTheKnee." ...
The group was most
likely a pair of yahoos from Oregon named Alexis Esteb and Brandon Krebs. "
Pity Rolling Stone got caught up in that fake college rape allegation, they have actually
done some solid reporting. Every MSM outlet has had multiple fake stories, so should RS be
shunned for life for one bad story?
It is time that sane part of independent media understood that there is no more need to
rationally respond to psychotic delusions of Deep State puppets in Russia gate, since it is
unnecessarily mentally exhausting and intellectually futile, it is namely pure provocation
and as such it should be ignored and not proliferated even in its criticism making a fakes
news a real news by sole fact of mentioning it on the respectable independent sites.
There are only two effective responses to provocation namely silence or violence, anything
else plays the book of provocateurs.
Now they're seriously undermining their claims of intentionality ... as well as their wildly
inflated claims effect on outcome or even effective "undermining" ... again, compared to
Citizens United and the long-count of 2000 ... negligible....
And still insisting that Hillary Clinton is Russia's Darth Vader against whom unlimited
resources are marshalled because she must be stopped ... even though she damn near won... and
the reasons she lost seems unrelated to such vagaries as the DNC e-mails or facebook
campaigns (unless you believe she had a god-given right to each and every vote)
Why do you think this is important enough to make the effort to write another blog entry B?
Everyone who wants to know that this is all fantasy knows by now.
'Congress is investigating 3,000 suspicious ads which were run on Facebook. These were
claimed to have been bought by "Russia" to influence the U.S. presidential election in favor
of Trump.
This is the same US congress that regularly marches off to Israel to receive orders
This isn't about the "truth" (or lies) wrt Russian involvement, it's about the
increasingly rapid failure of the Government/Establishment's narrative ...
Increasingly they can't even keep their accusations "alive" for more than a few days ...
and some of their accusations (like the one here, that some "Russian" sites were created and
not used, but to be held for use at some future date) become fairly ridiculous ... and the
"remedy" to "Russians" creating clickbait sites for some future nefarious use, I think can
only be banning all Russians from creating sites ... or maybe using facebook altogether ...
all with no evidence of evil-doers actually doing evil...
It's rather like Jared Kushner's now THIRD previously undisclosed private e-mail account
... fool me once versus how disorganized/dumb/arrogant/crooked is this guy?
Sorry to be off topic but yesterday the Saker of the Vineyard published a couple of articles
about Catalonia. The first was a diatribe, a nasty hatchet job on the Catalan people which
included the following referring to the Catalan people:
"The Problems they have because with their corruption, inefficiency, mismanagement,
inability and sometimes the simplest stupidity, are always the fault of others (read
Spaniards here) which gives them "carte blanche" to keep going on with it."
"... They (the independistas) are NATIONAL SOCIALIST (aka NAZI) in their Ideology"
Then Saker published an article by Peter Koenig that was reasonable and what we have come
to expect. Then he forbade all comments on either of the two articles. My comment was banned,
which simply said in my opinion from working for fourteen years in Spain that the Catalans
were extremely efficient in comparison with their Madrid counterparts.
I must admit that I became a fan of watching those Russian car crashes that were captured by
the cams many russian drivers keep on their dash boards. Some of these were very funny. I was
not aware that made me a victim of Putin propaganda. In any case, they are not that
interesting anymore once they were commercialized. That was about 10 years ago.
The whole digital media and ad business that have built the Google and Facebook media
juggernauts is all a giant scam. Smart advertisers like P&G are recognizing it for what
it is and will slowly pullback. It is only a matter of time before others catch on and these
companies will bleed ad revenues.
OT - more from comedy central - daily USA press briefing from today...
"QUESTION: On Iran, would you and the State Department say, as Secretary Mattis said
today, that staying in the JCPOA would be in the U.S. national interest?
MS NAUERT: Yeah.
QUESTION: Is this a position you share?
MS NAUERT: So I'm certainly familiar with what Secretary Mattis said on Capitol Hill
today. Secretary Mattis, of course, one of many people who is providing expertise and counsel
to the President on the issue of Iran and the JCPOA. The President is getting lots of
information on that. We have about 12 days or so, I think, to make our determination for the
next JCPOA guideline.
The administration looks at JCPOA as – the fault in the JCPOA as not looking at the
totality of Iran's bad behavior. Secretary Tillerson talked about that at length at the UN
General Assembly. So did the President as well. We know that Iran is responsible for terror
attacks. We know that Iran arms the Houthi rebels in Yemen, which leads to a more miserable
failed state, awful situation in Yemen, for example. We know what they're doing in Syria.
Where you find the Iranian Government, you can often find terrible things happening in the
world. This administration is very clear about highlighting that and will look at Iran in
sort of its totality of all of its bad behaviors, not just the nuclear deal.
I don't want to get ahead of the discussions that are ongoing with this – within the
administration, as it pertains to Iran. The President has said he's made he's decision, and
so I don't want to speak on behalf of the President, and he'll just have to make that
determination when he's ready to do so."
US Congressman
says Julian Assange "has absolute proof" Russia did not meddle in US elections
(Video)
Julian
Assange can prove hacks were not by Russia with 100% certainty.
"... The Bush and Clinton dynasties were destroyed by the media-saturated lure of the pseudo-populist billionaire with narcissist sensibilities and ugly, fascist proclivities. The monumental election of Trump was a desperate and xenophobic cry of human hearts for a way out from under the devastation of a disintegrating neoliberal order – a nostalgic return to an imaginary past of greatness. ..."
"... This lethal fusion of economic insecurity and cultural scapegoating brought neoliberalism to its knees. In short, the abysmal failure of the Democratic party to speak to the arrested mobility and escalating poverty of working people unleashed a hate-filled populism and protectionism that threaten to tear apart the fragile fiber of what is left of US democracy. And since the most explosive fault lines in present-day America are first and foremost racial, then gender, homophobic, ethnic and religious, we gird ourselves for a frightening future. ..."
"... In this sense, Trump's election was enabled by the neoliberal policies of the Clintons and Obama that overlooked the plight of our most vulnerable citizens. The progressive populism of Bernie Sanders nearly toppled the establishment of the Democratic party but Clinton and Obama came to the rescue to preserve the status quo. And I do believe Sanders would have beat Trump to avert this neofascist outcome! ..."
"... The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang ..."
"... The white house and congress are now dominated by tea party politicians who worship at the altar of Ayn Rand.....read Breitbart news to see how Thatcher and Reagan are idolised. ..."
"... if you think the era of "neo liberalism" is over, you are in deep denial! ..."
"... The age of Obama was the last gasp of neoliberalism. Despite some progressive words and symbolic gestures, Obama chose to ignore Wall Street crimes, reject bailouts for homeowners, oversee growing inequality and facilitate war crimes like US drones killing innocent civilians abroad. ..."
"... Didn't Obama say to Wall Street ''I'm the only one standing between you and the lynch mob? Give me money and I'll make it all go away''. Then came into office and went we won't prosecute the Banks not Bush for a false war because we don't look back. ..."
"... He did not ignore, he actively, willingly, knowingly protected them. At the end of the day Obama is wolf in sheep's clothing. Exactly like HRC he has a public and a private position. He is a gifted speaker who knows how to say all the right, progressive liberal things to get people to go along much better than HRC ever did. ..."
"... Even when he had the Presidency, House and Senate, he never once introduced any progressive liberal policy. He didn't need Republican support to do it, yet he never even tried. ..."
The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang. The political triumph of
Donald Trump shattered the establishments in the Democratic and Republican parties – both wedded
to the rule of Big Money and to the reign of meretricious politicians.
The Bush and Clinton dynasties were destroyed by the media-saturated lure of the pseudo-populist
billionaire with narcissist sensibilities and ugly, fascist proclivities. The monumental election
of Trump was a desperate and xenophobic cry of human hearts for a way out from under the devastation
of a disintegrating neoliberal order – a nostalgic return to an imaginary past of greatness.
White working- and middle-class fellow citizens – out of anger and anguish – rejected the economic
neglect of neoliberal policies and the self-righteous arrogance of elites. Yet these same citizens
also supported a candidate who appeared to blame their social misery on minorities, and who alienated
Mexican immigrants, Muslims, black people, Jews, gay people, women and China in the process.
This lethal fusion of economic insecurity and cultural scapegoating brought neoliberalism
to its knees. In short, the abysmal failure of the Democratic party to speak to the arrested mobility
and escalating poverty of working people unleashed a hate-filled populism and protectionism that
threaten to tear apart the fragile fiber of what is left of US democracy. And since the most explosive
fault lines in present-day America are first and foremost racial, then gender, homophobic, ethnic
and religious, we gird ourselves for a frightening future.
What is to be done? First we must try to tell the truth and a condition of truth is to allow suffering
to speak. For 40 years, neoliberals lived in a world of denial and indifference to the suffering
of poor and working people and obsessed with the spectacle of success. Second we must bear witness
to justice. We must ground our truth-telling in a willingness to suffer and sacrifice as we resist
domination. Third we must remember courageous exemplars like Martin Luther King Jr, who provide moral
and spiritual inspiration as we build multiracial alliances to combat poverty and xenophobia, Wall
Street crimes and war crimes, global warming and police abuse – and to protect precious rights and
liberties.
The age of Obama was the last gasp of neoliberalism. Despite some progressive words and symbolic
gestures, Obama chose to ignore Wall Street crimes, reject bailouts for homeowners, oversee growing
inequality and facilitate war crimes like US drones killing innocent civilians abroad.
Rightwing attacks on Obama – and Trump-inspired racist hatred of him – have made it nearly impossible
to hear the progressive critiques of Obama. The president has been reluctant to target black suffering
– be it in overcrowded prisons, decrepit schools or declining workplaces. Yet, despite that, we get
celebrations of the neoliberal status quo couched in racial symbolism and personal legacy. Meanwhile,
poor and working class citizens of all colors have continued to suffer in relative silence.
In this sense, Trump's election was enabled by the neoliberal policies of the Clintons and
Obama that overlooked the plight of our most vulnerable citizens. The progressive populism of Bernie
Sanders nearly toppled the establishment of the Democratic party but Clinton and Obama came to the
rescue to preserve the status quo. And I do believe Sanders would have beat Trump to avert this neofascist
outcome!
In this bleak moment, we must inspire each other driven by a democratic soulcraft of integrity,
courage, empathy and a mature sense of history – even as it seems our democracy is slipping away.
We must not turn away from the forgotten people of US foreign policy – such as Palestinians under
Israeli occupation, Yemen's civilians killed by US-sponsored Saudi troops or Africans subject to
expanding US military presence.
As one whose great family and people survived and thrived through slavery, Jim Crow and lynching,
Trump's neofascist rhetoric and predictable authoritarian reign is just another ugly moment that
calls forth the best of who we are and what we can do.
For us in these times, to even have hope is too abstract, too detached, too spectatorial. Instead
we must be a hope, a participant and a force for good as we face this catastrophe.
theomatica -> MSP1984 17 Nov 2016 6:40
To be replaced by a form of capitalism that is constrained by national interests. An ideology
that wishes to uses the forces of capitalism within a market limited only by national boundaries
which aims for more self sufficiency only importing goods the nation can not itself source.
farga 17 Nov 2016 6:35
The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang.
Really? The white house and congress are now dominated by tea party politicians who worship
at the altar of Ayn Rand.....read Breitbart news to see how Thatcher and Reagan are idolised.
That in recent decades middle ground politicians have strayed from the true faith....and now
its time to go back - popular capitalism, small government, low taxes.
if you think the era of "neo liberalism" is over, you are in deep denial!
Social36 -> farga 17 Nov 2016 8:33
Maybe, West should have written that we're now in neoliberal, neofascist era!
ForSparta -> farga 17 Nov 2016 14:24
Well in all fairness, Donald Trump (horse's ass) did say he'd 'pump' money into the middle
classes thus abandoning 'trickle down'. His plan/ideology is also to increase corporate tax revenues
overall by reducing the level of corporation tax -- the aim being to entice corporations to repatriate
wealth currently held overseas. Plus he has proposed an infrastructure spending spree, a fiscal
stimulus not a monetary one. When you add in tax cuts the middle classes will feel flushed and
it is within that demographic that most businesses and hence jobs are created. I think his short
game has every chance of doing what he said it would.
SeeNOevilHearNOevil 17 Nov 2016 6:36
The age of Obama was the last gasp of neoliberalism. Despite some progressive words
and symbolic gestures, Obama chose to ignore Wall Street crimes, reject bailouts for homeowners,
oversee growing inequality and facilitate war crimes like US drones killing innocent civilians
abroad.
Didn't Obama say to Wall Street ''I'm the only one standing between you and the lynch mob?
Give me money and I'll make it all go away''. Then came into office and went we won't prosecute
the Banks not Bush for a false war because we don't look back.
He did not ignore, he actively, willingly, knowingly protected them. At the end of the
day Obama is wolf in sheep's clothing. Exactly like HRC he has a public and a private position.
He is a gifted speaker who knows how to say all the right, progressive liberal things to get people
to go along much better than HRC ever did.
But that lip service is where his progressive views begin and stop. It's the very reason none
of his promises never translated into actions and I will argue that he was the biggest and smoothest
scam artist to enter the white house who got even though that wholly opposed centre-right policies,
to flip and support them vehemently. Even when he had the Presidency, House and Senate, he
never once introduced any progressive liberal policy. He didn't need Republican support to do
it, yet he never even tried.
ProbablyOnTopic 17 Nov 2016 6:37
I agree with some of this, but do we really have to throw around hysterical terms like 'fascist'
at every opportunity? It's as bad as when people call the left 'cultural Marxists'.
LithophaneFurcifera -> ProbablyOnTopic 17 Nov 2016 7:05
True, it's sloganeering that drowns out any nuance, whoever does it. Whenever a political term
is coined, you can be assured that its use and meaning will eventually be extended to the point
that it becomes less effective at characterising the very groups that it was coined to characterise.
Keep "fascist" for Mussolini and "cultural Marxist" for Adorno, unless and until others show
such strong resemblances that the link can't seriously be denied.
I agree about the importance of recognising the suffering of the poor and building alliances
beyond, and not primarily defined by, race though.
l0Ho5LG4wWcFJsKg 17 Nov 2016 6:40
Hang about Trump is the embodiment of neo-liberalism. It's neo-liberalism with republican tea
party in control. He's not going to smash the system that served him so well, the years he manipulated
and cheated, why would he want to change it.
garrylee -> l0Ho5LG4wWcFJsKg 17 Nov 2016 9:38
West's point is that it's beyond Trump's control. The scales have fallen from peoples eyes. They
now see the deceit of neo-liberalism. And once they see through the charlatan Trump and the rest
of the fascists, they will, hopefully, come to realize the only antidote to neo-liberalism is
a planned economy.
Nash25 17 Nov 2016 6:40
This excellent analysis by professor West places the current political situation in a proper
historical context.
However, I fear that neo-liberalism may not be quite "dead" as he argues.
Most of the Democratic party's "establishment" politicians, who conspired to sabotage the populist
Sanders's campaign, still dominate the party, and they, in turn, are controlled by the giant corporations
who fund their campaigns.
Democrat Chuck Schumer is now the Senate minority leader, and he is the loyal servant of the
big Wall Street investment banks.
Sanders and Warren are the only two Democratic leaders who are not neo-liberals, and I fear
that they will once again be marginalized.
Rank and file Democrats must organize at the local and state level to remove these corrupt
neo-liberals from all party leadership positions. This will take many years, and it will be very
difficult.
VenetianBlind 17 Nov 2016 6:42
Not sure Neo-Liberalism has ended. All they have done is get rid of the middle man.
macfeegal 17 Nov 2016 6:46
It would seem that there is a great deal of over simplifying going on; some of the articles
represent an hysteric response and the vision of sack cloth and ashes prevails among those who
could not see that the wheels were coming off the bus. The use of the term 'liberal' has become
another buzz word - there are many different forms of liberalism and creating yet another sound
byte does little to illuminate anything.
Making appeals to restore what has been lost reflects badly upon the central political parties,
with their 30 year long rightward drift and their legacy of sucking up to corporate lobbyists,
systems managers, box tickers and consultants. You can't give away sovereign political power to
a bunch of right wing quangos who worship private wealth and its accumulation without suffering
the consequences. The article makes no contribution (and neither have many of the others of late)
to any kind of alternative to either neo-liberalism or the vacuum that has become a question mark
with the dark face of the devil behind it.
We are in uncharted waters. The conventional Left was totally discredited by1982 and all we've
had since are various forms of modifications of Thatcher's imported American vision. There has
been no opposition to this system for over 40 years - so where do we get the idea that democracy
has any real meaning? Yes, we can vote for the Greens, or one of the lesser known minority parties,
but of course people don't; they tend to go with what is portrayed as the orthodoxy and they've
been badly let down by it.
It would be a real breath of fresh air to see articles which offer some kind of analysis that
demonstrates tangible options to deal with the multiple crises we are suffering. Perhaps we might
start with a consideration that if our political institutions are prone to being haunted by the
ghost of the 1930's, the state itself could be seen as part of the problem rather than any solution.
Why is it that every other institution is considered to be past its sell by date and we still
believe in a phantom of democracy? Discuss.
VenetianBlind -> macfeegal 17 Nov 2016 7:00
I have spent hours trying to see solutions around Neo-Liberalism and find that governments
have basically signed away any control over the economy so nothing they can do. There are no solutions.
Maybe that is the starting point. The solution for workers left behind in Neo-Liberal language
is they must move. It demands labor mobility. It is not possible to dictate where jobs are created.
I see too much fiddly around the edges, the best start is to say they cannot fix the problem.
If they keep making false promises then things will just get dire as.
Last year's DNC hack that took over via the Gmail account of campaign chairman John Podesta
provided a clear example of how important added protections are, but many people don't take
advantage because they can seem complicated to setup. Just a few months many users were bombarded
with a Google Drive-hosted phishing attack, and that won't be the last one.
"... There are many questions regarding the Awan case. One might reasonably ask how foreign-born IT specialists are selected and vetted prior to being significantly overpaid and allowed to work on computers in congressional offices. And the ability of those same individuals to keep working even after the relevant congressmen have been warned that their employee was under investigation has to be explained beyond Wasserman-Schultz's comment that Awan had not committed any crime, which may have been true but one would expect congressmen to err on the side of caution over an issue that could easily have national security ramifications. And how does a recently bankrupt and unemployed Imran Awan wind up with a high-priced Clinton-connected lawyer to defend himself? ..."
"... As the story involves possible espionage, fraud and even something new to consider regarding the theft of information from the DNC server, one might have expected the Fourth Estate to wake from its slumber and take notice. But perhaps not surprisingly there has been astonishingly little follow-up in the mainstream media about the Awan family, possibly because it involves some leading Democrats, though the Daily Caller ..."
"... In a surprise development, investigative journalists have also determined that Imran Awan retained as of the end of August a still-active secret, numeric email account on the House of Representatives server. E-mail accounts in Congress normally are labeled using the holder's name, so all active accounts are identity-linked as a security measure. In this case the numeric account was linked to the actual account of a House staffer who works on national security issues for Andre Carson, a Democrat from Indiana. Imran Awan clearly has been using the anonymous House of Representatives address as it was cited in a suit filed by a landlord seeking unpaid rent on an apartment rented for his second wife in Alexandria. ..."
"... The most significant recent development in the Awan case is, however, the decision made by Imran's wife Alvi to return to the United States at the end of this month. She has been charged as a co-conspirator relating to the bank fraud that her husband was also involved in, which potentially could result in some jail time. There are, however, reports that she has been interviewed several times in Pakistan by FBI agents and has apparently agreed to a plea bargain to tell all she knows about what went on with the Awan family. Some on Capitol Hill believe that what she knows could prove to be explosive, not only regarding the lax security practices in Congress but also in terms of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's negligence in providing access to the DNC server. The actual whereabouts of the large quantity of stolen government documents might also be resolved. ..."
"... Something about this is strange. It is as if Imran Awan and his group were not really hired for IT purposes.It is perhaps noteworthy that Pakistani spooks have been intertwined with American events for years. For example, there was a Pakistani connection to 9/11. ..."
"... how can one leverage content in this day and age if there is no thorough knowledge of the tools behind any information system. Put congressmen and women to the test, how many have questions as use of data protocol, firewall, ports, delegated to "specialist", and loyal (the accent on loyal) collaborators without a notion of what they even delegate. If living in an area of specialization, the notion of minimal knowledge and comprehension might be at least a thorough understanding of man – machine correlations. ..."
"... Hillarious Hillary neither, did have a notion of any technicalities of tools applied to bid her interests. ..."
"... The phenomenon will worsen, the glue will thicken into further layers of ignorance. The Moore law? The more complex society, the bigger the ignorance of the elites. ..."
"... This is big. I would like to know, what are Awans credentials that qualified him for the IT position and who hired him? Someone had to vouchsafe for Awan and who is that person? Who approved his salary and why was there no review or audit? Apparently, someone, or some organization wanted to control a large block of the Congress. ..."
"... Audacity and chutzpah of Imran Awan's operation right away made me think of post-military service Israeli youth running various scams and intelligence gathering errands all over the world. ..."
I wrote an article on the strange case
of Imran Awan about two months ago. To summarize it briefly, Awan, his two brothers and wife,
naturalized U.S. citizens born in Pakistan living in the Washington DC area, found employment
as IT administrators in the House of Representatives working for as many as
80 Democratic Party congressmen . Even though they may have had little actual training in
IT, they insinuated themselves into the system and were paid in excess of $5 million over the
course of ten years, chief-of-staff level pay, while frequently not even showing up for work.
They even brought into the arrangement a frequent no-show Pakistani friend whose prior work
history consisted of getting recently
fired by McDonald's .
Along the way, their security files were never reviewed. They were involved in bankruptcies,
bank fraud and other criminal activity, but their troublesome behavior was never noticed. They
were on bad terms with their father and step-mother, which including forging a document to
cheat their step-mother of an insurance payment and even holding her "captive" so she could not
see their dying father. Their father even changed his last name to dissociate himself from
them.
Imran Awan, the leader of the group, worked particularly for Congresswoman Debbie
Wasserman-Schultz, who was, at the time, also the Chairman of the Democratic National
Committee. Though he had no clearance and was not supposed to work with classified material, he
and his family obtained password access to congressional files and Imran himself was able to
enter Wasserman-Schultz's own personal iPad computer which linked to the server used by the
Democratic National Committee.
As of February 2016, the Awans
came under suspicion by the Capitol Hill Police for having set up an operation involving
double billing as well as the possible theft and reselling of government owned computer
equipment. It was also believed that they had somehow obtained entry to much of the House of
Representatives' computer network as well as to other information in the individual offices'
separate computer systems that they were in theory not allowed to access. It was also believed
that Imran sent "massive" quantities of stolen government files
to a remote personal server . It may have been located in his former residence in Lorton,
Virginia. The police began an investigation and quietly alerted the congressmen involved that
there might be a problem. Most stopped employing the Awan family members and associates, but
Wasserman-Schultz kept Imran on the payroll until the day after he was actually arrested.
Imran was arrested on July 25 th at Dulles Airport as he was flying to Pakistan
to join his wife Alvi, who had left the country with their children and many of their
possessions in March. In January, they had also wired to Pakistan $283,000 that they had
obtained fraudulently from the Congressional credit union. After his arrest, Imran was defended
by lawyer Chris
Gowen , a high-priced $1,000 an hour Washington attorney who has worked for the Clintons
personally, the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative.
There are many questions regarding the Awan case. One might reasonably ask how foreign-born
IT specialists are selected and vetted prior to being significantly overpaid and allowed to
work on computers in congressional offices. And the ability of those same individuals to keep
working even after the relevant congressmen have been warned that their employee was under
investigation has to be explained beyond Wasserman-Schultz's
comment that Awan had not committed any crime, which may have been true but one would
expect congressmen to err on the side of caution over an issue that could easily have national
security ramifications. And how does a recently bankrupt and unemployed Imran Awan wind up with
a high-priced Clinton-connected lawyer to defend himself?
As the story involves possible espionage, fraud and even something new to consider regarding
the theft of information from the DNC server, one might have expected the Fourth Estate to wake
from its slumber and take notice. But perhaps not surprisingly there has been astonishingly
little follow-up in the mainstream media about the Awan family, possibly because it involves
some leading Democrats, though the Daily Caller and some other conservative sites have
stayed on top of developments.
Since his arrest Imran Awan has had his passports confiscated by the court and has been
released on bail on condition that he wear an ankle monitor at all times and not travel more
than 50 miles from the Virginia home where he is staying with a relative. In early September,
he sought to have the monitor removed and his passports returned so he could travel to Pakistan
and visit his children. His plea was rejected. He is not yet scheduled for trial on the
allegations of bank fraud and is apparently still under investigation by the Bureau relating to
other possible charges, including possible espionage. His four accomplices are also still under
investigation but have not been charged. They are on a watch list and will not be allowed to
leave the United States while the inquiry is continuing.
It has also been learned that Imran had been on the receiving end of
complaints filed with the Fairfax County Virginia police in 2015-6 by two women who resided
in separate apartments in Alexandria that are reportedly paid for by Imran Awan. Both of the
women complained of abuse and one is believed to be a "second wife" for Imran Awan, legal in
Pakistan but illegal in the United States. Imran reportedly divorced his second wife shortly
after his arrest.
In a surprise development, investigative journalists have also determined that Imran Awan
retained as of the end of August a still-active secret,
numeric email account on the House of Representatives server. E-mail accounts in Congress
normally are labeled using the holder's name, so all active accounts are identity-linked as a
security measure. In this case the numeric account was linked to the actual account of a House
staffer who works on national security issues for Andre Carson, a Democrat from Indiana. Imran
Awan clearly has been using the anonymous House of Representatives address as it was cited in a
suit filed by a landlord seeking unpaid rent on an apartment rented for his second wife in
Alexandria.
The most significant recent development in the Awan case is, however, the
decision made by Imran's wife Alvi to return to the United States at the end of this month.
She has been charged as a co-conspirator relating to the bank fraud that her husband was also
involved in, which potentially could result in some jail time. There are, however, reports that
she has been interviewed several times in Pakistan by FBI agents and has apparently agreed to a
plea bargain to tell all she knows about what went on with the Awan family. Some on Capitol
Hill believe that what she knows could prove to be explosive, not only regarding the lax
security practices in Congress but also in terms of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's negligence in
providing access to the DNC server. The actual whereabouts of the large quantity of stolen
government documents might also be resolved.
This story, which is still unfolding, continues to have the potential to blow wide open the
complacent culture on Capitol Hill and it also might ruin the reputations of a number of
leading Democrats. Stay tuned!
Something about this is strange. It is as if Imran Awan and his group were not really
hired for IT purposes.It is perhaps noteworthy that Pakistani spooks have been intertwined with American events
for years. For example, there was a Pakistani connection to 9/11.
There is a Pakistani connection to CIA and related sorts of things. One wonders what kind
of work these Pakistanis were really doing for Wasserman-Schultz and others involved ! and
what kind of things Debbie and the Americans she is connected to are involved in.
Of course, it could have the potential of a massive scandal, but If the inner circles of
the Dems, especially the criminal machinations of the Clintons and their stooges are
concerned, the mainstream media will keep mum. So far, they have always covered up their
dubious and dirty tricks. The American political system within the Beltway is so rotten and
corrupt that everybody will be affected if the slightest connection comes to the fore. Take
the so-called Russian hacking as a case in point. It's all bogus, but the investigation
continues by the Clinton stooge named Robert Mueller.
The US establishment reminds me of a poorly knitted jumper with many threads sticking out.
So it desperately prevents, using the intelligence services, the police and the media it
controls, any investigation because if one would pull one thread successfully the whole thing
would unravel in its full perverted glory of deprevity (the whole Demopublican establishment
that is).
No surprises, the quality of politicians worldwide is embedded in the system. The question
asked: how can a meritocracy apply extended family, friend and sex-mates, to the selection
system consequently. Another, how can one leverage content in this day and age if there
is no thorough knowledge of the tools behind any information system. Put congressmen and
women to the test, how many have questions as use of data protocol, firewall, ports,
delegated to "specialist", and loyal (the accent on loyal) collaborators without a notion of
what they even delegate. If living in an area of specialization, the notion of minimal
knowledge and comprehension might be at least a thorough understanding of man – machine
correlations.
Hillarious Hillary neither, did have a notion of any technicalities of tools applied to
bid her interests. "Boom", "Boom", "oBama", was using computers to play "drone of doom".
Politicians dress, groom, prepare and travel to public moments of extroversion, and that's
it. Very busy critters, highly un-focused beyond anything deeper then egocentric looks and
sway of an actor. It works, there is a public, "deplorable", "gens de rien" ignorance
carrying them, complicit media and scientists, sustaining them. The phenomenon will worsen,
the glue will thicken into further layers of ignorance. The Moore law? The more complex
society, the bigger the ignorance of the elites.
A suggestive test: time employment over years in office would uproot the sterling
conclusion that politicians, administrators of public affairs have simply no time and energy
left to analyze anything beyond their public person's direct interests. Systemic, in all
branches, our elites are simply not up to par. And that "works", in occurrence the state of
affairs worldwide, in the long term, in depth.
For those who are unfamiliar with US involvement in South Asia: Pakistan's military and
intelligences services are funded by America (just as Egypt's are). Pakistani intelligence
and army has long been a CIA stooge and that goes since the 80s and even before that. It was
Pakistanis who were training the mujahideen to fight Russia in Afghanistan during the cold
war. So no one is surprised when Pakistani ISI chief is here in US during the execution of
9/11. Throughout much of the world, 9/11 is seen as a plot of American government.
By the way, do you seriously think Pakistani army which survives on American funding would
bite the hand that feeds it by secretly giving refuge to Osama Bin Laden? If that was truly
the case, as government said during their s0-called raid in Pakistan that supposedly killed
Osama, would the US government still be giving billions to Pakistan's army? Pakistan's army,
like Egypt's army and Turkey's army, are supported by America as a way of subverting
democracy in those countries. Unfotunately American public's general knowledge of what
America funds and how it conducts itself with other countries is so low that it is impossible
for the majority to have any kind of reality based understanding of what their taxes are
paying for and how it does not support "freedom" but the opposite of it throughout the
world
This is big. I would like to know, what are Awans credentials that qualified him for the
IT position and who hired him? Someone had to vouchsafe for Awan and who is that person? Who
approved his salary and why was there no review or audit? Apparently, someone, or some
organization wanted to control a large block of the Congress. Was it Clinton, was it
Intelligence, the Mossad, Rothschilds, Russia?
I would imagine that her calls were being
monitored and her involvement known.
Audacity and chutzpah of Imran Awan's operation right away made me think of post-military
service Israeli youth running various scams and intelligence gathering errands all over the
world. Only people with a strong awareness of being the untouchable sacred cows and/or
somebody with a strong back up of security services can behave like this.
Each year, 75,000 soldiers are discharged from the Israel Defense Force. A third of them
then travel across Asia and South America, supporting businesses at home and abroad.
"... So, a conspiracy theory is a theory without media backing. There's no better recent example of this than when the DNC emails were released by wikileaks during their convention. The story put forth was that Russian hackers were responsible, and were trying to throw the election to their buddy Trump. The evidence for this? Zero. And yet it became a plausible explanation in the media, overnight. ..."
"... People need to remember than by definition, the ratio of what you don't know to what you do know is infinity to one. Be more open minded. "They shall find it difficult, they who have taken authority as truth rather than truth for authority". ..."
Here is a link to Carl Bernstein's definitive 1977 Rolling Stone article "CIA and the Media"
in which he addresses - and confirms - your worst fears. You are very right, and no less a figure
than Bernstein has said so for nearly four decades . . .
http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php
No coincidence that all the CIA agents involved in the JFK assassination are known to be experts
in 'black ops' and news media specialists. Jim Angleton, Cord Meyer, David Atlee Phillips and
E. Howard Hunt, who confessed his involvement, all made their names in black propaganda or news
management.
@Lot Given how easy it is to create a conspiracy theory, most of them will be crazy.
Another problem with elite conspiracies is that elites usually do not have to act in secret
because they already are in control. For Kennedy, a centrist cold warrior, his views already reflected
those of elites, maybe even more so than Johnson.
The other problem is that actual criminal conspiracies by elites quite often are discovered,
such as Watergate and Iran Contra. Given how easy it is to create a conspiracy theory, most
of them will be crazy.
A statement that appears straight out of the CIA's playbook.
Another problem with elite conspiracies is that elites usually do not have to act in
secret because they already are in control.
Such control does not imply they have nothing to hide, particularly when exposure of the deed
would have damaging repercussions for them.
For Kennedy, a centrist cold warrior, his views already reflected those of elites, maybe
even more so than Johnson.
It didn't reflect that of Israel's elites. After JFK's assassination, American foreign policy
vis a vis Israel was completely reversed under Johnson, who hung the crew of the USS Liberty out
to dry.
The other problem is that actual criminal conspiracies by elites quite often are discovered,
such as Watergate and Iran Contra.
@Chief SeattleSo, a conspiracy theory is a theory without media backing. There's no better
recent example of this than when the DNC emails were released by wikileaks during their convention.
The story put forth was that Russian hackers were responsible, and were trying to throw the election
to their buddy Trump. The evidence for this? Zero. And yet it became a plausible explanation in
the media, overnight.
Maybe it's true, maybe not, but if the roles had been reversed, the media would be telling
its proponents to take off their tin foil hats. Note also that the allegations immediately become
"fact" because they were reported by someone else. As Business Insider reported, "Amid
mounting evidence of Russia's involvement in the hack of the Democratic National Committee ,"
without any specificity whatsoever as to what that "mounting evidence" was (most likely multiple
reports in other media) never mind that the article goes on to quote James Clapper, " we are not
quite ready yet to make a call on attribution." WTF! Here, read it yourself:
http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-dnc-hack-black-propaganda-2016-7
Totally mindless. So not only is Russia hacking, but we know it's intention is to influence
US elections!!! And now their hacking voter DBs and will likely hack our vote tabulating machines.
You can't make this s ** t up.
...In the corporate world, it often seems that upper management spends a bulk of their time
conspiring against one another or entering into secret talks to sell the company to a rival, unbeknownst
to the employees or shareholders.
@Alfred1860 I find it quite amusing how, in an article supporting of the existence of conspiracy
theories, so many comments consist of hurling insults at people making skeptical comments about
what are obviously very sacred cows.
People need to remember than by definition, the ratio of what you don't know to what you
do know is infinity to one. Be more open minded. "They shall find it difficult, they who have
taken authority as truth rather than truth for authority".
In Dispatch 1035-960 mailed to station chiefs on April 1, 1967, the CIA laid out a series of
"talking points" in its memo addressing the "conspiracy theorists" who were questioning the Warren
Commission's findings on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. They include the following:
Claim that it "would be impossible to conceal" such a large-scale conspiracy.
Claim that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition.
Claim that "no significant new evidence has emerged"
Accuse theorists of falling in love with their theories.
Claimed conspiracy theorists are wedded to their theories before the evidence was in.
Accuse theorists of being politically motivated.
Accuse theorists of being financially motivated.
I have found numerous examples of these exact points being made in televised news segments,
newspapers, magazines and even some academic articles and scholarly books.
Additionally, some of the most influential and frequently-cited authors who are the most critical
of "conspiracy theorists", both academic and lay people, have very direct ties to government,
foundations and other institutions of authority.
While we can't know if the CIA was primarily responsible for the creation of the pejorative,
but what we do know from the Church Committee hearings, was that the Agency did have paid operatives
working inside major media organizations as late as the 1970s. In fact, CNN anchor Anderson Cooper
has acknowledged ties to the CIA
With recent lifting of restrictions on the government's use of domestic propaganda with the
Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, which passed as part of the 2013 National Defense Authorization
Act, I think reasonable people would expect this type of pejorative construction to resume if
in fact, it ever ceased.
Literally every article I've ever read about conservatives and/or the conservative movement
within the pages of the New Yorker – and I've read going back decades, unfortunately – has judiciously
referenced 'The Paranoid Style in American Politics'.
I mean, EVERY SINGLE article regarding Republicans, conservatives and/or opposition to leftism
has the Hofstadter quote somewhere – it must be a staple on the J-School syllabi.
It seems Prof. Hofstadter was something of an adherent to the Frankfurt School nonsense – Marxism-meets-dime-store-Freud
being every New Yorker writer's stock in trade, of course
@biz Actually, there is no symmetry in conspiracy theories as you imply.
The definition of a conspiracy theory is an explanation of events that traces them to a secret
network, and when presented with contradictory evidence, simply enlarges the network of supposed
conspirators rather than modifying the explanation.
Not least of which is the remarkable inactivity of the FBI: for example "The FBI has never
questioned Assange [he
confirms that] or Murray" and neither has it ever looked at the DNC servers.
Nonetheless, every time you think the hysteria has gone as far as it can, it goes a bit
farther: Morgan Freeland joins the
circus.
Although Hillary Clinton has blamed numerous factors and people for her loss to Donald Trump in
last year's election, no one has received as much blame as the Russian government. In an effort to
avoid blaming the candidate herself by turning the election results into a national scandal, accusations
of Kremlin-directed meddling soon surfaced. While such accusations have largely been discredited
by both
computer analysts and
award-winning journalists like Seymour Hersh, they continue to be repeated as the
investigation into Donald Trump's alleged collusion with the Russian government picks up steam.
However,
newly released Clinton emails suggest that that the former secretary of state's disdain for the
Russian government is a relatively new development. The emails, obtained by conservative watchdog
group Judicial Watch, show that the Russian government was included in invitations to exclusive Clinton
Foundation galas that began less than two months after Clinton became the top official at the U.S.
State Department.
In March of 2009, Amitabh Desai, then-Clinton Foundation director of foreign policy, sent invitations
to numerous world leaders, which included Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, then-Russian President
Dmitry Medvedev, and former President of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev. Desai's emails were
cc'd to Assistant Secretary of State Andrew Shapiro and later forwarded to top Clinton aide Jake
Sullivan.
The Clinton Foundation's activities during Hillary's tenure as secretary of state have been central
to the accusations that the Clinton family used their "charitable" foundation as a means of enriching
themselves via a massive "Pay to Play" scheme. Emails leaked by Wikileaks, particularly
the Podesta emails , offered
ample evidence connecting foreign donations to the Clintons and their foundation with preferential
treatment by the U.S. State Department.
Exclusive: New tests support the skepticism of U.S. intelligence veterans that Russia
"hacked" the DNC's computers, pointing instead to a download of emails by an insider, write
ex-NSA official William Binney and ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern.
September 21, 2017 " Information Clearing House " - It is no secret
that our July 24 VIPS Memorandum for the President, entitled " Was the
'Russian Hack' an Inside Job? ," gave rise to some questioning and controversy – nor
was it a surprise that it was met with almost total silence in the mainstream media.
The ongoing U.S. media campaign against Russia has been so effective that otherwise
intelligent people have been unable even to entertain the notion that they may have been
totally misled by the intelligence community. The last time this happened in 2003, after a year
of such propaganda, the U.S. attacked Iraq on fraudulent – not "mistaken" –
intelligence.
Anticipating resistance from those allergic to rethinking "what everybody knows" about
Russian "meddling," we based our VIPS analysis on forensic investigations that, oddly, the FBI
had bent over backwards to avoid. In other words, we relied on the principles of physics and
the known capability of the Internet in early July 2016.
We stand by our main conclusion that the data from the intrusion of July 5, 2016, into the
Democratic National Committee's computers, an intrusion blamed on "Russian hacking," was not a
hack but rather a download/copy onto an external storage device by someone with physical access
to the DNC.
That principal finding relied heavily on the speed with which the copy took place – a
speed much faster than a hack over the Internet could have achieved at the time – or, it
seems clear, even now. Challenged on that conclusion – often by those conducting
experiments within the confines of a laboratory – we have conducted and documented
additional tests to determine the speeds that can be achieved now, more than a year later.
To remind: We noted in the VIPS memo that on July 5, 2016, a computer directly connected to
the DNC server or DNC Local Area Network, copied 1,976 megabytes of data in 87 seconds onto an
external storage device. That yields a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second.
Recent Tests
Over the last few weeks, we ran three tests to determine how quickly data could be
exfiltrated from the U.S. across the Atlantic to Europe.
–First, we used a 100 megabits-per-second (mbps) line to pull data from a one-gigabyte
file to Amsterdam. The peak transfer speed was .8 MBps.
–Second, we used a commercial DSL (Digital Subscriber Line) to send the same
one-gigabyte file to a commercial DSL in Amsterdam. The peak transfer speed was 1.8 MBps.
–Third, we pushed the same one-gigabyte file from a data center in New Jersey to a
data center in the UK. The peak transfer speed was 12 MBps.
No Advertising - No Government Grants - This Is Independent Media
None of these attempts achieve anything close to the average rate of 22.7 megabytes per
second evident in the July 5, 2016 download/copy associated with the DNC. In fact, this happens
to be the speed typical of a transfer to a USB-2 external storage device. We do not think this
pure coincidence; rather, it is additional evidence of a local download.
We are preparing further trans-Atlantic testing over the next few weeks.
Some researchers have noted that some partitioning of the data might have occurred in the
U.S., allowing for a transfer to be made at the measured speed over the Internet, and that this
could have made possible a hack from the other side of the Atlantic. One of our associate
investigators has found a way to achieve this kind of data partitioning and later transfer.
In theory, this would be one possible way to achieve such a large-data transfer, but we have
no evidence that anything like this actually occurred. More important, in such a scenario, the
National Security Agency would have chapter and verse on it, because such a hack would have to
include software to execute the partitioning and subsequent data transfer. NSA gives the
highest priority to collection on "execution software."
Must Americans, apparently including President Donald Trump, remain in a
Russia-did-it-or-could-have-maybe-might-have-done-it subjunctive mood on this important issue
– one that has been used to inject Cold War ice into relations with Russia? The answer is
absolutely not. Rather, definitive answers are at hand.
How can we be so confident? Because NSA alumni now active in Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) are intimately familiar with NSA's capabilities and practice
with respect to bulk capture and storage of fiber-optic communications. Two of us actually
devised the systems still in use, and Edward Snowden's revelations filled in remaining gaps.
Today's NSA is in position to clear up any and all questions about intrusions into the DNC.
In sum, we are certain that the truth of what actually happened – or didn't happen
– can be found in the databases of NSA. We tried to explain this to President Barack
Obama in a VIPS
Memorandum of Jan. 17, just three days before he left office, noting that NSA's known
programs are fully capable of capturing – and together with liaison intelligence services
do capture – all electronic transfers of data.
Our Jan. 17 Memorandum included this admonition: "We strongly suggest that you ask NSA for
any evidence it may have indicating that the results of Russian hacking were given to
WikiLeaks." "If NSA cannot give you that information – and quickly – this would
probably mean it does not have any."
We also appealed to Obama in his final days in office to order the chiefs of the NSA, FBI
and CIA to the White House and have them lay all their cards on the table about "Russian
hacking," and show him what tangible evidence they might have – not simply their
"assessments." We added, "We assume you would not wish to hobble your successor with charges
that cannot withstand close scrutiny." Having said this, we already were reaching the
assumption that there was no real evidence to back the "assessments" up.
FBI: Not Leaning Forward
The FBI could still redeem itself by doing what it should have done as soon as the DNC
claimed to have been "hacked." For reasons best known to former FBI Director James Comey, the
Bureau failed to get whatever warrant was needed to confiscate the DNC servers and computers to
properly examine them.
In testimony to the House Intelligence Committee six months ago, Comey conceded "best
practice is always to get access to the machines themselves." And yet he chose not to. And his
decision came amid frenzied charges by senior U.S. officials that Russia had committed "an act
of war."
But is it not already too late for such an investigation? We hope that, at this point, it is
crystal clear that the answer is: No, it is not too late. All the data the FBI needs to do a
proper job is in NSA databases – including data going across the Internet to the DNC
server and then included in their network logs.
If President Trump wants to know the truth, he can order the FBI to do its job and NSA to
cooperate. Whether the two and the CIA would obey such orders is an open question, given how
heavily invested all three agencies are in their evidence-impoverished narrative about "Russian
hacking."
Let us close with the obvious. All three agencies have been aware all along that NSA has the
data. One wonders why it should require a Presidential order for them to delve into that data
and come up with conclusions based on fact, as opposed to "assessing."
William Binney ( [email protected] ) worked for NSA for 36 years,
retiring in 2001 as the technical director of world military and geopolitical analysis and
reporting; he created many of the collection systems still used by NSA. Ray McGovern (
[email protected] ) was a CIA analyst for 27 years; from 1981 to 1985 he briefed
the President's Daily Brief one-on-one to President Reagan's most senior national
security officials.
"... It's pathetic and immature that Clinton can't accept personal responsibility for her loss. She was a terrible candidate and had a hard time defeating Bernie. Only for the super-delegates in California, Bernie would have beaten her. ..."
"... But of course Donald Trump didn't play any part in her losing. She simply did not connect with people. To her it was like she had an entitlement because of her name. ..."
It's pathetic and immature that Clinton can't accept personal responsibility
for her loss. She was a terrible candidate and had a hard time defeating Bernie. Only for the super-delegates
in California, Bernie would have beaten her.
But, according to Hillary, 'What Happened' was ...
Suburban women didn't like her
The Russians interferred
The FBI and James Comey
Facebook
Twitter
Wikileaks
Bernie Sanders
TV Executives
Cable News
Fake News
The Democrats
The Republicans
Low informed voters
The 'Deplorables'
Content farms in Macedonia
Obama winning two terms
Bad polling numbers
But of course Donald Trump didn't play any part in her losing. She simply did not connect with
people. To her it was like she had an entitlement because of her name.
"... add Bush. Glenn Greenwald on John Brennan . It is interesting that the empire sues the little people. ..."
"... "It is a perfect illustration of the Obama legacy that a person who was untouchable as CIA chief in 2008 because of his support for Bush's most radical policies is not only Obama's choice for the same position now, but will encounter very little resistance. Within this change one finds one of the most significant aspects of the Obama presidency: his conversion of what were once highly contentious right-wing policies into harmonious dogma of the DC bipartisan consensus. Then again, given how the CIA operates, one could fairly argue that Brennan's eagerness to deceive and his long record of supporting radical and unaccountable powers make him the perfect person to run that agency. It seems clear that this is Obama's calculus." ..."
"... one more quote from your newest link to the NYT: "The job Mr. Brennan once held in Riyadh is, more than the ambassador's, the true locus of American power in the kingdom. Former diplomats recall that the most important discussions always flowed through the CIA station chief." The Saudis bought the CIA From station chief in Riyadh to Director Tenet's chief of staff to Deputy Executive Director of the CIA and finally, under Obama, to Director of the CIA ..."
"... Best background article I've come across on how the Arab Spring pro-democracy uprisings were either suppressed (in the U.S. client oil monarchies like Bahrain) or hijacked for regime change purposes (as in Libya and Syria): http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion... how-the-arab-spring-was-hijacked/ (Feb 2012) ..."
"... The best explanation is that despite the effort to "woo" Assad into the Saudi-Israeli axis (c.2008-2010), Assad refused to cut economic ties with Iran, which was setting up rail lines, air traffic and oil pipeline deals with Assad on very good terms. This led Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, etc. to lobby Obama to support a regime change program: ..."
"... Replace "plan" with "ongoing project". The main point would be that Panetta and Clinton also belong on that "illegal arms transfer" charge sheet. Civil damages for the costs Europe, Turkey, Lebanon etc. bore due to millions of fleeing refugees should also be assessed (let alone damage in Syria, often to priceless historical treasures destroyed by ISIS). ..."
"... Then there's the previous regime and its deliberate lies about non-existent WMDs in Iraq, claims used to start a war of aggression that killed thousand of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Woolsey, Tenet, Powell - they should have their own separate charge sheet. ..."
"... But it wasn't just anti-arms trafficking laws that were broken, was it? Wouldn't a conspiracy to use extremists as a weapon of state amount to a crime against humanity? David Stockman thinks so, but he pins the 'crime' on old, sick McCain. (see: 'Moderate Rebels' Cheerleader McCain is Fall Guy But Neocon Cancer Lives ..."
"... I classify attempts at regime change as terrorism, too, since it's essentially the waging of aggressive war via different means, which is the #1 War Crime also violating domestic law as well ..."
"... What of the US bases being established in N. Syria that were helpfully marked by the Turks? Within the context that the SF force multiplier model has varied success but hasn't worked AFAIK since the Resistance in WW2. What, short of an explicit invasion, is an option for the US+? US-hired mercenaries failed to do the job, and the US as mercenaries for the Arabs are not willing to commit. Maybe if the USIC offered up more "wives" they'd acquire more psychopathic murderers to spread the joy. ..."
"... Trump may have put Pompeo in to present the facade of housecleaning, but who here believes that there is any serious move to curtail the Syrian misadventure? Just a change in the marketing plan. ..."
"... As the Brits came out with blocking the release of 30-yr-old official records on the basis that "personal information" and "national security" would be compromised? More like the criminal activity at 10 Downing St. and the misappropriation of public money for international crime would be brought to light. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4159032/whitehall-refuses-documents-release/ ..."
"... While I do agree with some of the things Trump has done so far, I cannot agree that he makes for a good "leader" of our rapidly devolving nation. As much "good" that Trump has done, he's probably done much worse on other issues and levels. It's really pretty awful all around. ..."
"... That said, when some people say how much they "miss Obama," I want to either pound my head into a brick wall and/or throw up. The damage that Obama and his hench men/women did is incalculable. ..."
"... Not so much with "No drama Obama" the smooth talking viper that we - either unwittingly or wittingly - clutche to our collective bosom. Obama's many many many lies - all told with smooth suave assurance - along with his many sins of omission served as cover for what he was doing. Trump's buffoonery and incessant Twitting at least put his idiocies out on the stage for all to see (of course, the Republicans do use that as cover for their nefarious deeds behind Trump's doofus back). ..."
"... I likened a Trump presidency to sticking the landing of a crashing US empire. ..."
"... Remember this, The prosecution of a Swedish national accused of terrorist activities in Syria has collapsed at the Old Bailey after it became clear Britain's security and intelligence agencies would have been deeply embarrassed had a trial gone ahead, the Guardian can reveal. ..."
"... His lawyers argued that British intelligence agencies were supporting the same Syrian opposition groups as he was, and were party to a secret operation providing weapons and non-lethal help to the groups, including the Free Syrian Army. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/01/trial-swedish-man-accused-terrorism-offences-collapse-bherlin-gildo ..."
"... John McCain was neck deep in supporting Terrorists in Syria he wanted to give them manpads. ..."
"... WASHINGTON (Sputnik) -- Media reported earlier in October that Syrian rebels asked Washington for Stinger missiles to use them against Russia's military jets. "Absolutely Absolutely I would," McCain said when asked whether he would support the delivery of Stinger missiles to the opposition in Syria. ..."
"... The US were into regime change in Syria a long time ago..... Robert Ford was US Ambassador to Syria when the revolt against Syrian president Assad was launched. He not only was a chief architect of regime change in Syria, but actively worked with rebels to aid their overthrow of the Syrian government. ..."
"... Ambassador Ford talked himself blue in the face reassuring us that he was only supporting moderates in Syria. As evidence mounted that the recipients of the largesse doled out by Washington was going to jihadist groups, Ford finally admitted early last year that most of the moderates he backed were fighting alongside ISIS and al-Qaeda. ..."
"... b asked : "When will the FBI investigate Messrs Petraeus, Obama and Brennan? Duh, like never... Most here understand this, I'm sure. The wealthy and the connected puppets never face justice, for their crimes, committed in the service of their owners. ..."
"... NYT never saw a war (rather an attack by the US, NATO, Israel, UK, on any defenseless nation) that it did not support. Wiki uses the word "allegedly" in explaining the CIA and Operation Mockingbird. It just isn't feasible that a secret government agency - gone rogue - with unlimited funding and manpower could write/edit the news for six media owners with similar war-profiteering motives. ..."
"... Seymour Hersh, in his 'Victoria NULAND moment' audio, states categorically BRENNAN conceived and ran the 'Russian Hack' psyop after Seth RICH DNC leaks. ..."
Rasheed Al Jijakli,[the CEO of a check-cashing business who lives in Walnut,] along with three
co-conspirators, allegedly transported day and night vision rifle scopes, laser boresighters used
to adjust sights on firearms for accuracy when firing, flashlights, radios, a bulletproof vest,
and other tactical equipment to Syrian fighters.
...
If Jijakli is found guilty, he could face 50 years in prison . Jijakli's case is being prosecuted
by counterintelligence and Terrorism and Export Crimes Section attorneys. An FBI investigation,
in coordination with other agencies, is ongoing.
CIA director, Mike Pompeo, recommended to President Trump that he shut down a four-year-old
effort to arm and train Syrian rebels
...
Critics in Congress had complained for years about the costs [...] and reports that some of the
CIA-supplied weapons had ended up in the hands of a rebel group tied to Al Qaeda
...
In the summer of 2012, David H. Petraeus , who was then CIA director, first proposed a covert
program of arming and training rebels
...
[ Mr. Obama signed] a presidential finding authorizing the CIA to covertly arm and train small
groups of rebels
-...
John O. Brennan , Mr. Obama's last CIA director, remained a vigorous defender of the program
...
When will the FBI investigate Messrs Petraeus, Obama and Brennan? Where are the counterintelligence
and Terrorism and Export Crimes Section attorneys prosecuting them? Those three men engaged in the
exactly same trade as Mr. Jijakil did, but on a much larger scale. They should be punished on an
equally larger scale.
*Note:
The NYT story is largely a whitewash. It claims that the CIA paid "moderate" FSA rebels stormed
Idleb governate in 2015. In fact al-Qaeda and Ahrar al Sham were leading the assault. It says
that costs of the CIA program was "more than $1 billion over the life of the program" when CIA
documents show that it was over $1 billion
per year and likely much more than $5 billion in total. The story says that the program started
in 2013 while the CIA has been providing arms to the Wahhabi rebels since at least fall 2011.
Posted by b on August 3, 2017 at 05:15 AM |
Permalink
India and Pakistan spends insane amounts of money because Pakistan arms "rebels" both countries
could use that money for many other things. Especially Pakistan which has a tenth the economy
of India. BUT Pakistan is controlled by the military or MIC so arming terrorists is more important
than such things as schools and power supplies etc. Their excuse is India is spending so much
on arms. Which India says is because in large part due to Pakistan. US says well move those 2
million troops to attack China instead. Everyone is happy except the population in those 3 countries
which lack most things except iphones. Which makes US extremely happy.
It would interesting to get to the truth about Brennan. Is he an islamist himself? Did he actually
convert to islam in Saudi Arabia? Lots of stories out there.
Has he been acting as a covert agent against his own country for years?Selling out the entire
west and every christian on the planet. Time to find this out, methinks.
Is treason in the USA
a death penalty issue?. Its certainly what he deserves.
"a four-year-old effort to arm and train Syrian rebels."
A four year effort to arm the f**kers? Doubtful it was an effort to arm them, but training
them to act in the hegemon's interests... like upholders of democracy and humanitarian... headchopping
is just too much of an attraction
"7,000 Syrian refugees and fighters return home from Lebanon"
The 'al-Qaeda linked' fighters are mostly foreigners, paid mercenaries. They have been dumped
in Idlib along with the other terrorists. In the standard reconciliation process, real Syrians
are given the option of returning home if they renounce violence and agree to a political solution.
Fake Syrians are dumped in with the foreigners. The real Syrian fighters who reconcile have to
join the SAA units to fight against ISIS etc.
ISIS fighters were encouraged to bring their families with them (for use as human shields and
to provide settlers for the captured territory). ISIS documents recovered from Mosul indicate
that unmarried foreign mercenaries fighting with them were provided with a wife (how does that
work? do the women volunteer or are they 'volunteered'?), a car and other benefits. These families
and hangers-on would probably be the 'Syrian refugees'.
On a side note, the Kurds have released a video showing the training of special forces belonging
to their allies, the 'Syrian Defense Force' (composed largely of foreigners again). The SDF fighters
fly the FSA flag, ie they are the carefully vetted moderate head chopping rebels beloved of the
likes of McCain.
"It is a perfect illustration of the Obama legacy that a person who was untouchable
as CIA chief in 2008 because of his support for Bush's most radical policies is not only Obama's
choice for the same position now, but will encounter very little resistance. Within this change
one finds one of the most significant aspects of the Obama presidency: his conversion of what
were once highly contentious right-wing policies into harmonious dogma of the DC bipartisan
consensus. Then again, given how the CIA operates, one could fairly argue that Brennan's eagerness
to deceive and his long record of supporting radical and unaccountable powers make him the
perfect person to run that agency. It seems clear that this is Obama's calculus."
My own addition to the Brennan record:
Brennan was station chief for the CIA in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia during the planning period for
9/11. The Saudi rulers do not use the US embassy as their first point of contact with Washington,
they use the CIA Brennan moved back to the US some time in (late?) 1999. The first 9/11 Saudi
hijackers arrived on US shores in January 2000. Brennan was made CIA chief of staff to Director
Tenet in 1999 and Deputy Executive Director of the CIA in March 2001.
The support for the Syrian rebels is only the latest chapter in the decades long relationship
between the spy services of Saudi Arabia and the United States, an alliance that has endured
through the Iran-contra scandal, support for the mujahedeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan
and proxy fights in Africa. Sometimes, as in Syria, the two countries have worked in concert.
In others, Saudi Arabia has simply written checks underwriting American covert activities.
... Although the Saudis have been public about their help arming rebel groups in Syria, the
extent of their partnership with the CIA's covert action campaign and their direct financial
support had not been disclosed. Details were pieced together in interviews with a half-dozen
current and former American officials and sources from several Persian Gulf countries. Most
spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the program.
From the moment the CIA operation was started, Saudi money supported it.
...
The roots of the relationship run deep. In the late 1970s, the Saudis organized what was
known as the "Safari Club" -- a coalition of nations including Morocco, Egypt and France -- that
ran covert operations around Africa at a time when Congress had clipped the CIA's wings
over years of abuses.
...
Prince Bandar pledged $1 million per month to help fund the contras, in recognition of the
administration's past support to the Saudis. The contributions continued after Congress cut
off funding to the contras. By the end, the Saudis had contributed $32 million, paid through
a Cayman Islands bank account.
When the Iran-contra scandal broke, and questions arose about the Saudi role, the kingdom
kept its secrets. Prince Bandar refused to cooperate with the investigation led by Lawrence
E. Walsh, the independent counsel.
In a letter, the prince declined to testify, explaining that his country's "confidences
and commitments, like our friendship, are given not just for the moment but the long run."
one more quote from your newest link to the NYT: "The job Mr. Brennan once held in Riyadh
is, more than the ambassador's, the true locus of American power in the kingdom. Former diplomats
recall that the most important discussions always flowed through the CIA station chief." The
Saudis bought the CIA From station chief in Riyadh to Director Tenet's chief of staff to Deputy
Executive Director of the CIA and finally, under Obama, to Director of the CIA
Best background article I've come across on how the Arab Spring pro-democracy uprisings were
either suppressed (in the U.S. client oil monarchies like Bahrain) or hijacked for regime change
purposes (as in Libya and Syria):
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion... how-the-arab-spring-was-hijacked/ (Feb 2012)
In particular:
A fourth trend is that the Arab Spring has become a springboard for playing great-power geopolitics.
Syria, at the center of the region's sectarian fault lines, has emerged as the principal
battleground for such Cold War-style geopolitics. Whereas Russia is intent on keeping its only
military base outside the old Soviet Union in Syria's Mediterranean port of Tartus, the U.S.
seems equally determined to install a pro-Western regime in Damascus.
This goal prompted Washington to set up a London-based television station that began broadcasting
to Syria a year before major protests began there. The U.S. campaign, which includes
assembling a coalition of the willing, has been boosted by major Turkish, Saudi, Qatari and
UAE help, including cross-border flow of arms into Syria and the establishment of two new petrodollar-financed,
jihad-extolling television channels directed at Syria's majority Sunni Arabs.
The best explanation is that despite the effort to "woo" Assad into the Saudi-Israeli axis
(c.2008-2010), Assad refused to cut economic ties with Iran, which was setting up rail lines,
air traffic and oil pipeline deals with Assad on very good terms. This led Hillary Clinton, Leon
Panetta, etc. to lobby Obama to support a regime change program:
Replace "plan" with "ongoing project". The main point would be that Panetta and Clinton
also belong on that "illegal arms transfer" charge sheet. Civil damages for the costs Europe,
Turkey, Lebanon etc. bore due to millions of fleeing refugees should also be assessed (let alone
damage in Syria, often to priceless historical treasures destroyed by ISIS).
Then there's the previous regime and its deliberate lies about non-existent WMDs in Iraq,
claims used to start a war of aggression that killed thousand of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of
thousands of Iraqi civilians - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Woolsey, Tenet, Powell - they should have
their own separate charge sheet.
Send the lot to Scheveningen
Prison - for the most notorious war criminals. Pretty luxurious as prisons go, by all accounts.
But it wasn't just anti-arms trafficking laws that were broken, was it? Wouldn't a conspiracy
to use extremists as a weapon of state amount to a crime against humanity? David Stockman thinks
so, but he pins the 'crime' on old, sick McCain. (see:
'Moderate Rebels' Cheerleader McCain is Fall Guy But Neocon Cancer Lives
Within the Outlaw US Empire alone, there're several thousand people deserving of those 5,000 year
sentences, not just the three b singled out. But b does provide a great service for those of us
who refuse to support terrorists and terrorism by not paying federal taxes by providing proof
of that occurring. I classify attempts at regime change as terrorism, too, since it's essentially
the waging of aggressive war via different means, which is the #1 War Crime also violating domestic
law as well. Thanks b!
it's the usa!!!! no one in gov't is held accountable.. obama wants to move on, lol... look forward,
not backward... creating a heaping pile of murder, mayhem and more in other parts of the world,
but never examine any of it, or hold anyone accountable.. it is the amerikkkan way...
What of the US bases being established in N. Syria that were helpfully marked by the Turks?
Within the context that the SF force multiplier model has varied success but hasn't worked AFAIK
since the Resistance in WW2. What, short of an explicit invasion, is an option for the US+? US-hired
mercenaries failed to do the job, and the US as mercenaries for the Arabs are not willing to commit.
Maybe if the USIC offered up more "wives" they'd acquire more psychopathic murderers to spread
the joy.
Trump may have put Pompeo in to present the facade of housecleaning, but who here believes
that there is any serious move to curtail the Syrian misadventure? Just a change in the marketing
plan.
As the Brits came out with blocking the release of 30-yr-old official records on the basis
that "personal information" and "national security" would be compromised? More like the criminal
activity at 10 Downing St. and the misappropriation of public money for international crime would
be brought to light.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4159032/whitehall-refuses-documents-release/
While I do agree with some of the things Trump has done so far, I cannot agree that he makes
for a good "leader" of our rapidly devolving nation. As much "good" that Trump has done, he's
probably done much worse on other issues and levels. It's really pretty awful all around.
That said, when some people say how much they "miss Obama," I want to either pound my head
into a brick wall and/or throw up. The damage that Obama and his hench men/women did is incalculable.
At least with Trump, we can clearly witness his idiocy and grasp the level of at least some
of his damage.
Not so much with "No drama Obama" the smooth talking viper that we - either unwittingly
or wittingly - clutche to our collective bosom. Obama's many many many lies - all told with smooth
suave assurance - along with his many sins of omission served as cover for what he was doing.
Trump's buffoonery and incessant Twitting at least put his idiocies out on the stage for all to
see (of course, the Republicans do use that as cover for their nefarious deeds behind Trump's
doofus back).
Agree with b. NYT is worthless. Limited hangout for sure.
I likened a Trump presidency to sticking the landing of a crashing US empire. He'll
bring it down without going true believer on us, a la Clinton and ilk who were busy scheduling
the apocalypse.
Trump has not been tested yet with a rapidly deteriorating economy which as we all know is
coming. Something is in the air and Trump will have to face it sooner or later. The weight of
the anger of millions will be behind it...will it be too late? Will Trump finally go MAGA in what
he promised: Glas-Steagall, making trade fair for US interests, dialing back NATO...etc. etc.
I fear he can not articulate the issues at hand, like Roosevelt or Hitler. He is too bumbling.
I guess really we can only hope for an avoidance of WW. Will the world even weep for a third world
USA?
Remember this, The prosecution of a Swedish national accused of terrorist activities in Syria
has collapsed at the Old Bailey after it became clear Britain's security and intelligence agencies
would have been deeply embarrassed had a trial gone ahead, the Guardian can reveal.
John McCain was neck deep in supporting Terrorists in Syria he wanted to give them manpads.
WASHINGTON (Sputnik) -- Media reported earlier in October that Syrian rebels asked Washington
for Stinger missiles to use them against Russia's military jets. "Absolutely Absolutely I would,"
McCain said when asked whether he would support the delivery of Stinger missiles to the opposition
in Syria.
"We certainly did that in Afghanistan. After the Russians invaded Afghanistan, we provided
them with surface-to-air capability. It'd be nice to give people that we train and equip and send
them to fight the ability to defend themselves. That's one of the fundamental principles of warfare
as I understand it," McCain said.
https://sputniknews.com/us/201510201028835944-us-stingers-missiles-syrian-rebels-mccain/
They will pay sooner or later for their crimes against the Syrians. Add Sarkozy, Cameron and Holland
to the list of criminals hiding under their position.
The US were into regime change in Syria a long time ago..... Robert Ford was US Ambassador
to Syria when the revolt against Syrian president Assad was launched. He not only was a chief
architect of regime change in Syria, but actively worked with rebels to aid their overthrow of
the Syrian government.
Ford assured us that those taking up arms to overthrow the Syrian government were simply moderates
and democrats seeking to change Syria's autocratic system. Anyone pointing out the obviously Islamist
extremist nature of the rebellion and the foreign funding and backing for the jihadists was written
off as an Assad apologist or worse.
Ambassador Ford talked himself blue in the face reassuring us that he was only supporting
moderates in Syria. As evidence mounted that the recipients of the largesse doled out by Washington
was going to jihadist groups, Ford finally admitted early last year that most of the moderates
he backed were fighting alongside ISIS and al-Qaeda. Witness this incredible Twitter exchange
with then-ex Ambassador Ford:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/you-wont-believe-what-former-us-ambassador-robert-s-ford-said-about-al-qaedas-syrian-allies/5504906
Specially Petraeus. A US Army General, and director of the CIA You don't get more 'pillar'
of the State than that! And off he goes doing illegal arms trades, in the billions, see for ex.
Meyssan, as an ex.:
In other countries / times, he'd be shot at dawn as a traitor. But all it shows really is that
the USA does not really have a Gvmt. in the sense of a 'political structure of strong regulatory
importance with 'democratic' participation..' to keep it vague.. It has an elaborate public charade,
a kind of clumsy theatre play, that relies very heavily on the scripted MSM, on ritual, and various
distractions. Plus natch' very vicious control mechanisms at home.. another story.
Meanwhile, off stage, the actors participate and fight and ally in a whole other scene where
'disaster capitalism', 'rapine', 'mafia moves' and the worst impulses in human nature not only
bloom but are institutionalised and deployed world-wide! Covering all this up is getting increasingly
difficult -Trump presidency - one would hope US citizens no not for now.
The other two of course as well, I just find Petraeus emblematic, probably because of all the
BS about his mistress + he once mis-treated classified info or something like that, total irrelevance
spun by the media, which works.
"They will pay sooner or later for their crimes against the Syrians. Add Sarkozy, Cameron
and Holland to the list of criminals hiding under their position."
I humbly disagree, and they sincerely believe they are helping the Syrians (plus other states)
- freedom and democracy against the brutality of Dr. Assad. I believe all these murderers are
sincere doing god works and will all go to heaven. That is one of the reasons why I refuse to
go to heaven even if gods beg me. Fuck it!
My apologies if I offend you or anyone. It's about time we look carefully beside politic and
wealth, what religion does to a human?
b asked : "When will the FBI investigate Messrs Petraeus, Obama and Brennan? Duh, like never...
Most here understand this, I'm sure. The wealthy and the connected puppets never face justice,
for their crimes, committed in the service of their owners.
You can include ALL the POTUS's
and their minions, since the turn of the century. " It's just business, get over it."
6 Look for signs of instigating violent behavior. As children some sociopaths torture defenseless
people and animals. This violence is always instigating, and not defensive violence. They will
create drama out of thin air, or twist what others say. They will often overreact strongly
to minor offenses. If they are challenged or confronted about it, they will point the finger
the other way, counting on the empathic person's empathy and consideration of people to protect
them, as long as they can remain undetected. Their attempt to point the finger the other way,
is both a smokescreen to being detected, and an attempt to confuse the situation.
The link is a pretty good summary. It is easy to find more respectable psychological sources
for the disorder on the internet.
NYT never saw a war (rather an attack by the US, NATO, Israel, UK, on any defenseless nation)
that it did not support. Wiki uses the word "allegedly" in explaining the CIA and Operation Mockingbird.
It just isn't feasible that a secret government agency - gone rogue - with unlimited funding and
manpower could write/edit the news for six media owners with similar war-profiteering motives.
/s
" Here, evolution had hit on the sweetest of solutions. Such perceptions were guaranteed
to produce a faith-dependent species that believed itself to be thoroughly separate from the rest
of the animal kingdom, ...."
Interesting article, but stop reading years ago when struggled to raise a family, make a living
to survive. Debatable Is "sociopath" (Antisocial Personality Disorder) or the genes make humanly
so brutally? Very often hard to fathom the depth of human suffering be it USA, Syria or elsewhere.
Thanks sharing you thought.
What most of the msm and the echo chamber seem to be deliberately missing is all intentional.
The whole Assad must go meme is dead and buried. The western cabal has not acheived their regime
change in Syria. The Russian economy has not sunk to the bottom of the Black sea, the Russians
hacked into my fridge meme has all been debunked and is falling apart. The collusion of all anglo
antlantacist secret agency and governments to destabalize the ME has all come out with an ever
turbulant flow. Iran being the threat of the world ,debunked. Russia invading and hacking the
free world ,debunked.
Hence I expect that the western oligarchs along with their pressitute
and compromised politicians will be bying up alot of bleach. They will be whitewashing for the
next three months all semblance of anything related to their fraudulent existence.
Nurenberg 2, the Hague would be to soft for these vile criminals of humanity. Look how they
had to back track on the Milosevic conviction mind u post death.
Just another day in the office for these criminals of humanity. Gee can't wait until this petro-dollar
ponzi scheme crashes hopefully we can get back o being human again. The emperor has no clothes.
43 The whole Assad must go meme is dead and buried. The western cabal has not acheived their
regime change in Syria. The Russian economy has not sunk to the bottom of the Black sea, the
Russians hacked into my fridge meme has all been debunked and is falling apart. The collusion
of all anglo antlantacist secret agency and governments to destabalize the ME has all come
out with an ever turbulant flow. Iran being the threat of the world ,debunked. Russia invading
and hacking the free world,debunked.
Optimistic. Has Trump been instrumental in these? Perhaps. This would be a good reason for
Zionists to hate him. But how is it that Trump is such a bumbling idiot? Now the Senate has ratfcked
him with recess appointments. And he signed that stupid Russia Sanctions bill.
Seymour Hersh, in his 'Victoria NULAND moment' audio, states categorically BRENNAN conceived
and ran the 'Russian Hack' psyop after Seth RICH DNC leaks.
Was
Imran Awan a part of DNC private spying operation?
Notable quotes:
"... Now, the latest revelation comes via an exclusive report from The Daily Caller which suggests that Awan may have been fired only after Capitol Police discovered a "secret server" being housed by the House Democratic Caucus. ..."
"... Now-indicted former congressional IT aide Imran Awan allegedly routed data from numerous House Democrats to a secret server. Police grew suspicious and requested a copy of the server early this year, but they were provided with an elaborate falsified image designed to hide the massive violations . The falsified image is what ultimately triggered their ban from the House network Feb. 2, according to a senior House official with direct knowledge of the investigation. ..."
"... The secret server was connected to the House Democratic Caucus, an organization chaired by then-Rep. Xavier Becerra. Police informed Becerra that the server was the subject of an investigation and requested a copy of it. Authorities considered the false image they received to be interference in a criminal investigation, the senior official said. ..."
"... Data was also backed up to Dropbox in huge quantities, the official said. Congressional offices are prohibited from using Dropbox, so an unofficial account was used, meaning Awan could have still had access to the data even though he was banned from the congressional network. ..."
"... Awan had access to all emails and office computer files of 45 members of Congress who are listed below. Fear among members that Awan could release embarrassing information if they cooperated with prosecutors could explain why the Democrats have refused to acknowledge the cybersecurity breach publicly or criticize the suspects. ..."
"... "They were using the House Democratic Caucus as their central service warehouse. It was a breach. The data was completely out of [the members'] possession. Does it mean it was sold to the Russians? I don't know," the senior official said. ..."
"... Capitol Police considered the image a sign that the Awans knew exactly what they were doing and were going to great lengths to try to cover it up, the senior official said. The House Sergeant-at-Arms banned them from the network as a result. ..."
"... This all follows speculation that surfaced last week suggesting that even if the Awans were originally acting to protect/extort Debbie Wasserman Schultz, that may have all changed on April 6, 2017 when Imran seemingly led U.S. Capitol Police directly to her laptop. Per The Daily Caller: ..."
"... A laptop that Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz has frantically fought to keep prosecutors from examining may have been planted for police to find by her since-indicted staffer, Imran Awan, along with a letter to the U.S. Attorney. ..."
"... U.S. Capitol Police found the laptop after midnight April 6, 2017, in a tiny room that formerly served as a phone booth in the Rayburn House Office Building, according to a Capitol Police report reviewed by The Daily Caller News Foundation's Investigative Group. Alongside the laptop were a Pakistani ID card, copies of Awan's driver's license and congressional ID badge, and letters to the U.S. attorney. Police also found notes in a composition notebook marked "attorney-client privilege." ..."
"... I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if DWS weren't doing her own surveillance of the Democratic House Caucus, in cahoots with the whole Clinton cabal. ..."
"... The Hillary Clinton Democrats seem to have a fascination with, and profound ignorance of, computers. There's Hillary's homebrew server, which she had her flunkies set up because she wanted to keep using her Blackberry to access her e-mail. Then when the Sanders campaign started getting traction, DWS claimed falsely the Sanders people had hacked into the Clinton part of the DNC donor database. And meanwhile, there was all this going on with the Awans, who got their foot in the door with the Dems under Bob Wexler, and continued with DWS. ..."
"... DWS is pretty dumb. She's also vicious, very tenacious and doggedly loyal to Hillary. It strikes me as very likely she'd be the kind of person who would think it was clever to spy on her caucus, to find anyone insufficiently loyal the Hillary and punish them had Hillary become President. She'd be just dumb enough to want stuff covertly synched to a Dropbox account, not thinking it could all be traced back to her, or those under her control, easily. ..."
"... I suspect that your inclination to tie this to Clinton is due, in part, to the fact that a lawyer with ties to the Clintons, Christopher Gowenis, is representing Imran Awan. ..."
"... Supposedly 400,000 people work for intelligence agency contractors. No doubt many dual citizens and H1bs. The whole planet can access national security data ..."
"... A secret server! Ah! Everyone who deals with secured information with our government should have a secret server, so they can, you know, copy things to it. Perhaps Imran and Hina were using the secret server to write their book.."What Happened," ..."
"... Came upon sort of a Cliffs Notes version of the Awan saga. To get us up-to-date. https://steemit.com/awanbrothers/@v4vapid/the-awan-brothers-for-dummies-... ..."
Now, the latest revelation comes via an exclusive report from
The Daily Caller which suggests that Awan may have been fired only after Capitol Police discovered
a "secret server" being housed by the House Democratic Caucus.
A secret server is behind law enforcement's decision to ban a former IT aide to Democratic Rep.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz from the House network.
Now-indicted former congressional IT aide Imran Awan allegedly routed data from numerous House
Democrats to a secret server. Police grew suspicious and requested a copy of the server early this
year, but they were provided with an elaborate falsified image designed to hide the massive violations
. The falsified image is what ultimately triggered their ban from the House network Feb. 2, according
to a senior House official with direct knowledge of the investigation.
The secret server was connected to the House Democratic Caucus, an organization chaired by
then-Rep. Xavier Becerra. Police informed Becerra that the server was the subject of an investigation
and requested a copy of it. Authorities considered the false image they received to be interference
in a criminal investigation, the senior official said.
Data was also backed up to Dropbox in huge quantities, the official said. Congressional offices
are prohibited from using Dropbox, so an unofficial account was used, meaning Awan could have still
had access to the data even though he was banned from the congressional network.
Awan had access to all emails and office computer files of 45 members of Congress who are
listed below. Fear among members that Awan could release embarrassing information if they cooperated
with prosecutors could explain why the Democrats have refused to acknowledge the cybersecurity breach
publicly or criticize the suspects.
According to the DC, the "secret server" was discovered when California Congressman, and chair
of the House Democratic Caucus, Xavier Becerra asked to have his server wiped clean (you know, like
with a cloth) in advance of his departure to take his new seat as Attorney General of California.
On Jan. 24, 2017, Becerra vacated his congressional seat to become California's attorney general.
"He wanted to wipe his server, and we brought to his attention it was under investigation. The light-off
was we asked for an image of the server, and they deliberately turned over a fake server," the senior
official said.
"They were using the House Democratic Caucus as their central service warehouse. It was a
breach. The data was completely out of [the members'] possession. Does it mean it was sold to the
Russians? I don't know," the senior official said.
Capitol Police considered the image a sign that the Awans knew exactly what they were doing
and were going to great lengths to try to cover it up, the senior official said. The House Sergeant-at-Arms
banned them from the network as a result.
The senior official said the data was also funneled offsite via a Dropbox account, from which
copies could easily be downloaded. Authorities could not immediately shut down the account when the
Awans were banned from the network because it was not an official account.
"For members to say their data was not compromised is simply inaccurate. They had access to all
the data including all emails. Imran Awan is the walking example of an insider threat, a criminal
actor who had access to everything," the senior official said.
Meanwhile, these latest allegations come after Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ) appeared on Fox
News yesterday to share his prediction that the Awans could be working on a broader immunity deal
with prosecutors in return for a "significant" and "pretty disturbing" story about Debbie Wasserman
Schultz.
"I don't want to talk out of school here but I think you're going to see some revelations that
are going to be pretty profound. The fact that this wife is coming back from Pakistan and is willing
to face charges, as it were, I think there is a good chance she is going to reach some type of immunity
to tell a larger story here that is going to be pretty disturbing to the American people."
"I would just predict that this is going to be a very significant story and people should fasten
their seat belts on this one."
This all follows speculation that surfaced last week suggesting that even if the Awans were
originally acting to protect/extort Debbie Wasserman Schultz, that may have all changed on April
6, 2017 when Imran seemingly led U.S. Capitol Police directly to her laptop. Per
The Daily Caller:
A laptop that Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz has frantically fought to keep prosecutors from
examining may have been planted for police to find by her since-indicted staffer, Imran Awan, along
with a letter to the U.S. Attorney.
U.S. Capitol Police found the laptop after midnight April 6, 2017, in a tiny room that formerly
served as a phone booth in the Rayburn House Office Building, according to a Capitol Police report
reviewed by The Daily Caller News Foundation's Investigative Group. Alongside the laptop were a Pakistani
ID card, copies of Awan's driver's license and congressional ID badge, and letters to the U.S. attorney.
Police also found notes in a composition notebook marked "attorney-client privilege."
The laptop had the username "RepDWS," even though the Florida Democrat and former Democratic National
Committee chairman previously said it was Awan's computer and that she had never even seen it.
The laptop was found on the second floor of the Rayburn building -- a place Awan would have had
no reason to go because Wasserman Schultz's office is in the Longworth building and the other members
who employed him had fired him.
Of course, we're certain this is just more attempts to "criminalize behavior that is normal."
Does anyone believe that Imran was re-routing this much data onto a server and then synching
it to an unofficial Dropbox account and for this many congress people, that we know of to this
point, simply to hold onto it personal use/resale/blackmail? He and his associates -- were planted
there, albeit on different occasions, for a common purpose and as such I suspect that this leads
directly to a state actor(s).
I don't know about actual foreign espionage. But I wouldn't be the least bit surprised
if DWS weren't doing her own surveillance of the Democratic House Caucus, in cahoots with the
whole Clinton cabal.
The Hillary Clinton Democrats seem to have a fascination with, and profound ignorance of,
computers. There's Hillary's homebrew server, which she had her flunkies set up because she wanted
to keep using her Blackberry to access her e-mail. Then when the Sanders campaign started getting
traction, DWS claimed falsely the Sanders people had hacked into the Clinton part of the DNC donor
database. And meanwhile, there was all this going on with the Awans, who got their foot in the
door with the Dems under Bob Wexler, and continued with DWS.
DWS is pretty dumb. She's also vicious, very tenacious and doggedly loyal to Hillary. It
strikes me as very likely she'd be the kind of person who would think it was clever to spy on
her caucus, to find anyone insufficiently loyal the Hillary and punish them had Hillary become
President. She'd be just dumb enough to want stuff covertly synched to a Dropbox account, not
thinking it could all be traced back to her, or those under her control, easily.
I suspect that your inclination to tie this to Clinton is due, in part, to the fact that
a lawyer with ties to the Clintons, Christopher Gowenis, is representing Imran Awan.
For me, however, it is the fact that they specifically chose members of the House Permanent
Select Committee and House Committee on Foreign Affairs, which deal primarily in foreign and intelligence
matters, along with the fact that these perpetrators were all foreign nationals with ties to foreign
intelligence services that leads me to suspect foreign involvement in this matter. As you recall
Clinton's MO is domestic agents -- who can be controlled and/or disposed of with relative ease-of-reach.
BTW, nice to finally have a direct dialogue with you; I've enjoyed your personal stories involving
work and your family. It seems you did a great job rasing your children even though exposing them
through the public school system in or near the inner-city -- no easy feat for sure.
Of course George Webb has been the stalwart in this endeavor!
That's what George said. I think he is a Mossad agent. He admitted his people were Jewish people,
but now he claims he is Cherokee. He has far to many investigative and communication skills to
be an ex-college-basketball-star, even if he is very tall.
Whatever can and is often said of George, nothing will change the fact that without his (and
whose ever else's) involvement in this investigation it would probably have been set aside and
buried after some initial fanfare.
It could be done. I have scripts that can savage a laptop for the files I want and dump them
anywhere I specify as a destination for the dump. Awan could have used something similar, then
reversed the process at night to dump from Dropbox to local storage at his house. The kind of
taxpayer money they were throwing around, I'm sure they have tip top bandwidth to dump all kinds
of shit wherever they wanted.
Needless to say, the NSA will have copies of said data in due part of their own network re-routing...
Someone awaken Jeff Sessions investigations are abound and screaming for attention...no, not the
pot-head ones.
Shit...do we even HAVE a functional Republic anylonger? This crap gives life to the Keystone
Kops...how many effin' "intelligence" agencies are we paying salaries on? 16-17 ? WTF? And yet
start a 501C3 devoted to limited government and Lois Lerner will find and prove the lemonade stand
on the street corner you started in 6th grade still has outstanding health department violations
and unpaid taxes...due with penalty.
Supposedly 400,000 people work for intelligence agency contractors. No doubt many dual
citizens and H1bs. The whole planet can access national security data
You always need to have a second cleaner to clean up the mess left by the first one. Then a
third. Then a fourth. There is no end to it. That is why the Dems are feeling so cornered these
days. EVERYTHING is going to come out at some point. The ones who aren't deep in Trump derangement
syndrome can see it, and are trying to salvage the situation. Luckily, those are few and far between.
This is what happens when a rule of lies begins unravelling Just happens to coincide with the
Propaganda Mechanism failing Would they be bastards of the same Soros/Satan Cabal?
A secret server! Ah! Everyone who deals with secured information with our government should
have a secret server, so they can, you know, copy things to it. Perhaps Imran and Hina were using
the secret server to write their book.."What Happened," or in Urdu: Wh (*&^(*&^&.
No shit. Nothing will come of this. I'd have more confidence in an investigation run from Pakistan.
I've been watching things like this my entire adult life and it's just not interesting anymore.
Too bad eunuch Sessions has decided that the rule of law in the USA does not apply to politicians
or to their staff maggots. Be great to see the new Cally AG Becerra indicted for a major felony...
but that should have happened to Hillary long ago... her crimes are legion.
The key problem with the "official" story of DNS hack is the role of Crowdstrike and
strangely coincident murder of Seth Rich. Que bono analysis here might also help: the
main beneficiary of "Russian hack" story was Hillary camp as it allowed them to put a smoke screen
shadowing allegation that they nefariously has thrown Sanders under the bus. A very serious
allegation which has substantial supporting evidence. In a way they were fighting for their
lives. Also Imran Awan
story is omitted from the official narrative. Was not this another proved large scale hacking case?
They also have a motive and opportunity in DNC case.
Notable quotes:
"... The reason Assange keeps saying that Russia wasn't involved is because Russia wasn't involved. There's nothing more to it than that. ..."
"... As for the other eyewitness, Craig Murray, he has also flatly denied that Russia provided WikiLeaks with the DNC emails. ..."
"... He claims he had a clandestine hand-off near American University with one of the email sources. Murray said the leakers' motivation was 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the 'tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders' ..."
"... Murray says: 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks'. 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that,' Murray insists." . ..."
"... Murray said he was speaking out due to claims from intelligence officials that Wikileaks was given the documents by Russian hackers as part of an effort to help Donald Trump win the U.S. presidential election. ..."
"... 'I don't understand why the CIA would say the information came from Russian hackers when they must know that isn't true,' he said. 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that." ..."
"... Is Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and human rights activist, a credible witness? There's one way to find out, isn't there? The FBI should interview Murray so they can establish whether he's telling the truth or not. And, naturally, one would assume that the FBI has already done that since the Russia hacking story has been splashed across the headlines for more than a year now. ..."
"... But that's not the case at all. The FBI has never questioned Assange or Murray, in fact, the FBI has never even tried to get in touch with either of them. Never. Not even a lousy phone call. It's like they don't exist. Why? Why hasn't the FBI contacted or questioned the only two witnesses in the case? ..."
"... Could it be because Assange and Murray's knowledge of the facts doesn't coincide with the skewed political narrative the Intel agencies and their co-collaborators at the DNC what to propagate? Isn't that what's really going on? Isn't Russia-gate really just a stick for beating Russia and Trump? How else would one explain this stubborn unwillingness of the FBI to investigate what one senator called "The crime of the century"? ..."
"... "It is no secret that NSA has the technology to trace a web event, e.g., a cyber attack, back to its source. There has been no public claim, nor is it implied in either Grizzly Steppe or the ICA that the NSA has trace routing to Russia on any of these purported Russian hacks." ("The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge", Skip Folden) ..."
"... What the author is saying is that: If Russia hacked the DNC computers, the NSA would know about it. It's that simple. ..."
"... But no one at the NSA has ever verified the claims or produced one scintilla of evidence that connects Russia to the emails. In fact, the NSA has never even suggested that such evidence exists. Nor has anyone in the media asked Director Michael Rogers point blank whether the NSA has hard evidence that Russia hacked the DNC servers? ..."
"... The only logical explanation is that there's no proof that Russia was actually involved. Why else would the NSA withhold evidence on a matter this serious? It makes no sense. ..."
"... "The FBI, having asked multiple times at different levels, was refused access to the DNC server(s). It is not apparent that any law enforcement agency had access. ..."
"... 4. Not the FBI, CIA, nor NSA organizations analyzed the information from Crowdstrike. Only picked analysts of these agencies were chosen to see this data and write the ICA ." ..."
"... The DNC computers are Exhibit A. The FBI has to have those computers, and they are certainly within their rights to seize them by any means necessary. So why haven't they? Does the FBI think they can trust the second-hand analysis from some flunkey organization whose dubious background casts serious doubt on their conclusions? ..."
"... It's a joke! The only rational explanation for the FBI's behavior, is that they've been told to "stand down" so they don't unwittingly expose the truth about what's really going on, that the whole Russia hacking fiction is a complete and utter fraud, and that the DNC, the CIA and the media are all having a good laugh at the expense of the clueless American people. ..."
"... "Adam Carter: the FBI do not have disk images from any point during or following the alleged email hack. CrowdStrike's failure to produce evidence. – With Falcon installed between April and May (early May), they should have had evidence on when files/emails/etc were copied or sent. – That information has never been disclosed." ..."
"... What people want is proof that Russia hacked the DNC servers or that Trump cozied up to Russia to win the election. Nothing else matters. All these diversions prove is that, after one full year of nonstop, headline sensationalism, the investigation has produced nothing; a big, fat goose-egg. ..."
"... Remember the January 6, Intelligence Community Assessment? The ICA report was supposed to provide iron-clad proof that Russia hacked Democratic emails and published them at WikiLeaks. The media endlessly reiterated the claim that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies took part in the assessment and that it's conclusions represented the collective, objective analysis of America's finest. ..."
"... Right. The whole thing was a fraud. As it happens, only four of the agencies participated in the project (the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.) and the agents who provided the analysis were hand-picked for the task. Naturally, when a director hand-picks particular analysts for a given assignment, one assumes that they want a particular outcome. Which they did. Clearly, in this case, the intelligence was tailored to fit the policy. The intention was to vilify Russia in order to further isolate a country that was gradually emerging as a global rival. ..."
"... Lastly, Folden's report sheds light on the technical inconsistencies of the hacking allegations. Cyber-forensic experts have now shown that "The alleged "hack" was effectively impossible in mid-2016. The required download speed of the "hack" precludes an internet transfer of any significant distance." In other words, the speed at which the emails were transferred could only have taken place if they were "Downloaded onto external storage, e.g., 2.0 thumb drive." (The report also provides evidence that the transfers took place in the Eastern time zone, which refutes the theory that the servers were hacked from Romania.) ..."
"... "There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee's system on July 5 last year!not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak!a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC's system." ("A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year's DNC Hack", Patrick Lawrence, The Nation) ..."
"... Read the whole report here: " Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge ", Skip Folden, Word Press. ..."
A new report by a retired IT executive at IBM, debunks the claim that Russia interfered in the
2016 presidential campaign by hacking Democratic computers and circulating damaging information about
Hillary Clinton. The report, which is titled "
The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian
Hacking Charge ", provides a rigorous examination of the wobbly allegations upon which the hacking
theory is based, as well as a point by point rejection of the primary claims which, in the final
analysis, fail to pass the smell test. While the report is worth reading in full, our intention is
to zero-in on the parts of the text that disprove the claims that Russia meddled in US elections
or hacked the servers at the DNC.
Let's start with the fact that there are at least two credible witnesses who claim to know who
took the DNC emails and transferred them to WikiLeaks. We're talking about WikiLeaks founder Julian
Assange and WikiLeaks ally, Craig Murray. No one is in a better position to know who actually took
the emails than Assange, and yet, Assange has repeatedly said that Russia was not the source. Check
out this clip from the report:
Assange has been adamant all along that the Russian government was not a source; it was a
non-state player.
ASSANGE: Our source is not a state party
HANNITY (Conservative talk show host): Can you say to the American people unequivocally that
you did not get this information about the DNC, John Podesta's emails -- can you tell the American
people 1,000 percent you did not get it from Russia
ASSANGE: Yes.
HANNITY: or anybody associated with Russia?
ASSANGE: We -- we can say and we have said repeatedly over the last two months, that our source
is not the Russian government and it is not a state party
("The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge", Skip Folden)
Can you think of a more credible witness than Julian Assange? The man has devoted his entire adult
life to exposing the truth about government despite the risks his actions pose to his own personal
safety. In fact, he is currently holed up at the Ecuador embassy in London for defending the public's
right to know what their government is up to. Does anyone seriously think that a man like that would
deliberately lie just to protect Russia's reputation?
No, of course not, and the new report backs him up on this matter. It states: "No where in the
Intelligence Community's Assessment (ICA) was there any evidence of any connection between Russia
and WikiLeaks." The reason Assange keeps saying that Russia wasn't involved is because Russia wasn't
involved. There's nothing more to it than that.
As for the other eyewitness, Craig Murray, he has also flatly denied that Russia provided WikiLeaks
with the DNC emails. Check out this except from an article at The Daily Mail:
(Murray) "flew to Washington, D.C. for emails. He claims he had a clandestine hand-off near
American University with one of the email sources. Murray said the leakers' motivation was 'disgust
at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the 'tilting of the primary election playing field
against Bernie Sanders'
Murray says: 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside
leaks, not hacks'. 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks
published did not come from that,' Murray insists." .
Murray said he was speaking out due to claims from intelligence officials that Wikileaks was
given the documents by Russian hackers as part of an effort to help Donald Trump win the U.S.
presidential election.
'I don't understand why the CIA would say the information came from Russian hackers when they
must know that isn't true,' he said. 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC,
the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that."
(EXCLUSIVE: Ex-British ambassador who is now a WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide
Clinton emails", Daily Mail)
Is Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and human rights activist, a credible
witness? There's one way to find out, isn't there? The FBI should interview Murray so they can establish
whether he's telling the truth or not. And, naturally, one would assume that the FBI has already
done that since the Russia hacking story has been splashed across the headlines for more than a year
now.
But that's not the case at all. The FBI has never questioned Assange or Murray, in fact, the FBI
has never even tried to get in touch with either of them. Never. Not even a lousy phone call. It's
like they don't exist. Why? Why hasn't the FBI contacted or questioned the only two witnesses in the case?
Could it be because Assange and Murray's knowledge of the facts doesn't coincide with the skewed
political narrative the Intel agencies and their co-collaborators at the DNC what to propagate? Isn't
that what's really going on? Isn't Russia-gate really just a stick for beating Russia and Trump?
How else would one explain this stubborn unwillingness of the FBI to investigate what one senator
called "The crime of the century"?
Here's something else from the report that's worth mulling over:
"It is no secret that NSA has the technology to trace a web event, e.g., a cyber attack, back
to its source. There has been no public claim, nor is it implied in either Grizzly Steppe or the
ICA that the NSA has trace routing to Russia on any of these purported Russian hacks." ("The Non-Existent
Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge", Skip Folden)
This is a crucial point, so let's rephrase that in simple English. What the author is saying is
that: If Russia hacked the DNC computers, the NSA would know about it. It's that simple.
But no one at the NSA has ever verified the claims or produced one scintilla of evidence that
connects Russia to the emails. In fact, the NSA has never even suggested that such evidence exists.
Nor has anyone in the media asked Director Michael Rogers point blank whether the NSA has hard evidence
that Russia hacked the DNC servers?
Why? Why this conspiracy of silence on a matter that is so fundamental to the case that the NSA
and the other Intel agencies are trying to make?
The only logical explanation is that there's no proof that Russia was actually involved. Why
else would the NSA withhold evidence on a matter this serious? It makes no sense.
According to the media, Intelligence agents familiar with the matter have "high confidence' that
Russia was involved.
Okay, but where's the proof? You can't expect to build a case against a foreign government and
a sitting president with just "high confidence". You need facts, evidence, proof. Where's the beef?
We already mentioned how the FBI never bothered to question the only eyewitnesses in the case.
That's odd enough, but what's even stranger is the fact that the FBI never seized the DNC's servers
so they could conduct a forensic examination of them. What's that all about? Here's an excerpt from
the report:
"The FBI, having asked multiple times at different levels, was refused access to the DNC
server(s). It is not apparent that any law enforcement agency had access.
The apparent single source of information on the purported DNC intrusion(s) was from Crowdstrike.
3. Crowdstrike is a cyber security firm hired by the Democratic Party.
4. Not the FBI, CIA, nor NSA organizations analyzed the information from Crowdstrike. Only
picked analysts of these agencies were chosen to see this data and write the ICA ."
( "The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge)
Have you ever read anything more ridiculous in your life? The FBI's negligence in this case goes
beyond anything I've ever seen before. Imagine if a murder was committed in the apartment next to
you and the FBI was called in to investigate. But when they arrive at the scene of the crime, they're
blocked at the door by the victim's roommate who refuses to let them in. Speaking through the door,
the roommate assures the agents that the victim was shot dead with a single bullet to the head, and
that the smoking gun that was used in the murder is still on the floor. But "don't worry", says the
obstructing roommate, "I've already photographed the whole thing and I'll send you the pictures as
soon as I get the chance."
Do you really think the agents would put up with such nonsense?
Never! They'd kick down the door, slap the roommate in handcuffs, cordon-off the murder scene,
and start digging-around for clues. That's what they'd do. And yet we are supposed to believe that
in the biggest case of the decade, a case that that allegedly involves foreign espionage and presidential
treason, that the FBI has made no serious effort to secure the servers that were allegedly hacked
by Russia?
The DNC computers are Exhibit A. The FBI has to have those computers, and they are certainly within
their rights to seize them by any means necessary. So why haven't they? Does the FBI think they can
trust the second-hand analysis from some flunkey organization whose dubious background casts serious
doubt on their conclusions?
It's a joke! The only rational explanation for the FBI's behavior, is that they've been told to
"stand down" so they don't unwittingly expose the truth about what's really going on, that the whole
Russia hacking fiction is a complete and utter fraud, and that the DNC, the CIA and the media are
all having a good laugh at the expense of the clueless American people.
Here's another interesting clip from the report:
"Adam Carter: the FBI do not have disk images from any point during or following the alleged
email hack. CrowdStrike's failure to produce evidence. – With Falcon installed between April and
May (early May), they should have had evidence on when files/emails/etc were copied or sent. –
That information has never been disclosed."
("The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge", Skip Folden)
Read that excerpt over again. It's mind boggling. What Carter is saying is that, they have nothing,
no evidence, no proof, no nothing. If you don't have a disk image, then what do you have?
You have nothing, that's what. Which means that everything we've read is 100 percent conjecture,
not a shred of evidence anywhere. Which is why the focus has shifted to Manafort, Flynn, Trump Jr
and the goofy Russian lawyer?
Who gives a rip about Manafort? Seriously? The investigation started off with grave allegations
of foreign espionage and presidential collusion (treason?) and quickly downshifted to the illicit
financial dealings of someone the American people could care less about. Talk about mission creep!
What people want is proof that Russia hacked the DNC servers or that Trump cozied up to Russia
to win the election. Nothing else matters. All these diversions prove is that, after one full year
of nonstop, headline sensationalism, the investigation has produced nothing; a big, fat goose-egg.
A few words about the ICA Report
Remember the January 6, Intelligence Community Assessment? The ICA report was supposed to
provide iron-clad proof that Russia hacked Democratic emails and published them at WikiLeaks. The
media endlessly reiterated the claim that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies took part in the assessment
and that it's conclusions represented the collective, objective analysis of America's finest.
Right. The whole thing was a fraud. As it happens, only four of the agencies participated
in the project (the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.)
and the agents who provided the analysis were hand-picked for the task. Naturally, when a director
hand-picks particular analysts for a given assignment, one assumes that they want a particular outcome.
Which they did. Clearly, in this case, the intelligence was tailored to fit the policy. The intention
was to vilify Russia in order to further isolate a country that was gradually emerging as a global
rival. And the report was moderately successful in that regard too, except for one paradoxical
disclaimer that appeared on page 13. Here it is:
"Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact.
Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well
as logic, argumentation, and precedents."
What the authors are saying is that, 'Everything you read in this report could be complete baloney
because it's all based on conjecture, speculation and guesswork.'
Isn't that what they're saying? Why would anyone waste their time reading a report when the authors
openly admit that their grasp of what happened is "incomplete or fragmentary" and they have no "proof"
of anything?
Gregory Copley, President, International Strategic Studies Association (ISSA) summed it up best
when he said: "This is a highly politically motivated and a subjective report which was issued by
the intelligence community. does not present evidence of successful or even an attempt to actually
actively manipulate the election process."
Like we said, it's all baloney.
Lastly, Folden's report sheds light on the technical inconsistencies of the hacking allegations.
Cyber-forensic experts have now shown that "The alleged "hack" was effectively impossible in mid-2016.
The required download speed of the "hack" precludes an internet transfer of any significant distance."
In other words, the speed at which the emails were transferred could only have taken place if they
were "Downloaded onto external storage, e.g., 2.0 thumb drive." (The report also provides evidence
that the transfers took place in the Eastern time zone, which refutes the theory that the servers
were hacked from Romania.)
The Nation summed it up perfectly in this brief paragraph:
"There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee's system on July 5 last year!not
by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak!a download executed
locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside
job by someone with access to the DNC's system." ("A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last
Year's DNC Hack", Patrick Lawrence, The Nation)
Bingo.
Bottom line: A dedicated group of independent researchers and former Intel agents joined forces
and produced the first hard evidence that "the official narrative implicating Russia" is wrong. This
is a stunning development that will, in time, cut through the fog of government propaganda and reveal
the truth. Skip Folden's report is an important contribution to that same effort.
In related news, Craig Murray is now being sued for libel in the UK over specious accusations
stemming from the Jeremy Corbyn 'anti-Semitism' scandal. Murry writes:
I am being sued for libel in the High Court in England by Jake Wallis Simons, Associate
Editor of the Daily Mail Online. Mr Wallis Simons is demanding £40,000 in damages and the High
Court has approved over £100,000 in costs for Mark Lewis, Mr Wallis Simons' lawyer. I may become
liable for all of this should I lose the case, and furthermore I have no money to pay for my
defence. I am currently a defendant in person. This case has the potential to bankrupt me and
blight the lives of my wife and children. I have specifically been threatened by Mr Lewis with
bankruptcy.
Britain is notorious for having libel laws with a reversed burden of proof , meaning
that the defendant (in this case, Murray) must prove himself innocent! Some shady plaintiffs,
when jurisdiction-shopping for a libel case, have been known to try and file libel charges in
Britain for this very reason.
The ICA report was a joke to anyone with rudimentary internet skills. It had a page of infographics
featuring the iconic hacker-in-a-hoodie, a short list of perps ("hairyBear69″ etc etc) and the
rest of it looked like a generic corporate PowerPoint on good cyber security practices. The media
of course acted like it was all damning evidence of collusion.
Reading Unz Review you will be better off replacing the word "Jew" with the term "the member
of financial oligarchy". That's also will be more correct as tribal interests of financial oligarchy
are the same as attributed to Jews in Protocols of Zion Elders...
The media endlessly reiterated the claim that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies took part
in the assessment and that it's (sic) conclusions represented the collective, objective analysis
of America's finest.
Well, at the time, I, and probably most other people of moderate intelligence, said: "It is
highly unlikely that all seventeen intelligence agencies have carried out independent investigations
and come to identical conclusions without any of them being able to produce hard evidence. So
this can safely be dismissed as bullshit."
People are not stupid, just like almost no one believed in Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.
Apparently Colin Powell and Hillary Clinton were the only people who were fooled. And Hillary
Clinton also believed that she came under fire in Serbia, having been sent as First Lady to a
place where it was too dangerous for the President to go, even though he had been there in person
only a few months earlier.
The only rational explanation for the FBI's behavior, is that they've been told to "stand
down" so they don't unwittingly expose the truth about what's really going on, that the whole
Russia hacking fiction is a complete and utter fraud, and that the DNC, the CIA and the media
are all having a good laugh at the expense of the clueless American people.
I'm not sure that the FBI and CIA operatives are having a good laugh. To some extent they ARE
the American people, and will have some basic ideas of justice and honesty. Their political masters
can bribe and coerce them but there are limits to the efficiency of a (US) system run on fear
and greed.
Despite the massive amount of evidence exposing the fraudulent nature of the story the media
keeps going along based on the assumption that the lies are facts. Many if not most of those who
consume the media propaganda continue to believe this crap. It is a sort of 21st century iteration
of Goebbels propaganda but with the risk of nuclear war.
Until recently, people believed. They believed in The System (and the System's Narrative) more
fervently than did their 14th Century European ancestors believe in Christianity.
They believed we could all get rich by Government and corporations issuing more and more and
more debt. They believed that a promise to pay future cash flows, from Social Security or a Teacher's
Pension or a Treasury Bond maturing, it was ALL as certain as if the money was already sitting
on a table in front of their eyes.
Every institution in the West is being destroyed from within by the very people who staff it
and who count on it for financial income. Those working in The News make stuff up out of whole
cloth, apparently believing that a public that sees their output as fiction will continue to fund
the channel that accrues to their paycheck. The same holds true of FB and social media. Government
officials can't keep their lies straight anymore, and everywhere we look we see a wave of awakening,
as members of the public each come to reframe that which they can see.
We are past apogee on the wave of pathological trust. The path ahead is of growing distrust,
and while healthy in part, it will likely overshoot a better place by as much on the downside
as it trust overshot wisdom on the upside.
View everything with distrust and suspicion; by doing so now, you'll be the rush.
It's exasperating but the strategy from the beginning has been psychological, not evidence-based,
and it has been working.
All they have to do is keep repeating the three words Russia, Trump, and Hacking in close proximity
to one another. They got the vast majority of people to believe Saddam Hussein did 9/11. I visit
my mother in a retirement home and the mainstream television media has them completely in their
grip.
I occasionally check in with the nauseating mainstream press or talking head shows, and watched
a gaggle of clowns devolve into a shouting match over Trump/Russia. It was perfectly choreographed
to make sure no coherent sentence, no complete thought was ever uttered. It was just noise – which
is what the CIA is paying for and the producers are serving up.
In the meantime the Awan spy ring in Congress is being investigated by citizen journalists
and studiously ignored by both Congress and the media. Does that tell you anything? They're mostly
either safely blackmailed or paid off. The FBI can't find a crime being committed right in front
of them in broad daylight so long as the criminal is helping out the country with weapons deliveries
to Al Qaeda and ISIS, opium from Afghanistan, and other charitable efforts.
Whilst I share the view there is no credible evidence of this "Russian hacking", this article
does not provide any evidence against. How is Assange a witness? Did the leaker/hacker walk into
the Ecuadorian embassy in London and hand it to him? No, no doubt he thinks that because that
is what Murray told him. Now Murray could be lying, or he could have been fooled: if indeed it
was Russia behind the hacks, they could have hired anyone / used any asset to deliver the goods
to Murray.
"There is no credible doubt that Russia attacked our election infrastructure in 2016," said
Gillibrand. "We need a public accounting of how they were able to do it so effectively, and
how we can protect our country when Russia or any other nation tries to attack us again. The
clock is ticking before our next election, and these questions are urgent. We need to be able
to defend ourselves against threats to our elections, our democracy, and our sacred right to
vote. I am proud to introduce this bipartisan legislation to create a 9/11-style Commission
to defend our democracy and protect ourselves against future attacks on our country."
Lying and not realising you created the problem in the first place (Closed-source Diebold QUALITY
machines etc.)
@CalDre Whilst I share the view there is no credible evidence of this "Russian hacking", this
article does not provide any evidence against. How is Assange a witness? Did the leaker/hacker
walk into the Ecuadorian embassy in London and hand it to him? No, no doubt he thinks that because
that is what Murray told him. Now Murray could be lying, or he could have been fooled: if indeed
it was Russia behind the hacks, they could have hired anyone / used any asset to deliver the goods
to Murray.
This just doesn't advance the ball one iota.
Whilst I share the view there is no credible evidence of this "Russian hacking", this article
does not provide any evidence against.
Oh? You want us to reverse the burden of proof, do you? Look, I don't know what country you
come from, but in the US, a man is always innocent until proven guilty.
Now Murray could be lying, or he could have been fooled: if indeed it was Russia behind
the hacks, they could have hired anyone / used any asset to deliver the goods to Murray.
Like Seth Rich, for example? Now that would be an elaborate plot!
@El Dato I can't remember hearing much about Sibel Edmond's revelations either recently.
That story disappeared faster than Oswald exiting a bookstore.
At least she's still alive. So true, El Dato. Even after the 29 pages came out and pointed
to Saudi Arabian involvement like suspected, it was just dropped.
Or any number of other ghastly acts like Fast and Furious, the IRS and other organs of government
being used to harass and suppress. We overthrew Ukraine and the mockingbird media made it sound
like it was a Russian invasion, the story could not have been more backwards.
It's the Church Committee, Iran-Contra, and the Rosenberg's except bigger. Judicial Watch keeps
digging out pay-to-play emails. A person would have to be brain dead not to see Comey obstructed
investigations and let them destroy evidence. It is clear Congressmen are implicated directly,
both parties, Clinton and McCain represent all the worst of our corruption. Aiding Al Qaeda and
ISIS.
We have whole shipping containers at a time going to and fro from our ports under diplomatic
immunity. Talk about a grotesque corruption of the diplomatic "pouch" immunity. The USSR did its
industrial and defense espionage through diplomatic immunity, read Major Jordan's Diaries on the
ratline through Alaska via the Lend-Lease program. But now instead of brief cases, it is international
shipping containers.
Whilst I share the view there is no credible evidence of this "Russian hacking", this article
does not provide any evidence against.
Oh? You want us to reverse the burden of proof, do you? Look, I don't know what country you come
from, but in the US, a man is always innocent until proven guilty.
Now Murray could be lying, or he could have been fooled: if indeed it was Russia behind the
hacks, they could have hired anyone / used any asset to deliver the goods to Murray.
Like Seth Rich, for example? Now that would be an elaborate plot!
You want us to reverse the burden of proof
First, I never claimed that. It was the author's claim that he was "disproving" it. Second,
it's not reversing the burden of proof – in a trial both sides submit evidence. The "burden of
proof" only indicates who will win if there is no evidence at all. Once the part with the burden
of proof submits evidence, it is up to the other side to disprove it.
Like Seth Rich, for example? Now that would be an elaborate plot!
Has Murray, who allegedly met the leaker, ever claimed it was Seth Rich? Craig isn't dead,
you know.
in 1947 the national security act was passed which meant politicians can lie to the
American
public as long as the lie is to protect national security. everything is a national security issue
now. Not that politicians weren't liars before the act. but today they have cover. Remember james clapper's lies on tv?
But he also lied to congress. Congress has no balls or they would have prosecuted him. they have
given up their power, of which they have much. particularly when it comes to war. congress declares
it; congress funds it; congress can end it. The bums we elect just know to do one thing – hold out their hands.
I'm not even a close follower of the "Russian hacking" theory, or whatever the hell it is,
but as an ordinary, thinking human being, I find the explanation that a disgruntled Seth Rich
(?) leaked those e-mails much more parsimonious than a bunch of Ivans messing about in the DNC's
skivvies.
@JackOH I'm not even a close follower of the "Russian hacking" theory, or whatever the hell
it is, but as an ordinary, thinking human being, I find the explanation that a disgruntled Seth
Rich (?) leaked those e-mails much more parsimonious than a bunch of Ivans messing about in the
DNC's skivvies. Absolutely, Seth Rich, a leftist Jew who supported Bernie Sanders, a leftist Jew,
being disgusted by the conspiring at the DNC to screw Sanders makes perfect sense.
Except Craig Murray has never claimed (or AFAIK denied) that it was Seth. One could understand
him not revealing it since Wikileaks promises anonymity, and they need to keep that promise even
posthumous to be effective.
Only chance of getting at that truth is if Seth's family authorizes Wikileaks to claim or disclaim
Seth as the source (if they would honor such a request is another issue), but they won't do that
because they are Democrat loyalists and would rather their son's death go unsolved than implicate
the Democrats in a huge scandal. Seth's family actually disgusts me.
First, I never claimed that. It was the author's claim that he was "disproving" it. Second, it's
not reversing the burden of proof - in a trial both sides submit evidence. The "burden of proof"
only indicates who will win if there is no evidence at all. Once the part with the burden of proof
submits evidence, it is up to the other side to disprove it.
Like Seth Rich, for example? Now that would be an elaborate plot!
Has Murray, who allegedly met the leaker, ever claimed it was Seth Rich? Craig isn't dead, you
know.
First, I never claimed that. It was the author's claim that he was "disproving" it.
In a technical sense, you are right. Whitney did once above use (or misuse, actually) the word
'disprove' to mean that the other side had failed to prove it's case. But in our legal system,
simply showing that the prosecution has failed to prove it's case is quite sufficient to get your
man acquitted. You don't have to have proof positive of your man's innocence, so long as the prosecution
has no proof of his guilt. Why? Because the burden of proof rests with the prosecution. Whitney's
semantic gaffe here doesn't change that fundamental fact.
Has Murray, who allegedly met the leaker, ever claimed it was Seth Rich? Craig isn't dead,
you know.
He confirmed having met the leaker in person inside the US, though it's true he never mentions
Rich by name. Wikileaks strives to protect the anonymity of their sources wherever possible. However–and
rather tellingly–Assange did offer a cash reward for information leading the arrest of Rich's
murderer(s). Again, Assange did not come out and say plainly that Rich was the source, but it's
hard to imagine him offering a reward for just anybody out there in world with no connection to
Wikileaks whatsoever.
And while Craig Murray may still be alive, as I pointed out above in comment #1, he is now
facing a potentially ruinous trial in Britain. A bit like the mysterious Swedish rape allegations
against Assange, one could argue that this is all just some remarkably timed coincidence; but
then again, it could just as well be the system's way of signalling its displeasure with Murray
for cooperating with Wikileaks.
Microchip, a Twitter user who uses several different accounts and is routinely banned from
the site, told POLITICO the pro-Trump rooms help him spread racist and otherwise controversial
material. His dual aims are to prod the left and entice the media into covering the latest
online controversy he helped stoke.
Microchip said he started several rooms in November 2015. A handful of people in other rooms
confirmed that he was an "early player." But he has been blocked from many rooms because of
his "wild claims," one said, as well as anti-Semitic and inflammatory remarks.
[...] But Microchip, who described himself as an "atheist liberal that just hates immigration"
and transgender people, has open contempt for most of Trump's base.
"Conservatives are generally morons," he said. "It's like herding cats."
He's just as frank about what he's peddling to Trump supporters.
"You know how I know they're spreading lies?" Microchip asked one die-hard this week. "Because
I do the same thing, it's fake news and spin."
[...]
Lotan said Microchip's claims explain the link between the boomer generation in the mainstream
rooms and the younger meme producers on 4chan and reddit.
"The boomers are there, thirsty for ammunition. And 4chan is so good at generating ammunition,"
Lotan said. "But the boomers will not go to 4chan."
People in the mainstream pro-Trump rooms said Microchip had not been active there for many
months. In turn, Microchip said he maintains pseudonymous accounts to hide his identity
from "brain dead" Trump supporters.
@CalDre Absolutely, Seth Rich, a leftist Jew who supported Bernie Sanders, a leftist Jew,
being disgusted by the conspiring at the DNC to screw Sanders makes perfect sense.
Except Craig Murray has never claimed (or AFAIK denied) that it was Seth. One could understand
him not revealing it since Wikileaks promises anonymity, and they need to keep that promise even
posthumous to be effective.
Only chance of getting at that truth is if Seth's family authorizes Wikileaks to claim or disclaim
Seth as the source (if they would honor such a request is another issue), but they won't do that
because they are Democrat loyalists and would rather their son's death go unsolved than implicate
the Democrats in a huge scandal. Seth's family actually disgusts me. CalDre, thanks. This whole
story stinks badly, and the "Russian hack" blather put out on the TV blab shows by Washington
gamesmen just seems to me self-serving careerism.
We're asked to believe that Russian intelligence has gathered damaging information on Hillary
Clinton, then the front-runner among Democrat candidates, by hacking the DNC's computers. Then,
instead of reserving this information to blackmail a future President Hillary Clinton, they turn
the information over to Julian Assange. Why in hell would I, i. e ., Russian intelligence,
squander good leverage over President Hillary? Are we expected to believe Russian intelligence
actually thought it could swing an election by using Assange as a sort of sub-contractor?
Seth Rich, on the other hand, is an idealistic, low-level guy who has a strong motive to hurt
the organization that's betrayed him.
As I mentioned, my knowledge of the story is pretty superficial, but it really does seem to
me a pile of horse dung.
Even if Russia tried to interfere in USA elections, what is it in comparison with the CIA organising
the murder of Allende, or Soros trying to change Hungarian law ?
This is great news. The fraudulent stories about Russia and Trump are great news. The other
deep state and shadow government false propaganda are great news. This is because the level of
this false propaganda is so low, so poor, so unbelievable, that sane people wake up and withdraw
any allegiance to the sources of this misinformation. It is great news, because many of the politically
insane citizens are becoming sane due to the misinformation being so obviously a pack of lies,
that even they have to think differently.
By the way, Great Article!
@Seamus Padraig Forgive me if I am out of date but to say that there is a reverse burden of
proof in libel cases in Britain (sic – Scotland too?) is BS according to my recollection. (I set
aside the possibility that you S P are confusing a civil tort action with a criminal prosecution
although your use of the wòrd "innocence" suggests that you may be).
Here's how it was for at least 150 years. Once the court decided that the words complained
of were defamatory so at least some general damages were possibly claimable (maybe a farthing
which meant the plaintiff would have to pay the defendant's costs) the defendant had several possible
avenues of defence. One was that the words were true. If you call a man a thief you have committed
an assault on his reputation and you had better have some justification for that. Are you really
complaining about that? Complain all you like about so-called "stop writs" where a (typically)
rich plaintiff starts proceedings which he suspects the defendant will not have the means to defend
properly, and then just sits on the cade having achieved intimidation.
Then there is the defense of "fair comment on a matter of public interest" which is available
to the defendant even if he can't prove the truth of his libel. Logically that can't succeed if
the defendant is found to have been actuated by malice.
Finally, without pretending to cover the whole subject, the defendant can contend and provide
evidence that the plaintiff had no good reputation to lose.
Having read the link I see that it does look like a move to shut him up. If the plaintiff wanted
real compensation he would be suing Sky Television which didn't cut the defamatory remarks. Or
has that been settled by an apology – which wouldn't be usual for Sky would it?
I am intrigued by the £100,000 costs approved by the court. Presumably this is some procedural
innovation which was introduced well after I learned about libel actions and which could be justified
.. except it surely leaves the law looking like an ass if the damages clImed are only £40,000!
Finally .can you tell us what the actual libel was? What did Murray say? This is a US site
so the First Amendment should look after us.
The most interesting thing in your Comment is what you claimed to have found
by your "background checks" on the new Senator Obama. What can you tell us to substantiate the
novel assertion that Obama was closely connected to the CIA What sources? What relationships?
What facts?
Add to it a desire to make money on all those 'security incidents"...
Notable quotes:
"... The infighting among infosec companies is one interesting aspect of all this. CrowdStrike has motivation to inflate their expertise, and other infosec companies have motivation to deflate CrowdStrike's expertise. ..."
"... I tend to fall on the side of those who say attribution is next to impossible absent "direct" intelligence, i.e., offline intelligence that reveals actual command and control of hostile operations. Something like what Mandiant did with the Chinese hackers (assuming they were right.) ..."
"... The fact that they have not said that pretty clearly shows they don't have the data (or for some reason have been prohibited from saying so, which in view of the hysteria seems unlikely.) ..."
"... I don't think we can say the FBI has more data than CrowdStrike, especially since the drive images may well be compromised by CrowdStrike (or irrelevant, since the indicators of compromise were laughable as far as proving Russian involvement, which is the whole point). ..."
"... Joel McCray has a funny story he tells at infosec conferences about that. He was doing a vulnerability audit and found an unpatched server in the network DMZ. He tries to logon using SSH and it takes him five minutes. He finds FIVE separate rootkits on the machine. In his words, "hackers were elbowing each other for room on the box." When he reports this to the client, the client asks, "Why didn't our IDS detect this?" The box WAS the IDS... LOL ..."
"... The Russia connection had already been setup and was well-underway. The Wikileaks emails of John Podesta contains an email from Podesta that sets up the Trump Russia connection 21 Dec 2015 - Podesta email from [email protected], Subject Re: HRC, Obama amd ISIS. In this email, Podesta writes "Best approach is to slaughter Donald for the bromance with Putin, but not go too far betting on Putin re Syria." ..."
"... The Awans, Imran Awan and family, have been reported on extensively, and were in the business of collecting large amounts of money and sending the money to Pakistan. To me, the simple explanation is that the second "hackers" were the Awans, singularly or plurally, and the Awans were the ones who asked Wikileaks for money. ..."
"... The Awans had full access to Debbie Wasserman Schultz's email and many House Democrats, including members of the House Intel Committee, and would have had no trouble accessing the DNC servers by having been "contracted" to do work on the DNC servers and/or by using Wasserman Schultz's logon id or one of the other House Democrats logon ids. ..."
The infighting among infosec companies is one interesting aspect of all this. CrowdStrike has
motivation to inflate their expertise, and other infosec companies have motivation to deflate
CrowdStrike's expertise.
I tend to fall on the side of those who say attribution is next to impossible absent
"direct" intelligence, i.e., offline intelligence that reveals actual command and control of
hostile operations. Something like what Mandiant did with the Chinese hackers (assuming they
were right.)
The NSA may very well have more detailed info on the DNC hack than has been released. But
the fact remains that they have NOT even said that they have that. One of their "assessments"
was only "moderate confidence" - without any particulars or specificity. If you HAVE the
data, it's not "moderate". If you don't have it, "moderate" means "low."
Also, the NSA can explicitly say, "yes, we saw Russia hack the DNC" just as they did with
the Sony hack by North Korea (if you believe that), without revealing how. The assumption
would be that they saw it by monitoring the DNC, as I expect they were doing just like they
monitor everything else (or could backtrack the data that was recorded by their overall
surveillance), which would surprise no one and reveal nothing.
The fact that they have not said that pretty clearly shows they don't have the data (or
for some reason have been prohibited from saying so, which in view of the hysteria seems
unlikely.)
I don't think we can say the FBI has more data than CrowdStrike, especially since the
drive images may well be compromised by CrowdStrike (or irrelevant, since the indicators of
compromise were laughable as far as proving Russian involvement, which is the whole
point).
And we don't know how or from where the FBI got its indications that the DNC was being
hacked, although the NSA would be a likely source. But then one has to ask again why the FBI
hasn't explicitly said so.
Also, those earlier hacks in 2015 weren't necessarily by the same hackers. It could well
be that the FBI got its info from intel from the hacker underground or data from the DNC
surfacing on hacker boards. A lot of organizations that are breached only learn that from
third parties such as the FBI based on intel from the hacker underground. Or someone calls in
a pen-test outfit and the pen-test turns into incident response when someone notices the
system is already breached.
Joel McCray has a funny story he tells at infosec conferences about that. He was doing
a vulnerability audit and found an unpatched server in the network DMZ. He tries to logon
using SSH and it takes him five minutes. He finds FIVE separate rootkits on the machine. In
his words, "hackers were elbowing each other for room on the box." When he reports this to
the client, the client asks, "Why didn't our IDS detect this?" The box WAS the IDS...
LOL
You all being way above my pay grade, this will most likely be a one-time comment. I've a
question, festering for weeks, that no one's been able to answer. Perhaps you all might help.
There were two "hacks" into the DNC servers. John Podesta's email was also "hacked." In an
interview on 8 Feb 2017, John Podesta states "I think we knew...that there were two different
incursions into the DNC but the GRU, the Fancy Bear side of this, was active in going after
personal emails." https://techcrunch.com/2017/02/08/john-podesta-talks-email-hack-fake-news-and-russia/
The Russia connection had already been setup and was well-underway. The Wikileaks
emails of John Podesta contains an email from Podesta that sets up the Trump Russia
connection 21 Dec 2015 - Podesta email from [email protected], Subject Re: HRC, Obama amd
ISIS. In this email, Podesta writes "Best approach is to slaughter Donald for the bromance
with Putin, but not go too far betting on Putin re Syria."
The Awans, Imran Awan and family, have been reported on extensively, and were in the
business of collecting large amounts of money and sending the money to Pakistan. To me, the
simple explanation is that the second "hackers" were the Awans, singularly or plurally, and
the Awans were the ones who asked Wikileaks for money. Both "hacks" were done
locally.
The Awans had full access to Debbie Wasserman Schultz's email and many House
Democrats, including members of the House Intel Committee, and would have had no trouble
accessing the DNC servers by having been "contracted" to do work on the DNC servers and/or by
using Wasserman Schultz's logon id or one of the other House Democrats logon ids.
Since both "hacks" were done locally, the NSA would not have any record(s) of either
"hack." As for the identity of Guccifer 2.0, that could be anyone. Everyone "hacks"
everyone.
Does this fit in with the current thinking? Thank you.
So how does he explain his complete and explicit statements in the tape? You know Hersh is an
impatient guy who suffers fools badly. He never wants to do interviews and brushes aside any
criticism. If he can't explain why he said what he said, then what's the answer? HE was just
BS'ing? Is that his explanation?
NYT = neocon/neolib fear mongering and neo-McCarthyism.
If we assume that Russians can control election machine, the question arise about the CIA
role in the US elections. They are much more powerful and that's their home turf. And they
can pretend to be Russians of Chinese at will. Then they can cry "Thief" to divert
attention. Does this that promoting Russia hacking story
they implicitly reveal to us that elections are controlled by Deep State and electronic voting
machines and voter rosters are just a tool to this end. They allow to get rid of human vote counting
and that alone makes hijacking of the election results really easy. machine magically calculates the
votes and you are done. As Stalin said it doesn't matter how people are voting, what matters is
who is calculating the votes.
Dems should concentrate on removing neoliberal/Clinton wing of the Party from the leadership and
making it at lease "A New Deal" Party, not sold to Wall Steer bunch of fear
mongering neocons.
Anti-Russian campaign is designed to sabotage those efforts.
Notable quotes:
"... All of the reported troubles are simple computer hiccups that would not have occurred in a more reasonable election system build on paper and pencil balloting. All the computer troubles have various innocent causes ..."
"... Moreover, there was no chance that these troubles in one district would have effected the general election. There was thereby no motive for anyone to hack these systems: ..."
"... The NYT headline is an outrageous lie. It promotes as causal fact completely unproven interference and troubles for which, as the article notes, plenty of other reason might exist. It is politically irresponsible. Only two out of ten people read beyond the headlines. Even fewer will read down to paragraph five and recognize that the headline lies. All others will have been willfully misled by the editors of the New York Times. ..."
"... The whole "Russian hacking" issue is a series of big lies designed and promulgated by Democratic partisans (specifically Brennan and Clapper who were then at the head of U.S. intelligence services) ..."
"... The New York Times, and other media, present these lies as facts while not providing any evidence for them. In many cases they hide behind " intelligence reports " without noting suspiciously mealymouthed caveats in those subjective "assessments" of obviously partisan authors. Hard facts contradicting their conclusions are simply ignored and not reported at all. ..."
"... "Never trust a computer with anything important." I have been relentlessly campaigning against the use of voting machines, particularly voting computers, since 2004. I have demanded openly hand counted paper ballots in hundreds of blog posts, and even have a website promoting this. ..."
"... At the end of the day it is obvious that the Deep State Syndicate controls the machines, and thus the elections. And then they have the nerve to demand that we must beware of "Russian hacking"! ..."
"... The whole Russia stole my homework meme is getting fairly old and it makes me wonder what they are really hiding with this ongoing obfuscation of the facts......if the drums of war are loud enough will they drown out the calls for justice by any of the current or recent politicians? ..."
The last piece
pointed out that the NYT headline "
U.N. Peacekeepers in Lebanon Get Stronger Inspection Powers for Hezbollah Arms " was 100% fake
news. The UNIFIL U.N. peacekeepers in Lebanon were not getting any stronger inspection powers. The
relevant UN Security Resolution, which renewed UNIFIL's mandate, had made no such changes. No further
inspection powers were authorized.
Today we find another similarly
lying headline in the New York Times.
Russian Election Hacking Efforts, Wider Than Previously Known, Draw Little Scrutiny
By NICOLE PERLROTH, MICHAEL WINES and MATTHEW ROSENBERGSEPT. 1, 2017
The piece is about minor technical election trouble in a district irrelevant to the presidential
election outcome. Contradicting the headline it notes in paragraph five:
There are plenty of other reasons for such breakdowns -- local officials blamed human error and
software malfunctions -- and no clear-cut evidence of digital sabotage has emerged, much less a
Russian role in it
"We don't know if any of the problems were an accident, or the random problems you get with
computer systems, or whether it was a local hacker, or actual malfeasance by a sovereign nation-state,"
said Michael Daniel, who served as the cybersecurity coordinator in the Obama White House.
"If you really want to know what happened, you'd have to do a lot of forensics, a lot of research
and investigation, and you may not find out even then."
...
the firm had not conducted any malware analysis or checked to see if any of the e-poll book
software was altered, adding that the report produced more questions than answers.
All of the reported troubles are simple computer hiccups that would not have occurred in a more
reasonable election system build on paper and pencil balloting. All the computer troubles have various
innocent causes. The officials handling these systems deny that any "Russian hacking" was involved.
Moreover, there was no chance that these troubles in one district would have effected the general
election. There was thereby no motive for anyone to hack these systems:
Despite the disruptions, a record number of votes were cast in Durham, following a pattern there
of overwhelming support for Democratic presidential candidates , this time Hillary Clinton.
The NYT headline is an outrageous lie. It promotes as causal fact completely unproven interference
and troubles for which, as the article notes, plenty of other reason might exist. It is politically
irresponsible. Only two out of ten people read beyond the headlines. Even fewer will read down to
paragraph five and recognize that the headline lies. All others will have been willfully misled by
the editors of the New York Times.
This scheme is the gist of ALL reporting about the alleged "Russian hacking" of the U.S. presidential
election. There exists zero evidence that Russia was involved in anything related to it. No evidence
-none at all- links the publishing of DNC papers or of Clinton counselor Podesta's emails to Russia.
Thousands of other circumstances, people or political entities might have had their hands in the
issue. There is
zero evidence that Russia was involved at all.
The whole "Russian hacking" issue is a series of big lies designed and promulgated by Democratic
partisans (specifically Brennan and Clapper who were then at the head of U.S. intelligence services)
to:
cover up for Hillary Clinton's and
the DNC's failure in the election and to
build up Russia as a public enemy to justify unnecessary military spending and other imperial
racketeering.
The New York Times, and other media, present these lies as facts while not providing any evidence
for them. In many cases they hide behind "
intelligence reports " without noting suspiciously mealymouthed caveats in those subjective "assessments"
of obviously partisan authors. Hard facts contradicting their conclusions are simply ignored and
not reported at all.
Posted by b on September 1, 2017 at 11:26 PM |
Permalink
Look at what happened today in San Francisco - after ordering the Russians to shut down their
embassy there in an unreasonably short timeframe, they then had the fire department respond to
smoke coming out of the chimney of the building. Conveniently this brings attention to the situation
and continues the narrative of 'ongoing conflict' to the American people.
The end of this story
has already decided. It didn't matter who won the election, it doesn't matter that the people
chose the candidate who wanted peace, and it doesn't matter that there wasn't any Russian election
hacking.
"Never trust a computer with anything important." I have been relentlessly campaigning against
the use of voting machines, particularly voting computers, since 2004. I have demanded openly
hand counted paper ballots in hundreds of blog posts, and even have a website promoting this.
At the end of the day it is obvious that the Deep State Syndicate controls the machines,
and thus the elections. And then they have the nerve to demand that we must beware of "Russian
hacking"!
The whole Russia stole my homework meme is getting fairly old and it makes me wonder what
they are really hiding with this ongoing obfuscation of the facts......if the drums of war are
loud enough will they drown out the calls for justice by any of the current or recent politicians?
Yes, of course.....thats the plan.....is it working?
If not, invade Venezuela on some pretext and claim ownership of their oil....someone has to
make Israel look reasonable.
"We don't know if any of the problems were an accident, or the random problems you get with
computer systems, or whether it was a local hacker, or actual malfeasance by a sovereign nation-state,"
said Michael Daniel, who served as the cybersecurity coordinator in the Obama White House.
"If you really want to know what happened, you'd have to do a lot of forensics, a lot of research
and investigation, and you may not find out even then."
...
the firm had not conducted any malware analysis or checked to see if any of the e-poll book
software was altered, adding that the report produced more questions than answers.
They don't even know what happened. Best blame it on the Russians anyway.
B of course realizes that the headline of an article is almost never written by author but by
an editor.
Such as blatant nonsense at NYT and elsewhere I think is possible when author wanting to get
published on good NYT page would lie to editor about its contents.
Of course Editor is no idiot and in old American tradition of pretending and deniability does
not read it to cover his/her butt and hence this obvious crap get published epitomizing a failure
{actually Orwellian success] of editor to vet the paper, as long as bosses are happy with insinuations
however baseless.
...
Of course Editor is no idiot and in old American tradition of pretending and deniability does
not read it to cover his/her butt and hence this obvious crap get published epitomizing a failure
{actually Orwellian success] of editor to vet the paper, as long as bosses are happy with insinuations
however baseless.
Posted by: Kalen | Sep 2, 2017 3:22:15 AM | 6
I like the theory that NYT's sub-editors are too lazy/busy/careless to read the articles they're
paid to summarise and add an appealing headline. It's certainly food for thought when pondering
possible Chain Of Command issues within the MSM.
When I was a regular lurker at What's Left, one notable aspect was the frequency with which
Gowans' most stunning revelations were sourced from the nether regions of articles published in
the NYT, WaPo et al.
What this all speaks of is ineptitude and malfeasance at all levels of government. Lies covering
more lies. The only things that gets done in Washington iare covering asses and those, like their
wars without end, are complete and utter failures. That the Clinton mob are sore losers and press
on with delegitimization of a clown president who, unlike the wicked witch of the West, feigned
disinterest in war and won what's left of a hollowed out presidency is theatre of the absurd par
excellence. Build the fence around the beltway and keep the psychopaths in the asylum in.
Moreover, there was no chance that these troubles in one district would have effected the general
election. There was thereby no motive for anyone to hack these systems:
Plenty wrong with that logic...gosh...give it some thought...a tiny bit will help there...
yeah - more stories on pussy riot.. a story like how pussy riot ate george soros, or putins breakfast
would be good..... when i read the nyt, i want a story filled with lies and deception... i'm running
away from reality and heading straight for the nyt, lol..
...
Plenty wrong with that logic...gosh...give it some thought...a tiny bit will help there...
Posted by: doug | Sep 2, 2017 10:44:46 AM | 10
It would only be a logical fallacy if it said... "Moreover, there was no chance that these
troubles in more than one district would have effected the general election." ...but
it doesn't, so it isn't.
She has recently joined the Gramps McCain war monger club and told TYT's Cenk Uygur in an
interview that she thinks "Russia" is the most important issue for 2018. She gone full Dem
idiot and has lost my vote (yes, in Mass) but then again, every vote I ever cast for DemocRATs
has been a disappointment. Kerry for Senator and POTUS, Obomber once, Warren once. It's too
much, and I'm done with them for good.
Reply
Joshua88
Mass Independent
September 1 2017, 3:45 p.m.
Her economic message and message of equity/fairness are
consistent.
I know about her support for the defense industry.
I did not know how she feels about Russia.
I know she didn't vote against sanctions and war funding, as well as not speaking out against
drones, etc.
All I can tell you is that, as an Independent, I am extremely harsh, disgusted, and fed up
with the Dems. They are the hopeless party. I listened to Rep Joe Crowley early this morning.
Christalmighty – these people ought to be put out of their misery.
What gives me optimism is that: How easy is it to tweet Ms Slaughter to say, Nobody believes
you; Joe Crowley, you are out of your mind. Keep thinking these thoughts and you will LOSE
2018? Very easy, I am sure.
Your nicknames are so sophomoric – are you about twelve/thirteen?
Reply
Mass
Independent
Joshua88
September 1 2017, 5:39 p.m.
So while we basically agree on our politicians, you take issue
with my nicknames for them? How sophomoric of you.
I am equally disgusted and fed up with them, so I try to get under their skin (too).
Reply
sglover
September 1 2017, 2:42 p.m.
Google aside, Slaughter's perch at this Beltway feeding trough
just goes to show how for somebody like her, the sweet gigs keep on coming no matter how much
or how often you fuck up. How many idiotic military adventures has Slaughter advocated?
Naturally, neither she nor anybody she knows ever has to pay the cost of her crackpot
enthusiasms ..
Reply
Mass Independent
sglover
September 1 2017, 3:24 p.m.
For all her liberal schooling, her "evolution" as a Hillary
NeoCon type is complete. These are the DemocRATS who are ruining the country–with the
help of their corporately owned counterparts, the Rethuglicans.
Reply
free
September 1 2017, 2:12 p.m.
Corporatins are a creation of the US state and proxies of the
US state. That's particularly clear in the case of google-NSA, facebook-NSA, amazon,NSA.
PAYPAL-EBAY-NSA etc.
It's quite unlkely tht the US nazi government is going to do anything against those
companies because the US gov't has no reason to cut its own arms.
Reply
Nonsenseyousay
free
September 1 2017, 2:19 p.m.
Welcome to Earth, but that is not how things work here in the
United States.
Reply
free
Nonsenseyousay
September 1 2017, 3:18 p.m.
What the fuck do you mean. That is exactly how things work in
the american cesspool.
Reply
Alferrer
September 1 2017, 12:37 p.m.
Our politicians are for sale.
Reply
GhostofTeddyRoosevelt
September 1 2017, 11:59 a.m.
As a libertarian, i am pretty much hands off the market.
However, many tech firms have gotten to a point of no return. At some point the Sherman Act
needs to be enlisted.
In the 70s Standard Oil was busted for a lot less. Google, Amazon, Fakebook, Apple, need
strutiny and likely busted as well.
I also would put a few large ag & chemical interests into this mix.
The control they wield is no longer acceptable.
Reply
Joe
September 1 2017, 11:10 a.m.
This goes to show you how Google is using its monopoly power
to crush dissent and destroy its rivals. If there was ever a textbook case of monopolistic
abuse that calls out for antitrust action, this is it.
Reply
Darren Douglas
September 1 2017, 10:04 a.m.
Time to split up Google (search, Gmail, YouTube, etc.) and
maybe Amazon (Washington Post, Whole Foods, etc.). Google in particular is a potentially
harmful monopoly for freedom of speech.
Reply
Elizabeth
September 1 2017, 9:46 a.m.
Great reporting! THANK YOU
Reply
Benito Mussolini
September 1 2017, 9:45 a.m.
Washington is a marketplace for buying and selling influence.
If you drain the swamp, it doesn't make the marketplace disappear, just renders it transparent.
Google's behavior does not seem exceptional, at least when compared with the machinations of
Big Oil and the Military-Industrial complex. As far as I know, Google isn't agitating for the
invasion of any foreign countries.
"... In evaluating Plaintiffs' claims at this stage, the Court assumes their allegations are true -- that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz held a palpable bias in favor Clinton and sought to propel her ahead of her Democratic opponent, ..."
"... The order reaffirmed that the primaries were tipped in Hillary Clinton's favor, but the court's authority to intervene in a court of law is limited. ..."
"... "The Court thus assumes that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz preferred Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate for president over Bernie Sanders or any other Democratic candidate. It assumes that they stockpiled information useful to the Clinton campaign. It assumes that they devoted their resources to assist Clinton in securing the party's nomination and opposing other Democratic candidates. And it assumes that they engaged in these surreptitious acts while publically proclaiming they were completely neutral, fair, and impartial. This Order therefore concerns only technical matters of pleading and subject-matter jurisdiction." ..."
In June 2016, a
class
action lawsuit
was filed against the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and former
DNC
Chair
Debbie Wasserman Schultz for violating the DNC Charter by rigging the Democratic presidential
primaries for Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders. Even former Senate Minority Leader Harry
Reid
admitted
in July 2016, ""I knew!everybody knew!that this was not a fair deal." He added
adding that Debbie Wasserman Schultz should have resigned much sooner than she did. The
lawsuit
was filed to push the
DNC
to
admit their wrongdoing and provide Bernie Sanders supporters, who supported him financially
with millions of dollars in campaign contributions, with restitution for being cheated.
On August 25, 2017, Federal Judge William Zloch,
dismissed
the lawsuit
after several months of litigation in which
DNC
attorneys argued that the DNC would be well within their rights to rig primaries and select
their own candidate. "
In evaluating Plaintiffs' claims at this stage, the Court assumes their
allegations are true -- that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz held a palpable bias in favor Clinton
and sought to propel her ahead of her Democratic opponent,
" the court order dismissing the
lawsuit stated.
The order then explained why the lawsuit would be dismissed. "The Court must now decide
whether Plaintiffs have suffered a concrete injury particularized to them, or one certainly
impending, that is traceable to the DNC and its former chair's conduct!the keys to entering
federal court. The Court holds that they have not." The court added that it did not consider
this within its jurisdiction. "Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing
'only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.'"
The order reaffirmed that the primaries were tipped in Hillary Clinton's favor, but the
court's authority to intervene in a court of law is limited.
"The Court thus assumes that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz preferred Hillary Clinton as the
Democratic candidate for president over Bernie Sanders or any other Democratic candidate. It
assumes that they stockpiled information useful to the Clinton campaign. It assumes that they
devoted their resources to assist Clinton in securing the party's nomination and opposing other
Democratic candidates. And it assumes that they engaged in these surreptitious acts while
publically proclaiming they were completely neutral, fair, and impartial. This Order therefore
concerns only technical matters of pleading and subject-matter jurisdiction."
At this time, it's unclear if the attorneys who filed the class action lawsuit, Jared and
Elizabeth Beck, will pursue other legal recourse regarding the 2016 Democratic primaries.
So, we have an inside-out version of Seven days in May . I wonder if the generals are as hip to escalate the hybrid
war against China and Russia as those the Clintons represented? Something tells me they're not so keen; perhaps the initial volleys
made by the Outlaw US Empire have drawn some return fire we are yet to become privy to.
"... Exclusive: A cyber-warfare expert sees no technical evidence linking Russia to the Democratic email releases, but The New York
Times presses ahead with a new hope that Ukraine can fill the void, reports Robert Parry. ..."
"... "There is not now and never has been a single piece of technical evidence produced that connects the malware used in the DNC
attack to the GRU, FSB or any agency of the Russian government," Carr said. ..."
"... Yet, the reliance on Ukraine to provide evidence against Russia defies any objective investigative standards. The Ukrainian
government is fiercely anti-Russian and views itself as engaged in an "information war" with Putin and his government. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the Times offered its readers almost no cautionary advice that – in the case of Russia-gate – Ukraine would have
every motive to send U.S. investigators in directions harmful to Russia, much as happened with the MH-17 investigation. ..."
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
"... At this point, Carr is right: There is NO publicly available, non-circumstantial, non-spoofable evidence that a DNC hack even
occurred, let alone that any hack that might have been done was done by Russians at all, let alone the Russian government. And all of
the alleged US intelligence "assessments" have provided NO additional evidence. ..."
Exclusive: A cyber-warfare expert sees no technical evidence linking Russia to the Democratic email releases, but The New
York Times presses ahead with a new hope that Ukraine can fill the void, reports Robert Parry.
The New York Times' unrelenting anti-Russia bias would be almost comical if the possible outcome were not a nuclear conflagration
and maybe the end of life on planet Earth.
A classic example of the Times' one-sided coverage was a front-page
article on Thursday expressing the wistful hope that a Ukrainian hacker whose malware was linked to the release of Democratic
National Committee (DNC) emails in 2016 could somehow "blow the whistle on Russian hacking."
Though full of airy suspicions and often reading like a conspiracy theory, the article by Andrew E. Kramer and Andrew Higgins
contained one important admission (buried deep inside the "jump" on page A8 in my print edition), a startling revelation especially
for those Americans who have accepted the Russia-did-it groupthink as an established fact.
The article quoted Jeffrey Carr, the author of a book on cyber-warfare, referring to a different reality: that the Russia-gate
"certainties" blaming the DNC "hack" on Russia's GRU military intelligence service or Russia's FSB security agency lack a solid evidentiary
foundation.
"There is not now and never has been a single piece of technical evidence produced that connects the malware used in the DNC
attack to the GRU, FSB or any agency of the Russian government," Carr said.
Yet, before that remarkable admission had a chance to sink into the brains of Times' readers whose thinking has been fattened
up on a steady diet of treating the "Russian hack" as flat fact, Times' editors quickly added that "United States intelligence agencies,
however, have been unequivocal in pointing a finger at Russia."
The Times' rebuke toward any doubts about Russia-gate was inserted after Carr's remark although the Times had already declared
several times on page 1 that there was really no doubt about Russia's guilt.
"American intelligence agencies have determined Russian hackers were behind the electronic break-in of the Democratic national
Committee," the Times reported, followed by the assertion that the hacker's "malware apparently did" get used by Moscow and then
another reminder that "Washington is convinced [that the hacking operation] was orchestrated by Moscow."
By repeating the same point on the inside page, the Times editors seemed to be saying that any deviant views on this subject must
be slapped down promptly and decisively.
A Flimsy Assessment
But that gets us back to the problem with
the Jan. 6 "Intelligence
Community Assessment," which -- contrary to repeated Times' claims -- was not the "consensus" view of all 17 U.S. intelligence
agencies, but rather the work of a small group of "hand-picked" analysts from three agencies: the Central Intelligence Agency, Federal
Bureau of Investigation and National Security Agency. And, they operated under the watchful eye of President Obama's political appointees,
CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who was the one who
called them "hand-picked."
Those analysts presented no real evidence to support their assessment, which they acknowledged was not a determination of fact,
but rather what amounted to their best guess based on what they perceived to be Russian motives and capabilities.
The Jan. 6 assessment admitted as much, saying its "judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something
to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation,
and precedents."
Much of the unclassified version of the report lambasted Russia's international TV network RT for such offenses as hosting a 2012
presidential debate for third-party candidates excluded from the Republican-Democratic debate, covering the Occupy Wall Street protests,
and reporting on dangers from "fracking." The assessment described those editorial decisions as assaults on American democracy.
But rather than acknowledge the thinness of the Jan. 6 report, the Times – like other mainstream news outlets – treated it as
gospel and pretended that it represented a "consensus" of all 17 intelligence agencies even though it clearly never did. (Belatedly,
the Times slipped in a correction
to that falsehood in one article although continuing to
use similar language in subsequent
stories so an unsuspecting Times reader would not be aware of how shaky the Russia-gate foundation is.)
Russian President Vladimir Putin and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange have denied repeatedly that the Russian government was the
source of the two batches of Democratic emails released via WikiLeaks in 2016, a point that the Times also frequently fails to acknowledge.
(This is not to say that Putin and Assange are telling the truth, but it is a journalistic principle to include relevant denials
from parties facing accusations.)
Conspiracy Mongering
The rest of Thursday's Times article veered from the incomprehensible to the bizarre, as the Times reported that the hacker, known
only as "Profexer," is cooperating with F.B.I. agents inside Ukraine.
President Barack Obama and
President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine talk after statements to the press following their bilateral meeting at the Warsaw Marriott
Hotel in Warsaw, Poland, June 4, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
Yet, the reliance on Ukraine to provide evidence against Russia defies any objective investigative standards. The Ukrainian
government is fiercely anti-Russian and views itself as engaged in an "information war" with Putin and his government.
Ukraine's SBU security service also has been
implicated in possible
torture , according to United Nations investigators who were denied access to Ukrainian government detention facilities housing
ethnic Russian Ukrainians who resisted the violent coup in February 2014, which was spearheaded by neo-Nazis and other extreme nationalists
and overthrew elected President Viktor Yanukovych.
The SBU also has been the driving force behind the supposedly "Dutch-led" investigation into the July 17, 2014 shooting down of
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. That inquiry has ignored evidence that a rogue Ukrainian force may have been responsible –
not even addressing a Dutch/NATO
intelligence report stating that all anti-aircraft missile batteries in eastern Ukraine on that day were under the control of
the Ukrainian military – and instead
tried to pin the atrocity
on Russia , albeit with no suspects yet charged.
In Thursday's article, the Times unintentionally reveals how fuzzy the case against "Fancy Bear" and "Cozy Bear" – the two alleged
Russian government hacking operations – is.
The Times reports: "Rather than training, arming and deploying hackers to carry out a specific mission like just another military
unit, Fancy Bear and its twin Cozy Bear have operated more as centers for organization and financing; much of the hard work like
coding is outsourced to private and often crime-tainted vendors."
Further, under the dramatic subhead – "A Bear's Lair" – the Times reported that no such lair may exist: "Tracking the bear to
its lair has so far proved impossible, not least because many experts believe that no such single place exists."
Lacking Witnesses
The Times' article also noted the "absence of reliable witnesses" to resolve the mystery – so to the rescue came the "reliable"
regime in Kiev, or as the Times wrote: "emerging from Ukraine is a sharper picture of what the United States believes is a Russian
government hacking group."
The Times then cited various cases of exposed Ukrainian government emails, again blaming the Russians albeit without any real
evidence.
The Times suggested some connection between the alleged Russian hackers and a mistaken report on Russia's Channel 1 about a Ukrainian
election, which the Times claimed "inadvertently implicated the government authorities in Moscow."
The Times' "proof" in this case was that some hacker dummied a phony Internet page to look like an official Ukrainian election
graphic showing a victory by ultra-right candidate, Dmytro Yarosh, when in fact Yarosh polled less than 1 percent. The hacker supposedly
sent this "spoof" graphic to Channel 1, which used it.
But such an embarrassing error, which would have no effect on the actual election results, suggests an effort to discredit Channel
1 rather than evidence of a cooperative relationship between the mysterious hacker and the Russian station. The Times, however, made
this example a cornerstone in its case against the Russians.
Meanwhile, the Times offered its readers almost no cautionary advice that – in the case of Russia-gate – Ukraine would have
every motive to send U.S. investigators in directions harmful to Russia, much as happened with the MH-17 investigation.
So, we can expect that whatever "evidence" Ukraine "uncovers" will be accepted as gospel truth by the Times and much of the U.S.
government – and anyone who dares ask inconvenient questions about its reliability will be deemed a "Kremlin stooge" spreading "Russian
propaganda."
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book
(from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
Litchfield , August 18, 2017 at 3:39 pm
Can the United States, its mainstream media, and its intelligence services sink any deeper into the status of laughable but
also malicious clowns? Yes. They reach new lows with practically every edition of the NYT -- The only group maintaining any respectability
within these entities is the VIPS group.
Pathetic. Laughingstock of the world. But don't kick sand in these bullies' faces. They may nuke you --
You don't understand. The Times Co. Chairman Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., the publisher of the newspaper, wants the Golan Heights
for his pet project by any means and he is beyond himself that the bad, bad Russians stopped the slaughter of civilians in Syria
and thus stopped the dissolution of Syria.
The Chairman Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. hates, hates the idea of sovereign Syria. He wants Syria to become another Libya. Period.
And he wants to see Iran obliterated (some old grievances against the noble ancient civilization that used to provide the best
living place for Jews). And then, the Chairman Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. wants to see profits, even if his profitable fake-news
business could lead to a nuclear conflict with Russain Federation. Like other super-wealthy imbeciles, the Chairman Arthur O.
Sulzberger Jr. is accustomed to a very special order when other people are always ready to clean his mess. He is not aware that
the Mess, which he is so eagerly inviting, could end up his comfortable life and make his relatives into shades on a hard surface.
Would not this planet be better without the Chairman Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. and likes?
JWalters , August 18, 2017 at 7:02 pm
Well put. These people are like the "nobles" of medieval times. They care not a whit about the "peasants" they trample. They
are wealth bigots, compounded by some ethnic bigotry or other, in this case Jewish supremacism. America has an oligarchy problem.
At the center of that oligarchy is a Jewish mafia controlling the banks, and thereby the big corporations, and thereby the media
and the government. This oligarchy sees America as a big, dumb military machine that it can manipulate to generate war profits.
Mr. Parry may prefer independence, and we all know the NYT ownership makes it unlikely, and the NYT may try to ignore it, it
is instructive to them that intelligent readers know better journalism when they see it. A petition demonstrates the concerns
of a far larger number of potential or lost subscribers.
j. D. D. , August 19, 2017 at 3:07 pm
The "Russiagate" hoax is in big trouble. thanks in large part to the V.I.P.S. memo to President Trump, first published on this
site on July 24. No surprise then that the Times has rushed to stem the bleeding, much the way the Post did in its threatening
message to The Nation editor Van den Heuvel to retract its coverage of that explosive report. So what now? Shift the tactic to
playing the race card, in an effort to oust this President, the methods, and in fact many of the same names employed in the staged
event in Charlottesville, being all too familiar to those who followed the coup which overthrew the elected government of Ukraine.
Randal Marlin , August 18, 2017 at 3:48 pm
I think your statement "Yet, the reliance on Ukraine to provide evidence against Russia defies any objective investigative
standards" gets to the crux of the matter.
Note how the evidentiary question is not significantly altered when, say, expert Dutch investigators confirm a Russian-blaming
narrative regarding MH-17 when, and to the extent that, the Dutch experts form their opinion based on evidence selected by (anti-Russian)
Ukrainian authorities.
I've used the example before of salted gold-ore samples being given to experts for analysis. Those who fell for the Bre-X scam
some 20 years ago apparently failed to appreciate the disclaimer by SNC-Lavalin, who reported a rich find, that they had not done
an independent collection of the ore samples. There was a high reported price tag for the analysis and people may have just assumed
such an independent collection had taken place.
Sam F , August 18, 2017 at 6:03 pm
It is absurd that an admitted hacker in Ukraine, and its militantly anti-Russian government, are considered reliable sources
in the smoke-and-mirrors game of tracing international hacking. Their only "evidence" appears to be standard hacking scams of
simulating sources to throw off investigators. It is amazing that they can't even find a hacker somewhere else to make absurd
claims in a plea bargain. Obviously NYT does not believe this ridiculous story themselves. It is the greatest fool who believes
all others to be greater fools.
The Israelis appear afraid Trump will suddenly turn on them, just as he suddenly and totally disavowed all forms of racism,
white supremacism, KKK, alt-right, etc. (And Bannon did, too.) He had needed that support to wrest the GOP nomination away from
the Wall Street gang (who merely winked and nodded at the racists, a large and crucial part of their voting base.) Perhaps the
glaring, blaring racist crimes and atrocities of Israel will be called out next? "Netanyahu is silent for 3 days over neo-Nazi violence, while his son says Black Lives Matter and Antifa are the real threat"
http://mondoweiss.net/2017/08/netanyahu-violence-antifa/
"Charlottesville is moment of truth for empowered U.S. Zionists (who name their children after Israeli generals)" http://mondoweiss.net/2017/08/charlottesville-empowered-children/
Sam F , August 19, 2017 at 5:00 pm
Interesting that you say that this is an Israeli operation. I once traced malware on my PC to three sources, one with an address
in Tel Aviv Israel, and two front companies in NYC run by people with Jewish names. Complete coincidence of course.
I also traced a complex web of internet copyright piracy, which included front companies, servers, and offices in Panama, Cayman
Islands, Barbados, Montreal, UK, and various piracy and tax evasion venues. One company "TzarMedia" (in English) claimed to have
its servers in Moscow, but it turned out that this was just one more false-flag: it was in Texas, and its servers could be anywhere.
So anti-Russia false-flags are standard practice.
Because some Ukrainian oligarchs are apparently Jewish with Israeli nationality and bitter anti-Russia views on both fronts,
it seems likely that they would be hiring Ukrainian hackers by the dozen to create false-flag hacks blamed on Russia. That must
be a real growth industry in Ukraine and Israel by now, not to mention Washington.
Peter Dyer , August 18, 2017 at 3:58 pm
This is sadly reminiscent of another instance of the willingness of the New York Times to publish "evidence" of malfeasance
on the part of the enemy du jour: the series of stories in 2001-02 by Judith Miller based on Ahmad Chalabi's "evidence" of Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:57 pm
At least it ended her career with the NYT. Judith Miller was being fed stories from the office of VP Cheney, who would later
cite the NYT as evidence of his accusations of WMD, completing the circle. Similarly, Kwiatkowski went public with how DIA staff
were pressured by Sec of Defense and Cheney to stovepipe cherry picked intel to support WMD. The malfeasance germinated in the
mechanical heart of one Richard Cheney and the NYT and DIA were used and abused. Not faultless, but the bulk of the derision belongs
with that administration.
Bill , August 18, 2017 at 4:12 pm
There's a bigger story behind all of this. John Brennan was abusing his position as CIA Director to wage a war against Trump.
Comey and Clapper are also "in" on it. A conspiracy? Yes. Who told them to do it? By golly, it was President Obama.
Litchfield , August 18, 2017 at 6:07 pm
Yes, but don't dream of tarnishing the halo St. Barry with perfectly reasonable suppositions as to who put this mess in motion
and, I reckon, continues to ride herd on it. He is "above the fray" (my a–). He is at the center of the fray. After Hillary's
ignoble loss to Obama in 2008, she ate crow and went to work for him. They must have made some kind of deal, reached some kind
of accommodation.
Richard Tarnoff , August 18, 2017 at 4:19 pm
It is depressing, but not surprising given their corporate ownership, that the entire MSM is unwilling to ask the same hard
questions as does Consortium News. It is also depressing that the Democratic Party is happy to jump on this risky band wagon in
their desperate desire to bring down Trump.
Drogon , August 18, 2017 at 4:25 pm
I find it bizarre and frustrating that the anti-Trump forces insist on focusing on the flimsy Russia-gate distraction when
there are so many objectively awful reasons to criticize the Trump administration.
*Resurgence of Civil-Asset Forfeiture? Check.
*Supporting the private prison industry? Check.
*Empowering federal prosecutors? Check.
*Working to sabotage the Iran nuclear deal? Check.
*Dismissing anthropogenic climate change? Check.
*Going out of his way to equate Nazis with anti-Nazi protestors? Check.
*Undermining net neutrality? Check.
*Subverting scientific independence at the EPA? Check.
*Sticking up for Wall Street and bad-mouthing Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? Check.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 5:38 pm
Trump's being criticized for all-of-the-above by virtually all of the leftist media and NGO's (Counterpunch, DemocracyNow,
FAIR, RealNewsNetwork, Free Press, Public Citizen, etc) that criticized Obama, Bush, Clinton, et al for their many shortcomings
and fuck-ups.
You need to get out more.
Litchfield , August 18, 2017 at 6:09 pm
But it seems like the MSM is standing in for "leftish" (sic) forces, as they combine with neocons to bring Trump down.
Drogon , August 18, 2017 at 7:43 pm
Just because the MSM doesn't like Trump doesn't mean he's a good person.
Yes, but the DNC has put all their ammo into the straw man argument of Russia-gate. I believe this is what Drogon was saying,
and I also believe it's a valid point.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 7:52 pm
I'll agree that it's the focus of the DNC. But he wrote "anti-Trump forces", which encompasses much more than the DNC.
Joe Tedesky , August 18, 2017 at 11:49 pm
Way to go BobS, you have an excuse for every stupid remark you make. Since Drogon said some pretty factual things that made
sense, you had to go find something to make a negative comment as a reply, and in doing so you made yourself look awfully foolish
I'll bet your working hard to sound smart and clever all the time, guess what you make yourself look ignorant instead.
If you are a contributor to this site, then I want my money back. You certainly don't bring any class, or anything worthwhile
to this site, with your crudeness. Although, you probably laugh at your own jokes, and think your funny. I've tried for the last
couple of days to somehow deal with you with the hopes that you and I could have a civil conversation, but as I can see I shouldn't
take it personally, since you seem to offend everyone no matter what what is wrong with you man.
Leslie F , August 18, 2017 at 7:07 pm
All of this is worthy of criticism, but not likely to lead to his ouster. The fools think Russia-gate will, but it is obviously
that the Repubs. in Congress are not buying it anymore than most of the population who just declines to become hysterical over
Russia when they have much more immediate problems. There is that matter of Trumps financial malfeasance which is real AND impeachable,
but the Dem establishment isn't interested because it won't deflect attention from their internal problems and many among their
number are guilty of similaar crimes, if not to the same extent as Trump. And the deep state doesn't care because it doesn't advance
their neocon agenda like Russia-gate. I think, however, that it could help mobilize popular outrage which will be necessary if
he is ever going to be impeached.
turk151 , August 18, 2017 at 7:50 pm
That is because those are all ideas that the MSM's benefactors actually support.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 4:30 pm
Yet another strained effort to distract from the actual reality of Trump's Russian connection. Here is Bill Moyers' timeline
of factual events. Tells the story better for anyone with an open mind.
Does Trump have "Russian connections?" Of course he does. He's a billionaire oligarch and, as such, he almost certainly has
corrupt connections with billionaire oligarchs from pretty much any country you can name. If the anti-Trump brigade was less hysterical,
these connections could most likely be used to remove him from office. That said, is there currently any evidence that he collaborated
with the Russian government to throw the election? No.
Zachary Smith , August 18, 2017 at 4:55 pm
Thank you for the link. Because of my "closed mind" I've concluded that Bill Moyers has lost it.
I made a couple of searches of my own and found this from Moyers:
"Raked over the coals by Republican inquisitors in Congress who could never make a case that she had acted wrongly in Libya
"
Gist of the story, poor Hillary isn't a male and everybody has been after the innocent woman on that account. Obviously nobody
would have commented if it had been a MAN with the same amount of blood on his hands. In another story he dismissed Hillary's
email maneuvers.
The man is an old Hillary-Bot and I've no use at all for that sort.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 6:04 pm
Actually, if you'd watched her testimony, they couldn't make that case, the reason being they focused on BENGHAZEEEE -- --
-- -- as opposed to the attack on Libya itself (which all or most of the Republicans in Congress agreed with).
Also, it's disingenuous to pretend that Clinton (and female politicians, in general) aren't held to somewhat different standards
than men.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 6:26 pm
Agree with you Bob. But CN is infected with Russian bots. Used to be main go to site for me, now it's just the place for Trump
and Putin apologists.
Anon , August 18, 2017 at 7:32 pm
"Roy G Biv" is today's name for one of the discredited trolls here lately, probably BobS himself, who pretends to be a former
supporter. Thanks for letting us know that rightwingers are liars.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 7:41 pm
""Roy G Biv" is today's name for one of the discredited trolls here lately, probably BobS himself, who pretends to be a former
supporter. Thanks for letting us know that rightwingers are liars."
Thanks for letting me know it's so easy to fuck with your somewhat empty head.
Joe Tedesky , August 18, 2017 at 11:30 pm
Yeah BobS your the only smart one here. BTW You couldn't put a patch on Anon's ass even if you tried.
D5-5 , August 19, 2017 at 10:53 am
"CN infected with Russian bots and Putin apologists." Here's your guilt by association tool again. Anyone critical of the Official
Narrative = automatically name-called to Russian bots etc etc the "commie sympathizer" BS of years ago. This kind of comment from
you automatically disqualifies you as having anything worthwhile to say here.
Anon , August 18, 2017 at 7:30 pm
He just finished saying that they are being held to different standards.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 7:39 pm
His implication was that they get a pass, when in fact just the opposite is true.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:08 pm
I was never once discredited. Just censored and shouted down. Now you plant a flag and claim to have refuted. That's not winning
an argument, it's just being loud and intolerant.
LongGoneJohn , August 19, 2017 at 4:11 am
So because of the comments, you don't frequent CN anymore? I call BS, mr perpetual war apologist.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 6:24 pm
Actually the timeline stands on its own, and is factual. Try reading it and follow the chain of events. Very illustrative.
Doesn't really matter your personal animus against Moyers and Clinton.
D5-5 , August 18, 2017 at 5:04 pm
The specific charge, emanating from the Clinton people, and used as diversion from DNC corruption and Clinton Foundation corruption,
is that Russia interfered with the 2016 election. This is a separate matter from Trump has had dealings with and association with
Russia since decades back. Conflating these two matters is the easy demonizing brush which you're pushing here. There is no evidence
on the specific accusation that Trump worked with Putin to fix the election. If you think there is evidence, versus guilt-by-association,
give us a heads-up on where and what it is.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 5:42 pm
WhoWhatWhy & David Cay Johnston are doing and have done a much better job than consortiumnews in covering Trump's likely connections
to Russian (and Italian) organized crime.
Litchfield , August 18, 2017 at 6:11 pm
That begs (that is, avoids) the question.
I suspect all of our presidents have had connections with organized crime.
Trump is being charged with, basically, treason for colluding with the Russians to influence the election. Two different animals.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm
"That begs (that is, avoids) the question."
?
Kennedy, at least, at the wrong end of a gun.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 6:29 pm
Malcolm Nance has also chronicled the rise of Vlad and his seizure of the Russian economy from foreign vulture capitalists,
only to claim all the spoils for himself and his cronies, as well as how Trump relied on Russian funding to bail out his bankrupcies.
It's shockingly ignored here.
Malcolm Nance's book is a "best seller" because he allowed himself to become a shill for the corporate intelligence network
not unlike Ann Coulter who became a "best seller" with right wing sponsorship. Such books are printed in mass by the propagandist
and often advertised as best sellers before a copy is sold. Unlike, Coulter, Nance is articulate but he starts out by "poisoning
the well" with the premise that Putin's Russia is evil. He never really questions the hack theory. His book THE PLOT TO HACK AMERICA
is all the rage among Demo "true believers". It was given to me by a friend, no doubt to open my eyes to the evil Putin's maneuvers
but apart from the probability that he believed it himself his conclusion was based on a number of distorted facts(yes, I actually
read it).
Dave P. , August 18, 2017 at 9:25 pm
BobS: The organized Russian Crime mafia you are referring to had branches in Tel Aviv, New York, and London too. They were
lot of people who were part of it, and must be close too Clintons too in their corrupt World in New York and elsewhere in the
West. That is how our British Friends keep their economy running. The real Russians, the peasants according to the West they are,
never really learnt the art you are describing.
May be, Trump had his hand in there in that pot somewhere too, when they were looting Russia in a big way. But they have not
dug it out yet. I fail to understand with all these intelligence agencies, they have not shown it to the public as yet.
mike k , August 18, 2017 at 5:30 pm
If your mind is open like a sieve.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 6:33 pm
The sieve serves to filter isolate particles of significance from the soup of information. A dam on the other hand prevents
the flow. Most here have built dams against anything implicating Trump and Putin, and there is extensive evidence of it, from
many sources.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 6:56 pm
Good analogy.
There's enough criticism of Trump here (although he does have his share of apologists, especially with respect to Charlottesville
e.g.'whatabout BLM?'), but Putin, not so much. I'm guessing he gets a pass from many of the readers due to him being somewhat
alone in standing up to the US (in Georgia, Ukraine, etc) as well as consortiumnews being relatively unique in disputing the 'official'
narrative with respect to the Ukrainian coup, MH17, & Crimea (as well as Syria). While Putin has served as a valuable counterweight
to the American empire, it doesn't make him beyond reproach, and he may possibly have helped to put a white-nationalist authoritarian
into the presidency.
Joe Tedesky , August 18, 2017 at 7:41 pm
Hillary put Trump in the Oval Office. Bernie would have won, but your darling Hillary made sure that he didn't stand a chance
to win the Democratic primary, because her being a Clinton means she cheats.
Why don't you and Roy go peddle your insulting selfs to people who might buy what your selling. She loss, because she wasn't
a good candidate. In fact Hillary would have loss to almost any of the insane Republicans who ran. You BobS are one dull gem of
a person .now go mimic me you clown.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 7:48 pm
"Hillary put Trump in the Oval Office."
She helped.
"Bernie would have won"
Agreed.
"She loss, because she wasn't a good candidate. In fact Hillary would have loss to almost.."
You should get your money back for the ESL course.
Joe Tedesky , August 18, 2017 at 8:02 pm
BobS why can't you just talk sensibility with me?
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:18 pm
Vlad does get some credit for straight-arming the West vulture capitalists from feeding on the carcass of the USSR and the
state owned infrastructure, BUT he supplanted those efforts with his own. He's become one of the richest men in the world by the
most unrestrained crony capitalism and is a skilled authoritarian ruler. Why he is so defended around here makes me wonder who
these people are who feel so butt hurt when he is criticized.
Anon , August 19, 2017 at 5:53 am
What garbage: find the evidence and your intellectual superiors will gladly review it.
Anon , August 18, 2017 at 7:40 pm
Roy G Biv = BobS: you know as well as we that the utterly discredited Russiagate propaganda is intended solely to distract
from the DNC corruption and Repub corruption. So you pretend that discrediting it is a distraction. The crook is always full of
accusations of the same crookedness, like our Ukrainian hacker.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:23 pm
Hate to disappoint you Anon, but we are not the same person and I have no idea who BobS is. I guess you find it easier to ignore
dissenting opinion by lumping it into one persona. And your dismissal of Malcolm Nance is pretty thin IMO. The Russian hacking
of our election and the financial connections to DJT are well established and creating slogans and memes like "Russiagate" is
a cheap parlor trick.
Anon , August 19, 2017 at 5:56 am
BS. You haven't a single shred of evidence of any election hacking, let alone Russian, and apparently you know it. I demand
your evidence, not propaganda.
DocHollywood , August 20, 2017 at 12:51 am
"The Russian hacking of our election and the financial connections to DJT are well established"
All that's missing is evidence.
Peter Duveen , August 18, 2017 at 5:01 pm
I only pick up the New York Times once or twice a year as a novelty. It has priced itself out of the market, as have many other
newspapers, which used to be affordable by those eking out even the meanest of livings.
It would appear that the Russian hysteria is somehow connected with the anti-Trump hysteria in general, to which has been added
the charge of his being a white nationalist Nazi, merely because he acknowledged two factions willing to exercise violence in
conjunction with a politically charged demonstration. Yet, the latter charges would seem to divide so-called progressives while
casting intellectually honest analyses like Parry's as sympathetic to white supremacists by association. This may seem to be quite
a challenging environment for journalists to operate in, as the actual situation is so at odds with the conventional wisdom being
touted from the same regions of the universe. I do hope the very fabric of truth-telling is not ripped to shreds by these counter-currents.
mike k , August 18, 2017 at 5:34 pm
So Trump is not a Nazi sympathizer? They sure think so. Ask David Duke. He tweeted thanks to Trump for defending them.
Litchfield , August 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm
This is faulty logic.
I have said it before and I will say it again:
In our two-party system, millions of voters don't actually have any party that represents their views. This includes what would
be called in the USA "extremists" on both the left and the right.
Unlike what would be the case in a parliamentary system, where if a party gets over the 5% threshold they are represented in
the legislature and may even participate in forming a government, in the USA such groups have to decide which of the two parties
is closer to their own platform. IF David Duke decides that the Repugs are closer to what he wants, that doesn't mean that Trump
is therefore a Nazi or white supremacist.
It means that Duke is some kind of Republican.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 6:25 pm
Trump has received adulation from the white nationalist fringe unusual for a candidate from any party.
Even more unusual, Trump has reciprocated.
Joe Tedesky , August 18, 2017 at 9:37 pm
Knowing you BobS you'll probably think that what I'm about to say, is my supporting Trump, because you are still living the
2016 presidential election. When you bring up odd alliances, how about when Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland (and John McCain)
orchestrated the coup in Ukraine that installed a full on Nazi Party, complete with swastikas?
Let's see if you can answer me in a decent tone. That doesn't mean you need to agree with me, but it does mean you are an ignorant
know it all, if you don't answer me with some common respect.
Before you came here BobS, it was nice to have conversations with the many others who whether they agreed with you or not,
at least the use of good manners did lead to our learning something worthwhile. You BobS, only bring out the worst in a person,
with your little boy agitation. It also over shadows the good points you make, when you use ridicule the way you do. In other
words BobS, I can tell your not stupid, but you sure come off that way with your words and actions when you do the silly things
you do with your rude comments.
It's very rare that I burn down bridges, for you see BobS all my life I have been a bridge builder. So, when your ready to
grow up, and become mature, then who knows, maybe you and I will become friends, if not well it's no big loss. Take care Joe
Zachary Smith , August 18, 2017 at 11:43 pm
Joe, they are both professional disruptors. The Roy G Biv character is too well informed to be merely mistaken – he's simply
not honest. I'd posit he is CIA or back-room NYT employee. Or possibly a nutcase Zionist with a good US education posting from
some stolen land in Israel.
Speaking of the New York Times, I'm done with them. I now have zero respect for the filthy propaganda site.
As I was reading through Mr. Parry's piece I decided to find out for myself if they were as bad as they seem. But how to test
this? Long story short, I hit on the idea to see what they've written about the USS Liberty on this 50th Anniversary of the attempted
sinking of the ship and attempted mass murder of all aboard.
Search terms were "USS LIberty" and "nytimes.com".
According to the Google results there were zero mentions of the USS Liberty on the NYT site within the past 12 months. Double
checking, I went to the site and entered the term into the search there. Nothing.
They lie. They distort. They conceal. Mostly for Israel. These days Israel wants Syria to get the Iraq/Libya treatment. Russia
is an obstacle. The lying, cheating, and distortions of the NYT and WP are focused on pressuring Russia enough to get them out
of Syria. The professional newcomers here are accusing us of being Putin-Hacks, and much more. They do everything they can to
disrupt discussion. I'd imagine it's because Mr. Parry's site is becoming one too many people around the world come to view. The
deliberate chaos created by these guys is another small part of the attack on Russia for Israel.
By the way, have you noticed a single thing the BobS and Roy G Biv types have written which is notable in any way whatever?
I haven't. I'm going to try very hard to be done with them as well.
Joe Tedesky , August 19, 2017 at 12:00 am
Thanks Zachary. Hearing you say that these two buttheads maybe professional disrupters is comforting. No, I'm actually honored
that BobS started with me (I think first) the other day. Now I feel empowered to deal with the likes of these two clown asses.
You may have already seen this article over at the Saker, about the USS Liberty, but here it is in case you haven't, or for
the others who may find interest in it as well.
I agree, Zachary and Joe. They appear to be trolls, and may use varying names for a while.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 6:52 pm
You just said: " .charge of his being a white nationalist Nazi, merely because he acknowledged two factions willing to exercise
violence in conjunction with a politically charged demonstration." Your use of the word merely is very disturbing. If it was abundantly
clear from previous revelations, his performance this week should have removed all doubt about his sentiments.
Peter Duveen , August 18, 2017 at 7:41 pm
Yes it was wrong for me to use "merely," because the characterization of Trump as a white supremacist has nothing to do with
reality, and the fact that Trump took a balanced approach to the demonstration was another excuse for unfounded accusations. What
we have is people who want Trump out, who lost an election, who are doing everything they can to overthrow a president. Since
the Russian hacking meme has been shown to be without merit (although it is still harped upon), the white supremacist angle is
now being milked for everything it has. It's a hoax completely in parallel with the Russian hacking narrative. Reality has nothing
to do with this attempt to overthrow Trump. And the CIA is fully behind it. So stick with it. People may be making idiots of themselves,
but for them, the ends justifies the means.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:29 pm
Well, I guess we'll see. But I believe you will be the one eating crow when the facts are laid out. It seems people have trouble
holding disparate thoughts in their minds and require mutual exclusivity, i.e. the past misdeeds of the CIA vs the idea that they
might actually be doing public service in this Putin/Trump situation. I don't have trouble with this and embrace both. The world
and people are complex, not neatly black or white.
Annie , August 18, 2017 at 5:14 pm
I remember as soon as the leak that the DNC tried to subvert the Sanders campaign came out, Hillary's campaign manager Robby
Mook stated the Russians did it, and obviously he had no conclusive proof. At the time I thought they already had it planned that
if their misdeeds were ever revealed Russia would be blamed, and it would be a good reason to go after Trump should he win the
election. It would also allow them to continue to escalate a cold war, already well underway under the Obama administration. It's
basic science that you can't come to a valid conclusion if you have already determined what that will be. I never believed their
lies from the get go. What is very disturbing is that the press is so complicit in pushing this lie while the American public,
and in this case the so called liberal/progressives, are so willing to swallow it. For me, that's the scary part. Equally scary
is that the CIA, FBI and NIA are equally complicit in this deception.
mike k , August 18, 2017 at 5:37 pm
Right, they are all in on this phony Russia scare gambit. There are plenty of other causes to impeach Trump. Our President
is a crook, as well as a racist.
Annie , August 18, 2017 at 7:11 pm
I don't know if Trump's a racist, maybe he is, but did you ever hear Obama, Bush, or Cheney called a racist, or if they were,
did the American people buy into it the way they have with Trump? However, what would you call people who destroy whole nations
which are predominantly Muslim, cross sovereign borders in Muslim countries killing thousands of innocents with drone warfare?
Is Israel in it's treatment of the Palestinians not racist? Are we not racist as a nation as well? I ask myself if these countries
were predominately Christian would the American people be so laid back about our warring exploits in these countries? What about
those papal bulls that gave explorers of the new world the right to conquer and exploit the indigenous people? Not to mention
our sense of entitlement to practically wipe out the American Indian population. If indeed he is a racist, he fits right in. Take
a look at our legal system where over 90 percent of people take a plea bargain and never get a fair trial, and most of the prison
population is black although they constitute a small minority in this country.
I have a friend who berated me for not being more outraged by Trump's racist rhetoric, but she refused to visit an elderly,
and lonely aunt who lived in a black area, while I move in and out of that area quite frequently. We're full of hypocrisy.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 7:32 pm
"I don't know if Trump's a racist"
Trump's a racist.
"Is Israel in it's treatment of the Palestinians not racist?'
Amy Goodman had on a spokesman from the Anne Frank Center this morning forcefully (and accurately, in my opinion) criticizing
Trump, Bannon, & Gorka.
The interview took a somewhat comical turn when Goodman showed her guest a clip of white supremacist Richard Spencer being interviewed
on Israeli television saying:
"As an Israeli citizen, someone who understands your identity, who has a sense of nationhood and peoplehood and the history and
experience of the Jewish people, you should respect someone like me, who has analogous feelings about whites. I mean, you could
-- you could say that I am a white Zionist, in the sense that I care about my people. I want us to have a secure homeland that's
for us and ourselves, just like you want a secure homeland in Israel."
The comical part was watching the histrionics of the guy from the Anne Frank Center as he avoided addressing Spencer's point.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:33 pm
"Hail Trump -- " chanted by Richard Spencer after the election. Fascists love fascists.
Annie , August 18, 2017 at 9:37 pm
I usually listen to Democracy Now, but missed this one, and it makes a good point. Easy to point a finger at someone's perceived
racism, but difficult to look at your own, which is too often justified. My point exactly. People talk about Trumps immigration
policies and deportation of immigrants, but are mindless of the fact that Obama deported 2 million immigrants. Many Americans
don't place what is going on now within an historical framework, not even a recent historical framework. I also believe there
is an attempt to undermine the people who voted for Trump, which would make a coup more possible. I don't like Trump, but more
then anything I don't like the idea of overturning the election of a president based on lies and innuendo. I really don't think
that's a good thing --
Dave P. , August 18, 2017 at 9:49 pm
Annie, your comments are always very sincere and objective.
You wrote above: ". . .What is very disturbing is that the press is so complicit in pushing this lie while the American public,
and in this case the so called liberal/progressives, are so willing to swallow it. For me, that's the scary part. Equally scary
is that the CIA, FBI and NIA are equally complicit in this deception. . ."
By this time, it should be clear to any one with an open mind that there is no such thing left in the country as free and fair
Media which informs public. And all these agencies you mentioned are nothing but a sewage pit of lies. And the liberal/ progressives
are like most of the population, completely brainwashed and believe whatever is fed to them by the likes of Rachael Maddow.
Annie , August 18, 2017 at 10:35 pm
My brother listens to her everyday, and I can't listen to him. He's literally hysterical over the Trump presidency, as is she.
He can't hear anything I have to say, or any other point of view. To me it is a total surprise since he is well educated, and
will define himself as a liberal thinker. Bah humbug --
"The Times' rebuke toward any doubts about Russia-gate was inserted after Carr's remark although the Times had already declared
several times on page 1 that there was really no doubt about Russia's guilt."
The NYT is now terrified of the genuine research and honest conclusions made by the VIPS. It's almost as if the NYT's suffering
under some sort of OCD neurosis, the VIPS has them on their heels, though the NYT will never admit it. Ergo, like Rainman, they
resort to repeating over and over and over to their brainwashed readers the Kremlin's guilt and the intel agencies' assurances.
They try ever so hard to pass themselves off as the only reasonable and sane voices in the room, during these times of upheaval
and uncertainty.
To use an admittedly stretched sports analogy: the VIPS have been doing, and are going to do, to the NYT what Floyd Mayweather
is about to do to McGregor in their upcoming prize fight. A real authentic professional is about to dominate a huckster and charlatan
who's out of his element, just there to collect a fat paycheck (not unlike the careerism of the NYTers).
Karl Sanchez , August 18, 2017 at 5:33 pm
Given the overall context of Russiagate and the "journalistic" history of the NY Times , it would be fair to assess
it and its loyal readership as spreading Washington propaganda and unwitting Washington stooges, respectively. But which gets
to claim the Greatest Propaganda Rag Prize: NY Times or Washington Post ?
mike k , August 18, 2017 at 5:39 pm
Too close to call.
D5-5 , August 18, 2017 at 6:02 pm
From Parry: the "certainties" blaming the DNC "hack" on Russia's intelligence agencies "lack a solid evidentiary foundation."
What would that evidentiary foundation be?
Would it be Donald Trump visited Russia therefore he's guilty of conspiring with Putin to fix the election, starting with hacking
the DNC.
Or Trump had real estate dealings, mafia dealings, whatever, with Russia, and leap to "I wouldn't doubt it."
Or, I hate Trump so much I'll believe anything negative about him.
Or Russia was once the Soviet Union and a bunch of commie rat bastards so of course this story is true.
Or, The New York Times, that esteemed bastion of truth and investigative journalism says it's true so it must be true.
Evidence defined: what furnishes proof.
Yet, reminded by Parry once again, here is the basis for the January 6 assessments:
Quoted from the reporting agencies themselves on January 6, their judgments–
"are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information,
which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents."
Based on what evidence IS, here we have NO evidence. What we do have is speculation.
Clapper weighed in on January 6 with a "moderate" assessment. How does a moderate differ from a high assessment–was some of
the logic–since the statement indicates no proof based on fact exists–somehow dubious or tendentious?
He was moderately convinced that it just might be so, maybe, possibly. Is that what this means?
Dempsey weighed in at "high" with the above statement, and perhaps somebody knows what this "high" meant, based on what?
Comey weighed in at "high" although his agency, the FBI, did not examine the DNC computers, and relied entirely on Crowdstrike,
shown repeatedly as a biased anti-Russian source in the employ of Hillary Clinton.
This is the authority creating the flimsy evidentiary foundation of the NY Times et al MSM to which we citizens are now either
a) skeptical or b) entirely convinced.
"Evidentiary void"–right on, Robert Parry --
D5-5 , August 19, 2017 at 12:08 pm
Sorry, meant to say Brennan, not "Dempsey" re CIA assessment.
The Saker is always interesting, and even though you find some good people over there (Michael Hudson & Mike Whitney, among
others), the race stuff at Unz always makes me feel like I have to wash off.
John , August 18, 2017 at 6:58 pm
America is walking into a well planned nightmare. Spoon fed to you by the corporate media soon the spark of hate will become
an uncontrollable wildfire
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 7:00 pm
It did not rely entirely on Crowdstrike. They are just the ones who referred it to FBI. If you don't think the USA has powerful
IT divisions who can forensically determine source and method, then your fear of deep state are immediately invalidated, a contradiction.
If you believe in the awesome power of the intelligence community, then you cannot use the argument that they don't know anymore
than what the got from Crowdstrike. I understand the mistrust of the IC, but you must admit that they just might me trying to
protect us in this case from enemies foreign and domestic.
Sam F , August 18, 2017 at 7:57 pm
No, no one can "forensically determine source and method" except in lucky cases or when tracing naive hacks. NSA got its trove
of hack methods including false-flagging methods on the black market from a Ukraine hacker. So no one will buy garbage accusations
of Russia from a Ukrainian hacker.
If the US IC has insider sources, they must be prepared to have them bail out and give testimony, after some reasonable period,
where grave accusations must be either discredited or cause serious policy changes.
No hiding behind "trust us" after months: only fools will believe "confidence."
The same goes for MH-17, WMD, the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, and many others.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:39 pm
What you are saying is true and reasonable. But consider that this is an ongoing counter espionage investigation that has been
in progress for over one year, and these take years to conclude. You may not be able to trust them without seeing the info and
intel, but you cannot simply conclude that the evidence simply doesn't exist just because it's not visible to you. There are reasons
to hold cards close to the vest while leveraging suspects into witnesses.
Sam F , August 19, 2017 at 6:38 am
Fine, let them investigate, but they must not announce extremely serious conclusions to the public, with immediate political
implications, especially conclusions that serve immediate political ends in the US, and refuse to provide evidence to the public
even after a month or so. That is either careless methodology or fraud. The history of such "revelations" on "high confidence"
has been a history of fraud by political appointees to the intel agencies.
I do not exclude the possibility that intel technology whose nature and location are critical secrets might be revealed with
the evidence, although it appears that the secrets could generally be kept. Such technology requires having a safe disclosure
method, such as disguising/relocating informants and devices. Most likely such technology would provide clues to direct other
safely-revealable technology. If it does not, it does not serve democracy well, and probably is fundamentally a tool of tyranny,
a product of excessive spying, and must be discounted by the public.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 7:06 pm
By the way, the "Evidentiary Void" might actually look pretty filled up in private eyes of the office of special counsel. I
wouldn't expect to see the all of the evidence of a case in progress, as persons being investigated are best left unknowing and
useful to flip for a leniency deal. Again, the timeline will be very informative if you take the time to read it. It's merely
the chronological presentation of factual events.
That link is so full of invasive scripts that my script blocking software cannot be persuaded to show it.
Zachary Smith , August 18, 2017 at 8:37 pm
I use YesScript for Firefox on a case-by-case basis. If a site has annoying animations, it gets the treatment.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:40 pm
Just goole billmoyers.com and look for timeline. It's so easy.
D5-5 , August 19, 2017 at 10:40 am
The time-line is irrelevant to the specific claim that Trump conspired with Russia to fix the election. Point to anything in
this time-line that offers evidence.
Reminder 1: evidence is what offers proof on the specific charge.
Reminder 2: the IC January 6 statement "not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact."
This very interesting statement suggests that a political motive was operative in these assessments, in which "what we want
to believe" becomes "what we believe," or to quote Seymour Hersh recently, 2 + 2 = 45.
Your absence of doubt, particularly given the history of lying from our official government reps over many years now, as well
as your swerving aside to an irrelevant "time-line," puts you in the camp of the propagandists.
I believe it is a disgusting and dangerous remark for a person in an elected position to make.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 7:56 pm
That's why I'm outraged.
Joe Tedesky , August 18, 2017 at 11:37 pm
See BobS no one knows how to take your snarky remarks. Plus, I don't believe you when you say you were outraged, because your
squirrelly mind doesn't know how to be sincere. Oh will you pay for my ESL courses? Jagoff.
Pierre Anonymot , August 18, 2017 at 7:27 pm
Mr. Pary, do you manage to send your articles to selected editors and journalists of the NYT, The Guardian, and their MSM mates?
To selected politicians, including executive bureaucrats & MIC peple? It seems to me that some of them must read more than twits
twittering? I think it's very vital that you do so or that someone does it on your behalf (and ours.)
Pierre Anonymot , August 18, 2017 at 7:27 pm
Oops, Parry.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:42 pm
Parry is well known on Capitol Hill and among the MSM. Long standing feud, but no doubt respected.
Sam , August 18, 2017 at 7:37 pm
"a Ukrainian hacker whose malware was linked to the release of Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails in 2016"
Mr Parry, the malware and its developer had nothing whatsoever to do with the DNC. The New York Times erroneously made this
claim and was forced to issue a correction. It has NEVER been claimed that this malware was deployed against the DNC. I think
your piece would be strengthened if you mentioned that The New York Times made a big blunder about this.
Sam F , August 18, 2017 at 8:11 pm
Hi Sam, I regularly post here as Sam F and would appreciate your using an initlal to avoid confusion, if you will.
Taras77 , August 18, 2017 at 9:33 pm
This might be a tad OT but both links follow the reporting on Russia-gate hysteria:
This link is a review of a book on the Browder deception (title of review article is a tad more dire than the title of the
book):
This link is to a very long article by saker on the neo con campaign to take down America and probably the world-very long
but worth a read, particularly with fast moving developments in the trump white house; comments in general are also worthy of
perusing:
We should be careful, as not to dwell strictly on memorial statues. I will admit though, that the conversation should be had,
but not without looking at the type of individuals who flock towards the racist trend. So far, of what I have been able to read
regarding these young white guys, who have found comfort in racism, I find these misguided youth to be angry over the rise of
minority groups. Reading their words, these angered white supremacist wrote, they complain that we spend to much time worried
about bathrooms over them having a decent job. I say, why can't we do both. Someone needs to tell these racist, that it's not
the various minority's who are getting in the way of their success in America, as much as it is themselves for not being able
to overcome the many obstacles life has put in their way. They need to realize, that their future welfare doesn't rely on a minority
losing any of their rights, in order for these racist to survive comfortably. What they need to learn, is they are their own best
hope .attitude is altitude.
I also hope, that what happened in Charlottesville doesn't bring down the hammer on all public protest.
backwardsevolution , August 19, 2017 at 3:20 am
Joe – but there are too many "unskilled" workers coming into the country and it IS making a difference. Long time ago, when
there was an abundance of factories churning out all sorts of products, there was a need for unskilled labor. People flooded into
the country to fill these much-needed positions. You didn't need any special training; you didn't need to understand English.
With jobs having been offshored to Asia and with increasing automation, there is not a need for the same amount of "unskilled"
labor as before, and yet they continue to pour into the country. What are the people who are on the left-hand side of the bell
curve supposed to do? Innovate? Compete with the newcomers and have wages decline even more?
It's not the immigrants these kids dislike. It's the sheer numbers of them. Does that make any sense to you, that it's about
the "numbers"? I agree that obstacles in life often make you wiser and stronger, but there comes a point in time when you start
banging your head against the wall. What is the point of putting so many unnecessary obstacles in front of people? So some corporation
can maintain a cheap labor force?
Sometimes my posts come across as sounding blunt. I don't mean them to. It's just that when things are reduced to words, you
miss the shrugs of the shoulders, the eye movement, the sincerity in a person's voice.
Cheers, Joe.
Joe Tedesky , August 19, 2017 at 9:22 am
You never come off sounding bad, or blunt, with me.
For all the reasons you mentioned, is for all the reasons we as a society should require us to pull together. You see, I don't
believe that all these problems should be remedied with racism taking over our young white mens political ideology. That's all
I'm saying. If only our country would elect leaders, instead of billionaire realtors with tv celebrity status. If only this country's
political parties were to not break the law running their gentrified Wall St hack candidate, who's only aim is to feather her
historical bio. You see backwardsevolution, we need leaders, not celebrities seeking office for their own vain gratification.
Yes, for all the hard choices, and for all the tough decisions, should be the reason for our leaders to reach out or down,
which ever you prefer, and should be what pulls us together. It breaks my heart, that here we are in 2017, the most successful
nation God ever put on earth, and our white young men are turning into racist. Now, what could be wrong with that? I'll tell you
what's wrong with that. Our leaders have quit leading, and replaced this leadership we the people should be receiving, and replaced
this ever distant leadership with ignorance of doing their job to represent the voters.
Thanks for your response. Joe
backwardsevolution , August 19, 2017 at 11:49 am
Joe – " our white young men are turning into racists." I don't think they are, Joe. I think they get angry that they are not
being allowed to speak, as if what they have to say doesn't really matter. I think that what we hear is carefully filtered, especially
in the MSM, so as to make it look like they're racist, but I don't think this is the case at all. No time now, Joe. Thanks.
Joe Tedesky , August 19, 2017 at 11:59 pm
Okay, I will admit that our media portrays many of our events in the worst possible way. You more than likely may have a point
that these young white men are not racist, that for many of them this white supremacist movement is just a vehicle to carry out
their concerns.
What is wrong with our country's leadership, is how they speak to the problems, such as unemployment, with the sharpest rhetoric
they can find to say how they are going to create many, many new and exciting jobs, but once in office they don't do a darn thing,
as they go on to ignore the many promises they had made on the campaign trail. What these politicians seem completely oblivious
too, is the voters who voted for them ,have memories, and they don't forget.
Opportunity only comes to those who seek it. Well that's not completely true, but in most cases it does prove that to those
who try hard, much may be achieved. So if our politicians were to really want to change our sad employment status in this country,
then why don't they do it? Would you invite 100 people over for a barbecue, and only have enough beverage and food for 25 of your
guess. So, why can't the American politicians manage to accommodate a sagging work force, who's jobs they send off shore, with
enough new jobs to fill the quota of the unemployed? Because they weren't told too, by their corporate special interest, or maybe
they just didn't care enough to do something about it.
So, the young white, black, red, and yellow, person loses out. They lose out all because they were neglected by the very people
who said they would help them. I don't know about you, but one of life's biggest disappointments, is when your savior turns their
back on you.
I hope backwardsevolution I'm not sounding like I'm just spinning wheels, and I hope you at least get a peek of what is going
on inside my head, with these important issues.
Joe
Realist , August 19, 2017 at 5:49 am
"Illegitimi non carborundum." (Don't let the bastards grind you down.)
Keep fighting for your principles AND civil discourse on this board, Joe. I offer the same words to backwardsevolution with
whom you were conversing. You have both been stellar examples of respectful debaters.
I don't for a minute think, like some who keep obnoxiously pushing the accusation that most Americans, especially most Southern
Americans, are racist, that racism underlies most of the dysfunction in governance of modern America, and that President Trump
is the king of all racists, winning office only with the support of racists (and Russian saboteurs) to carry on a racist agenda
thus depriving us of a new golden age under Saint Hillary the Great. The whole racist conflict in Charlottesville seemed suspiciously
contrived to me to distract from other problem areas and to facilitate the ongoing coup against Trump (like him or hate him).
I am NOT going to recapitulate all that yet again.
Certainly there were bone fide haters, some predisposed to violence, recruited into both factions by professional agitators.
They couldn't have succeeded in provoking the violence if there were not. But, most working Americans are basically running scared,
fearing they might lose their jobs, their houses, their medical coverage, quality education for their kids, and a viable future.
Most whites, whether right or left, from the North or South, do not hate blacks, Latinos, Muslims or immigrants in general. They
can see how disadvantaged those people often are and fear ending up in the same predicament. Most never say much about the situation,
certainly not in strident public statements. Even the participants at political rallies are just a self-selected minority. Most
who vote do so quietly, without comment. (My parents would never tell us who they voted for -- Keeps the peace.) More than half
the country does not even vote. They choose to shy away from the political battlefield and certainly do not want to confront agitators
in the street.
Call them alienated or disconnected from society, and condemn them if it suits your world view. We contributors to this site
do put a lot of blame on those we decide are willfully ignorant. But I suspect that most of the self-disenfranchised simply don't
have enough time to devote to learning the issues, choosing up sides and becoming activists, or even voters. I doubt that many
of them think that tearing down a bunch of old monuments they were totally oblivious to will change their lives in any way and
they certainly don't want to devote the time or energy to fighting about them.
If either the left or the right want to improve the lot of regular Americans, they will take some kind of action to bring back
jobs to this country, not just high-skill jobs that require massive re-education, but jobs for the middle and the working classes
alike. I thought that's what Dems always wanted to do, and what Trump said he would do. Why is everything still in grid-lock in
Washington while both parties are trying to dump the man who opposed the TPP and said he would pressure corporations to keep jobs
in and even bring back jobs to America–not that I think the latter is likely, but why has even lip-service to the idea stopped?
If the Dems ostentatiously claimed THAT issue was their major bone of contention with Trump, they'd have a lot more followers
than the few idiots who buy the Russia-Gate bullshit.
When Newt Gingrich swept the GOP to power in the congress during Bill Clinton's first term, he had devised a lengthy detailed
plan of action called the "Contract for America." I was not an advocate of those policies, but they certainly resonated better
with the public than today's "elect the Democrats to power and the Russians will never steal another election, in fact, we'll
kick their asses from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea." "Plus we'll tear down all the confederate monuments which should bring
peace and harmony to the streets." If the real game changers can ever be implemented (which seems near to hopeless to me), racism
will not be a major issue in this country, not if most of us are physically and economically secure and optimistic about our futures.
(I've had two black families and a Latino family living in houses right next to mine in South Florida, and I had a mixed race
family as neighbors in my previous place of residence. Do I care? No. Do they care? No. Anyone else in the neighborhood ever make
a comment about anyone's race? No. Does it affect my property value? No, but the real estate bubble caused by the banks sure did.)
Sam F , August 19, 2017 at 7:03 am
Yes, good to point out that economic distress is a major factor in apparent racism and immigration resistance among US workers.
This is a great concern to those who advocate international development aid, who must answer objections on economic effects.
The answer on globalization may involve treaties and laws restricting trade to nations that provide a standard of living that
compares well with the lower middle class of the US, and to suppliers who provide well for their employees. While that would be
cheaper elsewhere, so does not remove competition with US labor, it does require that the cost in jobs to the US worker is matched
by benefits in development elsewhere. So our assistance to US workers is reduced by development assistance.
It also would prevent the US heartlessly exploiting cheap labor pools of oppressed workers, without you or I being able to
help them by purchasing choices, or to escape guilt in their exploitation. It would be good to know that one could make purchasing
decisions without grinding others into poverty and degradation to save a few pennies.
BobS , August 19, 2017 at 7:53 am
" economic distress is a major factor in apparent racism and immigration resistance among US workers."
Partly, though certainly not solely, with respect to immigration.
Racism?
Nope.
Makes a nice scapegoat, though, for racists and their apologists.
Joe Tedesky , August 19, 2017 at 10:07 am
Your comment Sam took my mind back to my younger days when this town had an abundance of steel mills. If you were a young apprentice
sometimes on your first day on the job, no one seemed to want to teach you the ropes, because each mill worker felt threatened
that you were to be trained to replace them. In time, if you didn't screw up, you would be accepted and inducted into the group.
We love cliques and groups, don't we? I thought of this, because what you wrote reminded me of how outsiders are viewed by the
existing work force. This comparison on a international level is what we are experiencing. Our leadership is to blame for this
new dividing dilemma. Promises to replace your old job with a brand new better job, was the big lie. Corporate profits override
human necessity, and with that we all lose. I don't think that all these retail outlets closing their doors, is merely due to
Amazons convenient purchasing, but much of this loss of retail revenue, is due to the beatdown society just cannot afford it.
Good comment as always Sam. Joe
Realist , August 19, 2017 at 6:25 pm
You are very much on point, Joe, about worker pitted against worker. Who benefits from such a divide and conquer tactic? The
robber baron capitalists are who. And, I use that term because the phenomenon is nothing new. It, like the bruhaha about race
goes back to before the Civil War. Ever watch the movie "The Gangs of New York?" Both these conflicts, involving race (and ethnicity)
and socioeconomic class, are laid out powerfully right there. And, just as in the movie, after our generations exit the stage
following all the sturm und drang, all the hate and all the angst churned up because we are made pawns of greater forces, no one
will even remember we personally ever existed.
Trump Tower, the Clinton Foundation, and Obama's Library in Jackson Park (yeah, named after the racist Andrew, not Stonewall)
will still persist though, just like the confederate statues do today. But would we really want our descendants to forget this
era and the players who dominated it? We build monuments in DC to the holocaust in Europe which didn't even happen here, not to
honor or glorify it but so we collectively don't forget. Maybe the purpose of some monuments actually evolves over time to serve
as a lesson rather than hero worship, and when Americans a hundred years from now look upon a bronze cast of Robert E. Lee, U.S.
Grant or Douglas MacArthur their take will be, "war, how could our forebears possibly have embraced something so heinous, so destructive,
so insane?"
Joe Tedesky , August 20, 2017 at 12:20 am
I always take away something of high value from what you write Realist. I agree with what you wrote here. I also think that
our government should build right next to the Holocast museum, a fitting tribute to the suffering of the 600 indigenous nations
who the U.S. had destroyed in its quest for manifest destiny. I'm serious, as a Sunday school teacher is on a Sunday teaching
the word of God. If our nation's soiled pass, is to remain hidden by the curtain of everything that's just and right, then America's
beloved citizens will never know to what is true. How can our nation become truly great, if it keeps on continuing to lie to itself.
Making stuff up, will only last so long, until the truth will finally overcome every lie you ever told yourself.
The change in attitude towards venerating our country's historical pass, is a sign of how our American culture is changing.
What got praise 100 years ago, may not be praise worthy by today's existing society. There isn't much to cry about, but instead
we should understand that these changes will come, just as night follows day. I guess I'm a revisionist at heart, but I do believe
that assumptions and conclusions, are a ever changing thing. So what we are witnessing, and experiencing, is just our own human
evolution. Plus, I might add, as you know Realist, history is always being updated, and revised, and with it many truths that
weren't known then become known.
It's always a pleasure to correspond with a reasonable, and sensible, comment poster as you. Joe
Joe Tedesky , August 19, 2017 at 9:32 am
Every word you wrote Realist, is excellent. I felt the same way about Bill Clinton, but your right, at least the masses at
his time in office thought the economy was what it was all about. I will save going into the reality of Clinton's time in office,
but your point is well made.
Whether it be the Democrates, or a truly changed Republican party, one of these political parties will need to accommodate
the voter, if anything is to get better.
Rather than me go on, I'm just going to read once again what you wrote Realist, because I could not write what you had wrote
any better. Your words are excellent to what we are talking about.
I always enjoy reading your comments Realist, never leave us. Joe
Gregory Herr , August 19, 2017 at 3:06 pm
I have to chime in Joe. I read it twice for good measure. Thanks to Realist and the many here who share such understandings.
backwardsevolution , August 20, 2017 at 7:11 am
Realist – thank you for your kind words. I always appreciate your well-thought-out and intelligent posts. They provide class
and depth to the conversation. I, on the other hand, do not really belong on this site.
Sam F , August 20, 2017 at 9:58 am
Your posts have also been very useful and interesting, b-e.
backwardsevolution , August 21, 2017 at 12:15 am
Yours too, Sam. Always enjoy your comments --
Joe Tedesky , August 20, 2017 at 9:02 pm
Hey backwardsevolution your the life of this party, you never seem like you don't belong. I personally look forward to reading
your comments. So brighten up, you are needed here, and that's no lie. Joe
backwardsevolution , August 21, 2017 at 12:25 am
Joe – you're such a kind man. Thank you. I enjoy reading your posts too; they're always very considerate. What I mean by "I
do not really belong on this site" is that I just see things differently than a lot of others on here do, too differently. I'll
hang around a while yet, though. Thanks, Joe.
Joe Tedesky , August 21, 2017 at 4:09 pm
"that I just see things differently than a lot of others on here do, too differently"
With your quote that is all the more reason this sites comment board needs you backwardsevolution.
backwardsevolution , August 20, 2017 at 7:15 am
Realist – excellent post. Thank you.
exiled off mainstreet , August 19, 2017 at 12:02 am
At Nuremberg, in 1946, Julius Streicher, editor of the Nazi propaganda rag Der Stuermer, was executed based on the crime of
propagandizing for war. This article provides further evidence that the New York Times Russia posturing is a tissue of propaganda
lies. Since the logical goal of the propaganda is war, and the crap they are publishing has similar validity to that which was
published for decades in the Nazi Stuermer rag, then if the legal doctrines put forward in the Nuremberg trial could be applied
to US war propagandists, their status as war criminals would be apparent.
backwardsevolution , August 19, 2017 at 11:42 am
exiled – yeah, I don't see a difference between then and now. Lies are everywhere, and not just little ones, but huge mothers
used to sway public opinion. These guys really need to be in jail.
Look at what the Governor of Virginia, Terry McAuliffe, said re Charlottesville. His remarks were quickly refuted by the Virginia
State Police, but if you happened to hear what McAuliffe said, yet missed the police's remarks, you'd be none the wiser and you
probably would have believed McAuliffe.
"In an interview Monday on the Pod Save the People podcast, hosted by Black Lives Matter activist DeRay Mckesson, McAuliffe
claimed the white nationalists who streamed into Charlottesville that weekend hid weapons throughout the town.
"They had battering rams and we had picked up different weapons that they had stashed around the city," McAuliffe told Mckesson.
McAuliffe claimed in an interview with The New York Times that law enforcement arrived to find a line of militia members who
"had better equipment than our State Police had." In longer comments that were later edited out of the Times' story, McAuliffe
said that up to 80 percent of the rally attendees were carrying semi-automatic weapons. "You saw the militia walking down the
street, you would have thought they were an army," he said."
All total bullshit -- Talk about inciting people -- Why is this guy still walking around?
To be more successful, the right wing protestors should have paraded under a facade of free speech, human rights and democracy,
all the while promoting Nazi policies. This is something US intelligence agencies, MSM, and Congress do every day. US politicians
should wear little swastika lapel pins on their suits to avoid confusion.
BobS , August 19, 2017 at 1:24 am
Obviously, the correct answer is
neo-Nazis in Ukraine = bad.
neo-Nazis in the U S = bad.
Then there's answers I've read in these comment sections, for instance
neo-Nazis in Ukraine = bad.
neo-Nazis in the U S = bad BUT .whatabout BLM?
&
neo-Nazis in Ukraine = bad
neo-Nazis in the U S = trap for Trump
as well as this classic:
neo-Nazis in Ukraine = bad.
neo-Nazis in the U S = DEEP STATE -- -- --
backwardsevolution , August 19, 2017 at 1:59 am
Here is a post by Karl Denninger, a fellow who used to own his own Internet company in Chicago and is very knowledgeable about
these things. After reading The Nation article by Patrick Lawrence, he said:
"I wouldn't go so far as to claim impossible, but I would say "highly unlikely." The second part of the statement, however,
is utterly true -- it is completely consistent with either a SD card or USB flash drive inserted into a computer.
When it comes to Internet transfer of data, remember one thing: You're only as fast as the slowest link in the middle.
There are plenty of places on the Internet with gigabit (that's ~100MegaBYTE per second) speeds. But you would need such pipes
end to end, and in addition, they'd have to be relatively empty at the time you exfiltrated the data.
What's worse is that there is a real bandwidth product delay problem that most "pedestrian" operating systems do not handle
well at all.
In other words as latency and number of hops go up, irrespective of bandwidth, there's an issue with the maximum realistically
obtainable speed, irrespective of whether there's sufficient available pipe space to take the data. This is a problem that can
be tuned for if you know how and your system has the resources to handle it on some operating systems -- specifically, server-class
operating systems like FreeBSD. But the "common" Windows machine pretty-much cannot be adjusted in this way and it requires expert
knowledge to do so. [ ]
But it sure does cast a long shade on the claims of "Russians -- " in this alleged "hack." The simple fact of the matter is
that the evidence points to inside exfiltration of the data directly from the physical machines in question, which is no "hack"
at all: It's an inside job, performed by someone who had trusted, administrative access, and then doctored the documents later
to make it look like Russians.
And, I might add, poorly doctored at that.
PS: Left unsaid in the linked article, but it shouldn't have been, is that if there was an SD card or external USB device plugged
into the machine there is an event log from said machine documenting the exact time that said device was attached and detached.
Find that log (or the timestamp on it being erased, which is equally good in a situation like this), match it against the metadata
times, and then start looking for security camera footage and/or access card logs for where that machine is and you know who did
it with near-certainty, proved by the forensic evidence.
Now perhaps you can explain why the FBI didn't raid the DNC's offices with a warrant, take custody of said logs and go through
them to perform this investigation -- which would have pointed straight at the party or parties responsible .."
Could the quote below apply to today?
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street
building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History
has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right." – George Orwell, 1984
BobS , August 19, 2017 at 8:44 am
"Could the quote below apply to today?"
If one is a drama queen, apparently yes.
Joe Tedesky , August 19, 2017 at 9:51 am
Stephen it doesn't take a drama queen to recognize the true sorry state our society has evolved into. Orwell's 1984 is disturbingly
coming to life more than ever. I read 1984 back when I was a sophomore in high school, but recently a lawyer friend of mine read
that book, and he said that all he kept thinking about was me. He said, that while he read the book, the many conversations which
him and I had had made him think of my warnings to where our civilization is going. No we are here, the date on your calendar
may read 2017, but make no mistake about it we are living in 1984.
I dread that these violent protest, will deny our civil rights to form protests, and that would be a great loss. Although,
these buggers in D.C. are convinced they must seize every crisis, and milk it for all they can. Each terrible disaster brings
with it new restrictions. It maybe found when boarding a plane, or opening an investment account, as each tragic event brought
us to these new restrictions we must live with. We are being played, but that piece of information, is covered over with conspiracy
nut paper, and there go I.
Keep the faith Stephen, and ignore the trolling critics, who no doubt are paid to annoy us with our own hard earned taxpayer
money .now that's Big Brother stuff, if ever there was any Big Brother stuff to disturb our inquiring minds. Joe
Reading the link you provided, all I could picture, was Senator John McCain doing a photo op session with his new found friends
the terrorist. Also, I believe that if you pay your taxes you have every right to complain. That your ability to lodge a complain
against your government shouldn't depend solely on your voting, because you still pay your taxes, and that paying your taxes,
is your ticket to the complaint window.
What this country's politicians really need is a 'low voter turnout', so low as to delegitimize the results of any election,
which would result in the world not honoring your country's election results.
As if on cue, to illustrate my point.
Get out the smelling salts.
Tannenhouser , August 22, 2017 at 10:32 pm
Balloons full of piss. I'd say that illustrates anything remotely resembling a point you make believe you have made bobs.
Keep up the good work Joe. Thanks for all you and other's do here.
Michael Kenny , August 19, 2017 at 10:30 am
Mr Parry is simply repeating what he has said before in many articles. He even harks back to the Malaysian airliner -- Whatever
other evidence there may be (MacronLeaks, the criminal investigation into which is still ongoing), Trump Junior's admissions prove
Russian interference in the US election. Russians claiming to represent their government met with Junior and offered him DNC "dirt".
DNC dirt subsequently appeared on the internet via Wikileaks. That those two events are wholly unrelated coincidences is more
than I am prepared to believe. At that point, it matters not one whit how the Russians obtained the information or from whom.
The Russians promised, the Russians delivered. Did Charlottesville really do this much damage? Putin's American supporters seem
to be in panic -- Or is it Bannon?
Desert Dave , August 19, 2017 at 10:53 am
"Trump Junior's admissions prove Russian interference"? Unless I am not keeping up, all that happened is that a PR flak (not
in Russian government) used the promise of compromat to arrange a meeting with Junior, where they talked about something else.
That's weak, my friend. And while it seems true that Trump's supporters are in a panic, Trump is not Putin.
And in case you want to put me in the box with Trump supporters, know that I am actually a LGBTQ-celebrating, anti-war, dirt-worshipping
tree-hugger.
Gregor , August 19, 2017 at 12:47 pm
A sincere congratulations to some of us who have learned to ignore the snarky but non- contributive remarks
of Bob S. . Joe and Stephen and others, it seems you have found a way to communicate with each other and the rest of us
without responding to Bob S. That's good.
Bob In Portland , August 19, 2017 at 2:16 pm
Let me toot my own horn again. I figured all this out last spring. But the way the false information was fed to the public,
large portions were revealed after the election, indicates that the disinformation wasn't originally to prevent Trump's election,
but rather intended as use for President Hillary Clinton's casus belli to take the war to Russia. Everyone presumed she would
win. You can read original piece here:
https://caucus99percent.com/content/okeydoke-americans-were-supposed-get
But, as I suggested in April, this okeydoke was directed by the intelligence wing of the Deep State, probably the CIA, for
Hillary's warhorse to ride into battle. It not only was supported by the CIA, it was created by it. And while most Americans never
consider that the powers who are the likeliest suspects for the political assassinations of the sixties would insinuate themselves
into the political system and support and promote their own, I suggest that another article, another one from the New York Times,
which tries to explain Hillary suspiciously bouncing from the right to the left during the troubled times of 1968. What the article
doesn't provide is that after volunteering for Gene McCarthy in early 1968 she attended the Republican convention. After that
she worked as an intern in Congress that summer and wrote a speech for then-Republican congressman Robert "Bom" Laird about financing
the war in Vietnam. Six months after that speech Laird was Nixon's Secretary of Defense, sending wave after wave of B-52s over
Vietnam. Then Hillary capped her summer by going to the civil war that was the Chicago Democratic convention.
Rather than looking like a confused college student, not sure whether to be a pro-war Republican or an anti-war Democrat, Hillary
Rodham looks more like one of the hundreds, if not thousands, of government spies that infiltrated all progressive groups back
then in operations like the FBI's COINTELPRO. What did she do after that? She "observed" a Black Panther trial in New Haven. Then
a year or so later she spent a summer interning for the law office in Oakland that represented Black Panthers in the Bay Area.
In short, she appeared to have an intelligence background before she allegedly met Bill on the Yale campus, which holds out
the possibility that their marriage was actually a marriage made in Langley. And that explains why Deep State interests wanted
and expected her to be leading the charge in 2017.
As usual I take away a lot from your posting comments.
Michael , August 19, 2017 at 4:54 pm
Roy G Biv wrote: "It seems people have trouble holding disparate thoughts in their minds and require mutual exclusivity "
Sam F wrote: "I do not exclude the possibility that intel technology whose nature and location are critical secrets might be
revealed with the evidence "
So what is being said is that the benefit to the USA of disclosing methods and sources has not yet reached the level at which
the FBI or the IC will comply on their own to make public any evidence AND it also has not negatively affected the country enough
to force our leaders with the levers of power in their hands to make them comply.
That's what I hear and it sounds like typical political posturing. So we will get more dysfunction in govt and more people
dying here and abroad. Mean while we wait for the magic event that will put us over the line. Or not
Sam F , August 19, 2017 at 6:00 pm
Yes, it looks like political manipulation. The IC could have revealed sufficient information after a month or so at only moderate
loss of intelligence asset value, both on the alleged hacking and flight MH-17. If they were unprepared to reveal evidence after
this time, then they should not have publicized conclusions. By now they should accept the loss and reveal it, otherwise citizens
may fairly presume that political appointees in intel are deceiving them for political purposes.
Typical sources that could be revealed by now:
1. A well-placed source in a foreign government agency: Try to claim another plausible source, email intercept, or recently dismissed
employee or defector already protected; if that is impossible and the info is of great political importance in the US, the real
source must defect to the US for safety. We must take the intel loss to preserve the integrity of public information.
2. A satellite or new technology: If the images or info seem to identify the source or location or capability, then modify them
enough to make it look like another technology or location. Admitting alteration is better than providing nothing.
3. A snoop connection in a valuable location: move it, install another similar device, claim that the info comes from a distinct
source or location, etc.
If the problem is "developing" witness credibility or forthrightness, which some may hope will improve, then the source is
not yet credible and potential conclusions should not be stated with "high confidence" by anyone who cares for truth in policy
making.
Billy , August 19, 2017 at 7:30 pm
The "Russia hacked the DNC so if you pay attention to the content of the emails leaked, you're a Putin loving unAmerican dog
-- " lie used by the DNC to distract from their cheating Bernie. Really took off, practically every pretend news source on the
internet repeated the evidence free accusation, as if it were a proven fact. As did all the MSM propagandist posing as news anchors.
The sheer number of people pushing the lie was mind boggling. Now all of the sudden not a peep about it. I have to question the
timing of the statue removal shit stirring. It seems like a convienent distraction. Why now? All of a sudden these statues must
go -- -- I still haven't figured out what the distraction is distracting from. But the Nation and other web sites were starting
to publish truth about "Russia gate"
Bruce , August 19, 2017 at 10:13 pm
Good comment Billy. The timing of these events is always interesting. Like when the MSM released info on trumps son meeting
with a Russian, just after trump met face to face with Putin in Europe. Presumably the MSM had this story for months, and ran
it to "punish" trump for the Putin meeting.
Bruce , August 19, 2017 at 10:04 pm
Again, its probably best to ignore BobS. He is probably a paid professional disruptor ..your tax dollars at work huh? The fact
he is bothering to muddy these waters is both flattering to CN and evidence of the validity of CN's stance on many important issues.
Herman , August 20, 2017 at 9:50 am
President Trump will probably survive but the effects of his treatment by the media, politicians in both parties, and monied
folks but the way he was attacked and its effects will forever leave a mark on the Office itself. It is an unnecessary reminder
how mindless lynch mobs can be and how powerless the great majority of people are regarding what is happening and will likely
happen to them.
Hank , August 21, 2017 at 5:04 pm
Russia Gate is a Farce. If by now, the deep state has not figured out a way to make it look like a Russian hack with some "credible"
evidence that at least MSM and the masses can swallow then we must seriously doubt. Post Categories: Canada
William Blum | Saturday, June 24, 2017, 20:02 Beijing
33
Print
GR Editor's Note
This incisive list of countries by William Blum was first published in 2013, posted on Global Research in 2014.
In relation to recent developments in Latin America and the Middle East, it is worth recalling the history of US sponsored
military coups and "soft coups" aka regime changes.
In a bitter irony, under the so-called "Russia probe" the US is accusing Moscow of interfering in US politics.
This article reviews the process of overthrowing sovereign governments through military coups, acts of war, support of terrorist
organizations, covert ops in support of regime change.
In recent developments, the Trump administration is supportive of a US sponsored regime change in Venezuela and Cuba
Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, June 24, 2017
******************
Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War.
(* indicates successful ouster of a government)
China 1949 to early 1960s
Albania 1949-53
East Germany 1950s
Iran 1953 *
Guatemala 1954 *
Costa Rica mid-1950s
Syria 1956-7
Egypt 1957
Indonesia 1957-8
British Guiana 1953-64 *
Iraq 1963 *
North Vietnam 1945-73
Cambodia 1955-70 *
Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
Ecuador 1960-63 *
Congo 1960 *
France 1965
Brazil 1962-64 *
Dominican Republic 1963 *
Cuba 1959 to present
Bolivia 1964 *
Indonesia 1965 *
Ghana 1966 *
Chile 1964-73 *
Greece 1967 *
Costa Rica 1970-71
Bolivia 1971 *
Australia 1973-75 *
Angola 1975, 1980s
Zaire 1975
Portugal 1974-76 *
Jamaica 1976-80 *
Seychelles 1979-81
Chad 1981-82 *
Grenada 1983 *
South Yemen 1982-84
Suriname 1982-84
Fiji 1987 *
Libya 1980s
Nicaragua 1981-90 *
Panama 1989 *
Bulgaria 1990 *
Albania 1991 *
Iraq 1991
Afghanistan 1980s *
Somalia 1993
Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
Ecuador 2000 *
Afghanistan 2001 *
Venezuela 2002 *
Iraq 2003 *
Haiti 2004 *
Somalia 2007 to present
Libya 2011*
Syria 2012
Q: Why will there never be a coup d'état in Washington?
A: Because there's no American embassy there.
Tom , August 22, 2017 at 7:13 am
Putin's denial is meaningless (though he just as likely could be telling the truth) HOWEVER to my knowledge Assange has yet
to be proven wrong (must less intentionally lying) about anything. IMO he's the ONLY person in all of this who has anything resembling
a record of credibility. That MSM dismisses this demonstrates they are driven by narrative & ideology, NOT pursuit of fact/truth
Jamie , August 22, 2017 at 12:59 pm
"If you look at Facebook, the vast majority of the news items posted were fake.
They were connected to, as we now know, the thousand Russian agents."
– Crooked Hillary
Large Louis de Boogeytown , August 22, 2017 at 2:58 pm
There is just as much evidence that Ukraine hacked the DNC computer and releasing the information was another one of that countries
'mistakes'. If they are capable of nothing else, Ukraine seems to produce "software experts" who are involved in EVERY dirty game
attached to the internet. The latest one is about turning the Ukrainian 'hryvnia' into real money – 'bitcoin'.
Richard Steven Hack , August 22, 2017 at 6:34 pm
Yes, it DID rely ENTIRELY on CrowdStrike.
All CrowdStrike did was send the FBI a "certified true image" of the DNC servers. This also applies to the other two infosec
companies who weighed in on the evidence – Mandiant and FireEye. Neither the FBI or those two companies ever examined the DNC
servers, the DNC routers or other IT infrastructure which is an absolute MUST in investigating a computer crime.
That is NOT sufficient. ALL the alleged "evidence" provided by CrowdStrike is either circumstantial or easily spoofable. Therefore
the only thing the FBI can see on that "certified true image" is the "evidence" provided by CrowdStrike.
And CrowdStrike is COMPLETELY COMPROMISED by being a company run by an ex-pat Russian who hates Putin and Russia, someone who
sees Russian under every PC.
Richard Steven Hack , August 22, 2017 at 7:32 pm
I should also point out that Jeffrey Carr has been saying this exact thing since the events unfolded last summer. In fact,
from an email to me, he's said he's tired of talking about it.
Jeffrey is absolutely right. NONE of the alleged "evidence" provided by CrowdStrike in any way connects directly back to ANYONE,
let alone the Russian government.
Some of it is laughable, such as the notion that the malware compile times were "during Moscow business hours." If you look
at a time zone map, you see that Kiev, Ukraine, is one hour behind Moscow time. When it's business hours in Moscow, it's business
hours in Ukraine – and can you imagine there are Ukraine hackers more than willing to frame Russia for a high-profile hack?
The National article and the research by The Forensicator does not PROVE that the DNC emails were leaked, because it is POSSIBLE
for someone to access high-speed Internet. Unlikely, as The Forensicator states, but NOT impossible. At least 17% of the US has
access to Gigabit Ethernet to the home and business. However, as The Forensicator correctly points out, it's hard to get that
kind of speed across the Internet, especially to Eastern Europe where the entity Guccifer 2.0 allegedly resides.
Further, we don't know that the copies analyzed by The Forensicator were copied originally from the DNC. In fact, The Forensicator
specially disavows that requirement. What is important to him is that the analysis proves that Guccifer 2.0 was NOT remotely hacking
from Romania because 1) the speeds involved, and 2) the timestamps are all East Coast USA times (which he acknowledges could be
faked but Guccifer 2.0 would have had little reason to do so or even think of doing so.)
The bottom line is that The Forensicator's analysis, coupled with Adam Carter's analysis of the Guccifer 2.0 entity, establishes
good solid CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence that Guccifer 2.0 is NOT a remote Romanian hacker and is NOT a Russian agent, but rather an
entity inserted into the mix to provide "evidence" that the DNC leak was a Russian hack.
And finally, of course, we have Sy Hersh being caught on tape explicitly stating that he has seen or had read to him an FBI
report that specifically states the murdered DNC staff Seth Rich WAS in contact with Wikileaks and had offered to sell them DNC
documents. And that Wikileaks had access to Rich's DropBox account where presumably he was stashing those documents or using it
to transfer them to Wikileaks.
Hersh is preparing a full report on this matter, which if it's anything like his earlier articles will bury the "DNC hack"
story completely.
Remember that "Russiagate" essentially depends on TWO critical factors:
1) That it is a fact that Russia hacked the DNC; and
2) That it is Russia that transferred the DNC emails to Wikileaks – otherwise there is no real reason why Russia would hack the
DNC and it certainly did not do so to "influence the election."
If number one is weak, due to laughable "evidence" and number two proves to be false, the entire "Russia influencing the election"
story goes away. And the rest of the "Trump collusion" "evidence" is also laughable.
Now it may well be true that even if Russia did not give Wikileaks the emails they may still have hacked the DNC at some point.
I submit that if the Russian government did it, we'd never know about it. First because they wouldn't have done it over the Internet
because of the risk of the NSA detecting it (the NSA certainly wasn't monitoring the DNC) and second, they wouldn't have left
any real evidence, especially not evidence linking directly to Russia.
Russian intelligence would have either used a physical penetration of the DNC network (easily done as demonstrated by US penetration
testers all the time) or used a wireless connection into the DNC network from somewhere close to the DNC server location. That's
assuming they wouldn't use the standard intelligence tactic of bribery or blackmail to get a DNC staffer to GIVE them the emails.
In any case, the NSA would not have detected that hack, and CrowdStrike wouldn't have found any significant forensic evidence
except perhaps some evidence that forensic traces had been ERASED.
Which basically means that whoever hacked the DNC – and that is only IF the DNC was REALLY hacked, for which there is NO PROOF
except the DNC's and CrowdStrike's word since the FBI did not investigate the alleged hack itself – might have been 1) some criminal
hacker(s) from Russia or elsewhere, or 2) some other intelligence agency trying to frame Russia for a hack.
It has been suggested that Russian intelligence DOES use criminal hackers on a contract basis either to perform hacks or to
buy intel from said hackers. However, I find it unlikely that Russian intelligence would use incompetent hackers – and the DNC
hackers had to be incompetent to leave the traces they did – for such a "sensitive" hack on a political party in the US.
You can't have it both ways: 1) that awesomely capable Russian hackers are hacking everything in the US connected to the election,
and 2) that they are so incompetent as to leave easily followed trails right back to the Kremlin.
In general, so-called "attribution" of "Russian hackers "is nothing of the sort. It is merely attribution to a collection of
hacking tools and alleged "targets". With the sole exception of Mandiant identifying specific individuals in a specific building
in China, which if accurate was an impressive display of solid attribution, ninety percent of the time no individuals or agencies
can be reliably identified by attribution.
Instead, what we get is the following:
1) Someone ASSUMES that because "target X" is a government or other sensitive facility that the hacker of said target MUST
BE a "nation state actor."
2) Then some later hacker who either happens to use the same hacking tools or happens to target a similar target is ASSUMED
to be either the same hacker or associated with the same hacker. (Note: the DNC hackers are actually alleged to be TWO SEPARATE
entities – APT28 and APT29 – not including Guccifer 2.0.)
3) Thus a house is built on the sand of the first assumption and used to justify all the subsequent "analysis" and "assessments."
An example of this is German intelligence believing that Russia committed a specific hack, and that is now used as justification
for believing the DNC hack was done by the same group, when in fact German intelligence merely stated that because of the TARGET
of the hack they "assessed" that it MIGHT have been Russian intelligence.
In reality, ANY hacker will hack ANY TARGET if he thinks 1) that it will be a challenge, and/or 2) that it will be interesting,
and/or 3) that it contains PII (Personally Identifiable Information) or other data such as credit cards which he can sell on the
hacker underground. Therefore the choice of target doesn't really prove anything.
The choice of hacking tools is also irrelevant. CrowdStrike asserted that some of the tools used in the DNC hack are "exclusive".
Jeffrey Carr has proven they're not, because he spoke to Ukrainian hackers and others who have them.
Bottom line: Without HUMINT (human intelligence) or SIGINT (signals intelligence) obtained offline that specifically identifies
a given organization or individuals, attribution of a specific hack to a specific hacker(s) is almost impossible.
Most of the hackers who have been caught have been caught because they had poor operational security and allowed email addresses
and other identifying information that connected directly to their offline identity to be found. Without that, most hackers get
away, unless they can be lured into identifying themselves by bragging or being set up by a law-enforcement sting.
At this point, Carr is right: There is NO publicly available, non-circumstantial, non-spoofable evidence that a DNC hack
even occurred, let alone that any hack that might have been done was done by Russians at all, let alone the Russian government.
And all of the alleged US intelligence "assessments" have provided NO additional evidence.
Richard Steven Hack , August 22, 2017 at 7:36 pm
Correction to my post:
"(the NSA certainly wasn't monitoring the DNC)" s/b
"(the NSA certainly was monitoring the DNC)"
now it isn't just the nytimes but the new yorker as well, with a many pages piece in its current issue that reads like a doctoral
thesis written by a gossip columnist and is a hatchet job on assange and in great part accusing him, putin and russia of electing
trump.. hope you will comment on some of the specifics the writer includes which will probably be convincing to readers of political
gossip columns and benefit from informed criticism such as you can provide..i don't believe any of this crap anyway.
Daily Caller , the more interesting component of the FBI's investigation could be tied to precisely why New York Democrat Representative
Yvette Clarke quietly agreed in early 2016 to simply write-off $120,000 in missing electronics tied to the Awans.
A chief of staff for Democratic Rep. Yvette Clarke quietly agreed in early 2016 to sign away a $120,000 missing electronics problem
on behalf of two former IT aides now suspected of stealing equipment from Congress, The Daily Caller News Foundation has learned.
Clarke's chief of staff at the time effectively dismissed the loss and prevented it from coming up in future audits by signing
a form removing the missing equipment from a House-wide tracking system after one of the Awan brothers alerted the office the equipment
was gone. The Pakistani-born brothers are now at the center of an FBI investigation over their IT work with dozens of Congressional
offices.
The $120,000 figure amounts to about a tenth of the office's annual budget, or enough to hire four legislative assistants to handle
the concerns of constituents in her New York district. Yet when one of the brothers alerted the office to the massive loss, the chief
of staff signed a form that quietly reconciled the missing equipment in the office budget, the official told TheDCNF. Abid Awan remained
employed by the office for months after the loss of the equipment was flagged.
If true, of course this new information would seem to support previously reported rumors that the Awans orchestrated a long-running
fraud scheme in which their office would purchase equipment in a way that avoided tracking by central House-wide administrators and
then sell that equipment for a personal gain while simultaneously defrauding taxpayers of $1,000's of dollars.
Meanwhile, according to the Daily Caller, CDW Government could have been in on the scheme.
They're suspected of working with an employee of CDW Government Inc. -- one of the Hill's largest technology providers -- to alter
invoices in order to avoid tracking. The result would be that no one outside the office would notice if the equipment disappeared,
and investigators think the goal of the scheme was to remove and sell the equipment outside of Congress.
CDW spokeswoman Kelly Caraher told TheDCNF the company is cooperating with investigators, and has assurance from prosecutors its
employees are not targets of the investigation. "CDW and its employees have cooperated fully with investigators and will continue
to do so," Caraher said. "The prosecutors directing this investigation have informed CDW and its coworkers that they are not subjects
or targets of the investigation."
Not surprisingly, Clarke's office apparently felt no need whatsoever to report the $120,000 worth of missing IT equipment to the
authorities... it's just taxpayer money afterall...
According to the official who talked to TheDCNF, Clarke's chief of staff did not alert authorities to the huge sum of missing
money when it was brought to the attention of the office around February of 2016. A request to sign away that much lost equipment
would have been "way outside any realm of normalcy," the official said, but the office did not bring it to the attention of authorities
until months later when House administrators told the office they were reviewing finances connected to the Awans.
The administrators informed the office that September they were independently looking into discrepancies surrounding the Awans,
including a review of finances connected to the brothers in all the congressional offices that employed them. The House administrators
asked Clarke's then-chief of staff, Wendy Anderson, whether she had noticed any anomalies, and at that time she alerted them to the
$120,000 write-off, the official told TheDCNF.
Of course, the missing $120,000 covers only Clarke's office. As we've noted before, Imran and his relatives worked for more than
40 current House members when they were banned from the House network in February, and have together worked for dozens more in past
years so who know just how deep this particular rabbit hole goes.
Also makes you wonder what else Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and the Awans might be hiding. Certainly the decision by Wasserman-Shultz
to keep Awan on her taxpayer funded payroll, right up until he was arrested by the FBI while trying to flee the country, is looking
increasingly fishy with each passing day.
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does
not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
The Federal misprision of felony statute is usually only used in prosecutions against defendants who have a special duty to
report a crime, such as a government official.
That's what I was thinking, the shit was full of classified and sold off to the highest bidder.
It wasn't about the replacement value of the missing computers, it was about the intrinsic value of used US Government Legislative
Branch computers. Probably included network sdrowssap for a nominal fee...
But seriously! How much money do you have to steal? How many people do you have to murder? And how many secrets do you have
to sell before anything happens to any of these asshats ?
Slightly O.T.: It would be interesting if a little thread of interrogation led them to the hundreds of thousands of dollars
of hardware "lost" here in Charlotte before a massive fraudulent insurance claim was made. A little birdy told me of a number
of people who worked as IT support at the Charlotte DNC national convention who personally benefited to a great degree of this
said "lost" hardware. And, their "free goodies" were nothing compared to how much loot the top of the DNC food chain walked away
with.
"They told us there was no documents related to the inquiry but there were," said Sekulow. "These documents show it went to
the chief of staff of James Comey and he gets out there and acts like he was shocked and appalled by this but he knew about it.
And didn't decide to do anything about it, except he decides to go public on that statement he made about Hillary Clinton and
the investigation where he clears her."
They likely did, so now it's down to negotiating who owes whom and for what, and who now does what, and how to deal with all
the slighted whos, and fuck, I don't know. Gotta give them credit for all their effort though.
This country was founded on the principle that the individual had sovereign rights, imbued from God...and was the vessel of
ultimate power.
Today...these illegally elected ( it's almost ALL proven a fraud) cocksuckers go in broke and come out the other end multimillionaires
with legal immunity from anything, up to and including murder.
The USA started to imitate post-Maydan Ukraine: another war with statues... "Identity
politics" flourishing in some unusual areas like history of the country. Which like in
Ukraine is pretty divisive.
McAuliffe was co-chairman of Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign, and was one of her superdelegates
at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
Notable quotes:
"... The thrust appears to be to undercut components of his base while ratcheting up indignation. WaPo and the Times dribble out salacious "news" stories that, often as not, are substance free but written in a hyperbolic style that assumes a kind of intrinsic Trump guilt and leaps from there. They know better. No doubt they rationalize this as meeting kind with kind. ..."
"... It reminds me of the coverage in the run up to Nixon's resignation. Except this one's on steroids. I believe the DC folks fully expect Trump to be removed and now are focusing on the strategy that accrues the maximum benefit to their party. Unfortunately, things strongly favor the Democrats. ..."
"... Democrats want to drag this out as long as possible and enjoy the chipping away at segments of the Republican base while the Republicans want to clear the path before the midterms. However, the Republican officials, much as many or most can't stand Trump, have to weave a thin line because taking action against Trump would kill them in the primaries and possibly in the general. ..."
"... So the Democrats are licking their chops and hoping this can continue until the midterms with the expectation they will then control Congress. ..."
"... Some of you still don't get it. Trump isn't our last chance. Its your last chance. Yet still so many of you oxygen thieves still insist RUSSIA is the reason Hillary lost. You guys are going to agitate your way into a CW because you can't accept you lost. Many of you agitating are fat, slow, and stupid, with no idea how to survive. ..."
"... From day one after the unexpected (for the punditry class and their media coherts) elections results everybody was piling on Trump. The stories abound about his Russia Collusion (after one year of investigation not even a smoke signal) or his narcistic attitudes (mind you LeeG Trump always addresses people as We where as Humble Obama always addresses in the first person). ..."
"... I get this feeling the Swamp doesn't want a President who will at least try to do something for the American people rather than promises (Remember Hope and Change ala Obama, he got the Change quite a bit of it for him and his Banker Pals from what is left of the treasury and we the people are left with Hope). ..."
"... Someone on the last thread said in a very elegant way that what binds us Americans together is one thing, economic opportunity for all. I believe that was Trump's election platform, with the "for all" emphasized frequently. ..."
"... There is quite the precedent for the media treating trump as they do, Putin has been treated quite similarly, as well as any other politician the media cars disagree with [neocons/neolibs]... ..."
"... I think, during the election campaign, the negative media coverage may have well be a boon to him. Anyone who listened to the media, and then actually turned up at a Trump rally to see for himself, immediately got the idea that the media is full of shit. I think this won Trump a fair number of converts. ..."
"... But I think by now they are just over the top. It almost reminds me of Soviet denunciations of old communists who have fallen out of favor. ..."
"... The one clear thing is that there is a coup attempt to get rid of Donald Trump led by globalist media and supra-national corporate intelligence agents. Charlottesville may well be due to the total incompetence of the democratic governor and mayor. ..."
"... On the other hand, the razing of Confederate Memorials started in democrat controlled New Orleans and immediately spread to Baltimore. This is purposeful like blaming Russia for losing the 2016 election. ..."
"... The unrest here at home is due to the forever wars, outsourcing jobs, tax cuts for the wealthy and austerity. Under stress societies revert to their old beliefs and myths. John Brennon, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, George Soros and Pierre Omidyar are scorpions; they can't help themselves. After regime change was forced on Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine; a color revolution has been ignited here in the USA; damn the consequences. We are the only ones that can stop it by pointing out what is really happening. ..."
"... What I see in my Democrat dominated county is that the blue collar folks are noting this overt coup attempt and while they didn't vote for Trump are beginning to become sympathetic towards him. I sense this is in part due to the massive mistrust of the MSM and the political establishment who are viewed as completely self-serving. ..."
"... I read a transcript of the entirety of Trump's news conference upon which CBS and others are basing their claims that Trump is "defending white supremacists," and at no point did he come within hand grenade distance of doing anything of the sort. What he did do is accuse the left wing group of being at fault along with the right wing group in causing the violence, and he did not even claim that they were equally at fault. ..."
"... There is no doubt whatever that his statement was entirely accurate, if in no other respect in that the left's decision to engage in proximate confrontation was certain to cause violence and was, in fact, designed to do so regardless of who threw the first punch. CBS and other media of its caliber are completely avoiding mentioning that aspect of the confrontation. ..."
"... CBS et. al. have been touting the left's possession of not one but two permits for public assembly, but they carefully do not point out that the permits were for two areas well removed from the area where the conflict occurred, and that they did not have a permit to assemble in that area. ..."
"... The media is flailing with the horror of Trump's advocacy of racial division, but it is the Democratic Party which has for more than a decade pursued the policy of "identity politics," and the media which has prated endlessly about "who will get the black vote" or "how Hispanics will vote" in every election. ..."
"... As a firm believer in the media efforts to sabotage Trump and a former supporter (now agnostic, trending negative - Goldman Sachs swamp creatures in the Oval Office????), he greatly disappointed me. First, i will state, that I do not believe Trump is antisemitic (no antisemite will surround himself with rich Jewish Bankers). ..."
"... It doesn't matter whether Trump is getting a raw deal or not. Politics has nothing to do with fairness. ..."
"... But when you've lost Bob Corker, and even Newt Gingrich is getting wobbly, when Fox News is having a hard time finding Republicans willing to go on and defend Trump, you don't need to be Nostradamus to see what's going to happen. ..."
The media, and political elite, pile on is precisely what I expect. The chattering political classes
have converged on the belief that Trump is not only incompetent, but dangerous. And his few allies
are increasingly uncertain of their future.
The thrust appears to be to undercut components of his base while ratcheting up indignation.
WaPo and the Times dribble out salacious "news" stories that, often as not, are substance free
but written in a hyperbolic style that assumes a kind of intrinsic Trump guilt and leaps from
there. They know better. No doubt they rationalize this as meeting kind with kind. Trump
is the epitome of the salesman that believes he can sell anything to anyone with the right pitch.
Reporters that might normally be restrained by actual facts and a degree of fairness simply are
no longer so constrained.
It reminds me of the coverage in the run up to Nixon's resignation. Except this one's on
steroids. I believe the DC folks fully expect Trump to be removed and now are focusing on the
strategy that accrues the maximum benefit to their party. Unfortunately, things strongly favor
the Democrats.
Democrats want to drag this out as long as possible and enjoy the chipping away at segments
of the Republican base while the Republicans want to clear the path before the midterms. However,
the Republican officials, much as many or most can't stand Trump, have to weave a thin line because
taking action against Trump would kill them in the primaries and possibly in the general.
So the Democrats are licking their chops and hoping this can continue until the midterms
with the expectation they will then control Congress. After that they will happily dispatch
Trump with some discovered impeachable crime. At that point it won't be hard to get enough Republicans
to go along.
The Republicans can only hope to convince Trump to resign well prior to the midterms. They
hope they won't have to go on record with a vote and get nailed in the elections.
In the meantime the country is going to go through hell.
Yes, we are staring into the depths and the abyss has begun to take note of us. BTW the US
was put back together after the CW/WBS on the basis of an understanding that the Confederates
would accept the situation and the North would not interfere with their cultural rituals.
There was a general amnesty for former Confederates in the 1870s and a number of them became
US senators, Consuls General overseas and state governors.
That period of attempted reconciliation has now ended. Who can imagine the "Gone With the Win"
Pulitzer and Best Picture of the Year now? pl
Some of you still don't get it. Trump isn't our last chance. Its your last chance. Yet still
so many of you oxygen thieves still insist RUSSIA is the reason Hillary lost. You guys are going
to agitate your way into a CW because you can't accept you lost. Many of you agitating are fat,
slow, and stupid, with no idea how to survive.
I totally disagree with you LeeG. From day one after the unexpected (for the punditry class
and their media coherts) elections results everybody was piling on Trump. The stories abound about
his Russia Collusion (after one year of investigation not even a smoke signal) or his narcistic
attitudes (mind you LeeG Trump always addresses people as We where as Humble Obama always addresses
in the first person).
I get this feeling the Swamp doesn't want a President who will at least try to do something
for the American people rather than promises (Remember Hope and Change ala Obama, he got the Change
quite a bit of it for him and his Banker Pals from what is left of the treasury and we the people
are left with Hope). I hope he will succeed but I learnt that we will always be left with
Hope!
That last tweet is from the Green Party candidate for VP. Those are just a few examples from
a quick Google search before I get back to work. Those of you with more disposable time will surely
find more.
Someone on the last thread said in a very elegant way that what binds us Americans together
is one thing, economic opportunity for all. I believe that was Trump's election platform, with
the "for all" emphasized frequently.
I believe Charlottsville was a staged catalyst to bring about Trump's downfall, there
seems now to be a "full-court press" against him. If he survives this latest attempt, I'll be
both surprised and in awe of his political skills. If he doesn't survive I'll (and many others,
no matter the "legality of the process") will consider it a coup d'etat and start to think of
a different way to prepare for the future.
There is quite the precedent for the media treating trump as they do, Putin has been treated
quite similarly, as well as any other politician the media cars disagree with [neocons/neolibs]...
I think, during the election campaign, the negative media coverage may have well be a boon
to him. Anyone who listened to the media, and then actually turned up at a Trump rally to see
for himself, immediately got the idea that the media is full of shit. I think this won Trump a
fair number of converts.
But I think by now they are just over the top. It almost reminds me of Soviet denunciations
of old communists who have fallen out of favor.
As far as statue removal goes: There should be legal ways of deciding such things democratically.
There should also be the possibility of relocating the statues in question. I imagine that there
should be plenty of private properties who are willing to host these statues on their land.
This should be quite soundly protected by the US constitution.
That these monuments got, iirc, erected long after the war is nothing unusual. Same is true
for monuments to the white army, of which there are now a couple in Russia.
As far as the civil war goes, my sympathies lie with the Union, I would not be, more then a
100 years after the war, be averse to monuments depicting the common Confederate Soldier.
I can understand the statue toppler somewhat. If someone would place a Bandera statue in my surroundings,
I would try to wreck it. I may be willing to tolerate a Petljura statue, probably a also Wrangel
or Denikin statue, but not a Vlassov or Shuskevich statue.
Imho Lees "wickedness", historically speaking, simply isn't anything extraordinary.
Col., thank you for this comment. I grew up in the "North" and recall the centenary of the Civil
War as featured in _Life_ magazine. I was fascinated by the history, the uniforms and the composition
of the various armies as well as their arms. I would add to that the devastating use of grapeshot.
I knew the biographies of the various generals on both sides and their relative effectiveness.
I would urge others to read Faulkner's _Intruder in the Dust_ to gain some understanding of the
Reconstruction and carpetbagging.
I believe the choice to remove the monument as opposed to some other measure, such as the bit
of history you offer, was highly incendiary. I also find it interesting that the ACLU is taking
up their case in regard to free-speech:
http://tinyurl.com/ybdkrcaz
I was living in Chicago when the Skokie protest occurred.
"They came to Charlottesville to do harm. They came armed and were looking for a fight."
I agree. This means Governor McAuliffe failed in his duty to the people of the Commonwealth
and so did the Mayor of Charlottesville and the senior members of the police forces present in
the city. Congradulations to the alt-left.
They - the left - previously came to DC to do harm - on flag day no less. Namely the Bernie
Bro James Hodgkinson, domestic terrorist, who attempted to assasinate Steve Scalise and a number
of other elected representatives. The left did not denounce him nor his cause. Sadly they did
not even denounce the people who actually betrayed him - those who rigged the Democratic primary:
Donna Brazile and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
The one clear thing is that there is a coup attempt to get rid of Donald Trump led by globalist
media and supra-national corporate intelligence agents. Charlottesville may well be due to the
total incompetence of the democratic governor and mayor.
On the other hand, the razing of Confederate Memorials started in democrat controlled New
Orleans and immediately spread to Baltimore. This is purposeful like blaming Russia for losing
the 2016 election.
The protestors on both divides were organized and spoiling for a fight.
The unrest here at home is due to the forever wars, outsourcing jobs, tax cuts for the
wealthy and austerity. Under stress societies revert to their old beliefs and myths. John Brennon,
Lindsey Graham, John McCain, George Soros and Pierre Omidyar are scorpions; they can't help themselves.
After regime change was forced on Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine; a color revolution has been
ignited here in the USA; damn the consequences. We are the only ones that can stop it by pointing
out what is really happening.
It seems to me that this brouhaha may work in Trump's favor. The more different things they accuse
Trump of (without evidence), the more diluted their message becomes.
I think the Borg's collective hysteria can be explained by the "unite the right" theme of the
Charlottesville Rally. A lot of Trump supporters are very angry, and if they start marching next
to people who are carrying signs that blame "the Jews" for America's problems, then anti-Zionist
(or even outright anti-Semitic) thinking might start to go mainstream. The Borg would do well
to work to address the Trump supporters legitimate grievances. There are a number of different
ways that things might get very ugly if they don't. Unfortunately the establishment just wants
to heap abuse on the Trump supporters and I think that approach is myopic.
There will always be an outrage du jour for the NeverTrumpers. The Jake Tapper, Rachel Maddow,
Morning Joe & Mika ain't gonna quit. And it seems it's ratings gold for them. Of course McCain
and his office wife and the rest of the establishment crew also have to come out to ring the obligatory
bell and say how awful Trump's tweet was.
What I see in my Democrat dominated county is that the blue collar folks are noting this
overt coup attempt and while they didn't vote for Trump are beginning to become sympathetic towards
him. I sense this is in part due to the massive mistrust of the MSM and the political establishment
who are viewed as completely self-serving.
It is illegal in the Commonwealth of Virginia to wear a mask that covers one's face in most public
settings.
LEOs in Central Va encountered this exact requirement when a man in a motorcycle helmet entered
a Walmart on Rt 29 in 2012. Several customers reported him to 911 because they believed him to
being acting suspiciously. He was detained in Albemarle County and was eventually submitted for
mental health evaluation.
This is not a law that Charlottesville police would be unfamiliar with.
Chomsky:
"As for Antifa, it's a minuscule fringe of the Left, just as its predecessors were. "It's a major
gift to the Right, including the militant Right, who are exuberant."
"what they do is often wrong in principle – like blocking talks – and [the movement] is generally
self-destructive."
"When confrontation shifts to the arena of violence, it's the toughest and most brutal who
win – and we know who that is. That's quite apart from the opportunity costs – the loss of the
opportunity for education, organizing, and serious and constructive activism."
I read a transcript of the entirety of Trump's news conference upon which CBS and others are basing
their claims that Trump is "defending white supremacists," and at no point did he come within
hand grenade distance of doing anything of the sort. What he did do is accuse the left wing group
of being at fault along with the right wing group in causing the violence, and he did not even
claim that they were equally at fault.
There is no doubt whatever that his statement was entirely accurate, if in no other respect
in that the left's decision to engage in proximate confrontation was certain to cause violence
and was, in fact, designed to do so regardless of who threw the first punch. CBS and other media
of its caliber are completely avoiding mentioning that aspect of the confrontation.
CBS et. al. have been touting the left's possession of not one but two permits for public assembly,
but they carefully do not point out that the permits were for two areas well removed from the
area where the conflict occurred, and that they did not have a permit to assemble in that area.
A pundit on CBS claimed that "if they went" to the park in question, which of course they did,
"they would not have been arrested because it was a public park." He failed to mention that large
groups still are required to have a permit to assemble in a public park.
The media is flailing with the horror of Trump's advocacy of racial division, but it is the
Democratic Party which has for more than a decade pursued the policy of "identity politics," and
the media which has prated endlessly about "who will get the black vote" or "how Hispanics will
vote" in every election.
Lars, but they came with a legal permit to protest and knew what they would be facing. The anti-protestors
including ANTIFA had a large number of people being paid to be there and funded by Soros and were
there illegally. The same mechanisms were in place to ramp up protests like in Ferguson which
were violent and this response was no different.
However, the Virginia Governor a crony of the Clintons, ordered a police stand down and no
effort was made to separate the groups. I remind you also that open carry is legal in Virginia.
So, IMHO this was deliberately set up for a lethal confrontation by the people on the left.
I will also remind you that the American Nazi Party and the American Communist Party among others,
are perfectly legal in the US as is the KKK. Believing and saying what you want, no matter how
offensive, is legal under the First Amendment. Actively discriminating against someone is not
legal but speech is. Say what you want but that is the Constitution.
Your last paragraph is a suitably Leftist post-modern ideological oversimplification of an
infinitely complex phenomenon. It also reveals a great deal of what motivates the SJW Left:
" As for the notion that this is a 'cultural issue', I quote: 'Whenever I hear the word
culture, I reach for my revolver.' 'Culture' is the means by which some people oppress others.
It's much like 'civilization' or 'ethics' or 'morality' - a tool to beat people over the head
who have something you want. "
First, it is a cultural issue. It's an issue between people who accept this culture as a necessary
but flawed, yet incrementally improvable structure for carrying out a relatively peaceful existence
among one another, and those whose grudging, bitter misanthropy has led them to the conclusion
that the whole thing isn't fair (i.e. easy) so fuck it, burn it all down. In no uncertain terms,
this is the ethos driving the radical Left.
Second, I don't know exactly which culture created you, but I'm fairly sure it was a western
liberal democracy, as I'm fairly certain is the case with almost all Leftists these days, regardless
of how radical. And I'm also fairly certain the culture you decry is the western liberal democratic
culture in its current iterations. But before you or anyone else lights the fuse on that, remember
that the very culture you want to burn down because it's so loathsome, that's the thing that gave
you that shiny device you use to connect with the world, it's the thing that taught you how to
articulate your thoughts into written and spoken word, so that you could then go out and bitch
about it, and it even lets you bitch about it, freely and with no consequences. This "civilization"
is the thing that gives rise to the "morals" and "ethics" that allow you to take your shiny gadgets
to a coffee shop, where the barista makes your favorite beverage, instead of simply smashing you
over the head and taking your shiny gadgets because he wants them. These principles didn't arise
out of thin air, and neither did you, me, or anyone else. This culture is an agreed-upon game
that most of us play to ensure we stand a chance at getting though this with as little suffering
as possible. It's not perfect, but it works better than anything else I've seen in history.
In his inimitable fashion, I'll grant Tyler (and the Colonel, as well) the creditable foresight
to call this one. Those of you who find yourselves wishing, hoping, agitating, and activisting
for an overturn of the election result, and/or of traditional American culture in general would
do well to take their warnings seriously.
If traditional American culture is so deeply and irredeemably corrupt, I must ask, what's your
alternative? And how do you mean to install it? I would at least like to know that. Regardless
of your answer to question one, if your answer to question two is "revolution", well then you
and anyone else on that wagon better be prepared to suffer, and to increase many fold the overall
quotient of human suffering in the world. Because that's what it will take.
You want your revolution, but you also want your Wi-Fi to keep working.
You want your revolution, but you also want your hybrid car.
You want your revolution, but you also want your safe spaces, such as your bed when you sleep
at night.
If you think you can manage all that by way of shouting down, race baiting, character assassinating,
and social shaming, without bearing the great burden of suffering that all revolutions entail,
you have bitter days ahead. And there are literally millions of Americans who will oppose you
along the way. And unlike the kulaks when the Bolsheviks rode into town, they see you coming
and they're ready for you. And if you insist on taking it as far as you can, it won't be pretty,
and it won't be cinematic. Just a lot of tragedy for everyone involved. But one side will win,
and my guess is it'll be the guys like Tyler. It's not my desire or aim to see any of that happen.
It's just how I see things falling out on their current trajectory.
The situation calls to mind a quote from a black radical, spoken-word group from Harlem who
were around in the early to mid 60s, called the Last Poets. The line goes, "Speak not of revolution
until you are willing to eat rats to survive." Just something to think about when you advocate
burning it all down.
Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe (D) has added his name to a growing list of public officials
in state governments encouraging the removal of Confederate statues and memorials throughout the
South. Late in the day on Wednesday McAuliffe released an official statement saying monuments
of Confederate leaders have now become "flashpoints for hatred, division and violence" in a reference
to the weekend of violence which shook Charlottesville as white nationalists rallied against the
city's planned removal of a Robert E. Lee statue. McAuliffe further described the monuments as
"a barrier to progress" and appealed to state and local governments to take action. The governor
said:
As we attempt to heal and learn from the tragic events in Charlottesville, I encourage Virginia's
localities and the General Assembly – which are vested with the legal authority – to take down
these monuments and relocate them to museums or more appropriate settings. I hope we can all now
agree that these symbols are a barrier to progress, inclusion and equality in Virginia and, while
the decision may not be mine to make...
It seems the push for monument removal is now picking up steam, with cities like Baltimore
simply deciding to act briskly while claiming anti-racism and concern for public safety. Of course,
the irony in all this is that the White nationalist and supremacist groups which showed up in
force at Charlottesville and which are even now planning a major protest in Lexington, Kentucky,
are actually themselves likely hastening the removal of these monuments through their repugnant
racial ideology, symbols, and flags.
Bishop James Dukes, a pastor at Liberation Christian Center located on Chicago's south side,
is demanding that the city of Chicago re-dedicate two parks in the area that are named after former
presidents George Washington and Andrew Jackson. His reasons? Dukes says that monuments honoring
men who owned slaves have no place in the black community, even if those men once led the free
world.
Salve, Publius. Thanks for the article. Col. Lang made an excellent point in the comments' section
that the Confederate memorials represent the reconciliation between the North and the South. The
same argument is presented in a lengthier fashion in this morning's TAC
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/when-confederate-monuments-represent-reconciliation/
. That reconciliation could have been handled much better, i.e. without endorsing Jim Crow. I
wish more monuments were erected to commemorate Longstreet and Cleburne, JB Hood and Hardee. I
wish there was more Lee and less Forrest. Nonetheless, the important historical point is that
a national reconciliation occurred. Removing the statues is a symbolic act which undoes the national
reconciliation. The past which is being erased is not the Civil War but the civil peace which
followed it. That is tragic.
IMO, most of the problems majority of people (specially the ruling class) have with Donald Trump'
presidency is that, he acts and is an accidental president, Ironically, everybody including, him,
possibly you, and me who voted for him knows this and is not willing to take his presidency serious
and act as such. IMO, he happens to run for president, when the country, due to setbacks and defeat
on multiple choice wars, as well as national economic misfortunes and misshapes, including mass
negligence of working class, was in dismay and a big social divide, as of the result, majority
decided to vote for some one outside of familiar cemented in DC ruling class knowing he is not
qualified and is a BS artist. IMO that is what took place, which at the end of the day, ends of
to be same.
" Removing the statues is a symbolic act which undoes the national reconciliation."
That is the intent. The coalition of urban and coastal ethnic populists and economic elites
has been for increased concentration and expansion of federal power at the expense of the states,
especially the Southern states, for generations. This wave of agitprop with NGO and MSM backing
is intended to undo the constitutional election and return the left to power at the federal level.
I agree with most of Trump's policy positions, but he is negating these positions with his out-of-control
mouth and tweets.
As much as I have nothing but contempt and loathing for the "establishment" (Dems, Republicans,
especially the media, the "intelligence" community and the rest of the permanent government),
Trump doesn't seem to comprehend that he can't get anything done without taming some of these
elements, all of whom are SERIOUSLY opposed to him as a threat to their sinecures and riches.
"Who is this OUTSIDER to come in and think that he in charge of OUR government?"
What seems like a balanced eyewitness account of Charlottesville that suggests that although the
radicals on both sides brought the violence, it was the police who allowed it to happen.
The need to keep protesters away from counter-protesters particular when both are tooled should
be obvious to anyone, but not so with the protest in Charlottevlle.
-"Trump isnt our last chance. Its your last chance."
Reminds me of the 60's and the SDS and their ilk. A large part of the under 30 crowd idolized
Mao's Little Red Book and convinced themselves the "revolution" was imminent. So many times I
heard the phrase "Up Against the Wall, MFs." Stupid fools. Back then people found each other by
"teach-ins" and the so called "underground press." In those days it took a larger fraction to
be able to blow in each other's ear and convince themselves they were the future "vanguard."
These days, with the internet, it is far easier for a smaller fraction to gravitate to an echo
chamber, reinforce group think, and believe their numbers are much larger than what, in reality,
exists. This happens across the board. It's a rabbit hole Tyler. Don't go down it.
Yes, Forts Bragg, Hood, Lee, AP Hill, Benning, etc., started as temporary camps during WW1
and were so named to encourage Southern participation in the war. The South had been reluctant
about the Spanish War. Wade Hampton, governor of SC said of that war, "Let the North fight. the
South knows the cost of war." pl
I would like to share my viewpoint. As a firm believer in the media efforts to sabotage Trump
and a former supporter (now agnostic, trending negative - Goldman Sachs swamp creatures in the
Oval Office????), he greatly disappointed me. First, i will state, that I do not believe Trump
is antisemitic (no antisemite will surround himself with rich Jewish Bankers).
But violence on all sides is absolute BS. Nazi violence gets its own sentence and language at least as strong as the language he has
no trouble hitting ISIS with. Didn't hear that. So I guess in his mind, the threat the US faced
from Nazis during WW2 was less than a ragtag, 3rd world guerilla force whose only successes are
because of 1. US, Saudi, and other weapons, and their war on unstable third world countries. Give
me a break - did he never watch a John Wayne movie as a kid?
When I discuss nazi's, F-bombs are dropped. I support the right of nazi's to march and spew
their vitriolic hatred, and even more strongly support the right of free speech to counter their
filth with facts and arguments and history.
I am sorry, but Antifa was not fighting against the
US in WW2. If one wants to critique Antifa, or another group, that criticism belongs in a separate
paragraph or better in another press conference. Taking 2 days to do so, and then walking it back,
is the hallmark of a political idiot (or a billionaire who listens to no one and lives in his
own mental echo chamber).
If Trump gets his info and opinions from TV news, despite having the $80+ billion US Intel
system at his beck and call, he is the largest idiot on the planet.
It doesn't matter whether Trump is getting a raw deal or not. Politics has nothing to do with
fairness.
But when you've lost Bob Corker, and even Newt Gingrich is getting wobbly, when Fox News is
having a hard time finding Republicans willing to go on and defend Trump, you don't need to be
Nostradamus to see what's going to happen.
Julian Assange has the evidence – but will he reveal it?
There's an exciting new development in the "Russia-gate" investigation, one that has the potential to blast apart what is arguably
the biggest hoax in the history of American politics.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-California) has
met with Julian Assange – the first US congressman to do so – and returned with some spectacular news:. The Hill
reports :
"Julian Assange told a U.S. congressman on Tuesday he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents he published during last
year's election did not come from Russia and promised additional helpful information about the leaks in the near future."
Assange has maintained all along that the Russians had nothing to do with procuring the DNC/Podesta emails, despite the intelligence
community's assertions – offered without evidence – that Vladimir Putin personally approved the alleged "hack." Yet credible challenges
to this view have emerged
in recent days,
including
from a group of former intelligence officials, that throw considerable doubt on the idea that there was even a "hack" to begin with.
"Pressed for more detail on the source of the documents," says The Hill ,
"Rohrabacher said he had information to share privately with President Trump. 'Julian also indicated that he is open to further
discussions regarding specific information about the DNC email incident that is currently unknown to the public,' he said."
What this looks like is an attempt by Assange to negotiate with the US government over his current status as a political prisoner:
he has been confined to the Ecuadorian embassy in London for many years. Hanging over him is the threat of arrest should he leave
and his rendition to the United States to face charges. Could he be making a bid for freedom, offering to provide evidence of how
he got his hands on the DNC/Podesta emails in exchange for a pardon?
Rohrabacher, who has a history as a libertarian fellow traveler, has been the target of a smear campaign due to his unwillingness
to go along with the Russophobic hysteria that's all the rage in Washington, D.C. these days. Politico attacked him in a piece
calling him "Putin's favorite congressman," and "news" accounts of this meeting with Assange invariably mention his "pro-Russian"
views – as if a desire to get along with Russia is in itself somehow "subversive."
It's a brave stance to take when even the ostensibly libertarian and anti-interventionist Cato Institute has jumped on the hate-on-Russia
bandwagon. Cato
cut
their ties to former Czech Republic president Vaclav Klaus because he refused to accept the War Party's line on the US-sponsored
Ukrainian coup that overthrew the country's democratically elected chief of state. But it gets worse.
Here 's Cato senior fellow Andrei Illarionov saying
we are already at war with Russia:
"First of all, it is necessary to understand that this is a war. This is not a joke, this is not an accident, this is not a
mistake, this is not a bad dream. It will not go away by itself. This is a war. As in any war, you either win or lose. And it is
up to you what choice you will make."
And it's not just a cold war: the conflict must, says Illarionov, contain a military element:
"First, in purely military area, it is quite clear that victory in this war cannot be achieved without serious adjustments
made to the existing military doctrine. Certainly, soft power is wonderful, but by itself it does not deter the use of force."
While the rest of the country is going about its business with nary a thought about Russia, in Washington the craziness is pandemic.
Which is why Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Adrienne Watson felt safe vomiting up the usual bile in response to Rohrabacher's
initiative: "We'll take the word of the US intelligence community over Julian Assange and Putin's favorite Congressman."
The power of groupthink inside the Washington Beltway has energized both the neo-cold warrior hysterics –
epitomized by the imposition of yet more sanctions -- and the "Russia-gate" hoax to the point where it is unthinkable for anyone
to challenge either. Yet Rohrabacher, whom I don't always agree with, has the balls to stand up to both, and for that he should be
supported.
Assange has stubbornly resisted revealing anything about the provenance of the DNC/Podesta emails, allowing the CIA/NSA to claim
that it was the Russians who "hacked the election," and also giving them a free hand to smear WikiLeaks as an instrument of the Kremlin.
This meeting with Rohrabacher, and the promise of revelations to come, indicate that he is reconsidering his stance – and that we
are on the verge of seeing "Russia-gate" definitively debunked.
We here at Antiwar.com have challenged the "mainstream" media's wholesale swallowing of the government's line from the very beginning.
That's because there hasn't been one iota of solid proof for blaming the Russians, or even for the assertion that the DNC was "hacked."
We don't accept government pronouncements at face value: indeed, we don't accept the "conventional wisdom" at face value, either.
We always ask the question: " Where's the
evidence? "
"... For his part, Putin compounded his offense to the neocons by facilitating Obama's negotiations with Iran that imposed strict constraints on Iran's actions toward development of a nuclear bomb and took U.S. war against Iran off the table. The neocons, Israel and Saudi Arabia wanted the U.S. military to lead a bombing campaign against Iran with the hope of crippling their regional adversary and possibly even achieving "regime change" in Tehran. ..."
"... Many U.S. pundits and journalists – in the conservative, centrist and liberal media – were swept up by the various hysterias over Syria, Iran and Russia – much as they had been a decade earlier around the Iraq-WMD frenzy and the "responsibility to protect" (or R2P) argument for the violent "regime change" in Libya in 2011. In all these cases, the public debate was saturated with U.S. government and neocon propaganda, much of it false. ..."
"... But it worked. For instance, the neocons and their liberal-interventionist sidekicks achieved extraordinary success in seducing many American "peace activists" to support the "regime change" war in Syria by sending sympathetic victims of the Syrian government on speaking tours. ..."
"... Still, whenever the White Helmets or other "activists" accused the Syrian government of some unlikely chemical attack, the information was treated as gospel . When United Nations investigators, who were under enormous pressure to confirm the propaganda tales beloved in the West, uncovered evidence that one of the alleged chlorine attacks was staged by the jihadists, the mainstream U.S. media politely looked the other way and continued to treat the chemical-weapons stories as credible. ..."
"... "Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press." ..."
"... The evidence that Russia had "hacked our democracy" was very thin – some private outfit called Crowdstrike found Cyrillic lettering and a reference to the founder of the Soviet KGB in some of the metadata – but that "incriminating evidence" contradicted Crowdstrike's own notion of a crack Russian hacking operation that was almost impossible to trace. ..."
"... According to Clapper's later congressional testimony, the analysts for this job were "hand-picked" from the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency and assigned to produce an "assessment" before Obama left office. Their Jan. 6 report was remarkable in its lack of evidence and the analysts themselves admitted that it fell far short of establishing anything as fact. It amounted to a continuation of the "trust us" approach that had dominated the anti-Russia themes for years. ..."
"... "When all right-thinking people in the nation's capital seem to agree on something – as has been the case recently with legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia – that may be a warning that the debate has veered into an unthinking herd mentality," Ignatius wrote as he questioned the wisdom of overusing sanctions and tying the President's hands on when to remove sanctions. ..."
"... But Ignatius failed to follow his own logic when it came to the core groupthink about Russia "meddling" in the U.S. election. Despite the thinness of the evidence, the certainty about Russia's guilt is now shared by "all right-thinking people" in Washington, who agree that this point is beyond dispute despite the denials from both WikiLeaks, which published the purloined Democratic emails, and the Russian government. ..."
"... Yet, the neocons have achieved perhaps their greatest success by merging Cold War Russo-phobia with the Trump Derangement Syndrome to enlist liberals and even progressives into the neocon drive for more "regime change" wars. ..."
"... Even relative Kremlin moderates such as Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev , are citing Trump's tail-between-his-legs signing of the sanctions bill as proof that the U.S. establishment has blocked any hope for a détente between Washington and Moscow. ..."
"... In other words, the prospects for advancing the neocon agenda of more "regime change" wars and coups have grown – and the neocons can claim as their allies virtually the entire Democratic Party hierarchy which is so eager to appease its angry #Resistance base that even the heightened risk of nuclear war is being ignored. ..."
A savvy Washington observer once told me that the political reality about the neoconservatives
is that they alone couldn't win you a single precinct in the United States. But both Republicans
and Democrats still line up to gain neocon support or at least neocon acceptance. Part of the reason
for this paradox is the degree of dominance that the neoconservatives have established in the national
news media – as op-ed writers and TV commentators – and the neocon ties to the Israel Lobby that
is famous for showering contributions on favored politicians and on the opponents of those not favored.
But neocons' most astonishing success over the past year may have been how they have pulled liberals
and even some progressives into the neocon strategies for war and more war, largely by exploiting
the Left's disgust with President Trump
People who would normally favor international cooperation toward peaceful resolution of conflicts
have joined the neocons in ratcheting up global tensions and making progress toward peace far more
difficult.
The provocative "Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act," which imposes sanctions
on Russia, Iran and North Korea while tying President Trump's hands in removing those penalties,
passed the Congress without a single Democrat voting no.
The only dissenting votes came from three Republican House members – Justin Amash of Michigan,
Jimmy Duncan of Tennessee, and Thomas Massie of Kentucky – and from Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky
and Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont in the Senate.
In other words, every Democrat present for the vote adopted the neocon position of escalating
tensions with Russia and Iran. The new sanctions appear to close off hopes for a détente with Russia
and may torpedo the nuclear agreement with Iran, which would put the bomb-bomb-bomb option back on
the table just where the neocons want it.
The Putin Obstacle
As for Russia, the
neocons have viewed President Vladimir Putin as a major obstacle to their plans at least since
2013 when he helped President Obama come up with a compromise with Syria that averted a U.S. military
strike over
dubious claims that the Syrian military was responsible for a sarin gas attack outside Damascus
on Aug. 21, 2013.
Subsequent
evidence indicated that the sarin attack most likely was a provocation by Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate
to trick the U.S. military into entering the war on Al Qaeda's side.
While you might wonder why the U.S. government would even think about taking actions that would
benefit Al Qaeda, which lured the U.S. into this Mideast quagmire in the first place by attacking
on 9/11, the answer is that Israel and the neocons – along with Saudi Arabia and other Sunni-governed
states – favored an Al Qaeda victory if that was what was needed to
shatter
the so-called "Shiite crescent," anchored in Iran and reaching through Syria to Lebanon.
Many neocons are, in effect, America's Israeli agents and – since Israel is now allied with Saudi
Arabia and the Sunni Gulf states versus Iran – the neocons exercise their media/political influence
to rationalize U.S. military strikes against Iran's regional allies, i.e., Syria's secular government
of Bashar al-Assad
For his part, Putin compounded his offense to the neocons by facilitating Obama's negotiations
with Iran that imposed strict constraints on Iran's actions toward development of a nuclear bomb
and took U.S. war against Iran off the table. The neocons, Israel and Saudi Arabia wanted the U.S.
military to lead a bombing campaign against Iran with the hope of crippling their regional adversary
and possibly even achieving "regime change" in Tehran.
Punishing Russia
It was in that time frame that NED's neocon President Carl Gershman
identified Ukraine as the "biggest prize" and an important step toward the even bigger prize
of removing Putin in Russia.
Other U.S. government neocons, including Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs
Victoria
Nuland and Sen. John McCain , delivered the Ukraine "prize" by supporting the Feb. 22, 2014 coup
that overthrew the elected government of Ukraine and unleashed anti-Russian nationalists (including
neo-Nazis) who began killing ethnic Russians in the south and east near Russia's border.
When Putin responded by allowing Crimeans to vote on secession from Ukraine and reunification
with Russia, the West – and especially the neocon-dominated mainstream media – denounced the move
as a "Russian invasion." Covertly, the Russians also helped ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine who
defied the coup regime in Kiev and faced annihilation from Ukrainian military forces, including the
neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, which literally displayed Swastikas and SS symbols. Putin's assistance to
these embattled ethnic Russian Ukrainians became "Russian aggression."
Many U.S. pundits and journalists – in the conservative, centrist and liberal media – were
swept up by the various hysterias over Syria, Iran and Russia – much as they had been a decade
earlier around the Iraq-WMD frenzy and the "responsibility to protect" (or R2P) argument for the
violent "regime change" in Libya in 2011. In all these cases, the public debate was saturated with
U.S. government and neocon propaganda, much of it false.
But it worked. For instance, the neocons and their liberal-interventionist sidekicks achieved
extraordinary success in seducing many American "peace activists" to support the "regime change"
war in Syria by sending sympathetic victims of the Syrian government on speaking tours.
Meanwhile, the major U.S. media essentially
flacked for "moderate" Syrian rebels who just happened to be fighting alongside Al Qaeda's Syrian
affiliate and sharing their powerful U.S.-supplied weapons with the jihadists, all the better to
kill Syrian soldiers trying to protect the secular government in Damascus.
Successful Propaganda
As part of this propaganda process, the
jihadists' P.R. adjunct, known as the White Helmets , phoned in anti-government atrocity stories
to eager and credulous Western journalists who didn't dare visit the Al Qaeda-controlled zones for
fear of being beheaded.
Still, whenever the White Helmets or other "activists" accused the Syrian government of some unlikely
chemical attack,
the information was treated as gospel . When United Nations investigators, who were under enormous
pressure to confirm the propaganda tales beloved in the West, uncovered evidence that one of the
alleged chlorine attacks was staged by the jihadists, the mainstream U.S. media politely looked the
other way and continued to treat the chemical-weapons stories as credible.
Historian and journalist Stephen Kinzer has
said ,
"Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history
of the American press."
But all these successes in the neocons'
"perception management" operations pale when compared to what the neocons have accomplished since
Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton last November.
Fueled by the shock and disgust over the egotistical self-proclaimed pussy-grabber ascending to
the highest office in the land, many Americans looked for both an excuse for explaining the outcome
and a strategy for removing Trump as quickly as possible. The answer to both concerns became: blame
Russia.
The evidence that Russia had "hacked our democracy" was very thin – some private outfit called
Crowdstrike found Cyrillic lettering and a reference to the founder of the Soviet KGB in some of
the metadata – but that "incriminating evidence"
contradicted Crowdstrike's own notion of a crack Russian hacking operation that was almost impossible
to trace.
So, even though the FBI failed to secure the Democratic National Committee's computers so the
government could do its own forensic analysis, President Obama assigned his intelligence chiefs,
CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper , to come up with an
assessment that could be used to blame Trump's victory on "Russian meddling." Obama, of course, shared
the revulsion over Trump's victory, since the real-estate mogul/reality-TV star had famously launched
his own political career by spreading the lie that Obama was born in Kenya.
'Hand-Picked' Analysts
According to Clapper's later congressional testimony, the analysts for this job were "hand-picked"
from the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency and assigned to produce an "assessment" before Obama
left office. Their
Jan. 6 report was remarkable in its lack of evidence and the analysts themselves admitted that
it fell far short of establishing anything as fact. It amounted to a continuation of the "trust us"
approach that had dominated the anti-Russia themes for years.
Much of the thin report focused on complaints about Russia's RT network for covering the Occupy
Wall Street protests and sponsoring a 2012 debate for third-party presidential candidates who had
been excluded from the Democratic-Republican debates between President Obama and former Gov. Mitt
Romney
The absurdity of citing such examples in which RT contributed to the public debate in America
as proof of Russia attacking American democracy should have been apparent to everyone, but the Russia-gate
stampede had begun and so instead of ridiculing the Jan. 6 report as an insult to reason, its shaky
Russia-did-it conclusions were embraced as unassailable Truth, buttressed by
the false claim that the assessment represented the consensus view of all 17 U.S. intelligence
agencies.
So, for instance, we get the internal contradictions of a Friday
column by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius who starts off by making a legitimate point
about Washington groupthink.
"When all right-thinking people in the nation's capital seem to agree on something – as has been
the case recently with legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia – that may be a warning that
the debate has veered into an unthinking herd mentality," Ignatius wrote as he questioned the wisdom
of overusing sanctions and tying the President's hands on when to remove sanctions.
Lost Logic
But Ignatius failed to follow his own logic when it came to the core groupthink about Russia "meddling"
in the U.S. election. Despite the thinness of the evidence, the certainty about Russia's guilt is
now shared by "all right-thinking people" in Washington, who agree that this point is beyond dispute
despite the denials from both WikiLeaks, which published the purloined Democratic emails, and the
Russian government.
Ignatius seemed nervous that his mild deviation from the conventional wisdom about the sanctions
bill might risk his standing with the Establishment, so he added:
"Don't misunderstand me. In questioning congressional review of sanctions, I'm not excusing
Trump's behavior. His non-response to Russia's well-documented meddling in the 2016 presidential
election has been outrageous."
However, as usual for the U.S. mainstream media, Ignatius doesn't cite any of those documents.
Presumably, he's referring to the Jan. 6 assessment, which itself contained no real evidence to support
its opinion that Russia hacked into Democratic emails and gave them to WikiLeaks for distribution.
Just because a lot of Important People keep repeating the same allegation doesn't make the allegation
true or "well-documented." And skepticism should be raised even higher when there is a clear political
motive for pushing a falsehood as truth, as we should have learned from President George W. Bush
's Iraq-WMD fallacies and from President Barack Obama's wild exaggerations about the need to intervene
in Libya to prevent a massacre of civilians.
But Washington neocons always start with a leg up because of their easy access to the editorial
pages of The New York Times and Washington Post as well as their speed-dial relationships with producers
at CNN and other cable outlets.
Yet, the neocons have achieved perhaps their greatest success by merging Cold War Russo-phobia
with the Trump Derangement Syndrome to enlist liberals and even progressives into the neocon drive
for more "regime change" wars.
There can be no doubt that the escalation of sanctions against Russia and Iran will have the effect
of escalating geopolitical tensions with those two important countries and making war, even nuclear
war, more likely.
In Iran, hardliners are already telling President Hassan Rouhani , "We told you so" that the U.S.
government can't be trusted in its promise to remove – not increase – sanctions in compliance with
the nuclear agreement.
And, Putin, who is actually one of the more pro-Western leaders in Russia, faces attacks from
his own hardliners who view him as naïve in thinking that Russia would ever be accepted by the West.
Even relative Kremlin moderates such as Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev , are citing Trump's tail-between-his-legs
signing of the sanctions bill as proof that the U.S. establishment has blocked any hope for a détente
between Washington and Moscow.
In other words, the prospects for advancing the neocon agenda of more "regime change" wars and
coups have grown – and the neocons can claim as their allies virtually the entire Democratic Party
hierarchy which is so eager to appease its angry #Resistance base that even the heightened risk of
nuclear war is being ignored.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either
in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
"... Evidence that undermines the "election hack" narrative should get more attention. ..."
"... The Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) have been investigating the now conventional wisdom that last year's leaks of Democratic National Committee files were the result of Russian hacks. What they found instead is evidence to the contrary. ..."
"... VIPS instead surmises that, after WikiLeaks' Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016 his intention to publish Hillary Clinton-related emails, the DNC rushed to fabricate evidence that it had been hacked by Russia to defuse any potential WikiLeaks disclosures. To this end, the theory goes, the DNC used the Guccifer 2.0 online persona to release mostly harmless DNC data. Guccifer 2.0 was later loosely linked to Russia because of Russian metadata in his files and his use of a Russia-based virtual private network. ..."
"... The VIPS theory relies on forensic findings by independent researchers who go by the pseudonyms "Forensicator" and "Adam Carter." The former found that 1,976 MB of Guccifer's files were copied from a DNC server on July 5 in just 87 seconds, implying a transfer rate of 22.6 megabytes per second -- or, converted to a measure most people use, about 180 megabits per second, a speed not commonly available from U.S. internet providers. Downloading such files this quickly over the internet, especially over a VPN (most hackers would use one), would have been all but impossible because the network infrastructure through which the traffic would have to pass would further slow the traffic ..."
"... However, as Forensicator has pointed out , the files could have been copied to a thumb drive -- something only an insider could have done -- at about that speed. ..."
"... And yet these aren't good reasons to avoid the discussion of what actually happened at the DNC last year, especially since no intelligence agency actually examined the Democrats' servers and CrowdStrike, the firm whose conclusions informed much of the intelligence community's assessment, had obvious conflicts of interest -- from being paid by the DNC to co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch's affiliation with the Atlantic Council , a Washington, D.C.-based think tank that has generally viewed Russia as a hostile power. ..."
"... Many Americans' certainty about Russian involvement, which has led to increased hostility toward Russia... ..."
"... The U.S. public didn't quite buy Clinton's "the Russians did it" line last year, and she lost the election. By now, though, many Americans are sold on it. That may be an Iraq-sized mistake, leading to a dangerous failure to recognize that Donald Trump's victory was an American phenomenon, not a Russian-made one. Authoritarian regimes such as Putin's routinely use external enemies to gloss over domestic divisions and distract the public from problems at home. In a functioning democracy, such tactics should not succeed. ..."
Evidence that undermines the "election hack" narrative should get more attention.
What if it wasn't Russia's fault?
In 2003, when a number of former intelligence professionals formed a group
to protest the way intelligence was bent to accuse Iraq of producing weapons
of mass destruction, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof
wrote a sympathetic column quoting the group's members. In 2017, you won't
read about this same group's latest campaign in the big U.S. newspapers.
The Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) have been investigating
the now conventional wisdom that last year's leaks of Democratic National Committee
files were the result of Russian hacks. What they found instead is evidence
to the contrary.
Unlike the "current and former intelligence officials" anonymously quoted
in stories about the Trump-Russia scandal, VIPS members actually have names.
But their findings and doubts are only being aired by
non-mainstream
publications that are easy to accuse of being channels for Russian disinformation.
The Nation, Consortium News, ZeroHedge and other outlets have pointed to their
findings that at least some of the DNC files were taken by an insider rather
than by hackers, Russian or otherwise.
The January assessment of the U.S. intelligence community, which serves as
the basis for accusations that Russia hacked the election said, among other
things: "We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General
Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and
DCLeaks.com to release U.S. victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly
and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks."
VIPS instead surmises that, after WikiLeaks' Julian Assange announced
on June 12, 2016 his intention to publish Hillary Clinton-related emails, the
DNC rushed to fabricate evidence that it had been hacked by Russia to defuse
any potential WikiLeaks disclosures. To this end, the theory goes, the DNC used
the Guccifer 2.0 online persona to release mostly harmless DNC data. Guccifer
2.0 was later loosely linked to Russia because of
Russian metadata in his files and his
use of a Russia-based virtual private network.
The VIPS theory relies on forensic findings by independent researchers
who go by the pseudonyms "Forensicator" and "Adam Carter." The former
found that 1,976 MB of Guccifer's files were copied from a DNC server on
July 5 in just 87 seconds, implying a transfer rate of 22.6 megabytes per second
-- or, converted to a measure most people use, about 180 megabits per second,
a speed not
commonly
available from U.S. internet providers. Downloading such files this quickly
over the internet, especially over a VPN (most hackers would use one), would
have been all but impossible because the network infrastructure through which
the traffic would have to pass would further slow the traffic.
However, as Forensicator has
pointed out , the files could have been copied to a thumb drive -- something
only an insider could have done -- at about that speed.
Adam Carter, the pseudonym for the other analyst, showed that the content
of the Guccifer files was at some point cut and pasted into Microsoft Word templates
that used the Russian language. Carter laid out all the available evidence and
his answers to numerous critics in a
long post earlier
this month.
VIPS includes former National Security Agency staffers with considerable
technical expertise, such as William Binney, the agency's former technical director
for world geopolitical and military analysis, and Edward Loomis Jr., former
technical director for the office of signals processing, as well as other ex-intelligence
officers with impressive credentials. That doesn't, of course, mean the group
is right when it finds the expert analysis by Forensicator and Carter persuasive.
Another former intelligence professional who has examined it, Scott Ritter,
has
pointed out that these findings don't necessarily refutes that Guccifer's
material constitute the spoils of a hack.
VIPS's record of unruly activism might have devalued its theories and conclusions
in the eyes of mainstream journalists. Ray McGovern, a VIPS founder who used
to prepare and deliver White House briefings at the Central Intelligence Agency,
has been removed from Hillary Clinton's events for protesting her policies.
While the group was right about Iraq in 2003, that doesn't mean it's right about
Russia in 2017, with some of its members' intelligence work now long in the
past.
And yet these aren't good reasons to avoid the
discussion of what actually happened at the DNC last year, especially since
no intelligence agency actually examined the Democrats' servers and CrowdStrike,
the firm whose conclusions informed much of the intelligence community's assessment,
had obvious conflicts of interest -- from being paid by the DNC to co-founder
Dmitri Alperovitch's affiliation with the
Atlantic Council
, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank that has generally viewed Russia as
a hostile power.
One hopes that the numerous investigations into Trump-Russia are based on
hard evidence, not easy assumptions. But since these investigations are not
transparent at this point, the only way to make sure their attention is still
focused on the technical aspects of the suspected Russian hacks and leaks is
to present the available evidence, along with any arguments undermining it,
to the public.
Many Americans' certainty about Russian involvement, which has led to
increased hostility toward Russia...
Having been burned so badly on the Iraq intelligence claims in 2003, you
would think major U.S. media would apply more journalistic skepticism and rigor
here, even if, to the broader public, Russia is a faraway power to which it's
easy to ascribe pretty much any nefarious activity. Instead, these outlets seem
more intent on
noting Putin's bare-chested physique and
accusing him of further meddling on social networks. The alt-right may not
need Russia's help in using Twitter bots to run its
social media campaigns , but it gets less scrutiny for them than Russia.
The U.S. public didn't quite buy Clinton's "the Russians did it" line
last year, and she lost the election. By now, though, many Americans are sold
on it. That may be an Iraq-sized mistake, leading to a dangerous failure to
recognize that Donald Trump's victory was an American phenomenon, not a Russian-made
one. Authoritarian regimes such as Putin's routinely use external enemies to
gloss over domestic divisions and distract the public from problems at home.
In a functioning democracy, such tactics should not succeed.
( Corrects volume of data transferred in sixth paragraph.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board
or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
To contact the author of this story:
Leonid Bershidsky at [email protected]
"... " So here's what I want you to tell every politician: If you get a call from somebody suggesting that a foreign government wants to help you by disparaging your opponent, tell us all to call the FBI." ..."
"... https://youtu.be/VzawbjQc4iM?t=1m34s ..."
"... What did McCain do? He twice received material generated by a foreign intelligence operative and passed this along as if it was valuable, verified intelligence. Here is the proof, thanks to Rowan Scarborough of the Washington Times . ..."
"... McCain is not the only one guilty here. The work of Fusion GPS was paid for by unnamed Democrats (and one unnamed Republican). And this is not the only instance of collusion with a foreign intelligence organization. Hillary Clinton and her campaign reportedly consorted with Ukrainian operatives: ..."
"... Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found. ..."
"... We can continue to be distracted by new intelligence about shenanigans during the presidential election until Trump's first term is up. That is the plan. ..."
"... Which reminds me what about all those dirty little wars, Libya, Syria, Yemen, etc that Obama and the Clintonist queen involved the US in on the basis of an AUM signed back in 2001, and how was Gadaffi, Assad and the Houthis, all sworn enemies of the jihadists, "associated force" of those responsible for 9/11. ..."
"... I continue to be baffled by the Trump Administration's response to the continued attacks by former and possibly current high officials in the IC. There seems to be no overt investigation by the AG. They seem to be just reacting as the media go to town manufacturing hysteria. ..."
"... In Britain, when the intelligence services make an unholy mess of things, it is usually possible to find the right kind of judge, or former senior official, to apply the appropriate degree of 'whitewash'. It was Lord Hutton's application of a lavish quantity of this substance to the Joint Intelligence Committee, MI6, and the Blair Government in his inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly which played a non-trivial role to reducing the BBC to its present status as a kind of imitation of the Brezhnev-era Radio Moscow. ..."
"... The acceptance of patently fabricated evidence by Owen took the 'whitewash' process to new heights. It would seem to me unlikely that those involved are optimistic that, by selecting the right kind of judge and organising another propaganda 'barrage' on the BBC and other outlets, they can contain the damage done by the lawsuits brought over the dossier. But I could be wrong. ..."
"... The latter [Russophobia] is an effort to assert US power over the legitimate interests of a nuclear-armed Russia, to continue to act provocatively against Russia, and to kill any attempts at a rapprochement. Birtherism crossed a line of political rhetoric, but the efforts of neocons in tying Trump's hands regarding peaceful relations with Russia is crossing a far more dangerous line. ..."
"... Birtherism was one of many things that discredited Trump as a huckster from receiving my vote. Warmongering, among other matters, also disqualified Hillary. ..."
When it comes to meeting with foreign spies to dish dirt on a Presidential candidate (or a President elect), John McCain is more
at fault than anyone connected to Donald Trump. McCain was directly involved in spreading unverified slanderous material regarding
President-elect Donald Trump as he consorted with operatives linked to a foreign government--in this case, the United Kingdom.
This should give Lindsay Graham pause after watching his his exchange with FBI nominee Christopher Wray at Wednesday's Senate
Judiciary hearing. Graham, who rhetorically fell on a fainting couch overwhelmed by outrage from the news that an obscure Russian
lawyer had sought a meeting with Donald Trump Jr. in order to dish dirt on Hillary Clinton,
admonished the FBI nominee to deal harshly with his colleagues on the following :
" So here's what I want you to tell every politician: If you get a call from somebody suggesting that a foreign government
wants to help you by disparaging your opponent, tell us all to call the FBI." https://youtu.be/VzawbjQc4iM?t=1m34s
But Donald Trump Jr. is not guilty of doing this. Instead, it is Senator John McCain. He is the one who was fooling around with
a foreign intelligence organization.
What did McCain do? He twice received material generated by a foreign intelligence operative and passed this along as if it
was valuable, verified intelligence. Here is the proof,
thanks to Rowan Scarborough of the Washington Times .
Aleksej Gubarev , a Cypriot based chief executive
of the network solutions firm XBT Holdings, filed suit against Christopher Steele and Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd, for defamation
over their role in the publication of an unproven dossier (which appeared in Buzzfeed) on President Donald Trump's purported activities
involving Russia and allegations of Russian interference during last year's U.S. election.
The businessman, Aleksej Gubarev , claims he
and his companies were falsely linked in the dossier to the Russia-backed computer hacking of Democratic Party figures.
Gubarev
, 36, also is seeking unspecified damages from Buzzfeed
and its top editor, Ben Smith, in a parallel lawsuit filed in Miami. Lawyers for Christopher Steele and Orbis Business Intelligence
in the United Kingdom filed a response with the British court.
Rowan Scarborough obtained a copy of the document and posted it on-line in April. The defense document is both illuminating and
damning (I don't know how I missed this when it came out in April). This is like a statement under oath and it presents the following
facts:
1. Orbis Business Intelligence was engaged by Fusion GPS sometime in early June 2016 to prepare a series of confidential memorandum
based on intelligence concerning Russian efforts to influence the U.S. Presidential election process and links between Russia and
Donald Trump (the first memo was dated 20 June 2016).
3. Senator John McCain, accompanied by David Kramer (a Senior Director at Senator McCain's Institute for International Leadership),
met in London with an Associate of Orbis, former British Ambassador Sir Andrew Wood, to arrange a subsequent meeting with Christopher
Steele in order to read the now infamous Steele Dossier.
4. David Kramer and Christopher Steele met in Surrey on 28 November 2016, where Kramer was briefed on the contents of the memos.
5. Once Senator McCain and David Kramer returned to the United States, arrangements were made for Fusion GPS to provide Senator
McCain hard copies of the memoranda.
6. After Donald Trump was elected, Christopher Steele prepared an additional memorandum (dated 13 December 2016) that made the
following claims:
Michael Cohen held a secret meeting in Prague, Czechoslovakia in August 2016 with Kremlin operatives.
Cohen, allegedly accompanied by 3 colleagues (Not Further Identified), met with Oleg SOLODUKHIM to discuss on how deniable
cash payments were to be made to hackers who had worked in Europe under Kremlin direction against the Clinton campaign and various
contingencies for covering up these operations and Moscow's secret liaison with the Trump team more generally.
In Prague, Cohen agreed (sic) contingency plans for various scenarios to protect the operation, but in particular what was
to be done in the event that Hillary Clinton won the Presidency.
Sergei Ivanov's associate claimed that payments to hackers had been made by both Trump's team and the Kremlin.
[Note--Michael Cohen denies he was ever in Prague.]
7. Christopher Steele passed a copy of the December memo to a senior UK Government national security official and to Fusion GPS
(via encrypted email) with the instruction to give a hard copy to Senator McCain via David Kramer.
Sometime between December 14, 2016 and December 31, 2016, Senator McCain passed this salacious material to FBI director, James
Comey.
As I pointed out in my previous piece (
Trump Jr. Emails Prove No Collusion . . . ), the Steele Dossier now stands completely discredited because the Trump Jr. emails
provide prima facie evidence that there was no regular, sustained contact with Kremlin operatives. If there had been then there was
no need to meet with an unknown lawyer peddling anti-Hillary material that, per the Steele Dossier, already had been delivered to
the Trump team.
The role of Fusion GPS in this whole sordid affair needs to be thoroughly investigated. Circumstantial evidence opens them to
charges of facilitating and enabling sedition. What they did appears to go beyond conventional opposition research and dirty tricks.
Spreading a lie that Donald Trump and his team are Russian operatives crosses a line and, as we have witnessed over the last six
months, roiled and disrupted the American political system.
McCain is not the only one guilty here. The work of Fusion GPS was paid for by unnamed Democrats (and one unnamed Republican).
And this is not the only instance of collusion with a foreign intelligence organization. Hillary Clinton and her campaign reportedly
consorted with Ukrainian operatives:
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office.
They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only
to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico
investigation found.
You can read the full story
here . The hysteria on
the part of Democrats over alleged Russian meddling and collusion with the Trumps shows a growing potential for blowback. As more
actual evidence emerges of anti-trumpets receiving intelligence and sharing that intelligence in underhanded back channels, the greater
the risk that public attention will hone in on the real actions as opposed to unsubstantiated allegations. Such a development would
leave the Democrats very vulnerable and very exposed.
I agree that Birtherism was an unethical strategy (e.g., when did you stop molesting children). I would point out the Hillary
Clinton used this as an issue against Obama in 2008. She published photos of him in native african garb and had her surrogetes
us this against up through the Democrat Convention. It was a strategy of both Trump and Clinton.
Slightly OT but mentioned by Steve & Iowa Steve above. I watched an hour or so long You Tube video 3 or 4 months ago about how
Sheriff Joe Arpio (??sp) had got a couple of investigators to look into the Obama birth Cert brouhaha & to try & put it to bed,
one way or another. The result was what I considered to be (I am not any expert in document forensics) a pretty convincing explanation
of how the Birth Cert that the White House put forward was a forgery & how it had been falsified.
They even had tracked down (& named the woman) the birth cert that Obamas had been based on. It was convincing.
The other thing that sold the investigation to me as being genuine was there was nothing - nothing, in the MSM about it. I
took that to mean that they didn't want to try & debunk it as it would attract attention to the video. I didn't pay over much
attention to the scandal back when, & only watched the vid as I was laid up that day. Since then I've also come across a "Barry
Soetoro" foreign student I.D. card from Columbia U with a young Obama pictured on it.
We can argue the merits of a Trump presidency all we want. We can continue to be distracted by new intelligence about shenanigans
during the presidential election until Trump's first term is up. That is the plan.
I understand that foreign governments -- and probably mostly Russia -- try desperately to influence our elections in their
favor. Just as I understand that our government officials do the same in foreign elections. It's disgusting behavior for someone
who really, really believes the high principles on which our government was founded. I admit it: I am a Pollyanna in that regard.
But I also KNOW my tendencies to be more idealistic than realistic in regard to human nature. At my age, the reality of human
nature has caused me more heartbreak than I care to remember.
Therefore, I have to prioritize my worries. And so, here again, I am with PT on this issue. McCain is the bigger jerk. In my
opinion, he can't stand it that more Americans voted for Trump than voted for McCain (this American included--though I did hold
my nose and vote for McCain simply because my stomach would not take voting for BHO. I was not a birther, but I was fully aware
of things in regard to his past that I didn't like and his ideology that I despised and his friendships with people I found reprehensible.
I could go on, but won't).
The people I admire the most are, in many cases, people who did champion Trump from the beginning. I was originally flabbergasted
by that fact. I was, and still am, a Cruz person. But.....I am also an American and do put much faith in the everyday, working,
Americans who live in the Middle, where I live. These are truly the "salt of the earth" and the "light of the world" people. Their
votes were given mostly because, I think, Trump declared that he wanted to "drain the swamp." We knew what that meant. We know
now that avoiding the machinations of swamp people is harder than we might have guessed. So I am willing to give the Trump boys
some grace, but not the smarmy "bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb, bomp Iran" McCain.
Nothing came from this juvenile and inept attempt to "collude." Let's forget it, get the swamp drained and the leaks plugged
and get on with making campaign promises come true. Take the NYT and WaPo copies and find some way to use them for good: birdcage
liners, shredded packaging stuffing, even cat litter. Let CNN become a memory as you avoid watching it or any news story about
it. Heck, don't even watch Fox except to get the news without listening to the commentary. Write your senators and representatives
about your views of the issues; then go on with leading good American lives, while saying your daily prayers to the only One who
is in charge.
"Sir Robert Owen's report into the death of Alexander Litvinenko is a flagrant cover-up."
This is in addition to attracting more attention to Magnitsky Act (and to a documentary by Nekrasov), and, by association,
to another important documentary, "Two hundreds years together" by Solzhenitsyn. Both authors used to be the darlings of the west
for their harsh critique of the Soviet Union (by Solzhenitsyn) and Putin (by Nekrasov).
No publishing house in the US and UK dares to publish "Two hundreds years together," and no western country dares to show "The
Magnitsky Act – Behind The Scenes," because the presented facts are not fitting the ziocons' sensibilities.
What subversion is that? Nothing came of Donald Jr's stupidity but there were real effects from the Fusion GPS garbage. As for
Trump making gooey eyes at Putin, it was one part of his election platform that Trump was clear and open about and as the president
pretty much gets to decide foreign policy, rather than McCain, Graham, the Clintonists, etc. so what?
Which reminds me what about all those dirty little wars, Libya, Syria, Yemen, etc that Obama and the Clintonist queen involved
the US in on the basis of an AUM signed back in 2001, and how was Gadaffi, Assad and the Houthis, all sworn enemies of the jihadists,
"associated force" of those responsible for 9/11.
Apparently the Russian lawyer who met with Don Jr was lobbying on behalf of a Russian oligarch who was sanctioned as a result
of the Magnitsky Act. That same oligarch was also faced with a $230 million fine for money laundering. He tried to cut a deal
back in 2015 whereupon he would act as an informant to US authorities. The $230 million fine was later reduced to only $6 million
days before his case was set for trial this past May.
" In Britain, when the intelligence services make an unholy mess of things, it is usually possible to find the right kind
of judge, or former senior official, to apply the appropriate degree of 'whitewash'. "
This is exactly what breeds cynicism. I don't believe it is any different in the US as the judiciary always gives a pass when
the "state secrets" defense is mounted. This is a perfect legal doctrine as it can be used to cover up all kinds of malfeasance
and misfeasance. There's a reason why support exists for whistleblowers like Snowden and Wikileaks among the general public.
What was the reaction of the average person in Britain to the Lord Hutton "inquiry"?
I continue to be baffled by the Trump Administration's response to the continued attacks by former and possibly current
high officials in the IC. There seems to be no overt investigation by the AG. They seem to be just reacting as the media go to
town manufacturing hysteria.
There is a further lawsuit against BuzzFeed, brought by the Alfa Group oligarchs, Mikhail Fridman, Petr Aven, and German Khan.
The summons, dated 26 May 2017 is at
Also, a report on 'McClatchy' on 11 July, entitled 'John McCain faces questions in Trump-Russia dossier case', linked to the
response of Steele and Orbis dated 18 May to the request by Gubarev's lawyers for further information in response to the 'Defence'
in the London suit to which you linked.
Whether the fact that the lawyer who prepared the response, Nicola Cain, was until recently a senior barrister at the BBC is
of any relevance I do not know.
There is a lot in this which is not at the moment making a great deal of sense. It is absolutely basic journalistic 'tradecraft'
to get a piece like the dossier 'lawyered' before publication. The question in my day would have been 'is it a fair business risk?'
A lawyer competent in the law of defamation – as Ms Cain clearly is – would I think have almost certainly said that the memorandum
on the Alfa oligarchs was in no way a 'fair business risk.'
Moreover, it is hard to see any compelling reason why it should not have simply been omitted from the published version of
the dossier – particularly as this would not have materially reduced the 'information operations' impact of the document.
As to the reference to Gubarev, a simple redaction would have reduced the risk of his suing to zero, and again, would not have
materially reduced the impact of the dossier.
Indeed, even if the BuzzFeed journalists are amateurish, former WSJ journalists like those who run Fusion – and one of the
company's partners, Thomas Catan, is also a former 'Financial Times' journalist – should have been aware they were on a sticky
wicket without needing to consult a lawyer.
At the moment, both sets of legal proceedings are a hostage to fortune, for many reasons, including the possibility that they
could make people for the first time actually notice that Sir Robert Owen's report into the death of Alexander Litvinenko is a
flagrant cover-up.
Although the claims made about Steele's involvement in that affair are a hopeless mess of contradictions, what would seem reasonably
clear is that he was a key figure in orchestrating proceedings. (Whether Fusion were involved, at the American end, is an interesting
question.)
Perhaps unsurprisingly, we end up with a situation where people are stabbing each other in the back. So Steele is trying to
rescue himself, by suggesting that the memoranda were not intended for publication at all, and that the reason for their publication
was a violation of a confidentiality agreement by Fusion.
Meanwhile, the former British Moscow Ambassador Sir Andrew Wood has already directly contradicted the 'Defence', claiming that,
contrary to what it says, he was never an 'associate' of Orbis.
In Britain, when the intelligence services make an unholy mess of things, it is usually possible to find the right kind
of judge, or former senior official, to apply the appropriate degree of 'whitewash'. It was Lord Hutton's application of a lavish
quantity of this substance to the Joint Intelligence Committee, MI6, and the Blair Government in his inquiry into the death of
Dr David Kelly which played a non-trivial role to reducing the BBC to its present status as a kind of imitation of the Brezhnev-era
Radio Moscow.
The acceptance of patently fabricated evidence by Owen took the 'whitewash' process to new heights. It would seem to me
unlikely that those involved are optimistic that, by selecting the right kind of judge and organising another propaganda 'barrage'
on the BBC and other outlets, they can contain the damage done by the lawsuits brought over the dossier. But I could be wrong.
The whole anti-Trump bruha-ha has been about his alleged collusion with a foreign government. Here we have a documented case of
a collusion of clintonistas with the foreign intelligence organization (UK) and foreign government (Ukraine). The "progressives"
(including McCain and the most rabid ziocons) have been waling like sirens about alleged "treason." Well. It seems that their
wish was heard.
This is not about Trump. This is about the law.
"...if there was any line, it was crossed a long time ago."
Sigh. Obama's "we scam" was a powerful instrument of breeding both lawlessness and cynicism. i
Yeah, Trump's birtherism was odious but I don't see the equivalence between that and the current Russiaphobia.
The latter [Russophobia] is an effort to assert US power over the legitimate interests of a nuclear-armed Russia, to continue
to act provocatively against Russia, and to kill any attempts at a rapprochement. Birtherism crossed a line of political rhetoric,
but the efforts of neocons in tying Trump's hands regarding peaceful relations with Russia is crossing a far more dangerous line.
Birtherism was one of many things that discredited Trump as a huckster from receiving my vote. Warmongering, among other
matters, also disqualified Hillary.
The real question is who controlled Imram Awan and who planted him into Congress (as a mole). The level of criminal negligence
demonstrated during his hiring is atypical for the
USA government. And especially for government IT. Which is staffed by very security conscious people, as a rule. So he
definitely should have a "sponsor" among intelligence agencies to accomplish such a feat and suppress all the "flash
lights" that lighted during evaluation of his candidacy. I think that "I want this guy" request from Debbie Wasserman
was not enough. She is no Hillary Clinton ;-) But to which country this intelligence agency belong is an open question,
but most probably this was a USA intelligence agency. I doubt that Mossad would use Pakistani as their agent.
Notable quotes:
"... To be sure, the tale is a strange one with plenty of unsavory links. Thirty-seven year old Awan, his wife, sister-in-law and two brothers Abid and Jamal worked as IT administrators, full and part-time, for between 30 and 80 congressmen , all Democrats, including former Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. They did not have security clearances and it is not even certain that they were in any way checked out before being hired. Nor were their claimed skills at IT administration confirmed as their work pattern reportedly turned out to consist more of absences than time spent in the House offices. One congressional IT staffer described them as "ghost employees." ..."
"... At one point, Imran brought into the House as a colleague one Rao Abbas, someone to whom he owed money, best distinguished by his being recently fired by McDonald's . Abbas lived in the basement of a house owned by Imran's wife as a rental property. He may have had no qualifications at all to perform IT but the congressmen in question did not seem to notice. Abbas wound up working, on the rare occasions that he went into the building, in the office of Congressman Patrick Murphy, who was at the time a member of the House Intelligence Committee as well as for Florida Congressman Theo Deutch. He was paid $250,000. ..."
"... To cover for all the non-working but on the payroll employees, Imran also hired a high school friend Haseeb Rana, who actually did know something about computers. Rana reportedly did "all the work" and kept wanting to quit for that reason. It was also against House rules for an IT administrator to fill in for someone else, as Rana routinely did, since each such employee had be personally registered by the congressman. ..."
"... The Awans and their two friends were all taken on as salaried employees of the House of Representatives at senior civil service level paygrades of ca. $165,000 annually, which normally is what is paid to highly experienced senior managers or chiefs of staff. Imran's younger brother Jamal was only twenty years old when he was hired at that level in 2014. ..."
"... It is not known if the Awans, who were working for several Intelligence Committee members simultaneously, would have been involved or had access to the computers able to pull up classified material being used by those staffers, but Buzzfeed, in its initial reporting on the investigation of the Awans family, repeated the concerns of a Congressman that the suspects might have "had access to the House of Representatives' entire computer network." Indeed, it is difficult to imagine that that was not the case. In office environments, the IT administrators routinely ask for passwords if they are checking out the system. WikiLeaks emails confirm that Imran certainly had passwords relating to Congressman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz as well as to others on her staff. ..."
"... As of February 2016, the Awans came under suspicion for having set up an operation involving double billing as well as the theft and reselling of government owned computer equipment. It was also believed that they had somehow obtained entry to much of the House of Representatives' computer network as well as to other information in the individual offices' separate computer systems that they were in theory not allowed to access. The Capitol Hill Police began an investigation and quietly alerted the congressmen involved that there might be a problem. Most stopped employing the Awan family members and associates, but Wasserman-Schultz kept Imran on the payroll until the day after he was actually arrested. ..."
"... Initially Wasserman-Schultz refused to cooperate with the police, refusing to provide her passwords and not permitting them to open her computers, but Fox News reports that she has recently apparently allowed the authorities to do a scan. ..."
"... Dr. Ali A. Al-Attar fled the United States after the indictment to avoid arrest and imprisonment and is now considered a fugitive from justice. Late in 2012 he was observed in Beirut Lebanon conversing with a Hezbollah official. Al-Attar is of interest in this case because he appears to have been a friend of Imran Awan and also loaned him $100,000, which was never repaid. The FBI is currently looking into any possible international espionage specifically involving the two men as Awan and his associates clearly had access to classified information while working in the House of Representatives that would have been of interest to any number of foreign governments. ..."
"... [An earlier version of this article appeared on The American Conservative on August 3 rd ] ..."
There has been surprisingly little media follow-up on the story about the July 25 th Dulles Airport arrest of House
of Representatives' employed Pakistani-American IT specialist Imran Awan, who was detained for bank fraud while he was allegedly
fleeing to Pakistan. The mainstream media somewhat predictably produced
minimal press coverage before the story died. The speed at which the news vanished has prompted some observers,
including Breitbart, to sound the alarm over a suspected cover-up of possible exposure of classified information or even espionage
that just might be part of the story that we are now calling Russiagate.
To be sure, the tale is a strange one with plenty of unsavory links. Thirty-seven year old Awan, his wife, sister-in-law and
two brothers Abid and Jamal worked as IT administrators, full and part-time, for between
30 and 80 congressmen , all Democrats, including former Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
They did not have security clearances and it is not even certain that they were in any way checked out before being hired. Nor were
their claimed skills at IT administration confirmed as their work pattern reportedly turned out to consist more of absences than
time spent in the House offices. One congressional IT staffer described them as "ghost employees."
At one point, Imran brought into the House
as a colleague one Rao Abbas, someone to whom he owed money, best distinguished by his being
recently fired
by McDonald's . Abbas lived in the basement of a house owned by Imran's wife as a rental property. He may have had no qualifications
at all to perform IT but the congressmen in question did not seem to notice. Abbas wound up working, on the rare occasions that he
went into the building, in the office of Congressman Patrick Murphy, who was at the time a member of the House Intelligence Committee
as well as for Florida Congressman Theo Deutch. He was paid $250,000.
To cover for all the non-working but on the payroll employees,
Imran also
hired a high school friend Haseeb Rana, who actually did know something about computers. Rana reportedly did "all the work" and
kept wanting to quit for that reason. It was also against House rules for an IT administrator to fill in for someone else, as Rana
routinely did, since each such employee had be personally registered by the congressman.
The Awans and their two friends were all taken on as salaried employees of the House of Representatives at senior civil service
level paygrades of ca. $165,000 annually, which normally is what is paid to highly experienced senior managers or chiefs of staff.
Imran's younger brother Jamal was only twenty years old when he was hired at that level in 2014.
The process of granting security clearances to Congressional staff is not exactly transparent, but it is not unlike the procedures
for other government agencies. The office seeking the clearance for a staff member must put in a request, some kind of investigation
follows, and the applicant must then sign a non-disclosure agreement before the authorization is granted. Sometimes Congress pushes
the process by demanding that its staff have access above and beyond the normal "need to know." In March 2016, for example, eight
Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee requested
that their staffs be given access to top secret sensitive compartmented information.
It is not known if the Awans, who were working for several Intelligence Committee members simultaneously, would have been
involved or had access to the computers able to pull up classified material being used by those staffers, but Buzzfeed, in its initial
reporting on the investigation of the Awans family,
repeated the concerns of a Congressman that the suspects might have "had access to the House of Representatives' entire computer
network." Indeed, it is difficult to imagine that that was not the case. In office environments, the IT administrators routinely
ask for passwords if they are checking out the system. WikiLeaks emails confirm that Imran certainly had passwords relating to Congressman
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz as well as to others on her staff.
Congress paid the Awans
more than $4 million between 2004 and 2016 at their $165,000 salary level, a sum that some sources suggest to be
three or four times higher than the norm for government contractor IT specialists performing similar work at the same level of
alleged competency. Four of the Awans were among the
500 highest paid of the 15,000 congressional staffers. The considerable and consistent level of overpayment has not been explained
by the congressmen involved. In spite of all that income being generated, Imran Awan declared bankruptcy in 2010 claiming losses
of $1 million on a car business that he owned in Falls Church Virginia that ran up debts and borrowed money that it failed to repay.
The business was named
Cars International A, abbreviated on its business cards as CIA
The Awans family also was noted for its brushes with the law and internal discord, though it is doubtful if the congressional
employers were aware of their outside-of-the-office behavior. The brothers were on the receiving end of a number of traffic citations,
including DUI, and were constantly scheming to generate income, including what must have been a
hilarious phone conversation to their credit union in
which Imran pretended to be his own wife in order to wire money to Pakistan. They were on bad terms with their father and step-mother,
including forging a document to cheat their step-mother of an insurance payment and even holding her "captive" so she could not see
their dying father. Their father even changed his last name to dissociate himself from them.
As of February 2016, the Awans
came under suspicion for having set up an operation involving double billing as well as the theft and reselling of government
owned computer equipment. It was also believed that they had somehow obtained entry to much of the House of Representatives' computer
network as well as to other information in the individual offices' separate computer systems that they were in theory not allowed
to access. The Capitol Hill Police began an investigation and quietly alerted the congressmen involved that there might be a problem.
Most stopped employing the Awan family members and associates, but Wasserman-Schultz kept Imran on the payroll until the day after
he was actually arrested.
Some of those defending the Awans, to include Wasserman-Schultz and the family lawyer, have insisted that he and his family were
the victims of
"an anti-Muslim, right-wing smear job," though there is no actual evidence to suggest that is the case. They also claim that
the bank fraud that led to the arrest, in which Imran obtained a home equity loan for $165,000 from the Congressional Federal Credit
Union based on a house that he owned and claimed to live in in Lorton Virginia, was largely a misunderstanding It has been described
as something "extremely minor" by his lawyer
Chris Gowen , a
high priced Washington attorney who has worked for the Clintons personally, the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative.
It turned out that Imran and his wife no longer lived in the house which had been turned into a rental property, a clear case
of bank fraud. The Awans had
tenants in the house, an ex-Marine and his Naval officer wife, who were very suspicious about a large quantity of what appeared
to be government sourced computer equipment and supplies, all material that had been left behind by the owners. They contacted the
FBI, which discovered hard drives that appeared to have been deliberately destroyed.
The FBI is certainly interested in the theft of government computers but it is also looking into the possibility that the Awans
were using their ability to access and possibly exploit sensitive information stored in the House of Representatives' computer network
as well as through Wasserman-Schultz's iPad, which Imran had access to and was connected to the Democratic National Committee server.
It is believed that Imran sent stolen government files
to a remote personal server . It may have been located in his former residence in Lorton Virginia, where the smashed equipment
was found, or as far away as Pakistan. As Imran Awan is a dual-national, born in Pakistan, the possibility of espionage also had
to be considered. By some accounts the Awan family traveled back to Pakistan frequently, where Imran was treated royally by local
officialdom, suggesting that he may have been doing favors for the not very friendly government in Islamabad.
Considering the possible criminal activity that Imran and his family might have been engaged in and which was still under investigation,
the Capitol Police and FBI determined that he should be stopped in his attempt to flee to Pakistan. The charge that Awan was actually
arrested on at the airport, bank fraud, was an easy way to hold him as it was well documented. It allows the other more serious investigations
to continue, so the argument that Imran Awan is only being held over a minor matter is not necessarily correct.
Awans had wired the credit union money and some cash of his own to Pakistan, as part of a $283,000 transfer that was made in January.
His wife Hina Alvi also left the U.S. two months later.
She was searched by Customs officers and it was determined that she had on her $12,400 in cash. She also had with her their three
children, and numerous boxes containing household goods and clothing. It was clear that she did not intend to come back but there
has been no explanation
why she was even allowed to leave since carrying more than $10,000 out of the country without reporting it is a felony.
As Imran Awan
reportedly had access to Wasserman-Schultz's iPad, he presumably also was able to see the incriminating Hillary Clinton emails.
He used a laptop in her office as well that was, according to investigators, concealed in an "unused crevice" in the Rayburn House
Office Building. It is currently being examined by police but Wasserman-Schultz tried strenuously to recover it before it could be
looked at. She pressured the
Chief of the Capitol Police Matthew Verderosa to return it, threatening him by saying "you should expect that there will be consequences."
Initially Wasserman-Schultz refused to cooperate with the police, refusing to provide her passwords and not permitting them to
open her computers, but Fox News reports that she has recently apparently allowed the authorities to do a scan.
There is another odd connection of Imran Awan that goes back to the neocon circle around Paul Wolfowitz during the Iraq War. In
late 2002 and early 2003, Wolfowitz regularly
met secretly with
a group of Iraqi expatriates who resided in the Washington area and were opponents of the Saddam Hussein regime. The Iraqis had not
been in their country of birth for many years but they claimed to have regular contact with well-informed family members and political
allies. The Iraqi advisers provided Wolfowitz with a now-familiar refrain, i.e. that the Iraqi people would rise up to support invading
Americans and overthrow the hated Saddam. They would greet their liberators with bouquets of flowers and shouts of joy.
The Iraqis were headed by one Dr. Ali A. al-Attar, born in Baghdad to Iranian parents in 1963, a 1989
graduate of the American University of
Beirut Faculty of Medicine. He subsequently emigrated to the United States and set up a practice in internal medicine in Greenbelt
Maryland, a suburb of Washington D.C. Al-Attar eventually expanded his business to include nine practices that he wholly or partly
owned in Virginia and Maryland but he eventually lost his license due to "questionable billing practices" as well as "unprofessional
conduct" due to having sex with patients
Al-Attar was
investigated by the FBI and eventually
indicted for large scale health care fraud in 2008-9, which included charging insurance companies more than $2.3 million for
services their patients did not actually receive with many of the false claims using names of diplomats and employees enrolled in
a group plan at the Egyptian Embassy in Washington. In one case, the doctors claimed an embassy employee visited three of their clinics
every 26 days between May 2007 and August 2008 to have the same testing done each time. The insurance company paid the doctors $55,000
for more than 400 nonexistent procedures for the one patient alone.
Dr. Ali A. Al-Attar fled the United States after the indictment to avoid arrest and imprisonment and is now considered a fugitive
from justice. Late in 2012 he was observed in Beirut Lebanon conversing with a Hezbollah official. Al-Attar is of interest in this
case because he appears to have been a friend of Imran Awan and
also loaned him $100,000, which was never repaid. The FBI is currently looking into any possible international espionage specifically
involving the two men as Awan and his associates clearly had access to classified information while working in the House of Representatives
that would have been of interest to any number of foreign governments.
The Imran Awan case is certainly of considerable interest not only for what the investigation eventually turns up but also for
what it reveals about how things actually work in congress and in the government more generally speaking. I don't know which of the
allegations about what might have taken place are true, but there is certainly a lot to consider. Whether the case is investigated
and prosecuted without fear or favor will depend on the Department of Justice and FBI, but I for one was appalled to learn that the
official who quite likely will
oversee the investigation of the Awans is one Steven Wasserman, Assistant Attorney for the District of Columbia, the brother
of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. If that should actually occur, it would be a huge conflict of interest and it has to be wondered if
Wasserman would have the integrity to recuse himself.
There are many questions regarding the Awan case. One might reasonably ask how foreign-born IT specialists are selected and vetted
prior to being significantly overpaid and allowed to work on computers in congressional offices. And the ability of those same individuals
to keep working even after the relevant congressmen have been warned that their employee was under investigation has to be explained
beyond Wasserman-Schultz's
comment that Awan had not committed any crime, which may have been true but one would expect congressmen to err on the side of
caution over an issue that could easily have national security ramifications. And how does a recently bankrupt and unemployed Imran
Awan wind up with a high-priced lawyer to defend him who is associated with the Clintons? Would that kind of lawyer even take a relatively
minor bank fraud case if that were all that is involved? Finally, there are the lingering concerns about the unfortunately well-established
Russiagate narrative. Did the Russians really hack into the DNC or were there other possibilities, to include some kind of inside
job, a "leak," carried out by someone working for the government or DNC for reasons that have yet to be determined, possibly even
someone actually employed by DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz? There are certainly many issues that the public needs to know more
about and so far, there are not enough answers.
[An earlier version
of this article appeared on The American Conservative on August 3 rd ]
Foreign-born people should be barred for life from holding any kind of security clearance. I mean in the highly unlikely
event I were to become a Chinese citizen (and be 40 years younger), would the Chinese be so stupid as to give me a clearance
and allow me to work in a key government office?
Obviously not but forget"obviously" when we're talking about the U.S.A.
The Department of Justice needs to do its job looking at the Clintons, the DNC, Wasserman-Schultz, Donna Brazile and others.
The stench of corruption is appalling, and the Russia thing looks more like a fraudulent story to keep the pressure off, particularly
since the phony dossier which started it was compiled at the behest of a political consultancy which usually works for the same
crowd. I think it is about time that Mueller's fishing expedition be closed down and the necessary draining of the swamp be commenced.
@Cloak And Dagger
It should come as no surprise to anyone that the law is only meant for we ordinary citizens and not for the elite. Those of us
who are silently hoping for the indictment of Debbie and Hillary are sure to be sorely disappointed.
There is no justice anymore in these United States whose domestic and foreign policies are controlled by the deep state. Some
days can be so bleak... Actually, the whole Awan-US Congress case is about the High Treason. No security clearances. The open
access to the classified documents of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (oh the irony!) and the House Committee
on Foreign Affairs.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/04/exclusive-house-intelligence-it-staffers-fired-in-computer-security-probe/
There are should be arrests made of those congresspeople who allowed the greatest breach in the national cybersecurity by inviting
and financing the non-qualified personnel (fraudulent hiring).
An important question is, who pays Chris Gowen, a very expensive and well-connected lawyer, for the defense of the documented
fraudster and possible spy.
That Steven Wasserman, Assistant Attorney for the District of Columbia, the brother of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz oversees the investigation
is a scandal of gigantic proportions.
Those making the presstituting peeps about Russiangate should be from now on pummelled with the facts of the Tale of the Brothers
Awan.
This is a staggering story. What a load of incompetence and coverup. This government is a total sieve. Of course those people
were spying. Even if they didn't want to spy, for whatever reason, the Pakistani government could surely find ways to 'convince'
them to do so. Most of these politicians appear to be so clueless that it's difficult to comprehend. It's just a carnival of taxpayer
ripoff in DC.
@Dana Thompson Somebody
should write a movie script based on this. It would be better than American Hustle - call it Pakistani Hustle, maybe. The pitch
would start with, "It's the Sopranos meet the Simpsons."
I for one was appalled to learn that the official who quite likely will oversee the investigation of the Awans is one Steven
Wasserman, Assistant Attorney for the District of Columbia, the brother of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
Yup. And guess what? As Assistant DA for DC, Wasserman is also ultimately responsible for investigating the Seth Rich murder
13 months on and still no leads!
When the hell are Trump and Sessions going to get serious about going after these freaks?
What if the Awan brothers are "cutouts" for another intelligence agency? What if Seth Rich leaked the emails, and they exposed
Hillary Clinton to prosecution? What if the "deep state" panicked because it could no longer control the narrative? What if Comey
dragged his feet on a slam-dunk investigation because the "deep state" was sure Clinton would win, and it could all be buried?
What if they hadn't had time to consider "Plan B" in time to head off investigation of Clinton Foundation fraud? What if they
never expected that Anthony Wiener's sexting would get his computer seized by the NYPD? What if the whole story extends back to
the Mueller, Wolfowitz, Clarke and Tenet cabal, and all of their think-tank gurus? What if somebody realizes that the planning
stages had to predate the Bush-Cheney administration? What if Russia-gate and Clinton-gate are playing out as two hands in a game
of strip poker? What if one side refuses to fold? What if Hillary threatens to file a sworn affidavit? What if Mueller is the
historical analogue of John J. McCloy, the anonymous "deep state" Chairman of the Board? What if this is just a plot in the latest
episode of war pornography? What if it's called, "Debbie Does Dulles", and its stars include "Many Talented Celebrities"? What
are the chances that somebody important goes to jail? I'm guessing the odds are pretty long. I'm betting Hillary has the goods
on all of them, and she'll file that affidavit if she has to.
Killing freedom of speech in America, one google search at a time:
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/08/google-committed-suppression-free-speech/
"According to reports, Google works hand in hand with the NSA and CIA to expand unconstitutional spying on everyone everywhere
and to suppress independent and dissenting thought and expression. For example, on July 31, the World Socialist Web Site reported
that "Between April and June, Google completed a major revision of its search engine that sharply curtails public access to Internet
web sites that operate independently of the corporate and state-controlled media. Since the implementation of the changes,
many left wing, anti-war and progressive web sites have experienced a sharp fall in traffic generated by Google searches."
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/07/31/goog-j31.html
@Seamus Padraig "As
Assistant DA for DC, Wasserman is also ultimately responsible for investigating the Seth Rich murder 13 months on and still no
leads!"
Amazing. How come that the name "Wasserman" has become spread over the major ongoing DC scandals: The leak of the DNC emails
(the pseudo-Russiangate), the greatest breach in the national cybersecurity (Awan affair), and finally, the death of Seth Rich,
a DNC employee who went into contact with Wikileaks re the DNC machinations. Looks like American "democracy on the march," Clinton
style.
the greatest breach in the national cybersecurity (Awan affair)
and the Trump Justice Dept. seems to have zero interest in it
I suspect this and other reasons- like the serial leaks from the highest levels of the intelligence agencies are why Trump
is becoming openly exasperated with Sessions
I suspect that Sessions knows that too much exposure of back-room dealings of the deepstate (with perhaps the Senate), would
be potentially inconvenient.
when Lindsey Graham! came to Jeff Sessions defense, I sort of knew then that Jeff Sessions is a deepstate asset
@F. G. Sanford What
if the Awan brothers are "cutouts" for another intelligence agency? What if Seth Rich leaked the emails, and they exposed Hillary
Clinton to prosecution? What if the "deep state" panicked because it could no longer control the narrative? What if Comey dragged
his feet on a slam-dunk investigation because the "deep state" was sure Clinton would win, and it could all be buried? What if
they hadn't had time to consider "Plan B" in time to head off investigation of Clinton Foundation fraud? What if they never expected
that Anthony Wiener's sexting would get his computer seized by the NYPD? What if the whole story extends back to the Mueller,
Wolfowitz, Clarke and Tenet cabal, and all of their think-tank gurus? What if somebody realizes that the planning stages had to
predate the Bush-Cheney administration? What if Russia-gate and Clinton-gate are playing out as two hands in a game of strip poker?
What if one side refuses to fold? What if Hillary threatens to file a sworn affidavit? What if Mueller is the historical analogue
of John J. McCloy, the anonymous "deep state" Chairman of the Board? What if this is just a plot in the latest episode of war
pornography? What if it's called, "Debbie Does Dulles", and its stars include "Many Talented Celebrities"? What are the chances
that somebody important goes to jail? I'm guessing the odds are pretty long. I'm betting Hillary has the goods on all of them,
and she'll file that affidavit if she has to. I'm sorry F.G., but what if all the various narratives, which are being supplied
to the Seth Rich murder end up only being a way of hiding the truth within plain sight, so as to make it hard to distinguish between
the real, and the phony, narratives which have been put in place, as to only confuse us truth seekers? This is how 'conspiracy
theories' are made to become conspiracy theories.
It's possible the Wasserman-Schultz – Awan scandal was raised subsequently by a caller to C Span, but as the above schedule
of C Span Washington Journal programming displays, if the American people wanted to in-depth information about the Awans, they'd
do better to tune in to RT, where Dr. Phil Giraldi explained the case and labeled it "the scandal of the century"
@annamaria "As Assistant
DA for DC, Wasserman is also ultimately responsible for investigating the Seth Rich murder 13 months on and still no leads!"
Amazing. How come that the name "Wasserman" has become spread over the major ongoing DC scandals: The leak of the DNC emails
(the pseudo-Russiangate), the greatest breach in the national cybersecurity (Awan affair), and finally, the death of Seth Rich,
a DNC employee who went into contact with Wikileaks re the DNC machinations. Looks like American "democracy on the march," Clinton
style.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/05/debbie-wasserman-schultzs-brother-steven-wasserman-accused-burying-seth-rich-case/
"The Seth Rich Case: Nucleus of An American Coup Attempt:" http://www.phillip-butler.com/seth-rich-case/ Where is Mr. Wasserman's
boss, the U.S. Attorney for D.C.? Oh, right, it's an Obama holdover. Why hasn't President Trump put his own person in this critical
job? (Apparently he has nominated someone but as usual the Senate is in no hurry to approve him. Nothing would stop DOJ from firing
the current guy and placing the Trump nominee in an acting position, just as Obama did with the incumbent.)
This story would be hilarious if it weren't so serious. The quintessential example of foreigners from corrupt societies learning
quickly how to work our system. We have to give the Awans credit for milking liberal banks' and Democrats' foreigner- and Muslim-worship
(combined with sheer stupidity) to refrain from asking any questions.
@Ace Foreign-born
people should be barred for life from holding any kind of security clearance. I mean in the highly unlikely event I were
to become a Chinese citizen (and be 40 years younger), would the Chinese be so stupid as to give me a clearance and allow
me to work in a key government office?
Obviously not but forget"obviously" when we're talking about the U.S.A.
Foreign-born people should be barred for life from holding any kind of security clearance.
Several years ago, I was denied employment in an aerospace company because I was considered a security risk for having relatives
abroad. This was done in spite of the fact that I was already working for the same company in another division. In the end, I
had the last laugh, because a week later a company employee, a native born white American, was arrested for passing out secret
information.
@annamaria "As Assistant
DA for DC, Wasserman is also ultimately responsible for investigating the Seth Rich murder 13 months on and still no leads!"
Amazing. How come that the name "Wasserman" has become spread over the major ongoing DC scandals: The leak of the DNC emails
(the pseudo-Russiangate), the greatest breach in the national cybersecurity (Awan affair), and finally, the death of Seth Rich,
a DNC employee who went into contact with Wikileaks re the DNC machinations. Looks like American "democracy on the march," Clinton
style.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/05/debbie-wasserman-schultzs-brother-steven-wasserman-accused-burying-seth-rich-case/
"The Seth Rich Case: Nucleus of An American Coup Attempt:" http://www.phillip-butler.com/seth-rich-case/ Maybe it should be called
Wassergate.
@EdwardM Where is
Mr. Wasserman's boss, the U.S. Attorney for D.C.? Oh, right, it's an Obama holdover. Why hasn't President Trump put his own person
in this critical job? (Apparently he has nominated someone but as usual the Senate is in no hurry to approve him. Nothing would
stop DOJ from firing the current guy and placing the Trump nominee in an acting position, just as Obama did with the incumbent.)
This story would be hilarious if it weren't so serious. The quintessential example of foreigners from corrupt societies learning
quickly how to work our system. We have to give the Awans credit for milking liberal banks' and Democrats' foreigner- and Muslim-worship
(combined with sheer stupidity) to refrain from asking any questions. There is no Muslim-worship among the ziocons at DNC, who
got caught in the Awan affair. The Muslim card is a desperate argument for the currently unstoppable process of investigation.
Whether Mr. Wasserman or his boss or Clintons' lawyer defending Awan for the undisclosed amount of money, the train is moving
and the word Treason is in the air.
The most serious detail of the Awan affair is the violation of the protocol re classified information: The Awan family had no
security clearance, there was no documentation of the confirmation of the previous employment and no records for their relevant
education/training. Just to reiterate: the family (with a history of fraud and suspicious connections) has an open access to the
classified documents of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/04/exclusive-house-intelligence-it-staffers-fired-in-computer-security-probe/
Wasserman-Schultz has been directly involved in the greatest breach of the national cybersecurity. She tried to impede the investigation
and she kept the fraudsters on the US-taxpayers-paid payroll up to the day of the arrest of the main culprit. She did that despite
being warned by the police. She should be stripped already of her security clearance and arrested for the breach that was done
on her watch and with her active help.
Foreign-born people should be barred for life from holding any kind of security clearance.
Several years ago, I was denied employment in an aerospace company because I was considered a security risk for having relatives
abroad. This was done in spite of the fact that I was already working for the same company in another division. In the end, I
had the last laugh, because a week later a company employee, a native born white American, was arrested for passing out secret
information. It's all about minimizing risk. My respect for Sikhs would make me inclined to grant security clearances to them
liberally. My overall position, however, is that we have let in far too many foreigners than sane persons would and are stupidly
phlegmatic about leaving illegals here to "make a life for themselves" or "make a contribution" (at the expense of native born
Americans).
You were entitled to the last laugh indeed. We do not lack for native born white Americans. In fact, they are the source of
our fundamental problems.
n no explanation why she was even allowed to leave since carrying more than $10,000 out of the country without reporting it
is a felony.
Not a felony, but a mere civil infraction. Not reporting carrying more than $10k across the border can be either a criminal charge
with fines up to $500k and jail time, or a civil violation which often results in all unreported assets being seized and forfeit
and possibly with a civil penalty of up to the amount forfeit, or even both criminal and civil. The fact that she was allowed
to go on her way with her cash shows an unusual deference to the lady.
@Seamus Padraig His
boss, no doubt, is also an Obama flunkee. That's entirely possible given Trump's bewildering indifference to personnel matters.
He appears to have been hamstrung at the outset, eschewing both philosophical leadership and staffing up with loyalists. His
director of personnel is a bad joke but Trump simply doesn't see it or care. He made a point of saying how he hires good people
and lets them run but competent isn't the same thing as loyal or otherwise appropriate
@Cloak And Dagger
It should come as no surprise to anyone that the law is only meant for we ordinary citizens and not for the elite. Those of us
who are silently hoping for the indictment of Debbie and Hillary are sure to be sorely disappointed.
There is no justice anymore in these United States whose domestic and foreign policies are controlled by the deep state. Some
days can be so bleak... I agreed but it sure would be nice if Sessions would get her and her brother.
@anonymous This is
a staggering story. What a load of incompetence and coverup. This government is a total sieve. Of course those people were spying.
Even if they didn't want to spy, for whatever reason, the Pakistani government could surely find ways to 'convince' them to do
so. Most of these politicians appear to be so clueless that it's difficult to comprehend. It's just a carnival of taxpayer ripoff
in DC. It could possibly be a case of intensional incompetence. There are a huge number of people IN Congress that are totally
committed to destruction from within. The Trojan Horse has been within the gates for a surprising number of years. Trevor Loudon
has an interesting video on Amazon titled The Enemies (inclde the "s") Within. If accurate, it IS intensional incompetence. It
may be on Youtube as well.
La (w)hore Pakistan is most likely in bed with her pimp du jour, China and using the Pakis working for the US Congress to secure
data to be passed on to their handlers at ISI who in turn, pass it on to Beijing. And let's not forget the Saudis
@Sowhat I agreed but
it sure would be nice if Sessions would get her...and her brother. I just saw this posted. Don't know if it is completely true
but it fits with other information. Devastating.
@Joe Tedesky I'm sorry
F.G., but what if all the various narratives, which are being supplied to the Seth Rich murder end up only being a way of hiding
the truth within plain sight, so as to make it hard to distinguish between the real, and the phony, narratives which have been
put in place, as to only confuse us truth seekers? This is how 'conspiracy theories' are made to become conspiracy theories. F.G.
said "What if the Awan brothers are "cutouts" for another intelligence agency?" But of course. They're perfect patsies, just like
in our most famous "conspiracy theory" dubbed case.
Were the Awan brothers really gathering intelligence for Pakistan's ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence)? And was the ISI on
secret contract with the CIA?
I for one was appalled to learn that the official who quite likely will oversee the investigation of the Awans is one Steven
Wasserman, Assistant Attorney for the District of Columbia, the brother of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
Yup. And guess what? As Assistant DA for DC, Wasserman is also ultimately responsible for investigating the Seth Rich murder ...
13 months on and still no leads!
When the hell are Trump and Sessions going to get serious about going after these freaks?
As Assistant DA for DC, Wasserman is also ultimately responsible for investigating the Seth Rich murder 13 months on and
still no leads!
In a recent broadcast, Michael Savage suddenly savaged what he called "fake news from the right" such as the Seth Rich murder,
Pizzagate (which he misrepresented as relating to hookers), etc. The presentation seemed curiously disengaged.
My guess is that Savage and his family were physically threatened.
@Sam Shama What evidence
prompts your scepticism about the Hezbollah connection? Al-Attar is a known Hezbollah operative with a connection to Awan. Pakistan
is next door to Iran which finances Hezbollah. You want all that to be airbrushed away?
What evidence prompts your scepticism about the Hezbollah connection?
Read what was written: LACK of evidence -- in the face of the logic of antipathies -- prompts the skepticism.
Pakistan is next door to Iran which finances Hezbollah. You want all that to be airbrushed away?
Israel shares borders with Lebanon, which is home to Hezbollah; it was at Israel's instigation that Hezbollah came into being.
Does that constitute "evidence" that Israel supports Hezbollah and is also/likewise complicit in Wassergate (h/t Chris
@ #35)?
Or do you prefer that Israel's involvement be airbrushed away ?
@Pachyderm Pachyderma
La (w)hore Pakistan is most likely in bed with her pimp du jour, China and using the Pakis working for the US Congress to secure
data to be passed on to their handlers at ISI who in turn, pass it on to Beijing. And let's not forget the Saudis... I think you
are absolutely right that the Pakis passed on information to China and any other country willing to pay for it.
"... "According to a source familiar with the matter, McMaster is trying to dismiss anyone involved with a controversial memo arguing that the so-called "deep state" is engaged in a Maoist-style insurgency against the Trump administration. The author of that memo, NSC staffer Rich Higgins, has already been fired, and at least two other anti-globalist NSC staffers have also been forced out." ..."
"According to a source familiar with the matter, McMaster is trying to dismiss anyone involved with a controversial memo arguing
that the so-called "deep state" is engaged in a Maoist-style insurgency against the Trump administration. The author of that memo,
NSC staffer Rich Higgins, has already been fired, and at least two other anti-globalist NSC staffers have also been forced out."
Heh heh heh the trumpeters Vs the corporatists - every oppressive theocracy should be made to play this game; of course the audience
is susceptible to table-tennis watchers neck from swivelling to follow the dried dog turd bouncing back n forth, but the popcorn
is pretty good.
Looks like DC has some competing clans with nefarious goals, that fight each other and enlist foreign
powers to further their case. And this power is not only and not so much Russia
Notable quotes:
"... There really isn't a happy ending for the honest whistleblowers in such cases, corporate or
governmental, since the dishonest players are not only well-connected, but those in charge have too
often also been ethically compromised by indirect financial benefit from the schemes. ..."
"... The press and Congress apparently either unwilling or unable to distinguish smoke from flame
are more than happy to avoid anything that makes a case against them. I heard bits and pieces of this
story on Chris Plank(?) radio program. It's hard to trust a Congress that avoids its own issue. ..."
"... Certainly all of these issues have weight to US security and Intel concerns, but what is more
apparent is that Congress is unwilling to take on their own issues of integrity [and] credibility. All
the collusion appears to be among house members. Whether its contractors or lobbyists agitating for
war, There's really a problem in Congress about policing themselves. ..."
"... I am beginning to wonder, just how dysfunctional has the congressional body become. More and
more it looks like Congress avoiding accountability, whether it's their support for needless sanctions
(more political point making than policy) – or the mess of Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan ..."
"... In my view, their avoidance is an indication of just how wrong headed or blind the establishment
is to their own failings. ..."
"... These Awan characters appear to be incompetent, even stupid. Nonetheless, they were able to
hack the US Congress, and the US law enforcement allowed half of them to leave the country and get away
scot-free. ..."
"... What does it usually mean when a rich, prominent older woman continues paying a young handsome
man for work he is not actually doing? I'm just sayin'. ..."
"... A lot of people "deliberately destroy" their abandoned hard drives. And I recommend anyone
do so unless they really trust the government not to manufacture a case against them. ..."
"... Conservatism, at least in theory, also doesn't include idiocy. Decapitating the ruling clique
from a bit of land which comprises three factions of inherent hostility bound together by a necessarily
brutal minority (Kurds, Sunni, and the Shia majority) was going to do what exactly? ..."
"... Bush appointed Paul Bremer, a desk guy with zero military or political experience, to run the
place. Bremer, a bureaucrat, dismissed the Baath military, and prohibited them from having any government
jobs, which effectively meant they had no jobs. But of course he did not round up each and every rifle,
grenade and drum of ammonium nitrate, that's impossible. ..."
"... Reminds me of the Pagliano Platt River Sub contractor who was indicted after Running a mortgage
fraud scheme, fixing loans with clients kids social security numbers. see pdf..fascinating how scammers
work ..."
"... If a loan is not repaid..than IRS will gingerly declare it income..and if one owes more than
50k in taxes..one can't leave the country under recent laws enacted..selling all those houses..certainly
involved some capital gain..If not Congress..then The IRS should be all over this..like they did Al
Capone.. ..."
"... We let foreigners in. For reasons unknown we then let the foreigners work for the government,
something that would probably happen in no other country except the US. ..."
"... And of course we're angry at the native-born Americans who complain that they should have had
those government jobs that the Democrats gave to the foreigners. ..."
"... Sadly, the Awans' hacking of the US Congress is only a "strange" case insofar as similar cases
rarely get this kind of scrutiny. The level of corruption and national security threats involving "foreign
contractors" in DC is incredible. ..."
"... I had said it many times before, Russiagate is a diversion. Comey had lined the dots. There
is no way that awan could have gotten the IT position without the Mossads approval. Who were the contractors
who filled in for the no shows? What is awans educational background; his qualifications? I don't for
a second believe the wasserman shultz would allow herself to be blackmailed; most likely the other way
around, if blackmail was a factor. It is interesting that he was not fired until after his arrest. Was
this to allow him the use of his position to escape the country? This certainly would show collusion
with wasserman shultz. Pollard comes to mind. I could be all wrong, but I can't help but wonder. ..."
"... Just a thought, they may very well be competent smart spies, when notes who's left holding
the bag. ..."
"... The Awans are almost certainly just a small sample of the kind of corruption likely to come
to light now that the Clinton Machine is no longer wealthy or powerful enough to keep it hidden (and
to keep mouths shut). So this type of story is bound to be repeated quite a lot over the next few years
..."
"... Also, these employees made $160,000 a year: including a 20 year old whose last job was at McDonalds.
They had 12 nice homes in the area -bought through Congressional bank, along with 22 businesses I've
found so far. ..."
"... Setting aside the possible financial crimes, blackmail, etc, how can our government claim to
be serious about cyber-security when it lets "foreign-born IT experts" use US government computers and
systems? It isn't 1995. It's 2017. ..."
"... Can you imagine what smart, competent spies and traitors are getting away with? ..."
"... It doesn't seem likely that Awan would have leaked his employers emails to Wikileaks. It seems
far more likely that Awan fingered Seth Rich for the leak, and even seems plausible that Awan may have
been involved in the revenge murder of Seth Rich. ..."
"... Several commenters have knocked my math skills re the salaries the Awans received. They assume
that all four Awans (actually five – three brothers and two wives) worked all twelve years that the
Awans were active on the Hill. They did not. Only Imran worked all 12 years – the others worked less.
..."
"... I would also note to skeptics about this story that I too am not totally convinced about it
in every detail but the one element that I find to be both inexplicable and very suggestive of a cover-up
is the Awan lawyer Chris Gowen – how does a blue chip Clinton lawyer wind up defending this guy over
a false document in a case of bank fraud? He is the one element that screams out that something is very,
very wrong here. ..."
"... Phil, How does a blue chip lawyer wind up defending this guy? How did a bankrupt Simpson get
a dream team of attorneys to defend him? Why didn't you publish the exact amounts paid to the whole
Awan family over the duration? Why aren't corrupt American officials arrested for squandering Billions
(with a B) of our hard earned money in Afghanistan, Iraq and a host of other countries? What about the
Kushner family selling green cards to the Chinese or having the zoning changed for their properties
or Clinton accepting huge sums of money from the Saudis whom she has called the biggest backers of terrorism?
..."
One of the corporate scams I uncovered as a new IT Director at a Fortune 500 company, was one
in which equipment would be ordered for the company and paid for, but then sold to parties outside
by the perpetrators. Sometimes those involved were quite high up the corporate food chain. Such
schemes would work even more easily in certain government agencies which have even poorer financial
reporting and oversight or undisclosed budgets.
There really isn't a happy ending for the honest whistleblowers in such cases, corporate
or governmental, since the dishonest players are not only well-connected, but those in charge
have too often also been ethically compromised by indirect financial benefit from the schemes.
Hannity has been pushing this story like he thinks it's the smoking gun that will send Hillary
Clinton to jail for the rest of her life. It would be supremely ironic if it turns out to be an
important link in the Trump-Russia-DNC relationship that he claims is just anti-Trump media fake
news. After all, without FNC pushing this story so hard I never would have heard about it.
So, I am a computer programmer (actually, Applications Developer according to my employer) who
has been working in the field for over 20 years who has never worked for the government, but
$4 million over 12 years for 4 people comes to $83,333 a year each.
Supposedly this is "three or four times higher than the norm for government contractor IT specialists
performing similar work", which means that that according to the best case scenario for them the
average contractor earns $27,777.
Assuming 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year (and the article provides no information on how many
hours a year all of them worked, what their specialty is, and how good they are at it, all of
which can make an incredible difference in how much they should make), that comes to $13.35 an
hour for the average government IT contractor. This is in the highest salary, highest living expenses
city in the country to live, and with no benefits as a contractor, having to pay their own health,
dental, vision and no 401K.
Don't get me wrong. It sounds like this family was into some bad stuff, this has been known
for a long time by everyone, and everyone but DWS got clear of them a long time ago.
As a generally pretty liberal person (who was quite conservative until GWB's push to war in
Iraq made me re-evaluate all of my political beliefs and realize that all of the things I had
taken in theory as facts actually worked out in reality as much less than fact), I consider DWS
to be at best a wart on the butt of the democratic party.
If these numbers are correct, then it completely makes sense. IT contractors who should be
making upwards of $150 an hour working for $40 an hour? Of course they would have some nefarious
motivation to do so.
The Awans were not contractors, they were employees if the House of Representatives. They didn't
"bill" anyone for $4 million dollars. But each of them were paid roughly $160k per year -- a nice
salary, but solidly lower middle class in DC. And the fraud charge IS minor. So you got a HELOC
opened against a house you owned but didn't live in full time? Happens a lot. Should probably
happen more. Everything else is just a riff on the fact that he is a Muslim who knows muslims,
some of whom live in Pakistan. I can't believe I agree with Debbie Wasserman Schutz.
As suspected the fire is not were the smoke is. I suspect the "collusion story" is one of misdirection.
The press and Congress apparently either unwilling or unable to distinguish smoke from
flame are more than happy to avoid anything that makes a case against them. I heard bits and pieces
of this story on Chris Plank(?) radio program. It's hard to trust a Congress that avoids its own
issue.
The big Republican stories;
1. Congressman Flake's call to reign in the executive. All of the issues that concern the everyday
lives of US citizens and s it turns out one of them is managing the WH you have got to be kidding.
Apparently, members of Congress and others have been hoodwinked by what appears be a grifting
operation that may include spying and the big news story is Congressional republicans reigning
the executive. Maybe they should look at reigning in themselves. It's been seven years of claims
to repeal the healthcare legislation !
2. Having spent millions of dollars investigating actual collusion to undermine the US –
not an iota of evidence.
3. There's a new proposal coming to on immigration. RAISE proposal which on its face sounds
nice, but has that curious taste of elitism about it. I find this business of the best and the
brightest foreigner immigration idea unhelpful to the skilled workers of US citizens. Who also
get undermined by skilled best and brightest foreign labor.
4. The two largest providers of drugs making headlines opioids, and cocaine continue to
dominate the news cycle: China and Mexico.
Certainly all of these issues have weight to US security and Intel concerns, but what is
more apparent is that Congress is unwilling to take on their own issues of integrity [and] credibility.
All the collusion appears to be among house members. Whether its contractors or lobbyists agitating
for war, There's really a problem in Congress about policing themselves.
I remember when it looked the CIA had turned the tables on members of congress and how they
had conniption fits. I am beginning to wonder, just how dysfunctional has the congressional
body become. More and more it looks like Congress avoiding accountability, whether it's their
support for needless sanctions (more political point making than policy) – or the mess of Libya,
Iraq, Afghanistan
In my view, their avoidance is an indication of just how wrong headed or blind the establishment
is to their own failings.
It never ceases to amaze how often political scandals either directly or indirectly seem to involve
The Clintons in some fashion. Now this. Arkansas journalist Paul Greenberg of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
had those two pegged from the very beginning.
"One might well ask how foreign-born IT specialists are selected and vetted prior to being
significantly overpaid and allowed to work on computers in congressional offices. "
Indeed. In fact, one should ask why "foreign-born IT specialists" are allowed to work for our
government. There are plenty of native-born Americans with the expertise to do this sort of work.
There are plenty of native born Americans who NEED this work. And the native-born Americans don't
bring all this weird and suspicious baggage with them.
These Awan characters appear to be incompetent, even stupid. Nonetheless, they were able
to hack the US Congress, and the US law enforcement allowed half of them to leave the country
and get away scot-free.
Can you imagine what smart, competent spies and traitors are getting away with?
In fact, one should ask why "foreign-born IT specialists" are allowed to work for our government.
I know at least two foreign-born IT specialists who work for the federal government. One is
Russian. On Pakastani. Both are citizens. My husband, also Russian-born, worked in the IT industry
for 20-plus years. Well over half of his colleagues were foreign-born. It's not because they were
paid less so that they were undermining American-born programmers. If the feds do proper security
clearances, where a legal immigrant who has been granted citizenship shouldn't matter.
They hire foreign born Muslims because when shib hits the fan, they have the race card to play
on the bleeding hearts liberals with massive white guilt issues.
"Those poor Pakistanis with ties to hezbollah -- No one ever gives them a chance! But we fine
liberals do! We won't judge you unless your white and christian!"
Also, it's much easier for corrupt officials to work with corrupt contractors. Everyone is
already on the same page, no graft necessary.
Cars International A? This is less "Burn After Reading" and more "Fargo". (At least the Coen Brothers
were being deliberately absurd with the National Association of Matrimonial Attorneys Nationwide,
of "Intolerable Cruelty")
Dear Phil: Have always had respect and admiration for your articles. But this one is on thin ice.
I hope u have not joined the ranks of the "conspiracy theorists" and get back to matters u really
know about.
A lot of people "deliberately destroy" their abandoned hard drives. And I recommend anyone
do so unless they really trust the government not to manufacture a case against them.
Al-Attar's insurance fraud, at least by Miami standards, is pretty much nickels and dimes and
at at least didn't include bilking Medicare.
So far (famous last words) this doesn't sound like much more than the usual malfeasance described
by Fran M. above. I could give a few examples from my career in academia. And local governments
are rife such.
"As a generally pretty liberal person (who was quite conservative until GWB's push to
war in Iraq made me re-evaluate all of my political beliefs"
Many do not consider GWB to be a conservative. He did run with culture-wars conservative branding,
but that's after decades of heavy drinking and perhaps other party drugs. More significantly,
his disastrous Iraq blunder was arguably Wilsonian, not conservative.
Conservatism includes the notion that human nature is not naturally good and that placing a
society in a paint shaker and carefully (or not carefully, in this case) pouring out the newly
'improved' contents does not result in a tasty delight.
Conservatism, at least in theory, also doesn't include idiocy. Decapitating the ruling
clique from a bit of land which comprises three factions of inherent hostility bound together
by a necessarily brutal minority (Kurds, Sunni, and the Shia majority) was going to do what exactly?
Bush appointed Paul Bremer, a desk guy with zero military or political experience, to run
the place. Bremer, a bureaucrat, dismissed the Baath military, and prohibited them from having
any government jobs, which effectively meant they had no jobs. But of course he did not round
up each and every rifle, grenade and drum of ammonium nitrate, that's impossible.
So now there's a professional, unemployed and bitter military who are members of a hated minority.
I ain't even a pee-aych-dee and I know that much. Seems like Bush and the leftover 'smart people'
he hired knew even less.
Four people assumed full-time over twelve years is 48 person-years. $4 million/48 is about $83,000/person-year.
Might be a little high, but absolutely, certainly not 3-4 times the norm for a government contractor.
Philip, you started off on the wrong foot.
Great Article! Reminds me of the Pagliano Platt River Sub contractor who was indicted after Running a mortgage
fraud scheme, fixing loans with clients kids social security numbers. see pdf..fascinating how
scammers work
The connection to companies getting cars then shipping them out..to perhaps bogus buyers..or
selling to folks that don't have proper traceable Ids is therefore not a an improbable stretch.
The same rings can be used as conduits for drugs and weapons.
That the spouse left with 12k 2k above legal limit. indicates prior approval. and for this
to be happening over such a long period of time under the noses of 17 intelligence agencies for
13 years.. lets say to be nice 5 years.. is beyond the pale.
If a loan is not repaid..than IRS will gingerly declare it income..and if one owes more
than 50k in taxes..one can't leave the country under recent laws enacted..selling all those houses..certainly
involved some capital gain..If not Congress..then The IRS should be all over this..like they did
Al Capone..
We let foreigners in. For reasons unknown we then let the foreigners work for the government,
something that would probably happen in no other country except the US. Still later, we are
shocked and surprised that the the foreigners we let in got jobs inside our government, and we're
shocked and surprised that they turn out to be working for foreign countries, terror groups, organized
crime, whatever.
And of course we're angry at the native-born Americans who complain that they should have
had those government jobs that the Democrats gave to the foreigners.
Can anybody explain to me why it isn't against the law (with very rare exceptions) for foreigners
or foreign-born to have government jobs?
Sadly, the Awans' hacking of the US Congress is only a "strange" case insofar as similar cases
rarely get this kind of scrutiny. The level of corruption and national security threats involving
"foreign contractors" in DC is incredible.
"carrying more than $10,000 out of the country without reporting it is a felony."
this is not true.
The Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) mainly obligates banks (not citizens) to report transactions of
more than $10,000. There are no laws preventing citizens from having cash or flying with cash.
So, you got this wrong. How much of the rest of the article is wrong?
I had said it many times before, Russiagate is a diversion. Comey had lined the dots. There
is no way that awan could have gotten the IT position without the Mossads approval. Who were the
contractors who filled in for the no shows? What is awans educational background; his qualifications?
I don't for a second believe the wasserman shultz would allow herself to be blackmailed; most
likely the other way around, if blackmail was a factor. It is interesting that he was not fired
until after his arrest. Was this to allow him the use of his position to escape the country? This
certainly would show collusion with wasserman shultz. Pollard comes to mind. I could be all wrong,
but I can't help but wonder.
Like a lot of other people in DC, the Awans were expecting a very big Pay Day after a Hillary
victory.
Then it didn't happen. The "sure thing" – Hillary's inevitable win over Trump – didn't happen.
A lot of commitments of the "just wait until after the election" kind suddenly couldn't be fulfilled,
and crooks like the Awans who were expecting great things are suddenly looking at bankruptcy and
"powerful friends" who are no longer powerful. Debtors close in. Maybe foreign intelligence agents
start squeezing them. The Awans start to realize that maybe all that Congressional data they were
given access to might be worth real money, maybe a straight sale to a foreign government, maybe
blackmailing individual Congressmen, whatever works.
The Awans are almost certainly just a small sample of the kind of corruption likely to
come to light now that the Clinton Machine is no longer wealthy or powerful enough to keep it
hidden (and to keep mouths shut). So this type of story is bound to be repeated quite a lot over
the next few years.
Great article. Nicely done! Please continue to follow this.
Also, these employees made $160,000 a year: including a 20 year old whose last job was
at McDonalds. They had 12 nice homes in the area -bought through Congressional bank, along with
22 businesses I've found so far.
@WhereWasLawEnforcement? In fact, one should ask why "foreign-born IT specialists" are allowed
to work for our government. There are plenty of native-born Americans with the expertise to do
this sort of work. There are plenty of native born Americans who NEED this work. And the native-born
Americans don't bring all this weird and suspicious baggage with them.
But Democratic leaders like Wasserman-Schultz or Chuck Schumer don't like or trust native-born
Americans. The Democratic leadership wants to replace native-born American workers with cheaper,
more obedient foreign labor. That swells the Democratic vote and keeps Wall Street donations flowing
to Democrats.
Too many politicians are hiring Pakistanis, Indians, Israelis, Chinese, and Eastern Europeans,
many of them hiding behind so-called "dual citizenship". They're stealing jobs from Americans
and making it easy for foreign governments and foreign criminals to hack our government systems.
Setting aside the possible financial crimes, blackmail, etc, how can our government claim
to be serious about cyber-security when it lets "foreign-born IT experts" use US government computers
and systems? It isn't 1995. It's 2017. We know how these foreign spies and criminals operate.
How is it possible that anyone with a foreign background is permitted anywhere near a US government
computer?
Stories like this have become all too familiar. People with names that sound like they come
from almost anywhere except America involved in some damn mess with some corrupt damn Washington
politicians.
This is an interesting story, but right now it still reads a bit like a conspiracy theory: too
much circumstantial evidence and inferences regarding what is undoubtedly suspicious behaviour.
I hope you continue to report on it as it progresses though.
A few other points.
– $4 million dollars for four specialist IT contactors over a 12 year period actually doesn't
work out to be a huge amount: just over $80,000 dollars per year, per person. That's a real
bargain for a good IT contractor.
– "hard drives that appeared to have been deliberately destroyed". Not unheard of amongst
the cyber security conscious.
– Lastly "the incriminating Hillary Clinton emails". Except they weren't incriminating
were they? Or at least according to the FBI not sufficiently so to press charges. We could
discuss the potentially incriminating nature of the deleted emails, but then we're back to
evidence-less conspiracy based on inferences from suspicious behaviour.
It doesn't seem likely that Awan would have leaked his employers emails to Wikileaks. It seems
far more likely that Awan fingered Seth Rich for the leak, and even seems plausible that Awan
may have been involved in the revenge murder of Seth Rich.
But Democratic leaders like Wasserman-Schultz or Chuck Schumer don't like or trust native-born
Americans. The Democratic leadership wants to replace native-born American workers with cheaper,
more obedient foreign labor.
So kinda like Trump, then, who employs mostly foreigners brought over on H2B visas to staff
Mar-A-Lago. His adminustration expanded the H1B program by 15,000 slots this year, and Trump wanted
76 of them for his resort.
Several commenters have knocked my math skills re the salaries the Awans received. They
assume that all four Awans (actually five – three brothers and two wives) worked all twelve years
that the Awans were active on the Hill. They did not. Only Imran worked all 12 years – the others
worked less. The publicly available salary records for all the Awans reveal that they earned
a total of $4 million paid at the senior end of the scale for employees at ca. $160,000 per year.
Several of the links I provided break down the income in more detail.
I would also note to skeptics about this story that I too am not totally convinced about
it in every detail but the one element that I find to be both inexplicable and very suggestive
of a cover-up is the Awan lawyer Chris Gowen – how does a blue chip Clinton lawyer wind up defending
this guy over a false document in a case of bank fraud? He is the one element that screams out
that something is very, very wrong here.
Phil, How does a blue chip lawyer wind up defending this guy? How did a bankrupt Simpson
get a dream team of attorneys to defend him? Why didn't you publish the exact amounts paid to
the whole Awan family over the duration?
Why aren't corrupt American officials arrested for squandering Billions (with a B) of our hard
earned money in Afghanistan, Iraq and a host of other countries?
What about the Kushner family selling green cards to the Chinese or having the zoning changed
for their properties or Clinton accepting huge sums of money from the Saudis whom she has called
the biggest backers of terrorism?
"... Meanwhile, an entirely different computer, the one that belonged to Seth Rich, was confiscated by the police from his home immediately after his murder, which was supposedly the result of a 'botched mugging'. ..."
"... (BTW, Craig never ** said he met Seth.) ** anyone have evidence to refute that? PS Sept. approaches: anniversary of the event from which Craig departed to meet intermediary of DNC leaker. Will shadows outnumber attendees? lol ..."
"... No, he does not. Murray said that he met an intermediary, not the actual leaker. Murray said that he knows it was a leak, but he doesn't know the identity of the leaker. And he wasn't given a thumb drive or anything else. He says that the [handoff?] had already taken place. Murray's meeting with the intermediary was just to discuss something. So, a verbal exchange. ..."
"... Unfortunately, even Ray McGovern has perpetuated these fallacies, perhaps because he's so enthralled with his own story about being with Murray just before the secret meeting in the woods. Yes, Murray slipped away from a gathering at A.U., but he didn't meet Seth Rich, and he didn't convey anything tangible to Julian Assange. ..."
"... The fact that so many people believe it demonstrates the gross stupidity of the American people. The folks that matter don't believe it. It's a question of pensions and your very life. Make trouble for them as an FBI underling, step out of line, the best thing that could happen is you get fired and lose your pension. The worst? Join Seth Rich. Think of it. Hundreds of agents that spent five years of their lives collecting evidence and building a case against Hillary, Bill, Huma, DNC, Anthony Weiner the Iniitiative, the Clinton Foundation, pay-for-play bribes, the espionage and it all got swept under the rug as a "matter" instead of the criminal case that it was. Hundreds of agents and double A's at justice told to go stuff it by Comey, then Lynch, then Comey again. The shit with the hacking? THAT, to me is nothing. It's the criminal case already built and ready to hand over to a Grand Jury that gets to me. Screw these special prosecutors, they'll only twist it all up. Then, Lynch and Clinton on the tarmac and Comey back home squashed the whole thing. Sessions has probably had threats made against his children and grand children, Trump too. And the bad guys would make it stick. This is Little Rock writ large. ..."
"... BTW, at this very moment Lee Stranhan is single-handedly instigating a Twitter campaign to #FireMcMaster. I don't know enough about palace intrigue to comment, but Lee has made serious waves in DC, [with documented facts, not conjecture] about the DNC/Ukraine anti-Trump collusion, so I keep an eye on him. ..."
"... "Hillary and her gang" would not be able to make even a tiny wave if not a mighty support from the CIA How much do we spend on nationals security apparatus and technology? – At least $50 billion? And all these money and tech had melted away when faced the obvious DNC fraud called "Putin stole the elections?" – Not believable. The "Russian did it" campaign has been hatched and maintained by the joined efforts of the Jewish Lobby + Military Industrial Complex. ..."
"... The most striking thing about the ongoing affair is the brazen insolence on a part of the "conductors" -- the ziocons and CIA brass. Zero accountability. They are the owners of the country and they have no concern for the U.S. Constitution and for the rights and interests of the U.S. citizenry at large. The hapless aged Hillary served as a trigger for the show that has been revealing the major actors. ..."
"... And the coup goes on. Today Washington Post are printing transcripts of a sitting President's conversations with another head of state?! How can this happen? How can government function at all under these conditions? Why aren't leakers put in jail or worse? ..."
It's about as sophisticated as the dog ate my homework. The fact that so many people
believe it demonstrates the gross stupidity of the American people.
Two points of speculation: could Seth Richards, who was assassinated, be Murray? The
seizure of Wassermans computer obviously caused her much consternation. Now the FBI may have
the material that the DNC had denied the FBI?
This is one of the best articles I've seen and provides a plausible rationale for the
entire story. The propaganda success of this farcical story reveals how repulsive and
dangerous the yankee imperium has become. I don't see how it can now be reformed from
within.
Those computers are Exhibit A in the Trial of the Century. They should be under lock and
key at FBI Headquarters not collecting cobwebs in the basement of the DNC-HQ.
Meanwhile, an entirely different computer, the one that belonged to Seth Rich, was
confiscated by the police from his home immediately after his murder, which was supposedly
the result of a 'botched mugging'.
It has been more than a year and we still haven't seen an ounce of proof. The WaPo, NYT
and CNN have all had to make major retractions of stories related to Russia. Doesn't take
much to put it all together.
The thing is, goodthinkers are extremely prejudiced and bigoted people, and two of the
three groups they particularly love to hate are the Russians and the rednecks. And so they'll
believe that "Russia tricked the rednecks to elect Trump" no matter what.
Seth Rich and Craig Murray have always been 2 separate people. Craig is alive and well,
recently interviewed in London.
(BTW, Craig never ** said he met Seth.) ** anyone have evidence to refute that? PS Sept. approaches: anniversary of the event from which Craig departed to meet
intermediary of DNC leaker. Will shadows outnumber attendees? lol
@RobinG
Craig Murray should wear a live stream body cam and have video monitors wherever
he goes. Even that could be circumvented by the determined Arkancide teams.
It's entirely possible that Russia interfered in the last election both on Hillary's side
and Trump's side and that Hillary sought to blame Russia for her failure.
It's also possible that Russia was funding the environmentalist, anti-fracking and
anti-oil lunatic fringe in America. After all, I am sure the CIA has been finding the lunatic
fringe in Russia.
@Off The Street
If Craig Murray is in any danger, it's because of sloppy reporting, like
this from Mike Whitney:
"Murray .. claims he met the person who took the emails from the DNC "
No, he does not. Murray said that he met an intermediary, not the actual leaker. Murray
said that he knows it was a leak, but he doesn't know the identity of the leaker. And he
wasn't given a thumb drive or anything else. He says that the [handoff?] had already taken
place. Murray's meeting with the intermediary was just to discuss something. So, a verbal
exchange.
Unfortunately, even Ray McGovern has perpetuated these fallacies, perhaps because he's so
enthralled with his own story about being with Murray just before the secret meeting in the
woods. Yes, Murray slipped away from a gathering at A.U., but he didn't meet Seth Rich, and
he didn't convey anything tangible to Julian Assange.
"In other words, we have a credible witness who can positively identify the person who
leaked the emails "
Again, no, but maybe I should give up. I'm tired of saying this, and I seem to be the only
one who's so particular about the truth.
Now where have I heard that phrase before? Is there a propensity by some people to consume
propaganda as "settled science"? Anyone with even a single firing brain cell should know that
when someone says "it is settled science" that it is a pure lie.
It's about as sophisticated as the dog ate my homework.
The fact that so many
people believe it demonstrates the gross stupidity of the American people. The folks that
matter don't believe it. It's a question of pensions and your very life. Make trouble for
them as an FBI underling, step out of line, the best thing that could happen is you get fired
and lose your pension. The worst? Join Seth Rich. Think of it. Hundreds of agents that spent
five years of their lives collecting evidence and building a case against Hillary, Bill,
Huma, DNC, Anthony Weiner the Iniitiative, the Clinton Foundation, pay-for-play bribes, the
espionage and it all got swept under the rug as a "matter" instead of the criminal case that
it was. Hundreds of agents and double A's at justice told to go stuff it by Comey, then
Lynch, then Comey again. The shit with the hacking? THAT, to me is nothing. It's the criminal
case already built and ready to hand over to a Grand Jury that gets to me. Screw these
special prosecutors, they'll only twist it all up. Then, Lynch and Clinton on the tarmac and
Comey back home squashed the whole thing. Sessions has probably had threats made against his
children and grand children, Trump too. And the bad guys would make it stick. This is Little
Rock writ large.
We know it happened, and there's the media, covering them. We're doomed. It's not our
country anymore. Justice is dead. Trump digs too much into it, they'll put a bullet in his
head. Sessions knows how it works, that's why he "recused" himself. Seriously, what's to
force their hand and give us satisfaction? Nothing. And off go the Clintons with all their
ill-gotten gains, into the warm narcotic American night, untouched. Again. It's so simple.
Hand the entire thing over to Grand Jury, one to each participant in the scandal and we'd
have the truth. Never happen.
@Seamus Padraig
There's a Deep Throat, you just have to find it. Follow the money? Start
at the top, the Clinton Foundation? Go to it, Woodward and Bernstein. Crime of the century.
They only played Hit Man on Republicans. They weren't journalists, they were operatives.
Now where have I heard that phrase before? Is there a propensity by some people
to consume propaganda as "settled science"? Anyone with even a single firing brain cell
should know that when someone says "it is settled science" that it is a pure lie.
settled science
I love buzzwords when they appear in Washington. Kind of similar to the notion of
"Hillary, Huma and the DNC are 'BAKED IN' to the entire storyline. But the press and media
aren't scientists and they aren't bakers. They're operatives. They own it, they'll cover what
they want.
there is a another much more tragic point in all this fraud and deception..
the democrats/media allies/hillary and all the scum around her were/are and continue to be
willing to precipitate an american civil war and burn down the nation to save their own
rotting chestnuts from the public discovering the truth.
this is actual treason and a hanging offense as you can get.
Did Hillary Scapegoat Russia to Save Her Campaign?
Hell yes. And once Trump won, Hillary and her gang became even more insistent, because
they realized that unless they could find a way to immobilize the Trump administration, the
jig would eventually be up.
@Seamus Padraig
Do you have a source for
"AFAIK Murray claimed to have verified "
? And I mean a statement by Murray himself, not anybody (mis)quoting him. Because at the
time, I read everything I could find and listened to his interviews. (Since I was at that AU
meeting, and live near those woods, and detest Hillary/DNC, I had an almost obsessive
interest.) No, I didn't bookmark it all, and I'm not going back now.
Murray said a lot of things. For instance, when he said he was honoring the WikiLeaks
policy of not revealing sources, there may be an implication, but he never actually said he
knew the identity of the primary source (the guy who plugged in the thumbdrive, or whatever).
In fact, he pointedly said that he met an intermediary. What Murray said clearly was that he
knew it was a leak from someone within the DNC.
As Sy Hersh says, you're just gonna have to trust me. BTW, Hersh is now, of course, being
minimalized and marginalized. Silly me, I thought his statement would blow "Russian hack" out
of the water and make the Craig Murray question irrelevant. Too bad, after his debunking of
Libyan ratlines and Syrian false chemical flags, TPTB have consigned him to quackdom. But I
take him very, very seriously.
AUDIO: Seymour Hersh Claims Seth Rich Was DNC Email Leaker
@RobinG
The only question about Seymour Hersh is how much of his intelligence (CIA)
connections he managed to retain after his Osama expose. Before Sy appeared to have better
connections than Philip Giraldi who worked there.
If he managed to retain connections then his writing is still as reliable as when he was a
journalistic star in some US times past when journalism was not transcribing of
government/neocon communiques.
@Kiza
The Zero Hedge is mostly the transcript. Zuesse, in his one short paragraph,
manages to step over the line, conflating what Hersh
knows
with what he
suspects
. Too much of that going around.
BTW, at this very moment Lee Stranhan is single-handedly instigating a Twitter campaign to
#FireMcMaster. I don't know enough about palace intrigue to comment, but Lee has made serious
waves in DC, [with documented facts, not conjecture] about the DNC/Ukraine anti-Trump
collusion, so I keep an eye on him.
A lot of words on a in my opinion simple issue.
Hillary was the Deep State candidate, meant to wage the war on Russia that PNAC of AEI
wanted.
Of course she painted as black a picture of Russia as possible.
If Russia interfered in the USA elections, I do not know.
But as far as I can see this interference, if it existed, meant very little.
No comparison to USA interferences such as in Iran, Iraq, Chile, Cuba, etc.
The Deep State mistake in my opinion is not to see that ordinary USA citizens do not see why
the USA should continue to spend huge amounts on wars, while for example USA health care is
lacking.
Silent majorities do exist, as we now see in Europe on immigration.
on shenanigans going on between DIA and CIA in Syria and how DIA was sabotaging CIA
weapons supply to insurgents to gain confidence of Assad and how DIA kept open channels to
Syria via Moscow, Berlin and Tel Aviv all under gen. Dempsey.
It all began to make sense to me when I was trying to figure out Trump-Pentagon connection
and what faction was really behind Trump from the very beginning of his campaign and I knew
about Gen. Flynn and his tenure as chief of DIA and then his speeches critical of Obama ME
policy, so when I learned that Flynn was on Trump's team everything clicked together. Too bad
that Trump lost him.
However I also believe that there was Russian connection to Trump from the very beginning
but it won't be touched because it went via Netanyahu.
Interview transcription (and audio link) I did of Craig Murray's interview with Scott
Horton where he clarifies a lot of earlier misreporting on what exactly he did and what he
knows with regards to Seth Rich as well as the DNC and Podesta emails (transcription not
pretty, improvements/corrections welcome):
!!!!-
World Net Daily put out an article tonight about the Sy Hersh revelations and added to it the
words of former CIA analyst Fred Fleitz from back in May that might be worth reading:
discusses the alarm bells that went off for him that Brennan rigged the Intelligence
Community Assessment' (ICA) that found Russia deliberately interfered in the 2016
presidential election to benefit Trump's candidacy.
Hillary Clinton, a violent psychopathic hairy old farting bulldyke ..Bill Clinton,a
violent psychopathic serial rapist ..John Podesta, a collector of satanic pedophile art work
and a dead ringer along with his brother for one of the perps in the police drawing who raped
and murdered a 7 year English Girl in Portugal ..these are the three Demons from fucking
Hell!!!! instigating thermonuclear war with Christian Russia.
The power of the Clinton Organized Crime Family would not have been possible if the 1965
nonwhite LEGAL Immigrant Increase Act had not been passed .for post-1965 nonwhite LEGAL
Immigtants are the core of the Clinton Democratic Party Voting Bloc.
In 2020, POTUS Kamala Harris our first Hindu-Jamaican POTUS, will take the baton from the
Clinton's-whether or not Hillary likes it or not-and wage war against Christian Russia
Bad headline. It was too late to save the campaign, the intention was multifaceted:
benefit the Deep State / MIC (because that's who Hillary really works for) and lay the
groundwork for a coup, which we are watching unfold.
I have no trouble believing most of your conclusions and reasoning but I see some gaps in
your story. For example why hasn't Craig Murray been invited to testify to a Congressional
committee? Why at least has it not been suggested by a Republican congressman or senator- or
failing that in a Trump tweet?
I would add that those who retain a bit of flexibility about their thinking on 9/11 might
well assess the likelihood of the alleged leaking. If you were a loyal honest Democrat who
discovered how the Clinton mob were stitching up Bernie Sanders wouldn't you be highly likely
to leak the truth? So we know of the anti-Sanders plot and we know it was made available to
the cyberconnected public. We consider it highly probable that it eould be leaked. How much
room for other explsnations does it leave?
"Hillary and her gang" would not be able to make even a tiny wave if not
a mighty support from the CIA How much do we spend on nationals security apparatus and
technology? – At least $50 billion? And all these money and tech had melted away when
faced the obvious DNC fraud called "Putin stole the elections?" – Not believable. The
"Russian did it" campaign has been hatched and maintained by the joined efforts of the Jewish
Lobby + Military Industrial Complex.
The most striking thing about the ongoing affair is the brazen insolence on a part of the
"conductors" -- the ziocons and CIA brass. Zero accountability. They are the owners of the
country and they have no concern for the U.S. Constitution and for the rights and interests
of the U.S. citizenry at large. The hapless aged Hillary served as a trigger for the show
that has been revealing the major actors.
The US has been Gladio-ed (chickens have come home to roost):
@Noah Way
And the coup goes on.
Today Washington Post are printing transcripts of a sitting President's conversations with
another head of state?!
How can this happen?
How can government function at all under these conditions?
Why aren't leakers put in jail or worse?
How is this covered under 1st Amendment?
The Deep State need deep-sixed.
I have never seen anything so blatant and brazen in my life in America!
Clapper, Brennan, and Comey are traitors, aided and abetted by media and both parties with
Russia as the pretext.
It is having real world consequences.
The Russian sanctions are souring relations with them .
We could use their help with North Korea.
This is tyranny of the Deep State against the American people, plain and simple.
Many Americans were willing to hold their noses and vote for the Killer Queen, until they
saw her cackling about Qaddafi getting a bayonet shoved up his rectum.
Telling the truth has never been one of Hillaries strong suits. "The Russians Hacked the
DNC" is just another HRC whopper, kind of like when the CIA was running guns out of the US
embassy in Benghazi and they got attacked. That time HRC was quick on her feet with the
excuse that "Local Muslims had been enraged at a you tube video". Presumably HRC was hoping
to kill two birds with one stone on that whopper, first to cover for the misdeeds of the
spooks who should absolutely not be running guns out of oer diplomatic posts, and two to push
for censorship of you tube so as not to upset the Lizzie's.
@Linda Green
Truth means nothing to Hillary.
When she was New York senator she of course visited Israel, New York is the most jewish city
in the world.
She, of course, there spoke 'it was all the fault of Arafat'.
How he died, we still do not know.
This is tyranny of the Deep State against the American people, plain and simple.
True.
And it's good to see that people seem to be more aware of it. Now the question is, what
can we do about it. I wish I had some decent answers but can offer nothing except that it
would help if each of us work at becoming aware of the truth and endeavoring to avoid
supporting the real enemies.
MacronLeaks proves Rusiagate and Junior's admissions confirm MacronLeaks. It is
established that Russian nationals, claiming to act on behalf of their governemnt, contacted
the Trump campaign about providing DNC "dirt". DNC "dirt" subsequently appeared on the
internet and it doesn't matter whether it was obtained by hacking or from a "mole" insdie the
DNC. Indeed, that latter would seem to be an even more serious situation inasmuch as it
raises the question of what other US organisations have been inflitrated by Russian
moles.
The latest incidents where Wheeler was paid (or otherwise forced) into engaging in a
lawsuit against Fox repudiating his earlier statements, has blown back on the democratic
party hack lawyer putting forward the suit. As a result, to defend against the suit, more
tapes revealing that Wheeler said more than he stated directly to Fox, and corroborating that
these were accurate statements, have been released. In addition, a Seymour Hersh tape has
come out revealing his actual knowledge on the matter. His public denial must be treated as
an effort to cover his ass against the reprisals of the Clinton and deep state crews,
particularly in light of the particular statements he made in the tape. In addition, there is
now a new FBI chief to replace Clinton lackey McCabe who was filling in after Comey's
sacking. All of this indicates that the Russia thing was total bullshit, and, considering
that Mueller went on a trip to Russia relating to the Clinton uranium deal engineered by
Vancouver Clinton pal Giustra and others, and considering that he has hired Clinton lackeys
as most of his legal team, the whole thing stinks like a cesspool on a hot humid day.
Googling Kamala Harris shows a bunch of negative articles for her. Not sure if she will be
getting enough dems behind her to take the nomination. However, 4 years is a long time for a
population that cant remember yesterday .
@jacques sheete
Awareness will only get us so far. We need organised action, and soon.
This country cant go on much longer like this. We need more people who are willing to STAND
UP and speak out against this bullshit. We need to pressure companies to pull their
advertising from the lieing MSM. We need to non-stop call our representatives and show we are
sick of this bait and switch. We need to unite the different groups in this movement and make
it a nation wide movement to restore order and justice to our once great nation. No more
petty squabbles between brothers and sisters in arms. This is a cold war we are starting.
Eventually it will become a hot war, and we need to be dug in and prepared or else our
great-great grandkids (if any survive) will read about it in a chinese textbook in history
class as the generation that undid nearly 3 centuries of progress.
We are fed up with the western stooges who are protecting a illiterate, criminal, mass
murderer, zionist servant who so far has done NOTHING but lies and destruction of lives and
erection of illegal bases in Syria for the zionist expansionist policy, Oded Yinon . He is
advised by an illiterate son in law holding ONLY a fucking BA, repeat just a BA, as his CLOSE
'advisor' because he is Jewish and his mission is to serve the interest of the criminal tribe
NOT us, He puts the interest of the zionist tribe ahead of the interest of US and humanity.
These people are called traitors. His regime is filled with many traitors who are suppose to
'advise' an illiterate zionist servant. He is using the power and the office to manipulate an
OLD illiterate man who knows SHIT about history or history of the region. the criminal
zionist tribe must be transferred to New YORK, a real 'jewish state' now.
The world is fed up with these ' freelance journalists' whose work is nothing but to
support a racist Russia and zionist stooge, Putin, close to jewish interest.
Russia is the a racist country and Putin is the enemy of Muslims who cooperate with the
criminal west to kill and destroy Muslims community and countries for the zionist
expansionist policy.
Putin is in bed with the illiterate stooge to help the criminal tribe to partition Syria,
Iraq and other countries for 'greater Israel' where they take this wish into their graves.
The history tells you that Russia cannot be trusted, so China.
Putin must know that if he once again put a knife on the back of another Muslim country
for the zionist expansionist policy, then he will be destroyed, so the criminal west. We are
FED UP.
Russia and Putin and fucking China SOLD Libya for a BONE. Both colonies voted for the
sanctions against Iranian people and cooperate 100% with the Clinton and Obama regime against
Iranian nuclear program, but neither Russia or fucking China ever objected to zionist mass
murderers when they were massacred Palestinian toddlers. Russia voted for the erection of
Israel on Palestinian land in 1948 and cooperated with the criminal West against Nasser at
the time of Israel invasion and killing of Americans against Egypt, and now Putin is flirting
with the terrorist kurds and Trump criminal regim, in the pocket of the zionist jews, to help
zionist expansionist policy, 'greater Israel' to recieve a BONE as concession.
We are fed up and will destroy people who cooperate with the zionist plan and those who
ignore Russian using Muslim cards for manipulation of the geopolitical for the interest of
the criminal zionist tribe to receive a BONE as concession. Russia MUST bring resolution to
force US out of Syria and close the illigal bases that the illiterate servant has erected
illigally with the cooperation of the terrorist kurds now. Why Putin is shut up? why the '
freelance journalists' do not raise this important issue? Are they from the same criminal
tribe? Putin is using Syria to help the criminal tribe where should be removed from the land
of Palestinians
Down with traitors. We identify all the traitors. We are fed up with the criminal WEST and
their behind lickers.
The santion that the illiterate stooge has signed against Russia has NO teeth and is ONLY
for poplicity to please the dummies.
@annamaria
"Hillary and her gang" would not be able to make even a tiny wave if not a
mighty support from the CIA How much do we spend on nationals security apparatus and
technology? - At least $50 billion? And all these money and tech had melted away when faced
the obvious DNC fraud called "Putin stole the elections?" - Not believable. The "Russian did
it" campaign has been hatched and maintained by the joined efforts of the Jewish Lobby +
Military Industrial Complex.
The most striking thing about the ongoing affair is the brazen insolence on a part of the
"conductors" -- the ziocons and CIA brass. Zero accountability. They are the owners of the
country and they have no concern for the U.S. Constitution and for the rights and interests
of the U.S. citizenry at large. The hapless aged Hillary served as a trigger for the show
that has been revealing the major actors.
The US has been Gladio-ed (chickens have come home to roost):
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2007/08/michael-ledeen-gladio-and-9-11.html
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Operation_Gladio
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/09/23/gladio/ I read everything at the first twn links.
Interesting, as is Mr. Whitney°s article, as usual. Always am liking his style.
This essay, from the late Guy Debord, dead at his own hand (R.I.P.), seems to have some
relevance to the Gladio, P2, all of those things.
Tried to find a link to the original, but in French, only articles about it and random
scans of the print version in PDF from a quick search.
Those computers are Exhibit A in the Trial of the Century. They should be under lock and
key at FBI Headquarters not collecting cobwebs in the basement of the DNC-HQ.
Meanwhile, an entirely different computer -- the one that belonged to Seth Rich
-- was confiscated by the police from his home immediately after his murder, which was
supposedly the result of a 'botched mugging'.
But that's another MSM non-story. That's not how communications necessarily work. Whitney
doesn't understand it either, and his target audience is largely clueless – evidence
would not necessarily be on a physical
piece of hardware. (I thought it was common knowledge the NSA was reading all of your emails?
The best survelliance tool is social media so keep posting.)
VIPS, MCGovern and Hersh are still
in the "entertainment business." The whole episode is a psyop piled on top of more psyops.
Who cares who the President is anymore? Counterpunch Whitney wants you to care but you should
try to think for yourself.
@Michael Kenny
MacronLeaks proves Rusiagate and Junior's admissions confirm MacronLeaks.
It is established that Russian nationals, claiming to act on behalf of their governemnt,
contacted the Trump campaign about providing DNC "dirt". DNC "dirt" subsequently appeared on
the internet and it doesn't matter whether it was obtained by hacking or from a "mole" insdie
the DNC. Indeed, that latter would seem to be an even more serious situation inasmuch as it
raises the question of what other US organisations have been inflitrated by Russian moles.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47561.htm
"Everybody with a clear mind is up in arms about the US Congress' latest sanctions against
Russia – and as usual – sanctions for naught- zilch, zero – since Russia
hasn't done any of the things Washington and the servile west accuses her of, like
interference in US elections (US secret services have repeatedly said there is no evidence
whatsoever), interference in Ukraine (Washington / NATO / EU have instigated and paid for the
bloody Maidan coup in February 2014); annexing Crimea (an overwhelming (97%) vote by the
people of Crimea for reincorporation into the Russian Federation – their given right,
according to the UN Charter). Even if Russia wanted to, she couldn't correct any of her
'mistakes'.
They are all invented.
None of the accusations have any substance. But the
western presstitute
keeps
hammering them into the dimwitted brains of the populace. We can only repeat with Joseph
Goebbels, Hitler's Propaganda Minister:
"Let me control the media, and I will turn any
Nation into a herd of Pigs".
Well, the
western Anglo-Zionist propaganda machine
has successfully turned western civilizations (sic) into a herd of pigs."
Germany, "Up in Arms" Against Washington's Sanctions Regime, By Peter Koenig
'The head of the French cybersecurity agency says there is no evidence suggesting Russia
was behind the leaks of campaign emails from Emmanuel Macron two days before the French
election and his subsequent presidency."
@Delinquent Snail
That's my take on it, too. Sy Hersh's career has been in freefall ever
since exposed the poison gas false-flag in Syria a few years ago. First, he got booted from
the
New York Review of Books
. Then he got booted from the
London Review of
Books
, too. Now he's afraid just to speak in public!
@Anon
If they really believe in the impossible '6M Jews, 5M others & gas chambers',
they can be made to believe in anything.
[MORE]
"Some stories are true that never happened."
- Elie Wiesel
Revisionism has the general function of bringing historical truth to a public that had
been drugged by wartime lies and propaganda.
Now revisionism teaches us that this entire myth, so prevalent then and even now about
Hitler, and about the Japanese, is a tissue of fallacies from beginning to end. Every plank
in this nightmare evidence is either completely untrue or not entirely the truth. If people
should learn this intellectual fraud about Hitler's Germany, then they will begin to ask
questions, and searching questions, about the current World War III version of the same
myth. Nothing would stop the current headlong flight to war faster, or more surely cause
people to begin to reason about foreign affairs once again, after a long orgy of emotion
and cliché.
- Murray Rothbard, Review of The Origins of the Second World War, 1966
more at:
Hillary has a tell in her eyes when she lies, the CIA likely advised her of this when she
had to testify about Benghazi, she wore special glasses that prevented the Amercan people
from looking into her eyes as she lied on the stand. Hillary should be grillad about her
latest lies sans special glasses.
This is my theory, I cannot state it to be for certain, but the special glasses gig we all
witnessed was likely ginned up after extensive work with spooky types who saw she has a
tell.
The fact that the FBI was never given access to the DNC computers should lead to prosecution
of Comey for criminal negligence ot for conspiracy to influence elections in favour of Hillary ,
or both.
This looks more an more like false flag operation.
Notable quotes:
"... (Ray McGovern again) "And if you watch the coverage since the WikiLeaks leak, two days before the convention, the media content was not 'how did Hillary steal the election' but 'How did the Russians do it?"' ..."
"... But there was one glitch to the 'Blame Russia' scheme. There was no hard evidence of Russian involvement. And, now, 10 months into multiple investigations of Russian hacking, there's still no evidence. How can that be? ..."
"... Well, for one thing, the FBI was never given access to the DNC computers. Let me repeat that: In the biggest and most politically-explosive investigation in more than a decade, an investigation that has obvious national security implications– alleged cyber-espionage by a hostile foreign power, alleged collusion by high-ranking officials in the current administration, alleged treason or collusion on part of the Chief Executive, and the possible impeachment of a sitting president– the FBI has not yet secured or examined the servers that may or may not provide compelling forensic evidence of cyber-intrusion by Russia. ..."
"... Why? Why would the FBI accept the analysis of some flunky organization that no one has ever heard of before (Crowdstrike) rather than use all the tools at their disposal to thoroughly investigate whether or not the hacking actually took place or not? Isn't that their job? ..."
"... Yer damn right it is. The reason the FBI never insisted on examining the DNC servers, is because they knew the story was baloney from the get go. Otherwise they would have kicked down the doors at the DNC, seized the computers through brute force, and arrested anyone who tried to stop them. Those computers are Exhibit A in the Trial of the Century. They should be under lock and key at FBI Headquarters not collecting cobwebs in the basement of the DNC-HQ. The fact that the servers have not been seized and examined just proves what a joke this whole Russia-deal really is. ..."
"... You see, when a law enforcement agency like the FBI fails so conspicuously in carrying out its duties, you have to assume that other factors are involved, mainly politics. It's all politics, right? There is no rational explanation for the FBI's behavior other than it is following a political script that coincides with the agenda and ambitions of the DNC and other power players behind the scenes. ..."
"... Right on, Porter. Facts don't matter in the Russia hacking case. They never have. The whole approach from Day 1 has been to drown the public with innuendo and baseless accusations, while the MSM Carnie barkers pretend that "Russia meddling" is already settled science and that only "Putin puppets" would ever doubt the veracity of the media's loony claims. Got that? ..."
"... But facts do matter and so does evidence. And on that score we're in luck because McGovern's group, the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), released a blockbuster report last week that produced the first hard evidence that Russia most certainly DID NOT hack the DNC servers. It was a DNC insider. Here's an excerpt from the VIPS article titled "Was the "Russian Hack" an Inside Job?" ..."
"... The data was leaked after being doctored with a cut-and-paste job to implicate Russia . ..."
"... Capisce? There was no hack. Someone working inside the DNC (a disgruntled employee?) –who had access to the computers, and who worked on the East Coast– copied the data onto a storage device and transferred it to WikiLeaks. That's what you call a "leak" not a "hack". There was no hack. Russia was not involved. The official narrative is bullshit. End of story. ..."
"... The fact that the FBI has not seized the DNC computers is just one of many glaring omissions in this farcical investigation, but there are others too. Like this: Did you know that there are two eyewitnesses in the case that have not yet been questioned? That's right, there are two people who claim to know the identity of the person who gave the stolen emails to WikiLeaks; Julian Assange and Craig Murray. ..."
"... Murray, who is the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan and a human rights activist, claims he met the person who took the emails from the DNC in a wooded area in Washington DC last year. In other words, Murray can settle this matter once and for all and put an end to this year-long witch-hunt that has consumed the media and Capital Hill, prevented the Congress from conducting the people's business, and increased the probability of a conflagration with nuclear-armed Russia. ..."
"... The FBI has never interviewed Murray or made any effort to interview him ..."
"... lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition . He can be reached at [email protected] . ..."
Put yourself in Hillary's shoes for a minute. She knew the deluge was coming and she knew it
was going to be bad. (According to Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, DNC
contractor Crowdstrike claimed to find evidence of Russian malware on DNC servers just three
days after WikiLeaks announced that it was about "about to publish "emails related to Hillary
Clinton." Clearly, that was no coincidence. The plan to blame Russia was already underway.)
Hillary knew that the emails were going to expose the DNC's efforts to rig the primaries and
torpedo Bernie Sanders campaign, and she knew that the media was going to have a field-day
dissecting the private communications word by word on cable news or splashing them across the
headlines for weeks on end. It was going to be excruciating. She knew that, they all knew
that.
And how would her supporters react when they discovered that their party leaders and
presidential candidate were actively involved in sabotaging the democratic process and
subverting the primaries? That wasn't going to go over well with voters in Poughkeepsie, now
was it? Maybe she'd see her public approval ratings slip even more. Maybe she'd nosedive in the
polls or lose the election outright, she didn't know. No one knew. All they knew was that she
was in trouble. Big trouble.
So she reacted exactly the way you'd expect Hillary to react, she hit the panic button. In
fact, they all freaked out, everyone of them including Podesta and the rest of the DNC
honchoes. Once they figured that their presidential bid could go up in smoke, they decided to
act preemptively, pull out all the stops and "Go Big".
That's where Russia comes into the picture. The DNC brass (with help from allies at the CIA)
decided to conjure up a story so fantastic that, well, it had to be true, after all, that's
what the 17 intel agencies said, right? And so did the elite media including the New York
Times, the Washington Post and CNN. They can't all be wrong, can they? Sure, they goofed-up on
Saddam's WMDs, and Iran's imaginary nukes program, and Assad's fictional chemical weapons
attack, but, hey, everyone makes mistakes, right? And, besides, have I told you how evil Putin
is lately and how much he reminds me of Adolph Hitler? (sarcasm)
In any event, they settled on Russia mainly because Russia had rolled back Washington's
imperial project in both Ukraine and Syria, so the media was already in full
demonetization-mode and raring to go. All the DNC needed to do was utter the words "Russia
meddling" and they'd be off to the races.
Does any of this sound even remotely believable? Former CIA analyst, Ray McGovern seems to
think so, because he expounded a very similar scenario about a month ago in an interview on You
Tube. Check it out:
Ray McGovern– "What did Hillary do? Hillary gathered her war council together and one
fellow says, "I know what we can do. We'll blame it on the Russians."
And someone else says, "But it wasn't the Russians it was WikiLeaks."
(Guy number 1 says) "Well, that's a twofer. We hate them both equally, so we'll say
WikiLeaks is working with the Russians."
(Ray McGovern) That was two days before the convention.
And someone else says, "What would the rationale be?"
(Guy number 2 says) "C'mon, the Russians clearly want Trump to win."
(Number 1) "But what about the major media?"
(Number 2) "Well, the major media really want Hillary to win, so if we get the major media
on board, well, we really got it wired."
(Ray McGovern again) "And if you watch the coverage since the WikiLeaks leak, two days
before the convention, the media content was not 'how did Hillary steal the election' but 'How
did the Russians do it?"'
He's right, isn't he? Hillary and Co. pulled off the whole ruse without a hitch. The media
focused on the "Russia meddling" angle, and the calculating Ms. Clinton slipped away with nary
a scratch. It's amazing!
But there was one glitch to the 'Blame Russia' scheme. There was no hard evidence of
Russian involvement. And, now, 10 months into multiple investigations of Russian hacking,
there's still no evidence. How can that be?
Well, for one thing, the FBI was never given access to the DNC computers. Let me repeat
that: In the biggest and most politically-explosive investigation in more than a decade, an
investigation that has obvious national security implications– alleged cyber-espionage by
a hostile foreign power, alleged collusion by high-ranking officials in the current
administration, alleged treason or collusion on part of the Chief Executive, and the possible
impeachment of a sitting president– the FBI has not yet secured or examined the servers
that may or may not provide compelling forensic evidence of cyber-intrusion by Russia.
Why? Why would the FBI accept the analysis of some flunky organization that no one has
ever heard of before (Crowdstrike) rather than use all the tools at their disposal to
thoroughly investigate whether or not the hacking actually took place or not? Isn't that their
job?
Yer damn right it is. The reason the FBI never insisted on examining the DNC servers, is
because they knew the story was baloney from the get go. Otherwise they would have kicked down
the doors at the DNC, seized the computers through brute force, and arrested anyone who tried
to stop them. Those computers are Exhibit A in the Trial of the Century. They should be under
lock and key at FBI Headquarters not collecting cobwebs in the basement of the DNC-HQ. The fact
that the servers have not been seized and examined just proves what a joke this whole
Russia-deal really is.
You see, when a law enforcement agency like the FBI fails so conspicuously in carrying
out its duties, you have to assume that other factors are involved, mainly politics. It's all
politics, right? There is no rational explanation for the FBI's behavior other than it is
following a political script that coincides with the agenda and ambitions of the DNC and other
power players behind the scenes.
Investigative journalist Gareth Porter summed it up
perfectly in a brilliant article titled Foisting Blame for Cyber-Hacking on Russia. He
said:
" the history of the US government's claim that Russian intelligence hacked into election
databases reveals it to be a clear case of politically motivated analysis by the DHS and the
Intelligence Community. Not only was the claim based on nothing more than inherently
inconclusive technical indicators but no credible motive for Russian intelligence wanting
personal information on registered voters was ever suggested." ("
Foisting
Blame for Cyber-Hacking on Russia
", antiwar.com)
Right on, Porter. Facts don't matter in the Russia hacking case. They never have. The
whole approach from Day 1 has been to drown the public with innuendo and baseless accusations,
while the MSM Carnie barkers pretend that "Russia meddling" is already settled science and that
only "Putin puppets" would ever doubt the veracity of the media's loony claims. Got
that?
But facts do matter and so does evidence. And on that score we're in luck because
McGovern's group, the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), released a
blockbuster report last week that produced the first hard evidence that Russia most certainly
DID NOT hack the DNC servers. It was a DNC insider. Here's an excerpt from the VIPS article
titled "Was the "Russian Hack" an Inside Job?"
"Independent cyber-investigators have now come up with verifiable evidence from metadata
found in the record of the alleged Russian hack. They found that the purported "hack" of the
DNC was not a hack (but) originated with a copy by an insider.
The data was leaked after
being doctored with a cut-and-paste job to implicate Russia .
Key among the findings of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that
the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds an Internet
capability for a remote hack. Of equal importance, the forensics show that the copying and
doctoring were performed on the East coast of the U.S." ("Was the "
Russian Hack"
an Inside Job?
", CounterPunch)
Capisce? There was no hack. Someone working inside the DNC (a disgruntled employee?)
–who had access to the computers, and who worked on the East Coast– copied the data
onto a storage device and transferred it to WikiLeaks. That's what you call a "leak" not a
"hack". There was no hack. Russia was not involved. The official narrative is bullshit. End of
story.
Naturally, the MSM has completely ignored the VIPS report just as they ignored Sy Hersh's
brilliant article that proved that Assad DID NOT launch a chemical weapons attack in Syria.
That bit of information has been locked out of the MSM coverage altogether as it doesn't jibe
with Washington's "Assad must go" policy. So too, McGovern's "verifiable forensic evidence"
that the Russians did not hack the DNC servers will likely be consigned to the memory hole like
every other inconvenient factoid that doesn't fit with Washington's foreign policy
objectives.
The fact that the FBI has not seized the DNC computers is just one of many glaring
omissions in this farcical investigation, but there are others too. Like this: Did you know
that there are two eyewitnesses in the case that have not yet been questioned? That's right,
there are two people who claim to know the identity of the person who gave the stolen emails to
WikiLeaks; Julian Assange and Craig Murray.
Murray, who is the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan and a human rights activist,
claims he met the person who took the emails from the DNC in a wooded area in Washington DC
last year. In other words, Murray can settle this matter once and for all and put an end to
this year-long witch-hunt that has consumed the media and Capital Hill, prevented the Congress
from conducting the people's business, and increased the probability of a conflagration with
nuclear-armed Russia.
But here's the problem:
The FBI has never interviewed Murray or made any effort to
interview him
. It's like he doesn't exist. In other words, we have a credible witness who
can positively identify the person who leaked the emails, gave them to WikiLeaks and set off a
political firestorm that has engulfed the Capital and the country for the last year, and the
FBI hasn't interviewed him?
Will someone explain that to me, please?
That's why I remain convinced that the Russia hacking story is pure, unalloyed bunkum.
There's not a word of truth to any of it.
Join the debate on
Facebook
More articles by:
Mike Whitney
"... After examining metadata from the "Guccifer 2.0" July 5, 2016 intrusion into the DNC server, independent cyber investigators have concluded that an insider copied DNC data onto an external storage device, and that "telltale signs" implicating Russia were then inserted ..."
"... Key among the findings of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack ..."
"... Debbie Wassermann-Schultz certainly is though there is nary a peep out of the MSM over her IT staff member transferring a third of a million dollars to Pakistan, a country his wife already fled to, before being caught at the airport by police. With $12,000 in cash on hand too. I wonder if the congresswoman was 'colluding', a victim of extortion or just plain stupid? Than there is the question of who shot Seth Rich and why. ..."
"... I don't see how there can be any resolution to the alleged Russian hacking of the election and Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the election memes, unless all federal government information around these matters are de-classified and released. Everyone will confirm their own biases with whatever story gets published in this opaque information environment. This is part and parcel of what Alastair Crooke notes is the self-destruction of the "center". ..."
"... '"The Awan brothers had complete and direct access to information of three extremely sensitive committees: The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Homeland Security Committee, and the House Foreign Affairs Committee." http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-23/congressional-aides-fear-suspects-it-breach-are-blackmailing-members-their-own-data "...on March 22, 2016, eight democrat members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence issued a letter, requesting that their staffers [Awan brothers] be granted access to Top Secret Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI)." ..."
"... The Pakistani IT guys Wasserman-Schultz hired (starting in 2004 - that will have legs) had a lot of access, reportedly including TS/SCI and Debbie's iPad. It would be a neat trick if they used her as the vehicle to gain trusted access to the DNC network and her iPad to download DNC data. She would even bring it back to them on the Hill. Very convenient. ..."
"... Binney has been adamant since the beginning this was not a Russian web based hack. He was sure NSA would have seen the traffic and we would have heard about it one way or another if they had. NSA's "Moderate Confidence" in CIA's conclusions also seems to be damning with faint praise. ..."
FROM:
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT:
Was the "Russian Hack" an Inside Job?
Executive Summary
Forensic studies of "Russian hacking" into Democratic National Committee computers last year
reveal that on July 5, 2016, data was
leaked (not hacked)
by a person with physical
access to DNC computers, and then doctored to incriminate Russia.
After examining metadata from the "Guccifer 2.0" July 5, 2016 intrusion into the DNC server,
independent cyber investigators have concluded that an insider copied DNC data onto an external
storage device, and that "telltale signs" implicating Russia were then inserted
.
Key among the findings of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the
DNC data was copied onto a storage device
at a speed that far exceeds an Internet
capability for a remote hack
. Of equal importance, the forensics show that the copying
and doctoring were performed on the East coast of the U.S. Thus far, mainstream media have
ignored the findings of these independent studies [see
here
and
here
].
Independent analyst Skip Folden, a retired IBM Program Manager for Information Technology
US, who examined the recent forensic findings, is a co-author of this Memorandum. He has
drafted a more detailed technical report titled "Cyber-Forensic Investigation of 'Russian Hack'
and Missing Intelligence Community Disclaimers," and sent it to the offices of the Special
Counsel and the Attorney General. VIPS member William Binney, a former Technical Director at
the National Security Agency, and other senior NSA "alumni" in VIPS attest to the
professionalism of the independent forensic findings.
The recent forensic studies fill in a critical gap. Why the FBI neglected to perform any
independent forensics on the original "Guccifer 2.0" material remains a mystery – as does
the lack of any sign that the "hand-picked analysts" from the FBI, CIA, and NSA, who wrote the
"Intelligence Community Assessment" dated January 6, 2017, gave any attention to forensics."
VIPS
Debbie Wassermann-Schultz certainly is though there is nary a peep out of the MSM over
her IT staff member transferring a third of a million dollars to Pakistan, a country his wife
already fled to, before being caught at the airport by police. With $12,000 in cash on hand
too. I wonder if the congresswoman was 'colluding', a victim of extortion or just plain
stupid? Than there is the question of who shot Seth Rich and why.
I don't see how there can be any resolution to the alleged Russian hacking of the
election and Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the election memes, unless all federal
government information around these matters are de-classified and released. Everyone will
confirm their own biases with whatever story gets published in this opaque information
environment. This is part and parcel of what Alastair Crooke notes is the self-destruction of
the "center".
"
...the disputed vision which encapsulates the present U.S. civil stand-off: On the
one side, the notion that diversity, freely elected sexual orientation, and identity
rights, equals societal cohesion and strength. Or, on the other hand, the vision
encapsulated by Pat Buchanan: that a nation (including its new-comers) are bound more by
the possession of a legacy of memories, a heritage of manners, customs and culture, and an
attachment to a certain "way-of-being," and principles of government. And it is this that
constitutes the source of a nation's strength.
"
The Pakistani IT guys Wasserman-Schultz hired (starting in 2004 - that will have legs)
had a lot of access, reportedly including TS/SCI and Debbie's iPad. It would be a neat trick
if they used her as the vehicle to gain trusted access to the DNC network and her iPad to
download DNC data. She would even bring it back to them on the Hill. Very convenient.
Binney has been adamant since the beginning this was not a Russian web based hack. He
was sure NSA would have seen the traffic and we would have heard about it one way or another
if they had. NSA's "Moderate Confidence" in CIA's conclusions also seems to be damning with
faint praise.
McGovern thinks that it was Brennan boys who hacked into DNC as a part of conspiracy to implicate Russia and to secure Hillary win.
One of the resons was probably that DNC servers were not well protected and there were other hacks, about whihc NSA know. So the sad
state of DNC internet security needed to be swiped under the carpet and that's why CrowdStike was hired.
NSA created 7 million lines of code for penetration and that includes those that were pablished by Wikileaks and designed to imitate
that attackers are coming (and using the language) from: China, North Korea, Iran and Russia.
Also NSA probably intercepts and keeps all Internet communications for a month or two so if it was a hack NSA knows who did it and
what was stolen
But the most unexplainable part was that fact that FBI was denied accessing the evidence. I always think that thye can dictate that
they need to see in such cases, but obviously this was not the case.
Notable quotes:
"... She couldn't pack a school gymnasium while Trumps rallies were packed with 10's of thousands. ..."
Love the rest of the talk, but no way did Hillary win. No way did she get the popular vote.
The woman was calling for war and reinstating the draft on men and women. She couldn't pack a school gymnasium while Trumps
rallies were packed with 10's of thousands.
"... Other House Democrats had started dumping Awan around the same time, but Wasserman Schultz stuck with him, despite his reported
banning from the House IT network over the investigation." ..."
"Imran Awan, the Pakistan-born IT vendor to several top House Democrats under investigation since February, was arrested allegedly
trying to flee the United States Tuesday .
Luke Rosiak, who has been spearheading this story since February, reported in May about Wasserman Schultz's appearing to threaten
Capitol Police Chief Matthew Verderosa with "consequences" if he did not return a laptop Awan owned that his officers had seized.
Other House Democrats had started dumping Awan around the same time, but Wasserman Schultz stuck with him, despite his
reported banning from the House IT network over the investigation."
"... First this breaks the narrative as concerns a hack, it could not have been it was a leak, but more importantly is the issues
of a weaponizing of the Intelligence agencies to take actions to blame it on the Russians using as it is in the Vault 7 Wikileaks data
about such cyberwarfare .. ..."
@anonymous Yes, Buchanan
and others needs to be briefed by VIPS, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, Ray McGovern, leader of the group that
includes former NSA says that the supposed "hack" was a leak
First this breaks the narrative as concerns a hack, it could not have been it was a leak, but more importantly is the issues
of a weaponizing of the Intelligence agencies to take actions to blame it on the Russians using as it is in the Vault 7 Wikileaks
data about such cyberwarfare ..
Operational in crimes that are treasonous and go back to the Obama Administration.
At the moment, the talk is about DNC scuttling Bernie. But if it gets going, how long before they get to DNC/Crowdstrike/Ukraine
.? [And then there's DWS and the Awan bros.]
If Trump wants to survive he should FIGHT! He call out the Deep State explicitly, using the words "Deep State." and explaining machinations
to the public. This creates a risk for his life, but still this is the only way he can avoid slow strangulation by Muller.
Notable quotes:
"... In explicit terms Trump should call out the Deep State – he should use the words "Deep State." ..."
"... Mueller is Deep Sate - he is an elite - if he comes up with things that have nothing to do with Russia and the election - Trump
should pardon whoever - case closed. ..."
"... Murmurs have started about a 2nd Special Prosecuter – to investigate the DNC. At the moment, the talk is about DNC scuttling
Bernie. But if it gets going, how long before they get to DNC/Crowdstrike/Ukraine .? [And then there's DWS and the Awan bros.] ..."
"... Lee Stranahan names names [Clinton, McCain, CIA, the Media, Soros....] ..."
In explicit terms Trump should call out the Deep State – he should use the words "Deep State."
Mueller is Deep Sate - he is an elite - if he comes up with things that have nothing to do with Russia and the election
- Trump should pardon whoever - case closed.
Trump should say that right now - put the onus on Mueller to do the right thing and not take down the election over small
nothings.
Peace --- Art
... ... ...
Murmurs have started about a 2nd Special Prosecuter – to investigate the DNC. At the moment, the talk is about DNC scuttling
Bernie. But if it gets going, how long before they get to DNC/Crowdstrike/Ukraine .? [And then there's DWS and the Awan bros.]
Lee Stranahan names names [Clinton, McCain, CIA, the Media, Soros....]
Ray McGovern raise important fact: DNC hide evidence from FBI outsourcing everything to CrowdStrike. This is the most unexplainable
fact in the whole story. One hypotheses that Ray advanced here that there was so many hacks into DNC that they wanted to hide.
Another important point is CIA role in elections, and specifically
John O. Brennan behaviour. Brennan's 25 years with the CIA
included work as a Near East and South Asia analyst and as station chief in Saudi Arabia.
McGovern thing that Brennon actually controlled Obama. And in his opinion Brennan was the main leaker of Trump surveillance information.
Notable quotes:
"... Do really think the Deep State cares about the environment. Trump is our only chance to damage Deep State. McGovern is wrong... DNC were from Seth Rich, inside DNC. Murdered for it. McGovern is wrong... i could go on and on but suffice it to say his confidence is way to high. He is wrong. ..."
I really like Ray... I watch and listen , he seems to use logic, reason and facts in his assessments.. I'm surprised CIA and the
deep state allow him to operate ... stay safe Ray...
McGovern, you idiot. To try to put Trump on Hillary's level is complete stupidity. The war with Russia or nothing was avoided
with a Trump victory. Remember the NATO build up on the Russian border preparing for a Hillary win? Plus, if Hillary won, justice
and law in the USA would be over with forever. The Germans dont know sht about the USA to say their little cute phrase. Trump
is a very calm mannered man and his hands on the nuke button is an issue only to those who watch the fake MSM. And no the NSA
has not released anything either. Wrong on that point too.
The German expression of USA having a choice between cholera and plague is ignorant. McGovern is wrong ....everyone knew HRC
was a criminal. McGovern is wrong... Jill Stein in not trustworthy. A vote for Jill Stein was a vote away from Trump. If Jill
Stein or HRC were elected their would be no environment left to save. Do really think the Deep State cares about the environment.
Trump is our only chance to damage Deep State. McGovern is wrong... DNC were from Seth Rich, inside DNC. Murdered for it. McGovern
is wrong... i could go on and on but suffice it to say his confidence is way to high. He is wrong.
Another month or so and the DHS may offer a color-coding system to help the sheeple understand various levels of confidence.
Green - Moderate Confidence Blue - High Confidence Yellow - Very High Confidence Orange - Extremely High Confidence Red - Based
on Actual Fact
The last category may be one of the signs of the apocalypse.
"... Wow, great interview filled with useful information may it spread & awaken enough people to end the massive subversion of government/state which have been usurped & currently work for an oligarchy presenting the faint guise of a system of choice to keep enough people fooled into allowing this to continue. ..."
Ray McGovern of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) joins LaRouchePAC to
discuss a very important document released this week by the VIPS that debunks any idea that the DNC
server was hacked by Putin and the Russians. (Read the report here:
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24... ) In fact, the forensic evidence shows it was physically
impossible that anyone hacked the DNC, it had to have been a leak. The greater strategic significance
of this new evidence in relation to the new detente developing between the United States and Russia
is discussed, as well as the significance of Trump challenging the intelligence communities lies
about a "Russian hack".
----------
Subscribe to LaRouchePAC Live: http://lpac.co/youtube
Subscribe to LaRouchePAC Videos: http://lpac.co/youtube-vid
Subscribe to LaRouchePAC Science: http://lpac.co/youtube-sci
If congress truly believes that Russia hacked our election and the DNC computers which led
to the election on Trump, then why don't they impeach Trump. You can have it both ways. The US
congress is totally insane.
Israel is becoming aggravated once again. Trump must act to prevent another Israeli Rothschild
false flag terrorist event to trigger planned cataclysms for their own gain.
Wow, great interview filled with useful information may it spread & awaken enough people
to end the massive subversion of government/state which have been usurped & currently work for
an oligarchy presenting the faint guise of a system of choice to keep enough people fooled into
allowing this to continue.
See: Steve Wasserman (Debbie's brother) shut down the Seth Rich investigation. Please do not
overlook the Smith Mundt Modernization Act, put in place for a Hillary steal/"win" by the Kagan(ovich)
Family FP octopus Zionist US Deep State Dept working w/ the Jesuit IMF/Wprld Bank/NATO..
Now the most strange event: why investigation was outsourced go dubious security firm CrowdStrike, and FBI was completely excluded,
falls in place.
Notable quotes:
"... That speed is many times faster than what is physically possible with a hack. ..."
"... copied (not hacked) ..."
"... what seems to have been a desperate effort to "blame the Russians" for publishing highly embarrassing DNC emails three days
before the Democratic convention last July. ..."
"... The campaign was enthusiastically supported by a compliant "mainstream" media; they are still on a roll. ..."
"... "The Russians" were the ideal culprit. And, after WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016, "We have emails
related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication," her campaign had more than a month before the convention to insert its own
"forensic facts" and prime the media pump to put the blame on "Russian meddling." ..."
"... The purported "hack" of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by Russia or anyone else. Rather it originated with a copy
(onto an external storage device – a thumb drive, for example) by an insider. The data was leaked after being doctored with a cut-and-paste
job to implicate Russia. We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI. ..."
"... We do not think that the June 12 & 15 timing was pure coincidence. Rather, it suggests the start of a pre-emptive move to associate
Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to "show" that it came from a Russian hack. ..."
"... someone within the DNC who was presumably anxious to protect the Hillary Clinton campaign set about creating a false trail
so that the leak of the emails would be blamed not on a DNC insider but on the Russians. That way it was hoped that the focus would
be not on the content of the emails themselves but on Russian meddling in the election. ..."
"... This was done by concocting a fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona to create the impression that the emails were stolen not by a leak
but by way of a hack, and by setting up this persona to make him look like a front for Russian intelligence. ..."
"... As well as concocting "Guccifer 2.0" – who interestingly has had only an ephemeral twitter presence since these events – Crowdstrike
was brought in to provide a report further claiming that the emails were stolen by way of a hack rather than a leak and to say that
the Russians were responsible. ..."
"... Lastly, a further attempt was made on 5th July 2016 – the "key event" which is the focus of the VIPS memorandum, and which
is the subject of the latest forensic examination – to link the fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona to the theft of data from the DNC's computer,
and to do so in a way that also pointed to the Russians through a "subsequent synthetic insertion – a cut-and-paste job using a Russian
template, with the clear aim of attributing the data to a "Russian hack."" ..."
"... This is an extremely disturbing scenario if it is true. It would mean that there is someone within the DNC who is perfectly
aware that the whole Russiagate conspiracy is fake, and who has in fact deliberately concocted it, making the Russiagate scandal in
effect a fraud. ..."
"... Moreover whoever that person is, he or she is clearly a person possessed great resources and influence: having access to the
DNC's computer, able to concoct a fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona at short notice, able to bring in Crowdstrike to lend credence to the
fraud, in possession of malware necessary to lay a false trail pointing to Russia, and – most worrying of all – able to dissuade the
FBI from carrying out its own forensic examination of the DNC's and John Podesta's computers, which had it been carried out would presumably
have quickly exposed the fraud. ..."
"... in the absence of a proper examination of John Podesta's and the DNC's computers by the FBI we cannot be sure that there ever
was a hack. ..."
"... "Guccifer 2.0" might be the creation not of someone engaged in a cover-up on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign, but of
the original leaker seeking to cover his tracks by throwing suspicion onto Russia. Alternatively it may be that "Guccifer 2.0" is the
concoction of some opportunistic narcissist within the DNC, out to claim credit for the leak of emails which had nothing to do with
him. Unfortunately there are such people, and they are often the cause of huge confusion. ..."
"... If the scenario outlined by VIPS is correct – or if I have understood it correctly – then there is a far greater scandal behind
the Russiagate scandal even than this, for in that case an attempt was made to swing the election through a fraud in which sections
of the US's intelligence and security services appear to have colluded. ..."
Forensic report by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity implies that DNC/Podesta hacks and "Guccifer 2.0' personas
were concocted to discredit Wikileaks in advance of publication of the DNC/Podesta emails and to cast suspicion on Russia.
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity ("VIPS"), one of the most formidable commentary groups in the world, which includes
such heavyweights as William Binney, the former NSA Technical Director for World Geopolitical & Military Analysis; Co-founder of
NSA's Signals Intelligence Automation Research Center, the former top CIA analyst Ray McGovern, and many others, has published
another in its highly
enlightening series of public memoranda addressed to the President of the United States.
... ... ...
The Key Event
July 5, 2016: In the early evening, Eastern Daylight Time, someone working in the EDT time zone with a computer directly connected
to the DNC server or DNC Local Area Network, copied 1,976 MegaBytes of data in 87 seconds onto an external storage device.
That speed is many times faster than what is physically possible with a hack.
It thus appears that the purported "hack" of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 (the self-proclaimed WikiLeaks source) was not a hack
by Russia or anyone else, but was rather a copy of DNC data onto an external storage device. Moreover, the forensics performed
on the metadata reveal there was a subsequent synthetic insertion – a cut-and-paste job using a Russian template, with the clear
aim of attributing the data to a "Russian hack." This was all performed in the East Coast time zone .
.the independent forensic work just completed focused on data copied (not hacked) by a shadowy persona named "Guccifer
2.0." The forensics reflect what seems to have been a desperate effort to "blame the Russians" for publishing highly embarrassing
DNC emails three days before the Democratic convention last July. Since the content of the DNC emails reeked of pro-Clinton
bias, her campaign saw an overriding need to divert attention from content to provenance – as in, who "hacked" those DNC emails?
The campaign was enthusiastically supported by a compliant "mainstream" media; they are still on a roll.
"The Russians" were the ideal culprit. And, after WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016, "We have
emails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication," her campaign had more than a month before the convention to
insert its own "forensic facts" and prime the media pump to put the blame on "Russian meddling."
. The purported "hack" of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by Russia or anyone else. Rather it originated with a
copy (onto an external storage device – a thumb drive, for example) by an insider. The data was leaked after being doctored with
a cut-and-paste job to implicate Russia. We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI.
In what I am now going to say I am going to join up the dots in a way that takes me beyond me what the VIPS actually say. If by
doing so I am misunderstanding and misrepresenting the new evidence and I apologise in advance and I would ask them to correct me.
Briefly, the scenario suggested by the new evidence is explained by the VIPS by reference to a brief chronology in this way
The Time Sequence
June 12, 2016: Assange announces WikiLeaks is about to
publish "emails related to Hillary Clinton."
June 15, 2016: DNC contractor Crowdstrike, (with a dubious professional record and multiple conflicts of interest) announces
that malware has been found on the DNC server and claims there is evidence it was injected by Russians.
June 15, 2016: On the same day, "Guccifer 2.0" affirms the DNC statement; claims responsibility for the "hack;" claims
to be a WikiLeaks source; and posts a document that the forensics show was synthetically tainted with "Russian fingerprints."
We do not think that the June 12 & 15 timing was pure coincidence. Rather, it suggests the start of a pre-emptive move
to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to "show" that it came from a Russian hack.
I have always expressed doubts that "Guccifer 2.0" has any connection either to Russian intelligence or to Wikileaks or was actually
the source of the emails published by Wikileaks..
What this scenario seems to be suggesting is that following the revelation by Julian Assange on 12th June 2016 in a British television
interview that Wikileaks was about to publish damaging emails about Hillary Clinton someone within the DNC who was presumably
anxious to protect the Hillary Clinton campaign set about creating a false trail so that the leak of the emails would be blamed not
on a DNC insider but on the Russians. That way it was hoped that the focus would be not on the content of the emails themselves but
on Russian meddling in the election.
This was done by concocting a fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona to create the impression that the emails were stolen not by a leak
but by way of a hack, and by setting up this persona to make him look like a front for Russian intelligence.
Here I should say that I have always thought "Guccifer 2.0" to be a far too crude and obvious persona to be a front for Russian
intelligence. Also I have never understood why – assuming it really was Russian intelligence which stole the emails – they would
want to create such a persona at all. Surely by doing so they would be merely providing more clues leading back to themselves?
As well as concocting "Guccifer 2.0" – who interestingly has had only an ephemeral twitter presence since these events – Crowdstrike
was brought in to provide a report further claiming that the emails were stolen by way of a hack rather than a leak and to say that
the Russians were responsible.
Lastly, a further attempt was made on 5th July 2016 – the "key event" which is the focus of the VIPS memorandum, and which
is the subject of the latest forensic examination – to link the fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona to the theft of data from the DNC's computer,
and to do so in a way that also pointed to the Russians through a "subsequent synthetic insertion – a cut-and-paste job using a Russian
template, with the clear aim of attributing the data to a "Russian hack.""
This is an extremely disturbing scenario if it is true. It would mean that there is someone within the DNC who is perfectly
aware that the whole Russiagate conspiracy is fake, and who has in fact deliberately concocted it, making the Russiagate scandal
in effect a fraud.
Moreover whoever that person is, he or she is clearly a person possessed great resources and influence: having access to the
DNC's computer, able to concoct a fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona at short notice, able to bring in Crowdstrike to lend credence to the
fraud, in possession of malware necessary to lay a false trail pointing to Russia, and – most worrying of all – able to dissuade
the FBI from carrying out its own forensic examination of the DNC's and John Podesta's computers, which had it been carried out would
presumably have quickly exposed the fraud.
The last point of course goes directly to the one which people like Daniel Lazare and "richardstevenhack"have made: in the
absence of a proper examination of John Podesta's and the DNC's computers by the FBI we cannot be sure that there ever was a hack.
If the scenario that appears to be set out in the VIPS memorandum is true then it would seem that there never was a hack and that
the evidence that there was is concocted.
Before proceeding further I should say that there might be contrary arguments to this scenario. "Guccifer 2.0" might be the
creation not of someone engaged in a cover-up on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign, but of the original leaker seeking to cover
his tracks by throwing suspicion onto Russia. Alternatively it may be that "Guccifer 2.0" is the concoction of some opportunistic
narcissist within the DNC, out to claim credit for the leak of emails which had nothing to do with him. Unfortunately there are such
people, and they are often the cause of huge confusion.
What however argues against these alternative theories is the involvement of Crowdstrike, as well as the FBI's willingness to
be persuaded to accept Crowdstrike's report rather than carry out its forensic examination of the DNC's and John Podesta's computers.
Perhaps whoever it was who concocted "Guccifer 2.0" was simply lucky that neither the DNC nor John Podesta nor the FBI seem to have
been keen on a proper investigation. However on the face of it that does seem rather unlikely.
Of course it is also open to anyone who does not agree with the scenario outlined by VIPS to contest the conclusions of their
forensic investigation. However if that is to be done successfully then whoever will do it will have to match the expertise in this
field of people like William Binney and Skip Folden. That does look like a rather tall order.
At a relatively early stage of the Russiagate scandal I said that the true scandal – which the concocted Russiagate scandal seemed
intended to conceal – was the illegal surveillance of US citizens during the election.
If the scenario outlined by VIPS is correct – or if I have understood it correctly – then there is a far greater scandal behind
the Russiagate scandal even than this, for in that case an attempt was made to swing the election through a fraud in which sections
of the US's intelligence and security services appear to have colluded.
That is a very disturbing possibility, and one which if true would mean that the political and constitutional system of the United
States is in profound crisis.
Far more evidence is needed if what is still only a possibility is to be accepted as true, but the fact remains that unless I
have misunderstood them completely the highly experienced and professional people who make up VIPS have just published a memorandum
which points in that direction.
@zzzzzzz " but the
Deep State knows how to box"
Let's see: "What Are the Democrats Hiding?"
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/07/what-are-the-democrats-hiding-by-publius-tacitus.html
"Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) demanded that Capitol Police Chief Matthew Verderosa return equipment belonging to her
office that was seized as part of the investigation -- or face "consequences."
Virtually no one [from MSM] is paying attention to the fact that a group of Pakistani muslims, working for a Jewish Congresswoman
from Florida, had full computer access to a large number of Democrat Representatives. Most of the press is disinterested in pursuing
this matter."
"FBI agents seized smashed computer hard drives from the home of Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's information
technology (IT) administrator, according to two sources with knowledge of the investigation. Pakistani-born Imran Awan, long-time
right-hand IT aide to the former Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairwoman, has since desperately tried to get the hard drives
back."
This is not your phony Russia-gate or McCain-commissioned funny dossier on Trump. This is the documented "serious, potentially
illegal, violations of the House IT network," which is a case of a free access to classified information by a group of the proven
blackmailers.
Would this matter be treated with the same urgency of "patriotism" as the cases of Manning and Assange?
"Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) demanded that Capitol Police Chief Matthew Verderosa return equipment belonging to
her office that was seized as part of the investigation -- or face "consequences."
Virtually no one [from MSM] is paying attention to the fact that a group of Pakistani muslims, working for a Jewish Congresswoman
from Florida, had full computer access to a large number of Democrat Representatives. Most of the press is disinterested in pursuing
this matter."
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/23/exclusive-fbi-seized-smashed-hard-drives-from-wasserman-schultz-it-aides-home/
"FBI agents seized smashed computer hard drives from the home of Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's information
technology (IT) administrator, according to two sources with knowledge of the investigation. Pakistani-born Imran Awan, long-time
right-hand IT aide to the former Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairwoman, has since desperately tried to get the hard drives
back."
This is not your phony Russia-gate or McCain-commissioned funny dossier on Trump. This is the documented "serious, potentially
illegal, violations of the House IT network," which is a case of a free access to classified information by a group of the proven
blackmailers. Would this matter be treated with the same urgency of "patriotism" as the cases of Manning and Assange? " free access
to classified information by a group of the proven blackmailers ."
Sounds like you're talking about Debbie and the DNC.
"... And in a recent twist in the criminal probe, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) demanded that Capitol Police Chief Matthew
Verderosa return equipment belonging to her office that was seized as part of the investigation -- or face "consequences." ..."
"... The DNC/IT story is taking on wings (not exactly): http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-25/wasserman-schultz-it-aide-arrested-dulles-airport-while-attempting-flee-country
..."
"... Does Pakistani intelligence have a hand in the DNC "hack"? ..."
"... I don't see an immediate motive for the Pakistanis to want to ruin Clinton's campaign, but who knows? Maybe they thought Trump
would sell them more weapons? Other motives certainly could exist. ..."
"... Only problem is the DNC "hack" was a leak, not a hack. Which doesn't mean there wasn't ALSO a hack in the mix. In fact, I would
expect that to be the case. The DNC would be a perfectly desirable target for ANY opportunistic hacker during an election year, as well
as any and all nation-states. ..."
"... The Dems are hiding a lot. Quite possibly, the entire basis of RussiaGate... ..."
"... And if the conspiracy--with the Dems's black ops at the center--is never demonstrated to be factually the case, and Clinton
and Obama skate away, it will be described by dead-enders as a "perfect crime." ..."
"... I think the VIPS memorandum is quite conclusive on the subject. The DNC "hack" was in fact a leak. The leaked data was then
doctored (on the East coast of the US) to implicate the Russians. In fact, there was no Russian hack. ..."
"... Why is Trump tweeting about leaks of intel and lack of investigation into Hillary? Can't he order such investigations? ..."
"... There is some ramp up of calls to investigate the "Ukraine Connection"... ..."
"... Senator Asks DOJ About Democrats' Work With Ukraine To Smear Trump Campaign ..."
"... UH OH: Trump's FBI Nominee Says He May Investigate Clinton Collusion ..."
"... The above discussion also leads me to believe that no conclusive technical proof is possible. That forces one to consider the
balance of probabilities. As in any crime, motive is critical. Here I would go along with Ingolf (above). It is extremely unlikely that
such an act would be worth the risk for Russia. Putin runs a tight ship, and he has much bigger fish to fry than getting involved in
US domestic political dirty tricks. ..."
It's still not clear whether the investigation by the Capitol Police into the five staffers, who all have links to Pakistan, involves
the theft of classified information.
The staffers are accused of stealing equipment and possible breaches of the House IT network,
according to Politico,
which first reported on the investigation in February. . . .
In the midst of the criminal probe, Imran and Abid Awan are now being accused of more wrongdoing, this time by a member of their
own family. Last month, their stepmother accused them of threatening her in order to force her to sign a power of attorney to gain
access to assets in Pakistan.
And in a recent twist in the criminal probe, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) demanded that Capitol Police Chief Matthew
Verderosa return equipment belonging to her office that was seized as part of the investigation -- or face "consequences."
Virtually no one is paying attention to the fact that a group of Pakistani muslims, working for a Jewish Congresswoman from Florida,
had full computer access to a large number of Democrat Representatives. Most of the press is disinterested in pursuing this matter.
The five current and former House staffers are accused of stealing equipment from members' offices without their knowledge and
committing serious, potentially illegal, violations on the House IT network, according to multiple sources with knowledge of the
probe. . . .
Awan has long-standing relationships with Meeks, Wasserman Schultz and Fudge. Meeks was one of the first lawmakers Awan worked
for after coming to Capitol Hill in 2004. He joined Wasserman Schultz's office in 2005 and started working for Fudge in 2008.
In addition, Meeks and, to a larger extent, Wasserman Schultz, are said to have a friendly personal relationship with Awan and
his wife, according to multiple sources.
Awan made nearly $2 million since starting as an IT support staffer for House Democrats in 2004, according to public salary data.
Alvi, who worked for House Democrats beginning in 2007, earned more than $1.3 million as an IT staffer during that time.
As shared employees, Awan, Alvi and their relatives worked for dozens of House Democrats at a time, meaning no one lawmaker was
responsible for paying their full salary.
The access to the House IT network means that, at a minimum, Mr. Awan had access to the emails of several members of Congress.
What are the odds that he had obtained compromising information? I would say high. But that is not the only possibility. Members
of Congress running for office need money. Normally they steer clear of foreign money. Is it possible that Mr. Awan was knowledgeable
of a scheme to bring in foreign money but disguise it as a domestic source? Or, and this is more far fetched, was Awan acting on
behalf of a foreign intelligence organization to penetrate and monitor the Congressional email accounts?
No answers yet. The facts must be determined by investigation. I am in touch with a Pakistani friend who is investigating this
matter. I am waiting eagerly to find out what he comes up with.
VIDEO: Ex-Obama Official Evelyn Farkas Urges Intel Community to Compromise Sources, Methods
Evelyn Farkas, a former top Obama administration Defense Department official, has advocated for the intelligence community
to consider compromising sources and methods when it comes to "saving American democracy."
"And I know that we have to preserve our sources and methods," Farkas said, speaking about the U.S. intelligence community.
"But at some point you know, sometimes maybe you have to actually compromise some kind of source or method if it comes down to
saving American democracy."
Another contributor (would be) to the "silent coup."
How dare this county elect an unacceptable "orange buffoon", etc. to the Presidency - an office only to be held by a member-in-good-standing
of the self-anointed "ruling class?"
I wonder what William of Ockham might've made of the same reports.
Are there many Pakistani IT services working the gov sector in DC area?
Do small businesses sometimes experience troubling internal management events and behavioral dynamics?
Are there many members of Congress who are Jewish? Does being one indicate anything in particular?
Might a Congress-person reasonably desire the return of personal property containing personal information that was swept-up
in a criminal investigation?
What is a "...friendly personal relationship"... what is the criteria for it being determinative of criminal behavior and by
that standard, did a crime occur?
Was actual IT work performed and how did the invoiced amount compare to industry norms for equivalent contracted work for Congressional
services?
I think it's great intellectual fun to generate alternative narratives for a given set of assertions. It may serve as a template
for surfacing and evaluating corroborative evidence... or not. The razor may indeed be a good tool to separate wheat from chaff.
Let me introduce you to one Faisal Ahmed, formerly of Karachi, Pakistan. Remember the OPM data breach? The Chinese have all the
info of military, defense contractors, etc. OPM outsourced its IT to the Department of the Interior.
From Ars Technica:
Government IT official ran law enforcement data systems for years with faked degrees Interior official resigned when caught,
then took a job at Census Bureau.
The Department of the Interior's computer systems played a major role in the breach of systems belonging to the Office of Personnel
Management, and DOI officials were called before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Wednesday to answer questions
about the over 3,000 vulnerabilities in agency systems discovered in a penetration test run by Interior's Inspector General office.
But there was one unexpected revelation during the hearing: a key Interior technology official who had access to sensitive systems
for over five years had lied about his education, submitting falsified college transcripts produced by an online service.
The official, Faisal Ahmed, was assistant director of the Interior's Office of Law Enforcement and Security from 2007 to 2013,
heading its Technology division. He claimed to have a bachelor's degree from the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, and a master's
degree in technology management from the University of Central Florida!but he never attended either of those schools. He resigned
from his position at Interior when the fraudulent claim was exposed by a representative of the University of Central Florida's
alumni association, who discovered he had never attended the school after Ahmed accepted and then suddenly deleted a connection
with her on LinkedIn.
Faisal did not leave government service, however!he took another government job at the Census Bureau, and is apparently still
there, according to a report by the National Journal. While his name had been redacted from the official report, Rep. Cynthia
Lummis of Wyoming mentioned him by name multiple times during the committee hearing.
Does his behavior so far really strike you as that of an intel asset? Or a screw-up flying too close to the flame? Some of both...
even a wanna-be free agent nothing burger? I'm not sure, so I'll patiently await more "facts".
" ...Imran Awan being paid nearly $2 million working as an IT support staffer for House Democrats since 2004. Abid Awan
and his wife, Hina Alvi, were each paid more than $1 million working for House Democrats. In total, since 2003, the family has
collected nearly $5 million. "
Nice change for IT services work!!
" Of course, if Republicans and/or members of the Trump administration hired foreign-born IT specialists who were suspected
of committing a laundry list of federal crimes and then smashed a bunch of hard drives just before skipping town...we're sure
the media would still gloss right over it in much the same way they're doing for the the Democrats in this instance. "
Does Pakistani intelligence have a hand in the DNC "hack"?
I don't see an immediate motive for the Pakistanis to want to ruin Clinton's campaign, but who knows? Maybe they thought Trump
would sell them more weapons? Other motives certainly could exist.
Only problem is the DNC "hack" was a leak, not a hack. Which doesn't mean there wasn't ALSO a hack in the mix. In fact,
I would expect that to be the case. The DNC would be a perfectly desirable target for ANY opportunistic hacker during an election
year, as well as any and all nation-states.
Incidentally, millions of voter records have turned up in the Dark Web for sale - once again proving that most hacks are done
to steal PII (Personal Identifying Information) which is the coin of the realm for the hacker underground.
It all sounds like attorney general Sessions is done, like Ann Richard said, he's done you can put a fork in him. It all reminds
me of early days of watergate ( my first year in US) starting with small incremental leaks, followed with big newsprint and TV
stories till the White House becomes overwhelmed and start acting irrationally and "illegally?"
Who knows how much more he (DT) has, but IMO, he will not go out without a fight, but now I think, out, he will go, since no
one in the establishment (media, gov, etc.) wants him or is willing to work with him. Unfortunately this will cause a period of
instability which looks like Borg has accepted and is willing to pay the price.
Some in Iranian academic and intellectual circles believe, the reason Iran was able to scape the grip of US hegemonic control
over Iran's politics back in seventies, was only possible under this similar circumstances of destabilization in US' global and
internal policy and policy making. Then it was the cause of Vietnam and watergate.Now Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. and the Russian
gate. It don't smell good.
Perhaps the Democrats knew this was going to start breaking and to divert attention from it they ( or somebody on their behalf)
decided to rev up the "Mrs. Sanders college-collapse scandal" in order to somehow get Sanders so discredited that even if the
Democrats collapse into a visibly dead beehive full of foul brood disease, Sanders would be rendered "un-turnable-to" as an alternative.
Politico was not the first on this. George Webb was all over this months before. It's just now starting to leak out. He links
the Awan brothers to the Clinton Foundation.
The Awan brothers (whatever is the deal with that), the unmasking/spying scandal, the Clinton foundation and related Clinton criminality.
There is a lot to be concerned about, hence the hysteria.
Trump publicly chewing up Sessions looks like another smokescreen.
The Dems are hiding a lot. Quite possibly, the entire basis of RussiaGate...
Alexander Mercouris connects the dots based on the VIPS memorandum and even references ME as having pointed out the possibility
that no hack occurred at all at the DNC. The key point appears to be the appearance of the alleged "Guccifer 2.0" entity in the
affair.
As he's pointed out before, the entire RussiaGate meme depends at its base on two accusations: 1) the DNC "hack" actually being
a hack, not a leak, and 2) the Steele Dossier. Without those two underpinnings, the rest of it is mere speculation and innuendo.
If the alleged "hack" is proven to be a complete hoax on the part of the DNC, CrowdStrike, the Clinton campaign, and/or some
Ukrainians, half of RussiaGate goes down the tubes. IANAL, but I suspect legal consequences would ensue for the perpetrators.
Also see my comment posted in response to Alexander's post in which I list the scenarios and reference a number of links which
cover the Guccifer 2.0 affair.
And if the conspiracy--with the Dems's black ops at the center--is never demonstrated to be factually the case, and Clinton
and Obama skate away, it will be described by dead-enders as a "perfect crime."
I still know lots of people who who have for 16 years remained sure Dick Cheney Inc. masterminded 9-11, (an earlier 'perfect
crime.')
I think the VIPS memorandum is quite conclusive on the subject. The DNC "hack" was in fact a leak. The leaked data was
then doctored (on the East coast of the US) to implicate the Russians. In fact, there was no Russian hack.
The real story in all this is the lack of any serious investigation of these shenanigans by the FBI or anyone else. Thus allowing
the 'Russiagate' story to spread and dominate the narrative.
I recall that TTG here was quite adamant about an official Russian hack of the DNC computers. I'm afraid I find the VIPS to
be a much more reliable source on this subject.
There is so much fog around all of this that it is hard to conclude anything with certainty. A few points strike me as odd:
The FBI were never permitted to examine the DNC servers yet they are willing to put their imprimatur on the Russians did
it story line.
Brennan and Clapper are publicly going after Trump and essentially accusing him of being a Russian stooge, and in doing
so disclosing the most sensitive intelligence secrets.
Mueller has not publicly announced what is the scope of his investigation. Is he looking into who and how the DNC servers
were hacked or is he just focused on the connections between Trump campaign team and Russian nationals?
Why is Trump tweeting about leaks of intel and lack of investigation into Hillary? Can't he order such investigations?
Colonel Lang: I'm sorry, I made a whole post without signing in. Apologies.
The problem with "Gigabit Internet" is that it's unlikely to be available to an individual hacker unless he is sitting in an
ISP or a building owned by a company that requires such a line.
He shows that the minimum data line required would be an Optical-Carrier 12 line which Wikipedia defines as follows:
Quote:
OC-12 / STM-4
OC-12 is a network line with transmission speeds of up to 622.08 Mbit/s (payload: 601.344 Mbit/s; overhead: 20.736 Mbit/s).
OC-12 lines are commonly used by ISPs as Wide area network (WAN) connections. While a large ISP would not use an OC-12
as a backbone (main link), it would for smaller, regional or local connections. This connection speed is also often used by
mid-sized (below Tier 2) internet customers, such as web hosting companies or smaller ISPs buying service from larger ones.
End Quote
At the very least, this makes it extremely unlikely that the alleged hacker was coming in over the Internet, if not impossible.
It's certainly the case that hackers have compromised ISP servers in the past, but in most cases such data lines are shared among
all users and one rarely if ever gets the full line speed unless one is directly connected to the router or no one else is using
the line.
It is possible that a wireless connection using 802.11n or 802.11ac could provide such speeds. This would be the case if a
LEAKER was using wireless to connect to the local LAN, OR if a HACKER was hacking the facility from outside the premises.
As I've said, this is how Russian Intelligence might do it to avoid detection by the NSA. But Russian Intelligence would probably
use either bribery or blackmail - standard tradecraft - to get the data.
In any event, why does CrowdStrike refer to Russian IP addresses if the hack was NOT done over the Internet?
While the Forensicator's analysis does not TOTALLY prove the download was on a local LAN, it's the most likely explanation.
As for my comments on the Forensicator's analysis earlier, that was mostly concerned with the assumption that WinRAR was the
file compression utility used. I did not intend to disparage his primary conclusion that the copy was local.
TonyL's assertion that the Forensicator doesn't know forensics was unsupported by any evidence and can be dismissed.
Again, I apologize for making a post without being logged in, Colonel.
I am now thoroughly convinced that you either clueless about this technology or totally blinded by your desire to exonerate
Russia. Perhaps both. Your discussion of gigabit ethernet is embarrassing. Don't you realize gigabit ethernet is now widely available
for home use? It does not require an OC-12 or optical fiber. It can be done over cat 6 or even cat 5e copper cable.
I also doubt your fundamental understanding of an internet connection. Here's an example. I am sitting in a Cuban cafe in Miami
with the original Mac Powerbook G4 Titanium and a T-mobile flip phone connected to the G4 through a USB 1.1 connection. Using
that phone as a modem, I connect to a shell account. From that shell account I connect to another and then to a third. All of
these shell accounts are on boxes with 10/100 ethernet. From that third shell account, I log into a server within a data center
with gigabit capability. I then proceed to transfer a large amount of data from that server to another server in another data
center at gigabit speed, faster than the 22.5 MB/s quoted by the Forensicator. This is accomplished with an internet connection
from my Powerbook that clearly does not have a gigabit connection to the two data center servers. And each hop along the way has
its own IP address. That's how the internet works. That's also how hackers work.
If the Forensicator shares the same understanding of the internet as you apparently do, he too doesn't know his ass from a
hole in the ground.
Yes, yes, yes, oh, please, of course I understand all that. Do try to tone down the insults.
"Don't you realize gigabit ethernet is now widely available for home use"
Don't YOU understand that is is NOT "widely available"? According to one report as of May of this year, the COVERAGE in the
US is only 17 percent. That doesn't mean everyone in that coverage actually HAS it, just that it's available. In other countries,
the percentage is much higher. It can be considerably more expensive than your average 3-6Mbps DSL line. Cheapest I've seen is
$70 a month.
Of course, many corporations probably have it, as well as most ISPs, etc., as I noted above with regard to existing OC-12 and
higher lines.
Yes, in your example you can transfer data from server to server at those sorts of speeds. As I noted, unless you're sitting
in a ISP or a building with a direct connection to the router, you as the individual user don't get to access the full speed of
the data line. YOU should know that.
So again, you are assuming said Russian hackers simply hacked into the DNC network,, used the DNC high-speed line (I assume
they have one and that the sort of speeds we're talking about were available to a single connection) to directly transfer to another
location with a high-speed line to which they had access to the full speed of the date line, and then downloaded to a local machine
or perhaps to another collection point which eventually ends up in Russia.
I can easily subscribe to a file-sharing service which has a high-speed connection, request a file from a source with a high-speed
connection and request a server-to-server transfer so the file doesn't come down to my local machine but goes directly to my file-sharing
account. But that doesn't mean it goes at full line speed in competition with everyone else using that file-sharing service any
more than the fact that my ISP might be using an OC-12 means I get 600+ Mbps to my apartment.
Yes, this is quite possible that a hacker could engineer this sort of operation, especially if the hacker has access to an
intelligence organization with access to the necessary servers.
And the NSA will see every byte of that transfer from the DNC or at least can track it back in their database for the time
periods involved and likely track it to any collection points the hackers might have used. Only once it is downloaded to a local
machine is it likely the NSA would lose track of it.
Which is why no Russian intelligence agency would do that. And they wouldn't be happy if any hacker under their control would
do that, let alone leave direct IOCs that lead directly back to Russia.
As William Binney - the guy who DESIGNED most of this stuff for the NSA - has explicitly said:
Quote:
"With all the billions of dollars we spend on this collection access system that the NSA has, there's no way that could have
missed all the packets being transferred from those servers to the Russians," Binney said. "I mean, they should know exactly how
and when those packets left those servers and went to the Russians, and where specifically in Russia it went. There's no excuse
for not knowing that."
"My point is really pretty simple. There should be no guessing here at all, they should be able to show the traceroutes of
all the packets, or some of them anyways, going to the Russians and then from the Russians to WikiLeaks," Binney explained. "There
is no excuse for not being able to do that -- and that would be the basic evidence to prove it. Otherwise, it could be any hacker
in the world, or any other government in the world, who knows."
End Quote
It's one thing to hack into somewhere using a portable rig which is mobile and connected to one access point which is never
used again for another hack. And as I said, if it's done by local wireless, the NSA can't track it. Binney is assuming the hack
is over the Internet - which is what all the alleged analysis by CrowdStrike and others says happened.
It's another to hook up to a major data line directly or indirectly and leave tracks. Maybe if you're sucking out terabytes
of movie data like the Sony hack and you figure the NSA doesn't care, but not if you're hacking into sensitive organizations like
the DNC.
None of this is proof that Russia DIDN'T do a hack on the DNC. It's simply highly unlikely that this process we describe here
is more likely than the simpler explanation of a local file download.
Especially when the recipients of said data have explicitly stated that they did not get this data from anyone connected to
Russia.
OK. I was a bit harsh there. But the idea that the Forensicator has proven that the DNC hack had to be due to a local leaker
and couldn't possibly be due to a Russian IO is insultingly bogus to me. I've seen article after article claiming just that.
The scenario I described is doable to any decent hacker. Three shell accounts in bogus identities in locations around the world
can be had for less than the cost of a home DSL connection and can be set up by anybody. It doesn't take the support of an intelligence
organization.
I do agree with you and Binney that the NSA would probably have confirming information of the DNC hacks. Maybe even as much
as they have from the 2014 State Department hack by Cozy Bear. Perhaps that's why the IC continues to say it was the result of
a Russian government cyber operation. I don't expect them to release all they have for many years. There's a lot of stuff they
have on many hacks that I know of that is not being released and it won't be released.
I do hope the local leaker theory is examined seriously. As you said, there is no reason that both the hack and the leak could
have both occurred. However, Assange ought to explain why the Wikileaks servers were all moved to Russian providers before the
election. Perhaps the NSA already knows what went into these servers, when it went in and from where. I don't think the public
will get the full answer to any of these questions for quite some time.
TTG,
"Both assume that hacked data would be initially transferred to Russia if it was a hack. Only the most incompetent hacker would
do such a thing."
And yet they - according to you - left their signature all over the "hack". They're either trying to be covert, or not. Either
leaving an extended middle finger to the DNC or hiding their activities by routing through various servers, etc. I don't see how
you can have it both ways and be correct.
I think you should prepare to be proven wrong. A bottle of whatever top shelf drink you like (Bourbon man myself) says that
by year end, this will have been proven to be a leak (a local download).
Is definitive forensic proof even possible? Maybe the potential for misdirection of various kinds means we can never know for
sure, not even in the best of circumstances.
In this case, they're anything but. Like the crude "fingerprints" supposedly left behind that Eric just mentioned, the apparent
refusal of the DNC to allow the FBI to investigate their server(s) directly is another of the oddities that characterise this
business.
One thing does seem clear to me. Only one side was powerfully motivated and it wasn't the Russians. I don't doubt they take
every opportunity to acquire useful information and at times also sow disinformation. However, under Putin they've been cautious
and farsighted in everything they do. Their reputation, their brand value if you like, has long been their primary consideration.
So, even assuming they got their hands on the DNC emails, would the uncertain reward of using that information justify the immense
risk? After all, they're only too aware of the deep-seated animus against Russia within US politics. In my view, for them to engage
in covert ops against one side in the US election would have been a wild, speculative flyer with catastrophic downside risks.
And, IMO, entirely out of character.
You don't think the Russians were powerfully motivated to do what they could to ensure Clinton lost and Trump won? I think
the Russians have good and valid reasons to defeat Clinton. I'm sure a lot of US voters voted for Trump for the same reasons.
We all wanted to reduce the possibility of WWIII to a minimum. For the Russians not to attempt to influence the outcome of the
election would have been negligent on their part. In my opinion, they have nothing to be ashamed of.
If a genie had offered them a clean choice, I don't doubt Russia would have gone for Trump. In the real world, I don't think
the decision for them would have been anything like as clear. As I see it, it's a matter of upside vs downside with the latter
weighted far more heavily.
The potential benefits were uncertain and the odds of Russia being able to substantially affect the result would have seemed
low, probably vanishingly so. Had a covert operation been exposed, on the other hand, the risk (at many levels) was potentially
catastrophic. Far more so than Clinton's threatened no-fly zones. That could, IMO, have been managed in one form or another; Putin
and Lavrov are almost preternaturally good at this sort of stuff. They have patience and strategic clarity while the US has neither.
As things turned out, the US has become so unmoored that to date it hasn't much mattered whether Russia did or didn't.
From the time of the MOONLIGHT MAZE intrusions in the mid-90s, the Russians were stealthy and difficult to track. The Chinese,
on the other hand, were much more noisy and bold in their intrusions. It was as if they didn't care if we knew they did it. In
the last few years, the Russians began operating more like the Chinese. This was glaringly apparent in the November 2014 intrusion
into the State Department unclassified system. NSA and FBI had a running battle with the intruders for days before they were able
to finally expel them. Fortunately, NSA capabilities to track the hackers across the internet in real time were well advanced
at that time. An allied intel service also hacked the surveillance cameras inside the the hackers' workspace. The attackers were
what became known as the Cozy Bear hackers and were tracked every step of the way. This information wasn't make public until late
2015.
Flash forward to the DNC hacks. The FBI first notified the DNC in September 2015 that they noticed Cozy Bear hackers had compromised
at least one DNC computer system. Neither the FBI nor the DNC took this information as seriously as they should have. In November
2015, the FBI informed the DNC that the hackers were connecting back to Moscow from the DNC network. The actions of both the FBI
and DNC remained lackadaisical. It wasn't until March 2016 that the DNC contract computer tech met the FBI Special Agent and was
convinced this wasn't some hoax or put on. The DNC finally installed some halfway decent monitoring tools in April 2016. By the
end of the month, the DNC knew they had a serious problem and hired CrowdStrike. The rest of the story is more widely known.
I long ago promised someone I would not be a betting man, but if I was, I'd take you up on that bet. I'm 99% sure this whole
thing is part of a Russian IO and not a vast left wing conspiracy. The last time I drank bourbon was the night before my first
jump at Benning. Drank way too much and never touched the stuff after that. I have developed a taste for barrel-aged craft beers
though. I guess we'll see who's right... eventually.
likbez -> The Twisted Genius... 28 July 2017
TTG,
> In November 2015, the FBI informed the DNC that the hackers were connecting back to Moscow from the DNC network.
Looks like you are incompetent. Especially your over-confidence. Qualified people have doubts. You don't. I will give you knowledge
of some basic facts about networking. But that's it.
Anybody can connect "back to Moscow". Especially Balts, Ukrainians and Israelis. To say nothing about the USA. Actually anybody
with a credit card, to say nothing about botnet owners.
No conclusive evidence were presented about IP space they were talking about. Was it ISP IP space or what?
You just parrot neoliberal propaganda.
The fact that DNC hired CrowdStrike and withhold any information from FBI speaks volumes. This really requires investigation:
what they were hiding from FBI? Instead MSM fed us nonsense about "Russian hacking".
The fact that this explosive revelation, which clearly suggests cover up, was swiped under the carpet by neoliberal MSM
also undermines your argumentation.
the FBI is getting around to dealing with RE mortgage fraud after all...
"Awan is accused of trying to defraud Congressional Federal Credit Union, a popular bank for Capitol Hill staffers, by misrepresenting
a $165,000 home equity loan he attempted to obtain for a piece of rental property. FBI Special Agent Brandon Merriman, who penned
the charging document, stated in an affidavit that Awan and his wife, Hina Alvi, misrepresented the property for which the loan
was to be granted, identifying it as a "principal residence." CBS News
My late wife was a CPA with many small business clients in Silicon Valley. She had many stories about the minor league miss behavior
in "cooking the books".
If the FBI were to pursue these minor league crimes in California, let alone in the nation, it would need a vast increase in
agents. I would guess someone high up in the food chain sickked the FBI on him.
You say your "years of experience" and NOT "any evidence" leads you to believe that Russia carried out the hack (rather than
someone else, or the stuff being leaked). I'm afraid that is as clear a statement of bias as any I've come across in this discussion.
The above discussion also leads me to believe that no conclusive technical proof is possible. That forces one to consider
the balance of probabilities. As in any crime, motive is critical. Here I would go along with Ingolf (above). It is extremely
unlikely that such an act would be worth the risk for Russia. Putin runs a tight ship, and he has much bigger fish to fry than
getting involved in US domestic political dirty tricks.
1664RM said...
Yet again we see more than a hint of malfeasance by officials within the DNC prior to the 2016 US Presidential Election.
And yet again the usual suspect start 'throwing smoke' ... in order lay a smokescreen & divert everybody towards the "Russia
dunnit" meme ... its so noticeable here now as it is everywhere in internet land that its becoming more ridiculous by the day.
Seriously ... how are people supposed to take this Russia line 'seriously' when held up to the light & compared against the
four years of HRC as SoS at the State Dept, the nefarious goings on within the DNC by Wasserman-Shultz, Brazzlle & the the Clinton
Team with Podesta et al?
The whole Russia story IS THE biggest smoke screen ... aided & abetted by the media & literally millions of willing ordinary
people who have been all too happy to swallow the bullshit hook line & sinker.
Useful idiots ... all of them.
I am a firm believer than Wasserman-Shultz is part of the Israeli system that has penetrated the entire US political &
Judicial scene inside the Beltway .... two of the main 'handlers' in this are none other than Ghislane Maxwell & Geoffrey Epstein.
I believe that there are plenty of useful idiots across the political spectrum on both sides of the Atlantic that have
enjoyed the 'corporate hospitality' offered buy Mr Epstein & his 'Lolita Express'.
Thus you will find nobody with the balls to prosecute the likes of the Clintons, Podesta or DWS for that matter ... thus they
can get away with murder (literally) Federal organisations like the FBI are seemingly unable to access the IT infrastructure of
such organisations as the DNC.
HRC should now be languishing in a cell for several Capital Offences including Treason ... it stands out like a dick on a donkey.
THE IMPROPER ASSOCIATION (MAYBE CRIME) OF VICTOR PINCHUK WITH HILLARY, BILL AND CHELSEA CLINTON, COVERED UP BY THE US MEDIA,
US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AND THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND
Now, in the investigations of President Donald Trump and his family, it's a case of so many sheep producing so little wool.
The case of the $13 million paid to the Clinton family by the Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk, in exchange for personal
favours and escalation of the war against Russia, was reported in detail throughout 2014. Click to read the opener, and more.
Early this month there has been fresh investigation of Pinchuk's money links with the Clintons, owing to the start of Ukrainian
government inquiries into the theft of billions of dollars of International Monetary Fund (IMF) loans to Ukraine – money then
transferred to Ukrainian commercial banks including Pinchuk's Credit Dnepr bank, and then loaned to offshore entities controlled
by Pinchuk but apparently not repaid.
Theft of the IMF money was first reported here in connection with Igor Kolomoisky's operation of Privat Bank
####
"... The article contains a damning time-line: Wikileaks made their announcement on 12 June, the DNC/Crowdstrike malware announcement
was made on 15 June, and the alleged "hack" occurred on 5 July. ..."
"... Another damning detail is that the data rate of the hack suggests either four simultaneous T3 connections, two internal 100MBPS
ethernet connections with load sharing, or a USB or similar mechanism. It is doubtful that a SMTP (email) server would use anything
as fast as a T1 (one thirtieth the data rate of a T3), ..."
"... This also suggests that the purpose behind the hack was purely to taint information that had already escaped, which is akin
to hiding information for its incriminating content. I would think that that constitutes evidence of mens rea. ..."
Counterpunch : Was
the "Russian Hack" an Inside Job? Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
Forensic studies of "Russian hacking" into Democratic National Committee computers last year reveal that on July 5, 2017,
data was leaked (not hacked) by a person with physical access to DNC computers, and then doctored to incriminate Russia.
The article contains a damning time-line: Wikileaks made their announcement on 12 June, the DNC/Crowdstrike malware announcement
was made on 15 June, and the alleged "hack" occurred on 5 July.
Another damning detail is that the data rate of the hack suggests either four simultaneous T3 connections, two internal
100MBPS ethernet connections with load sharing, or a USB or similar mechanism. It is doubtful that a SMTP (email) server would
use anything as fast as a T1 (one thirtieth the data rate of a T3), let alone four T3s especially for a smallish group of
people such as the DNC, which suggests very strongly either internal ethernet (they might have had gigabit/s ethernet in their
intranet) or a USB copy doctored to make it look like a hack.
This also suggests that the purpose behind the hack was purely to taint information that had already escaped, which is
akin to hiding information for its incriminating content. I would think that that constitutes evidence of mens rea.
The details are always the key. But the average media consumer sap can't tell the difference between one technical detail and
another and every detail is treated not as a show-stopping fact, but as a fuzzy entity that somehow can be ignored if needed.
This is why the rapid Russia meddling narrative has any staying power. All the lemmings who basically run with what they are told
and do not engaged their brains to do any analysis.
Analysis requires a baseline of curiosity. Curiosity requires a baseline of suspicion, and absence of fear. My impression is that
much of the population is actually scared, and that they remain scared despite surviving various dangers. This I do not understand.
Ukrainians government tried to propel Clinton and now have problems with Trump. So there might well be several blatant interference
of foreign government in the US 20016 Presidential elections. But it was not Russia.
In a memo to President Trump, a group of former U.S. intelligence officers, including NSA specialists, cite new forensic studies
to challenge the claim of the key Jan. 6 "assessment" that Russia "hacked" Democratic emails last year.
MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Was the "Russian Hack" an Inside Job?
Executive Summary
Forensic studies of "Russian hacking" into Democratic National Committee computers last year reveal that on July 5, 2016, data
was leaked (not hacked) by a person with physical access to DNC computers, and then doctored to incriminate Russia.
After examining metadata from the "Guccifer 2.0" July 5, 2016 intrusion into the DNC server, independent cyber investigators
have concluded that an insider copied DNC data onto an external storage device, and that "telltale signs" implicating Russia were
then inserted.
Key among the findings of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage
device at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack. Of equal importance, the forensics show that the
copying and doctoring were performed on the East coast of the U.S. Thus far, mainstream media have ignored the findings of these
independent studies [see here and here].
Independent analyst Skip Folden, a retired IBM Program Manager for Information Technology US, who examined the recent forensic
findings, is a co-author of this Memorandum. He has drafted a more detailed technical report titled "Cyber-Forensic Investigation
of 'Russian Hack' and Missing Intelligence Community Disclaimers," and [,]
Investors Business Daily (IBD) focuses on things financial has this Editorial:
Scandal: When federal officials arrested Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's IT aide, Imran Awan, as he tried to flee for his native
Pakistan, it was the latest twist to an already twisted scandal involving several House IT workers who possibly stole highly sensitive
information from several Democrats. Stranger still has been the Democrats' nonresponse to this unfolding scandal.[.]
"... There is nothing "pragmatic" about ignoring the fact that Sanders, a once unknown senator from the 49th largest state in America, was able to raise $44m in one month against a celebrity front-runner who coalesced the Democratic establishment around her candidacy like few who came before her. ..."
"... There is nothing "pragmatic" about ignoring that Sanders was easily able to broaden his appeal "beyond the coasts" in the Democratic primary, losing urban centers to Clinton while dominating many rural parts of the country, including Montana, a state he won by eight percentage points. ..."
"... And it's reality-defying to say the party can't turn to a septuagenarian as its nominee when Trump, at age 70, just became president. None of Trump's supporters cared that he was trying to become oldest man to ever take office and no one cheering on Sanders cares that he is 75 going on 76. ..."
"... For political journalists and operatives inside the Beltway carapace, the siren call of centrism will always have appeal. It promises pain-free bipartisanship, a return to the way things used to be. It stands for little, so it can't court too much controversy. For anyone who knows bad policy can mean the difference between life and death – the poorest and the invisible, the sufferers on the margins – it offers nothing. And it never will. ..."
"... Obama in an empty suit worked well. Now if Kamala looks good, she probably has a nice book deal in her future. Obama in a skirt? Looks promising. ..."
.............................
Everything about this is odd, and speaks to the tone-deafness of a rudderless political party and
the antiquated ways reporters continue to frame our politics. In a time of yawning income inequality
and instability, with a bulk of young Americans rightfully pessimistic about their futures, there
is nothing Pollyannaish about running a campaign that can somehow speak to this despair.
Healthcare in America is a travesty and single-payer is not without its flaws – but it remains
a more humane way forward, putting people ahead of predatory insurance companies.
There is nothing "pragmatic" about ignoring the fact that Sanders, a once unknown senator
from the 49th largest state in America, was able to raise $44m in one month against a celebrity front-runner
who coalesced the Democratic establishment around her candidacy like few who came before her.
There is nothing "pragmatic" about ignoring that Sanders was easily able to broaden his appeal
"beyond the coasts" in the Democratic primary, losing urban centers to Clinton while dominating many
rural parts of the country, including Montana, a state he won by eight percentage points.
And it's reality-defying to say the party can't turn to a septuagenarian as its nominee when
Trump, at age 70, just became president. None of Trump's supporters cared that he was trying to become
oldest man to ever take office and no one cheering on Sanders cares that he is 75 going on 76.
An elderly candidate with a compelling message for people in desperate need of change in their
lives will throttle someone much younger and milquetoast, every time.
For political journalists and operatives inside the Beltway carapace, the siren call of centrism
will always have appeal. It promises pain-free bipartisanship, a return to the way things used to
be. It stands for little, so it can't court too much controversy. For anyone who knows bad policy
can mean the difference between life and death – the poorest and the invisible, the sufferers on
the margins – it offers nothing. And it never will.
"... The recent forensic studies fill in a critical gap. Why the FBI neglected to perform any independent forensics on the original
"Guccifer 2.0" material remains a mystery – as does the lack of any sign that the "hand-picked analysts" from the FBI, CIA, and NSA,
who wrote the "Intelligence Community Assessment" dated January 6, 2017, gave any attention to forensics. ..."
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT : Was the "Russian Hack" an Inside Job?
Executive Summary
Forensic studies of "Russian hacking" into Democratic National Committee computers last year reveal that on July 5, 2016, data
was leaked (not hacked) by a person with physical access to DNC computers, and then doctored to incriminate Russia.
After examining metadata from the "Guccifer 2.0" July 5, 2016 intrusion into the DNC server, independent cyber investigators have
concluded that an insider copied DNC data onto an external storage device, and that "telltale signs" implicating Russia were then
inserted.
Key among the findings of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage
device at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack . Of equal importance, the forensics show that the copying
and doctoring were performed on the East coast of the U.S. Thus far, mainstream media have ignored the findings of these independent
studies [see
here and here ].
Independent analyst Skip Folden, a retired IBM Program Manager for Information Technology US, who examined the recent forensic
findings, is a co-author of this Memorandum. He has drafted a more detailed technical report titled "Cyber-Forensic Investigation
of 'Russian Hack' and Missing Intelligence Community Disclaimers," and sent it to the offices of the Special Counsel and the Attorney
General. VIPS member William Binney, a former Technical Director at the National Security Agency, and other senior NSA "alumni" in
VIPS attest to the professionalism of the independent forensic findings.
The recent forensic studies fill in a critical gap. Why the FBI neglected to perform any independent forensics on the original
"Guccifer 2.0" material remains a mystery – as does the lack of any sign that the "hand-picked analysts" from the FBI, CIA, and NSA,
who wrote the "Intelligence Community Assessment" dated January 6, 2017, gave any attention to forensics.
NOTE : There has been so much conflation of charges about hacking that we wish to make very clear the primary focus of this Memorandum.
We focus specifically on the July 5, 2016 alleged Guccifer 2.0 "hack" of the DNC server. In earlier VIPS memoranda we addressed the
lack of any evidence connecting the Guccifer 2.0 alleged hacks and WikiLeaks, and we asked President Obama specifically to disclose
any evidence that WikiLeaks received DNC data from the Russians [see
here and
here ].
Addressing this point at his last press conference (January 18), he described "the conclusions of the intelligence community"
as "not conclusive," even though the Intelligence Community Assessment of January 6 expressed "high confidence" that Russian intelligence
"relayed material it acquired from the DNC to WikiLeaks."
Obama's admission came as no surprise to us. It has long been clear to us that the reason the U.S. government lacks conclusive
evidence of a transfer of a "Russian hack" to WikiLeaks is because there was no such transfer. Based mostly on the cumulatively unique
technical experience of our ex-NSA colleagues, we have been saying for almost a year that the DNC data reached WikiLeaks via a copy/leak
by a DNC insider (but almost certainly not the same person who copied DNC data on July 5, 2016).
From the information available, we conclude that the same inside-DNC, copy/leak process was used at two different times, by two
different entities, for two distinctly different purposes:
-(1) an inside leak to WikiLeaks before Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016, that he had DNC documents and planned to publish
them (which he did on July 22) – the presumed objective being to expose strong DNC bias toward the Clinton candidacy; and
-(2) a separate leak on July 5, 2016, to pre-emptively taint anything WikiLeaks might later publish by "showing" it came from
a "Russian hack."
* * *
Mr. President:
This is our first VIPS Memorandum for you, but we have a history of letting U.S. Presidents know when we think our former intelligence
colleagues have gotten something important wrong, and why. For example, our first such
memorandum , a same-day
commentary for President George W. Bush on Colin Powell's U.N. speech on February 5, 2003, warned that the "unintended consequences
were likely to be catastrophic," should the U.S. attack Iraq and "justfy" the war on intelligence that we retired intelligence officers
could readily see as fraudulent and driven by a war agenda.
The January 6 "Intelligence Community Assessment" by "hand-picked" analysts from the FBI, CIA, and NSA seems to fit into the same
agenda-driven category. It is largely based on an "assessment," not supported by any apparent evidence, that a shadowy entity with
the moniker "Guccifer 2.0" hacked the DNC on behalf of Russian intelligence and gave DNC emails to WikiLeaks.
The recent forensic findings mentioned above have put a huge dent in that assessment and cast serious doubt on the underpinnings
of the extraordinarily successful campaign to blame the Russian government for hacking. The pundits and politicians who have led
the charge against Russian "meddling" in the U.S. election can be expected to try to cast doubt on the forensic findings, if they
ever do bubble up into the mainstream media. But the principles of physics don't lie; and the technical limitations of today's Internet
are widely understood. We are prepared to answer any substantive challenges on their merits.
You may wish to ask CIA Director Mike Pompeo what he knows about this. Our own lengthy intelligence community experience suggests
that it is possible that neither former CIA Director John Brennan, nor the cyber-warriors who worked for him, have been completely
candid with their new director regarding how this all went down.
Copied, Not Hacked
As indicated above, the independent forensic work just completed focused on data copied (not hacked) by a shadowy persona named
"Guccifer 2.0." The forensics reflect what seems to have been a desperate effort to "blame the Russians" for publishing highly embarrassing
DNC emails three days before the Democratic convention last July. Since the content of the DNC emails reeked of pro-Clinton bias,
her campaign saw an overriding need to divert attention from content to provenance – as in, who "hacked" those DNC emails? The campaign
was enthusiastically supported by a compliant "mainstream" media; they are still on a roll.
"The Russians" were the ideal culprit. And, after WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016, "We have emails
related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication," her campaign had more than a month before the convention to insert its
own "forensic facts" and prime the media pump to put the blame on "Russian meddling." Mrs. Clinton's PR chief Jennifer Palmieri has
explained how she used golf carts to make the rounds at the convention. She
wrote that her "mission was to get the press to focus on something even we found difficult to process: the prospect that Russia
had not only hacked and stolen emails from the DNC, but that it had done so to help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton."
Independent cyber-investigators have now completed the kind of forensic work that the intelligence assessment did not do. Oddly,
the "hand-picked" intelligence analysts contented themselves with "assessing" this and "assessing" that. In contrast, the investigators
dug deep and came up with verifiable evidence from metadata found in the record of the alleged Russian hack.
They found that the purported "hack" of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by Russia or anyone else. Rather it originated
with a copy (onto an external storage device – a thumb drive, for example) by an insider. The data was leaked after being doctored
with a cut-and-paste job to implicate Russia. We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI.
The Time Sequence
June 12, 2016: Assange announces WikiLeaks is about to publish
"emails related to Hillary Clinton."
June 15, 2016: DNC contractor Crowdstrike, (with a dubious professional record and multiple conflicts of interest) announces that
malware has been found on the DNC server and claims there is evidence it was injected by Russians.
June 15, 2016: On the same day, "Guccifer 2.0" affirms the DNC statement; claims responsibility for the "hack;" claims to be a
WikiLeaks source; and posts a document that the forensics show was synthetically tainted with "Russian fingerprints."
We do not think that the June 12 & 15 timing was pure coincidence. Rather, it suggests the start of a pre-emptive move to associate
Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to "show" that it came from a Russian hack.
No Advertising - No Government Grants - This Is Independent Media
July 5, 2016: In the early evening, Eastern Daylight Time, someone working in the EDT time zone with a computer directly connected
to the DNC server or DNC Local Area Network, copied 1,976 MegaBytes of data in 87 seconds onto an external storage device. That speed
is many times faster than what is physically possible with a hack.
It thus appears that the purported "hack" of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 (the self-proclaimed WikiLeaks source) was not a hack by
Russia or anyone else, but was rather a copy of DNC data onto an external storage device. Moreover, the forensics performed on the
metadata reveal there was a subsequent synthetic insertion – a cut-and-paste job using a Russian template, with the clear aim of
attributing the data to a "Russian hack." This was all performed in the East Coast time zone.
"Obfuscation & De-obfuscation"
Mr. President, the disclosure described below may be related. Even if it is not, it is something we think you should be made aware
of in this general connection. On March 7, 2017, WikiLeaks began to publish a trove of original CIA documents that WikiLeaks labeled
"Vault 7." WikiLeaks said it got the trove from a current or former CIA contractor and described it as comparable in scale and significance
to the information Edward Snowden gave to reporters in 2013.
No one has challenged the authenticity of the original documents of Vault 7, which disclosed a vast array of cyber warfare tools
developed, probably with help from NSA, by CIA's Engineering Development Group. That Group was part of the sprawling CIA Directorate
of Digital Innovation – a growth industry established by John Brennan in 2015.
Scarcely imaginable digital tools – that can take control of your car and make it race over 100 mph, for example, or can enable
remote spying through a TV – were described and duly reported in the New York Times and other media throughout March. But the Vault
7, part 3 release on March 31 that exposed the "Marble Framework" program apparently was judged too delicate to qualify as "news
fit to print" and was kept out of the Times.
The Washington Post's Ellen Nakashima, it seems, "did not get the memo" in time. Her March 31 article bore the catching (and accurate)
headline: " WikiLeaks' latest release of CIA cyber-tools could blow the cover on agency hacking operations."
The WikiLeaks release indicated that Marble was designed for flexible and easy-to-use "obfuscation," and that Marble source code
includes a "deobfuscator" to reverse CIA text obfuscation.
More important, the CIA reportedly used Marble during 2016. In her Washington Post report, Nakashima left that out, but did include
another significant point made by WikiLeaks; namely, that the obfuscation tool could be used to conduct a "forensic attribution double
game" or false-flag operation because it included test samples in Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi.
The CIA's reaction was neuralgic. Director Mike Pompeo lashed out two weeks later, calling Assange and his associates "demons,"
and insisting, "It's time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is, a non-state hostile intelligence service, often abetted by
state actors like Russia."
Mr. President, we do not know if CIA's Marble Framework, or tools like it, played some kind of role in the campaign to blame Russia
for hacking the DNC. Nor do we know how candid the denizens of CIA's Digital Innovation Directorate have been with you and with Director
Pompeo. These are areas that might profit from early White House review.
Putin and the Technology
We also do not know if you have discussed cyber issues in any detail with President Putin. In his interview with NBC's Megyn Kelly,
he seemed quite willing – perhaps even eager – to address issues related to the kind of cyber tools revealed in the Vault 7 disclosures,
if only to indicate he has been briefed on them. Putin pointed out that today's technology enables hacking to be "masked and camouflaged
to an extent that no one can understand the origin" [of the hack] And, vice versa, it is possible to set up any entity or any individual
that everyone will think that they are the exact source of that attack."
"Hackers may be anywhere," he said. "There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally
passed the buck to Russia. Can't you imagine such a scenario? I can."
Full Disclosure: Over recent decades the ethos of our intelligence profession has eroded in the public mind to the point that
agenda-free analysis is deemed well nigh impossible. Thus, we add this disclaimer, which applies to everything we in VIPS say and
do: We have no political agenda; our sole purpose is to spread truth around and, when necessary, hold to account our former intelligence
colleagues.
We speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any resemblance between what we say and what presidents, politicians and
pundits say is purely coincidental. The fact we find it is necessary to include that reminder speaks volumes about these highly politicized
times. This is our 50 th VIPS Memorandum since the afternoon of Powell's speech at the UN. Live links to the 49 past memos
can be found at https://consortiumnews.com/vips-memos/
FOR THE STEERING GROUP, VETERAN INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS FOR SANITY
William Binney, former NSA Technical Director for World Geopolitical & Military Analysis; Co-founder of NSA's Signals Intelligence
Automation Research Center
Skip Folden, independent analyst, retired IBM Program Manager for Information Technology US (Associate VIPS)
Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)
Larry C Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)
Michael S. Kearns, Air Force Intelligence Officer (Ret.), Master SERE Resistance to Interrogation Instructor
John Kiriakou, Former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former Senior Investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Linda Lewis, WMD preparedness policy analyst, USDA (ret.)
Lisa Ling, TSgt USAF (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Edward Loomis, Jr., former NSA Technical Director for the Office of Signals Processing
David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former U.S. Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and CIA analyst
Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East, CIA
Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel (ret.)
Cian Westmoreland, former USAF Radio Frequency Transmission Systems Technician and Unmanned Aircraft Systems whistleblower
(Associate VIPS)
Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA
Sarah G. Wilton, Intelligence Officer, DIA (ret.); Commander, US Naval Reserve (ret.)
Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat
Imran Awan was arrested at Dulles International Airport in suburban Virginia, and pleaded not guilty Tuesday to one count of bank
fraud during his arraignment in federal court in Washington, D.C., Fox News reported.
Law enforcements authorities have been looking into how Awan might have double-billed the House for equipment like computers,
iPads, monitors, keyboards and routers, Fox News reported.
Several relatives of Awan worked for House Democrats and were fired months ago, but Awan was kept on staff by Wasserman Schultz,
the former Democratic National Committee chair, as a part-timer.
Wasserman Schultz's spokesman, David Damron, told Fox News in a statement Tuesday that Awan has now been fired.
"Mr. Awan previously served as a part-time employee, but his services have been terminated," the statement asserted.
Fox News also reported the counsel for Wasserman Schultz recently began negotiating with Capitol Police for access to her laptop
in the case.
"... Key among the findings of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage
device at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack. ..."
"... The evidence they are describing comes from the DNC server on which the copy originated. They can tell how long it took to
create the copy, because there are system logs that record the time the file copy began, and the time it completed sucessfully. ..."
"... Copying to a USB drive takes much less time than copying across the internet. ..."
"... That's a totally reliable way to discover how the files were taken. ..."
"Forensic studies of 'Russian hacking' into Democratic National Committee computers last year reveal that on July 5, 2017, data
was leaked (not hacked) by a person with physical access to DNC computers, and then doctored to incriminate Russia" [
Consortium News ].
" Key among the findings of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto
a storage device at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack. "
Indeed, IMNSHO, VIPS, not being torturers (Brennan) or perjurers (Clapper) are some of the few members of the intelligence community
with any credibility at all.
WARNING: The scope of the post is limited: "We focus specifically on the July 5, 2016 alleged Guccifer 2.0 'hack' of the DNC server."
" DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack"
Look, I believe a fraction of the current Red Scare stuff but I don't see that point means anything. I can set the date on
my computer to be years ago. Then copy files and the date stamp will reflect the date I set it to. Do the Russians now have time
travel?
The evidence they are describing comes from the DNC server on which the copy originated. They can tell how long it took
to create the copy, because there are system logs that record the time the file copy began, and the time it completed sucessfully.
Copying to a USB drive takes much less time than copying across the internet.
That's a totally reliable way to discover how the files were taken.
Can't, but you can more than suspect they were saved by one Warren Flood (of Bright Blue Digital, the only "hack" in this affair)
on GSA computer equipment, if you look at the RTF files in a text editor.
How would these guys have gotten the system files from the DNC?
"On 7/5/2016 at approximately 6:45 PM Eastern time, someone copied the data that eventually appears on the "NGP VAN" 7zip file
(the subject of this analysis). This 7zip file was published by a persona named Guccifer 2, two months later on September 13,
2016."
Now now let us not get a call from the bezos daily shopper algo twisting (aka marketing) dept please do not feed the sharks
Could really not care less if raz-putin personally "bent the knee" & burped don trumpioni and imagined that would allow him
to "own" el grande kahbrone
Russia is as much a threat to the american public as Uruguay anyone who suggests otherwise should be slapped with a qui tam
case for wasting govmynt resources
And anyone who expects "the teflon don" to keep his promises once the "service" is rendered is imagining some other kid from
queens
Have personally removed anyone from either side of the argument on my twitcher feed who says trump or russia or clinton
Good, bad or indifferent, the only matter that matters is the electoral college and if one does not like those results, one
can move to impeach that is all
Actually that's more difficult than it seems. Most operating systems require root (administrator) privileges to set the computer's
clock backwards. For personal computers that's not a problem since the owner of the desktop/laptop/tablet normally has admin rights.
For corporate computers on a complex network this is normally not the case.
> How do we know what machine the copy was made on?
Ideally, we would be able to work with the physical hard disk -- and it would certainly be a hoot if it were ever released!
That said, nobody has successfully challenged the validity of the email texts, including those with the greatest incentive
to do so. Therefore, although attribution is hard, I'm willing to accept the forensics done on the metadata (and, although this
is an argument from authority, more willing to accept their work than CrowdStrike's, or the intelligence community's).
Been following this for some time. Strange, I haven't heard about this *ACTUAL* investigation with *EVIDENCE* of real *CRIMES
BEING COMMITTED* on the #Resistance media outlets. Wonder why?
No problem gaslighting us for the better part of a year with their "anonymous" spook sources who never provide any evidence
for their extraordinary claims, though.
Just IMAGINE the media bonanza if some of Kushner's/Bannon's/Conway's/Trump's hard drives popped up.
This is the most propagandized country in the world, with the possible exception of North Korea. But our rulers are way better
at it.
max Book is just anothe "Yascha about Russia" type, that Masha Gessen represents so vividly.
The problem with him is that time of neocon prominance is solidly in the past and now unpleasant
question about the cost from the US people of their reckless foreign policies get into some
newspapers and managines. They cost the USA tremedous anount of money (as in trillions) and those
money consititute a large portion of the national debt. Critiques so far were very weak and
partially suppressed voices, but defeat of neocon warmonger Hillary signify some break with
the past.
Notable quotes:
"... National Interest ..."
"... Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump. This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird our policies." ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. . . . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject. ..."
"... New York Observer ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . . . Nobody is paying attention to it, " ..."
This week's primetime knife fights with Max Boot and Ralph Peters are emblematic of the
battle for the soul of the American Right.
To be sure, Carlson rejects the term
"neoconservatism,"
and implicitly, its corollary on the Democratic side, liberal internationalism. In 2016, "the reigning
Republican foreign-policy view, you can call it neoconservatism, or interventionism, or whatever you
want to call it" was rejected, he explained in a wide-ranging interview with the National Interest
Friday.
"But I don't like the term 'neoconservatism,'" he says, "because I don't even know what it means.
I think it describes the people rather than their ideas, which is what I'm interested in. And to
be perfectly honest . . . I have a lot of friends who have been described as neocons, people I really
love, sincerely. And they are offended by it. So I don't use it," Carlson said.
But Carlson's recent segments on foreign policy conducted with Lt. Col.
Ralph Peters and the prominent neoconservative journalist and author
Max Boot were acrimonious even by Carlsonian standards. In a discussion on Syria, Russia and
Iran, a visibly upset Boot accused Carlson of being "immoral" and taking foreign-policy positions
to curry favor with the White House, keep up his
ratings , and by proxy, benefit financially. Boot says that Carlson "basically parrots whatever
the pro-Trump line is that Fox viewers want to see. If Trump came out strongly against Putin tomorrow,
I imagine Tucker would echo this as faithfully as the pro-Russia arguments he echoes today." But
is this assessment fair?
Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention
for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented
publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According
to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life
that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump.
This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And
we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird
our policies."
Even if Carlson doesn't want to use the label neocon to describe some of those ideas, Boot is
not so bashful. In 2005, Boot wrote an essay called
"Neocons May Get
the Last Laugh." Carlson "has become a Trump acolyte in pursuit of ratings," says Boot, also
interviewed by the National Interest . "I bet if it were President Clinton accused of colluding
with the Russians, Tucker would be outraged and calling for impeachment if not execution. But since
it's Trump, then it's all a big joke to him," Boot says. Carlson vociferously dissents from such
assessments: "This is what dumb people do. They can't assess the merits of an argument. . . . I'm
not talking about Syria, and Russia, and Iran because of ratings. That's absurd. I can't imagine
those were anywhere near the most highly-rated segments that night. That's not why I wanted to do
it."
But Carlson insists, "I have been saying the same thing for fifteen years. Now I have a T.V. show
that people watch, so my views are better known. But it shouldn't be a surprise. I supported Trump
to the extent he articulated beliefs that I agree with. . . . And I don't support Trump to the extent
that his actions deviate from those beliefs," Carlson said. Boot on Fox said that Carlson is "too
smart" for this kind of argument. But Carlson has bucked the Trump line, notably on Trump's April
7 strikes in Syria. "When the Trump administration threw a bunch of cruise missiles into Syria for
no obvious reason, on the basis of a pretext that I
question . . . I questioned [the decision] immediately. On T.V. I was on the air when that happened.
I think, maybe seven minutes into my show. . . . I thought this was reckless."
But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. .
. . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his
assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone
clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to
have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject.
Boot objects to what he sees as a cavalier attitude on the part of Carlson and others toward allegations
of Russian interference in the 2016 election, and also toward the deaths of citizens of other countries.
"You are laughing about the fact that Russia is interfering in our election process. That to me is
immoral," Boot told Carlson on his show. "This is the level of dumbness and McCarthyism in Washington
right now," says Carlson. "I think it has the virtue of making Max Boot feel like a good person.
Like he's on God's team, or something like that. But how does that serve the interest of the country?
It doesn't." Carlson says that Donald Trump, Jr.'s emails aren't nearly as important as who is going
to lead Syria, which he says Boot and others have no plan for successfully occupying. Boot, by contrast,
sees the U.S. administration as dangerously flirting with working with Russia, Iran and Syrian president
Bashar al-Assad. "For whatever reason, Trump is pro-Putin, no one knows why, and he's taken a good
chunk of the GOP along with him," Boot says.
On Fox last Wednesday, Boot reminded Carlson that he originally supported the 2003 Iraq decision.
"You supported the invasion of Iraq," Boot said, before repeating, "You supported the invasion of
Iraq." Carlson conceded that, but it seems the invasion was a bona fide turning point. It's most
important to parse whether Carlson has a long record of anti-interventionism, or if he's merely
sniffing the throne of the president (who, dubiously, may have opposed the 2003 invasion). "I
think it's a total nightmare and disaster, and I'm ashamed that I went against my own instincts in
supporting it," Carlson told the New York Observer in early 2004. "It's something I'll never
do again. Never. I got convinced by a friend of mine who's smarter than I am, and I shouldn't have
done that. . . . I'm enraged by it, actually." Carlson told the National Interest that he's
felt this way since seeing Iraq for himself in December 2003.
The evidence points heavily toward a sincere conversion on Carlson's part, or preexisting conviction
that was briefly overcome by the beat of the war drums. Carlson did work for the Weekly Standard
, perhaps the most prominent neoconservative magazine, in the 1990s and early 2000s. Carlson today
speaks respectfully of William Kristol, its founding editor, but has concluded that he is all wet.
On foreign policy, the people Carlson speaks most warmly about are genuine hard left-wingers: Glenn
Greenwald, a vociferous critic of both economic neoliberalism and neoconservatism; the anti-establishment
journalist Michael Tracey; Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of the Nation ; and her husband,
Stephen Cohen, the Russia expert and critic of U.S. foreign policy.
"The only people in American public life who are raising these questions are on the traditional
left: not lifestyle liberals, not the Williamsburg (Brooklyn) group, not liberals in D.C., not Nancy
Pelosi." He calls the expertise of establishment sources on matters like Syria "more shallow than
I even imagined." On his MSNBC show, which was canceled for poor ratings, he cavorted with noninterventionist
stalwarts such as
Ron Paul , the 2008 and 2012 antiwar GOP candidate, and Patrick J. Buchanan. "No one is smarter
than Pat Buchanan," he said
last year of the man whose ideas many say laid the groundwork for Trump's political success.
Carlson has risen to the pinnacle of cable news, succeeding Bill O'Reilly. It wasn't always clear
an antiwar take would vault someone to such prominence. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio or Mitt Romney could
be president (Boot has advised the latter two). But here he is, and it's likely no coincidence that
Carlson got a show after Trump's election, starting at the 7 p.m. slot, before swiftly moving to
the 9 p.m. slot to replace Trump antagonist Megyn Kelly, and just as quickly replacing O'Reilly at
the top slot, 8 p.m. Boot, on the other hand, declared in 2016 that the Republican Party was
dead , before it went on to hold Congress and most state houses, and of course take the presidency.
He's still at the Council on Foreign Relations and writes for the New York Times (this seems
to clearly annoy Carlson: "It tells you everything about the low standards of the American foreign-policy
establishment").
Boot wrote in 2003 in the Weekly Standard that the fall of Saddam Hussein's government
"may turn out to be one of those hinge moments in history" comparable to "events like the storming
of the Bastille or the fall of the Berlin Wall, after which everything is different." He continued,
"If the occupation goes well (admittedly a big if ), it may mark the moment when the powerful
antibiotic known as democracy was introduced into the diseased environment of the Middle East, and
began to transform the region for the better."
Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate
what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate
is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our
interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these
decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment
going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . .
. Nobody is paying attention to it, "
Carlson seems intent on pressing the issue. The previous night, in his debate with Peters, the
retired lieutenant colonel said that Carlson sounded like Charles Lindbergh, who opposed U.S. intervention
against Nazi Germany before 1941. "This particular strain of Republican foreign policy has almost
no constituency. Nobody agrees with it. I mean there's not actually a large group of people outside
of New York, Washington or L.A. who think any of this is a good idea," Carlson says. "All I am is
an asker of obvious questions. And that's enough to reveal these people have no idea what they're
talking about. None."
Curt Mills is a foreign-affairs reporter at the National Interest . Follow him on Twitter:
@CurtMills .
"... Aaron Kesel, in Activistpost documents the links between Veselnitskaya and Fusion GPS, the company engaged by the Clintons to prepare the defamatory Christopher Steele Dossier ..."
"... it is also interesting that she is on record as anti-Trump and having associations with Clinton democrats. ..."
"... Though it may have been part of the beginnings of a conspiracy, the conspiracy may have developed later and the meeting became something they related back to to bolster this fraudulent dangerous initiative. ..."
Aaron Kesel, in Activistpost documents the links between Veselnitskaya and Fusion GPS, the company engaged by the Clintons
to prepare the defamatory Christopher Steele Dossier against Trump later used by Comey to help gin up the Russian influence
conspiracy theory. In the article, it is true the GPS connection may have involved her lobbying efforts to overturn the Magnitsky
law, not the dossier, but it is also interesting that she is on record as anti-Trump and having associations with Clinton
democrats.
Though it may have been part of the beginnings of a conspiracy, the conspiracy may have developed later and the meeting
became something they related back to to bolster this fraudulent dangerous initiative.
"... "We need to be talking about impeachment constantly. If you're an elected Dem & you're not talking impeachment or 25th amendment then find a new party," Scott Dworkin, senior adviser to Democratic Coalition Against Trump, on Twitter. ..."
"... "Voters are getting plenty about the Russia story, and they don't need candidates' help making that case. I think it's a fundamental mistake to make this election a referendum on impeachment. That means it's not an election on a health care bill that will raise premiums and take more than 22 million people off of their health care," Zac Petkanas, Democratic strategist, former aide to Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... "All of that (on Russia) is going to come out, and if a politician was lacking in courage and never did anything about it, I think they will pay dearly for it, and they should. But if you're a governor candidate next year, you're a lot smarter saying, 'Here's what I'm going to do about jobs and education and wages' than weighing in every day on issues outside your control." David Pepper, Ohio Democratic Party chairman. ..."
"... The only two Democrats, out of that random sample, who are going "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia" I mean "Russia, Russia, Russia," are Dworkin and Galland from MoveOn. I think this blog knows quite a bit about MoveOn, so I don't need to mention it, and the only other person talking about it, is someone who is trying to make his name by impeaching Trump. ..."
ucgsblog says:
July 16, 2017 at 7:21 pm Sorry about being MIA, I'm probably going to be MIA until mid-August,
but in the meantime, here's an interesting article:
"We know that we can be an America that works for everyone, because we believe that our diversity
is our greatest strength. And we believe that when we put hope on the ballot we do well, and when
we allow others to put fear in the eyes of people we don't do so hot," Tom Perez, chairman of the
Democratic National Committee.
___
"We need to be talking about impeachment constantly. If you're an elected Dem & you're not
talking impeachment or 25th amendment then find a new party," Scott Dworkin, senior adviser to Democratic
Coalition Against Trump, on Twitter.
___
"We're advising groups to pay attention to Russia, but the bottom line is they're trying to take
your health care away. That should be the focus. Eye on the prize," Ezra Levin, co-founder of Indivisible.
___
"I focus a lot on good-paying jobs, student loan issues, health care and the effort to repeal
the Affordable Care Act. Those are the issues that are at the top of (voters') minds. I don't think
(the Russia investigation) has to interfere with our conversation about every day matters in people's
lives," Jason Crow, Democratic candidate in Colorado's 6th Congressional District.
___
"Voters are getting plenty about the Russia story, and they don't need candidates' help making
that case. I think it's a fundamental mistake to make this election a referendum on impeachment.
That means it's not an election on a health care bill that will raise premiums and take more than
22 million people off of their health care," Zac Petkanas, Democratic strategist, former aide to
Hillary Clinton.
___
"We will both defend the integrity of our democracy (on the Russian investigation) and we will
defend access to health care for tens of millions of people. The resistance is big enough and sophisticated
enough to track both of those urgent and important issues," Anna Galland, executive director of Moveon.org
Civic Action.
___
"All of that (on Russia) is going to come out, and if a politician was lacking in courage
and never did anything about it, I think they will pay dearly for it, and they should. But if you're
a governor candidate next year, you're a lot smarter saying, 'Here's what I'm going to do about jobs
and education and wages' than weighing in every day on issues outside your control." David Pepper,
Ohio Democratic Party chairman.
___
"We need to be able to explain what we're for just as emphatically as who we are against. Voters
need to hear you talking about them more than they hear you talking about yourself, your opponent
or the president." Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana.
!!!!!!-
The only two Democrats, out of that random sample, who are going "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia"
I mean "Russia, Russia, Russia," are Dworkin and Galland from MoveOn. I think this blog knows quite
a bit about MoveOn, so I don't need to mention it, and the only other person talking about it, is
someone who is trying to make his name by impeaching Trump.
Looks like the DNC is slowly starting to realize what voters want, despite inner party special
interest groups. Levin and Crow summarize mainstream Democrats, so I'll just requote them:
"We're advising groups to pay attention to Russia, but the bottom line is they're trying to take
your health care away. That should be the focus. Eye on the prize I focus a lot on good-paying jobs,
student loan issues, health care and the effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Those are the
issues that are at the top of (voters') minds. I don't think (the Russia investigation) has to interfere
with our conversation about every day matters in people's lives"
Will the DNC lose in 2018, because they're beholden to inner-party special interests? Stay tuned.
Say what you will about Trump, but he certainly made politics a lot more entertaining to watch. Not
sure if that's good or bad, but I'm getting popcorn.
As I posted before, emails are not something that requires hacking beyond a noob script kiddie. Emails are simply not secure
and can be easily intercepted by man-in-the-middle relay servers. There is simply no way to establish who runs such computers
from the headers on the emails. It is up to the relay server to update the email header and it does not have to do it. BTW, the
fake email relay can spoof an IP so that the other email relay servers can't even tell it is not in the pool of existing machines
(and there is no global authority that maintains the integrity of this pool of machines anyway).
There is no way Seth Rich would have "discovered Russian email hacking". But for sure he did discover something that got him
killed and the perps are 100% Americans.
The climate today is just so receptive to 'Russia did it' that the temptation to blame Russia for everything that is not going
as planned or as desired – or for which one might otherwise be blamed oneself – is apparently overwhelming.
The comments nailed it right away – 'who styles himself as a former US Intelligence Officer' is taking made-up reporting to
a new level of absurdity. Now reporters are even qualifying their anonymous sources so you're unsure if they actually are who
they won't say they are.
"... "Have you ever met or talked to any Russian official or relative of any Russian banker, or any Russian or even read Gogol, now or in the past?" ..."
"... Progressives joined the FBI/CIA's 'Russian Bear' conspiracy: " Russia intervened and decided the Presidential election" – no matter that millions of workers and rural Americans had voted against Hillary Clinton, Wall Street's candidate and no matter that no evidence of direct interference was ever presented. Progressives could not accept that 'their constituents', the masses, had rejected Madame Clinton and preferred 'the Donald'. They attacked a shifty-eyed caricature of the repeatedly elected Russian President Putin as a subterfuge for attacking the disobedient 'white trash' electorate of 'Deploralandia'. ..."
"... Progressive demagogues embraced the coifed and manicured former 'Director Comey' of the FBI, and the Mr. Potato-headed Capo of the CIA and their forty thugs in making accusations without finger or footprints. ..."
"... Then Progressives turned increasingly Orwellian: Ignoring Obama's actual expulsion of over 2 million immigrant workers, they condemned Trump for promising to eventually expel 5 million more! ..."
"... Progressives, under Obama, supported seven brutal illegal wars and pressed for more, but complained when Trump continued the same wars and proposed adding a few new ones. At the same time, progressives out-militarized Trump by accusing him of being 'weak' on Russia, Iran, North Korea and China. They chided him for his lack support for Israel's suppression of the Palestinians. They lauded Trump's embrace of the Saudi war against Yemen as a stepping-stone for an assault against Iran, even as millions of destitute Yemenis were exposed to cholera. The Progressives had finally embraced a biological weapon of mass destruction, when US-supplied missiles destroyed the water systems of Yemen! ..."
"... Thank you for putting your finger on the main problem right there in the first paragraph. There were exceptions of course. I supported Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic Primary that gave us the first black etc. But I never voted for Obama. Throughout the Cheney Admin I pleaded with progressives to bolt the party. ..."
"... This is an excellent summary of the evolution of "progressives" into modern militarist fascists who tolerate identity politics diversity. There is little to add to Mr. Petras' commentary. ..."
"... Barak Obama is America's biggest con man who accomplished nothing "progressive" during eight years at the top, and didn't even try. (Obamacare is an insurance industry idea supported by most Republicans, which is why it recently survived.) Anyone who still likes Obama should read about his actions since he left office. Obama quickly signed a $65 million "book deal", which can only be a kickback since there is no way the publisher can sell enough books about his meaningless presidency to justify that sum. Obama doesn't get royalties based on sales, but gets the money up front for a book he has yet to write, and will have someone do that for him. (Book deals and speaking fees are legal forms of bribery in the USA.) ..."
"... Then Obama embarked on 100 days of ultra expensive foreign vacations with taxpayers covering the Secret Service protection costs. He didn't appear at charity fundraisers, didn't campaign for Democrats, and didn't help build homes for the poor like Jimmy Carter. He returns from vacation this week and his first speech will be at a Wall Street firm that will pay him $400,000, then he travels to Europe for more paid speeches. ..."
"... They chose power over principles. Nobel War Prize winner Obomber was a particularly egregious chameleon, hiding his sociopathy through two elections before unleashing his racist warmongering in full flower throughout his second term. ..."
"... Like a huge collective 'Monica Lewinsky' robot, the Progressives in the Democratic Party bent over and swallowed Clinton's vicious 1999 savaging of the venerable Glass Steagall Act ..."
Over the past quarter century progressive writers, activists and academics have followed a trajectory
from left to right – with each presidential campaign seeming to move them further to the right. Beginning
in the 1990's progressives mobilized millions in opposition to wars, voicing demands for the transformation
of the US's corporate for-profit medical system into a national 'Medicare For All' public
program. They condemned the notorious Wall Street swindlers and denounced police state legislation
and violence. But in the end, they always voted for Democratic Party Presidential candidates who
pursued the exact opposite agenda.
Over time this political contrast between program and practice led to the transformation of the
Progressives. And what we see today are US progressives embracing and promoting the politics of the
far right.
To understand this transformation we will begin by identifying who and what the progressives are
and describe their historical role. We will then proceed to identify their trajectory over the recent
decades.
We will outline the contours of recent Presidential campaigns where Progressives were deeply
involved.
We will focus on the dynamics of political regression: From resistance to submission, from
retreat to surrender.
We will conclude by discussing the end result: The Progressives' large-scale, long-term embrace
of far-right ideology and practice.
Progressives by Name and Posture
Progressives purport to embrace 'progress', the growth of the economy, the enrichment of society
and freedom from arbitrary government. Central to the Progressive agenda was the end of elite corruption
and good governance, based on democratic procedures.
Progressives prided themselves as appealing to 'reason, diplomacy and conciliation', not brute
force and wars. They upheld the sovereignty of other nations and eschewed militarism and armed intervention.
Progressives proposed a vision of their fellow citizens pursuing incremental evolution toward
the 'good society', free from the foreign entanglements, which had entrapped the people in unjust
wars.
Progressives in Historical Perspective
In the early part of the 20th century, progressives favored political equality while opposing
extra-parliamentary social transformations. They supported gender equality and environmental preservation
while failing to give prominence to the struggles of workers and African Americans.
They denounced militarism 'in general' but supported a series of 'wars to end all wars'
. Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson embodied the dual policies of promoting peace at home
and bloody imperial wars overseas. By the middle of the 20th century, different strands emerged
under the progressive umbrella. Progressives split between traditional good government advocates
and modernists who backed socio-economic reforms, civil liberties and rights.
Progressives supported legislation to regulate monopolies, encouraged collective bargaining and
defended the Bill of Rights.
Progressives opposed wars and militarism in theory until their government went to war.
Lacking an effective third political party, progressives came to see themselves as the 'left
wing' of the Democratic Party, allies of labor and civil rights movements and defenders of civil
liberties.
Progressives joined civil rights leaders in marches, but mostly relied on legal and
electoral means to advance African American rights.
Progressives played a pivotal role in fighting McCarthyism, though ultimately it was the Secretary
of the Army and the military high command that brought Senator McCarthy to his knees.
Progressives provided legal defense when the social movements disrupted the House UnAmerican Activities
Committee.
They popularized the legislative arguments that eventually outlawed segregation, but it was courageous
Afro-American leaders heading mass movements that won the struggle for integration and civil rights.
In many ways the Progressives complemented the mass struggles, but their limits were defined by
the constraints of their membership in the Democratic Party.
The alliance between Progressives and social movements peaked in the late sixties to mid-1970's
when the Progressives followed the lead of dynamic and advancing social movements and community organizers
especially in opposition to the wars in Indochina and the military draft.
The Retreat of the Progressives
By the late 1970's the Progressives had cut their anchor to the social movements, as the anti-war,
civil rights and labor movements lost their impetus (and direction).
The numbers of progressives within the left wing of the Democratic Party increased through recruitment
from earlier social movements. Paradoxically, while their 'numbers' were up, their caliber had declined,
as they sought to 'fit in' with the pro-business, pro-war agenda of their President's party.
Without the pressure of the 'populist street' the 'Progressives-turned-Democrats' adapted
to the corporate culture in the Party. The Progressives signed off on a fatal compromise: The corporate
elite secured the electoral party while the Progressives were allowed to write enlightened manifestos
about the candidates and their programs . . . which were quickly dismissed once the Democrats took
office. Yet the ability to influence the 'electoral rhetoric' was seen by the Progressives as a sufficient
justification for remaining inside the Democratic Party.
Moreover the Progressives argued that by strengthening their presence in the Democratic Party,
(their self-proclaimed 'boring from within' strategy), they would capture the party membership,
neutralize the pro-corporation, militarist elements that nominated the president and peacefully transform
the party into a 'vehicle for progressive changes'.
Upon their successful 'deep penetration' the Progressives, now cut off from the increasingly disorganized
mass social movements, coopted and bought out many prominent black, labor and civil liberty activists
and leaders, while collaborating with what they dubbed the more malleable 'centrist' Democrats.
These mythical creatures were really pro-corporate Democrats who condescended to occasionally converse
with the Progressives while working for the Wall Street and Pentagon elite.
The Retreat of the Progressives: The Clinton Decade
Progressives adapted the 'crab strategy': Moving side-ways and then backwards but never forward.
Progressives mounted candidates in the Presidential primaries, which were predictably defeated
by the corporate Party apparatus, and then submitted immediately to the outcome. The election of
President 'Bill' Clinton launched a period of unrestrained financial plunder, major wars of aggression
in Europe (Yugoslavia) and the Middle East (Iraq), a military intervention in Somalia and secured
Israel's victory over any remnant of a secular Palestinian leadership as well as its destruction
of Lebanon!
Like a huge collective 'Monica Lewinsky' robot, the Progressives in the Democratic Party bent
over and swallowed Clinton's vicious 1999 savaging of the venerable Glass Steagall Act, thereby opening
the floodgates for massive speculation on Wall Street through the previously regulated banking sector.
When President Clinton gutted welfare programs, forcing single mothers to take minimum-wage jobs
without provision for safe childcare, millions of poor white and minority women were forced to abandon
their children to dangerous makeshift arrangements in order to retain any residual public support
and access to minimal health care. Progressives looked the other way.
Progressives followed Clinton's deep throated thrust toward the far right, as he outsourced manufacturing
jobs to Mexico (NAFTA) and re-appointed Federal Reserve's free market, Ayn Rand-fanatic, Alan Greenspan.
Progressives repeatedly kneeled before President Clinton marking their submission to the Democrats'
'hard right' policies.
The election of Republican President G. W. Bush (2001-2009) permitted Progressive's to temporarily
trot out and burnish their anti-war, anti-Wall Street credentials. Out in the street, they protested
Bush's savage invasion of Iraq (but not the destruction of Afghanistan). They protested the media
reports of torture in Abu Ghraib under Bush, but not the massive bombing and starvation of millions
of Iraqis that had occurred under Clinton. Progressives protested the expulsion of immigrants from
Mexico and Central America, but were silent over the brutal uprooting of refugees resulting from
US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the systematic destruction of their nations' infrastructure.
Progressives embraced Israel's bombing, jailing and torture of Palestinians by voting unanimously
in favor of increasing the annual $3 billion dollar military handouts to the brutal Jewish State.
They supported Israel's bombing and slaughter in Lebanon.
Progressives were in retreat, but retained a muffled voice and inconsequential vote in favor of
peace, justice and civil liberties. They kept a certain distance from the worst of the police state
decrees by the Republican Administration.
Progressives and Obama: From Retreat to Surrender
While Progressives maintained their tepid commitment to civil liberties, and their highly 'leveraged'
hopes for peace in the Middle East, they jumped uncritically into the highly choreographed Democratic
Party campaign for Barack Obama, 'Wall Street's First Black President'.
Progressives had given up their quest to 'realign' the Democratic Party 'from within':
they turned from serious tourism to permanent residency. Progressives provided the foot soldiers
for the election and re-election of the warmongering 'Peace Candidate' Obama. After the election,
Progressives rushed to join the lower echelons of his Administration. Black and white politicos joined
hands in their heroic struggle to erase the last vestiges of the Progressives' historical legacy.
Obama increased the number of Bush-era imperial wars to attacking seven weak nations under American's
'First Black' President's bombardment, while the Progressives ensured that the streets were quiet
and empty.
When Obama provided trillions of dollars of public money to rescue Wall Street and the bankers,
while sacrificing two million poor and middle class mortgage holders, the Progressives only criticized
the bankers who received the bailout, but not Obama's Presidential decision to protect and reward
the mega-swindlers.
Under the Obama regime social inequalities within the United States grew at an unprecedented rate.
The Police State Patriot Act was massively extended to give President Obama the power to order the
assassination of US citizens abroad without judicial process. The Progressives did not resign when
Obama's 'kill orders' extended to the 'mistaken' murder of his target's children and other family
member, as well as unidentified bystanders. The icon carriers still paraded their banner of the
'first black American President' when tens of thousands of black Libyans and immigrant workers
were slaughtered in his regime-change war against President Gadhafi.
Obama surpassed the record of all previous Republican office holders in terms of the massive numbers
of immigrant workers arrested and expelled – 2 million. Progressives applauded the Latino protestors
while supporting the policies of their 'first black President'.
Progressive accepted that multiple wars, Wall Street bailouts and the extended police state were
now the price they would pay to remain part of the "Democratic coalition' (sic).
The deeper the Progressives swilled at the Democratic Party trough, the more they embraced the
Obama's free market agenda and the more they ignored the increasing impoverishment, exploitation
and medical industry-led opioid addiction of American workers that was shortening their lives. Under
Obama, the Progressives totally abandoned the historic American working class, accepting their degradation
into what Madam Hillary Clinton curtly dismissed as the 'deplorables'.
With the Obama Presidency, the Progressive retreat turned into a rout, surrendering with one flaccid
caveat: the Democratic Party 'Socialist' Bernie Sanders, who had voted 90% of the time with the Corporate
Party, had revived a bastardized military-welfare state agenda.
Sander's Progressive demagogy shouted and rasped on the campaign trail, beguiling the young electorate.
The 'Bernie' eventually 'sheep-dogged' his supporters into the pro-war Democratic Party corral.
Sanders revived an illusion of the pre-1990 progressive agenda, promising resistance while demanding
voter submission to Wall Street warlord Hillary Clinton. After Sanders' round up of the motley progressive
herd, he staked them tightly to the far-right Wall Street war mongering Hillary Clinton. The Progressives
not only embraced Madame Secretary Clinton's nuclear option and virulent anti-working class agenda,
they embellished it by focusing on Republican billionaire Trump's demagogic, nationalist, working
class rhetoric which was designed to agitate 'the deplorables'. They even turned on the working
class voters, dismissing them as 'irredeemable' racists and illiterates or 'white trash' when
they turned to support Trump in massive numbers in the 'fly-over' states of the central US.
Progressives, allied with the police state, the mass media and the war machine worked to defeat
and impeach Trump. Progressives surrendered completely to the Democratic Party and started to advocate
its far right agenda. Hysterical McCarthyism against anyone who questioned the Democrats' promotion
of war with Russia, mass media lies and manipulation of street protest against Republican elected
officials became the centerpieces of the Progressive agenda. The working class and farmers had disappeared
from their bastardized 'identity-centered' ideology.
Guilt by association spread throughout Progressive politics. Progressives embraced J. Edgar Hoover's
FBI tactics: "Have you ever met or talked to any Russian official or relative of any Russian
banker, or any Russian or even read Gogol, now or in the past?" For progressives, 'Russia-gate'
defined the real focus of contemporary political struggle in this huge, complex, nuclear-armed superpower.
Progressives joined the FBI/CIA's 'Russian Bear' conspiracy: "Russia intervened and decided
the Presidential election" – no matter that millions of workers and rural Americans had voted
against Hillary Clinton, Wall Street's candidate and no matter that no evidence of direct interference
was ever presented. Progressives could not accept that 'their constituents', the masses, had rejected
Madame Clinton and preferred 'the Donald'. They attacked a shifty-eyed caricature of the repeatedly
elected Russian President Putin as a subterfuge for attacking the disobedient 'white trash' electorate
of 'Deploralandia'.
Progressive demagogues embraced the coifed and manicured former 'Director Comey' of the FBI,
and the Mr. Potato-headed Capo of the CIA and their forty thugs in making accusations without finger
or footprints.
The Progressives' far right - turn earned them hours and space on the mass media as long
as they breathlessly savaged and insulted President Trump and his family members. When they managed
to provoke him into a blind rage . . . they added the newly invented charge of 'psychologically
unfit to lead' – presenting cheap psychobabble as grounds for impeachment. Finally! American
Progressives were on their way to achieving their first and only political transformation: a Presidential
coup d'état on behalf of the Far Right!
Progressives loudly condemned Trump's overtures for peace with Russia, denouncing it as appeasement
and betrayal!
In return, President Trump began to 'out-militarize' the Progressives by escalating US involvement
in the Middle East and South China Sea. They swooned with joy when Trump ordered a missile strike
against the Syrian government as Damascus engaged in a life and death struggle against mercenary
terrorists. They dubbed the petulant release of Patriot missiles 'Presidential'.
Then Progressives turned increasingly Orwellian: Ignoring Obama's actual expulsion of over
2 million immigrant workers, they condemned Trump for promising to eventually expel 5 million
more!
Progressives, under Obama, supported seven brutal illegal wars and pressed for more, but complained
when Trump continued the same wars and proposed adding a few new ones. At the same time, progressives
out-militarized Trump by accusing him of being 'weak' on Russia, Iran, North Korea and China. They
chided him for his lack support for Israel's suppression of the Palestinians. They lauded Trump's
embrace of the Saudi war against Yemen as a stepping-stone for an assault against Iran, even as millions
of destitute Yemenis were exposed to cholera. The Progressives had finally embraced a biological
weapon of mass destruction, when US-supplied missiles destroyed the water systems of Yemen!
Conclusion
Progressives turned full circle from supporting welfare to embracing Wall Street; from preaching
peaceful co-existence to demanding a dozen wars; from recognizing the humanity and rights of undocumented
immigrants to their expulsion under their 'First Black' President; from thoughtful mass media critics
to servile media megaphones; from defenders of civil liberties to boosters for the police state;
from staunch opponents of J. Edgar Hoover and his 'dirty tricks' to camp followers for the 'intelligence
community' in its deep state campaign to overturn a national election.
Progressives moved from fighting and resisting the Right to submitting and retreating; from retreating
to surrendering and finally embracing the far right.
Doing all that and more within the Democratic Party, Progressives retain and deepen their ties
with the mass media, the security apparatus and the military machine, while occasionally digging
up some Bernie Sanders-type demagogue to arouse an army of voters away from effective resistance
to mindless collaboration.
But in the end, they always voted for Democratic Party Presidential candidates who pursued
the exact opposite agenda.
Thank you for putting your finger on the main problem right there in the first paragraph.
There were exceptions of course. I supported Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic Primary that gave
us the first black etc. But I never voted for Obama. Throughout the Cheney Admin I pleaded with
progressives to bolt the party.
This piece accurately traces the path from Progressive to Maoist. It's a pity the Republican
Party is also a piece of shit. I think it was Sara Palin who said "We have two parties. Pick one."
This should be our collective epitaph.
This is an excellent summary of the evolution of "progressives" into modern militarist
fascists who tolerate identity politics diversity. There is little to add to Mr. Petras' commentary.
"Progressives loudly condemned Trump's overtures for peace with Russia, denouncing it as
appeasement and betrayal!"
Perhaps the spirit of Senator Joseph McCarthy is joyously gloating as progressives (and democrats)
take their place as his heirs and successors and the 21st century incarnation of the House UnAmerican
Activities Committee.
The great Jimmy Dore is a big thorn for the Democrats. From my blog:
Apr 29, 2017 – Obama is Scum!
Barak Obama is America's biggest con man who accomplished nothing "progressive" during
eight years at the top, and didn't even try. (Obamacare is an insurance industry idea supported
by most Republicans, which is why it recently survived.) Anyone who still likes Obama should read
about his actions since he left office. Obama quickly signed a $65 million "book deal", which
can only be a kickback since there is no way the publisher can sell enough books about his meaningless
presidency to justify that sum. Obama doesn't get royalties based on sales, but gets the money
up front for a book he has yet to write, and will have someone do that for him. (Book deals and
speaking fees are legal forms of bribery in the USA.)
Then Obama embarked on 100 days of ultra expensive foreign vacations with taxpayers covering
the Secret Service protection costs. He didn't appear at charity fundraisers, didn't campaign
for Democrats, and didn't help build homes for the poor like Jimmy Carter. He returns from vacation
this week and his first speech will be at a Wall Street firm that will pay him $400,000, then
he travels to Europe for more paid speeches.
Obama gets over $200,000 a year in retirement, just got a $65 million deal, so doesn't need
more money. Why would a multi-millionaire ex-president fly around the globe collecting huge speaking
fees from world corporations just after his political party was devastated in elections because
Americans think the Democratic party represents Wall Street? The great Jimmy Dore expressed his
outrage at Obama and the corrupt Democratic party in this great video.
Left in the good old days meant socialist, socialist meant that governments had the duty of
redistributing income from rich to poor. Alas in Europe, after 'socialists' became pro EU and
pro globalisation, they in fact became neoliberal. Both in France and the Netherlands 'socialist'
parties virtually disappeared.
So what nowadays is left, does anyone know ?
Then the word 'progressive'. The word suggests improvement, but what is improvement, improvement
for whom ? There are those who see the possibility for euthanasia as an improvement, there are
thos who see euthanasia as a great sin.
Discussions about left and progressive are meaningless without properly defining the concepts.
They chose power over principles. Nobel War Prize winner Obomber was a particularly egregious
chameleon, hiding his sociopathy through two elections before unleashing his racist warmongering
in full flower throughout his second term. But, hey, the brother now has five mansions, collects
half a mill per speech to the Chosen People on Wall Street, and parties for months at a time at
exclusive resorts for billionaires only.
Obviously, he's got the world by the tail and you don't. Hope he comes to the same end as Gaddaffi
and Ceaușescu. Maybe the survivors of nuclear Armageddon can hold a double necktie party with
Killary as the second honored guest that day.
Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson embodied the dual policies of promoting peace at home
and bloody imperial wars overseas.
You left out the other Roosevelt.
Like a huge collective 'Monica Lewinsky' robot, the Progressives in the Democratic Party
bent over and swallowed Clinton's vicious 1999 savaging of the venerable Glass Steagall Act
Hilarious!
Ignoring Obama's actual expulsion of over 2 million immigrant workers, they condemned Trump
for promising to eventually expel 5 million more!
so it's not just conservative conspiracy theory stuff as some might argue.
Still, the overall point of this essay isn't affected all that much. Open borders is still
a "right wing" (in the sense this author uses the term) policy–pro-Wall Street, pro-Big Business.
So Obama was still doing the bidding of the donor class in their quest for cheap labor.
I've seen pro-immigration types try to use the Obama-deportation thing to argue that we don't
need more hardcore policies. After all, even the progressive Democrat Obama was on the ball when
it came to policing our borders, right?! Who needed Trump?
@Carlton Meyer If Jimmy keeps up these attacks on Wall Street, the Banksters, and rent-seekers
he is going to get run out of the Progressive movement for dog-whistling virulent Anti-Semitism.
Look at how the media screams at Trump every time he mentions Wall Street and the banks.
Mr. Petra has penned an excellent and very astute piece. Allow me a little satire on our progressive
friends, entitled "The path to hell is paved with good intentions".
The early socialist/progressive travellers were well-intentioned but naïve in their understanding
of human nature and fanatical about their agenda. To move the human herd forward, they had no
compulsions about resorting to harsher and harsher prodding and whipping. They felt entitled to
employ these means because, so they were convinced, man has to be pushed to move forward and they,
the "progressives", were the best qualified to lead the herd. Scoundrels, psychopaths, moral defectives,
and sundry other rascals then joined in the whipping game, some out of the sheer joy of wielding
the whip, others to better line their pockets.
So the "progressive" journey degenerates into a forced march. The march becomes the progress,
becoming both the means and the end at the same time. Look at the so-called "progressive" today
and you will see the fanatic and the whip-wielder, steadfast about the correctness of his beliefs.
Tell him/her/it that you are a man or a woman and he retorts "No, you are free to choose, you
are genderless". What if you decline such freedom? "Well, then you are a bigot, we will thrash
you out of your bigotry", replies the progressive. "May I, dear Sir/Madam/Whatever, keep my hard-earned
money in my pocket for my and my family's use" you ask. "No, you first have to pay for our peace-making
wars, then pay for the upkeep of refugees, besides which you owe a lot of back taxes that are
necessary to run this wonderful Big Government of ours that is leading you towards greener and
greener pastures", shouts back the progressive.
Fed up, disgusted, and a little scared, you desperately seek a way out of this progress. "No
way", scream the march leaders. "We will be forever in your ears, sometimes whispering, sometimes
screaming; we will take over your brain to improve your mind; we will saturate you with images
on the box 24/7 and employ all sorts of imagery to make you progress. And if it all fails, we
will simply pack you and others like you in a basket of deplorables and forget about you at election
time."
Knowing who is "progressive" and know who is "far-right" is like knowing who is "fascist" and
who is not. For obvious historical reasons, the Russian like to throw the "fascist" slogan against
anyone who is a non-Russian nationalist. However, I accept the eminent historian Carroll Quigley's
definition of fascism as the incorporation of society and the state onto single entity on a permanent
war footing. The state controls everything in a radically authoritarian social structure. As Quigley
states, the Soviet Union was the most complete embodiment of fascism in WWII. In WWII Germany,
on the other hand, industry retained its independence and in WWII Italy fascism was no more than
an empty slogan.
Same for "progressives". Everyone wants to be "progressive", right? Who wants to be "anti-progressive"?
However, at the end of the day, "progressive" through verbal slights of hand has been nothing
more than a euphemism for "socialist" or, in the extreme, "communist" the verbal slight-of-hand
because we don't tend to use the latter terms in American political discourse.
"Progressives" morphing into a new "far-right" in America is no more mysterious than the Soviet
Union morphing from Leninism to Stalinism or, the Jewish (Trotskyite) globalists fleeing Stalinist
nationalism and then morphing into, first, "Scoop" Jackson Democrats and then into Bushite Republicans.
As you might notice, the real issue is the authoritarian vs. the non-authoritarian state. In
this context, an authoritarian government and social order (as in communism and neoconservatism)
are practical pre-requisites necessity to force humanity to transition to their New World Order.
Again, the defining characteristic of fascism is the unitary state enforced via an authoritarian
political and social structure. Ideological rigor is enforced via the police powers of the state
along with judicial activism and political correctness. Ring a bell?
In the ongoing contest between Trump and the remnants of the American "progressive" movement,
who are the populists and who the authoritarians? Who are the democrats and who are the fascists?
I would say that who lands where in this dichotomy is obvious.
@Alfa158 Is Jimmy Dore really a "Progressive?" (and what does that mean, anyway?) Isn't Jimmy's
show hosted by the Young Turks Network, which is unabashedly Libertarian?
Anyway, what's so great about "the Progressive movement?" Seems to me, they're just pathetic
sheepdogs for the war-crazed Dems. Jimmy should be supporting the #UNRIG movement ("Beyond Trump
& Sanders") for ALL Americans:
On 1 May 2017 Cynthia McKinney, Ellen Brown, and Robert Steele launched
Petras, for some reason, low balls the number of people ejected from assets when the mafia
came to seize real estate in the name of the ruling class and their expensive wars, morality,
the Constitution or whatever shit they could make up to fuck huge numbers of people over. Undoubtedly
just like 9/11, the whole thing was planned in advance. Political whores are clearly useless when
the system is at such extremes.
Banks like Capital One specialize in getting a signature and "giving" a car loan to someone
they know won't be able to pay, but is simply being used, shaken down and repossessed for corporate
gain. " No one held a gun to their head! " Get ready, the police state will in fact put a gun
to your head.
Depending on the time period in question, which might be the case here, more than 20 million
people were put out of homes and/or bankrupted with more to come. Clearly a bipartisan effort
featuring widespread criminal conduct across the country – an attack on the population to sustain
militarism.
If I may add:
"and you also have to dearly pay for you being white male heterosexual for oppressing all colored,
all the women and all the sexually different through the history".
"And if it all fails, we will simply pack you and others like you in a basket of deplorables
and forget about you at election time. If we see that you still don't get with the program we
will reeducate you. Should you resist that in any way we'll incarcerate you. And, no, normal legal
procedure does not work with racists/bigots/haters/whatever we don't like".
"Progressives loudly condemned Trump's overtures for peace with Russia, denouncing it as appeasement
and betrayal!"
Perhaps the spirit of Senator Joseph McCarthy is joyously gloating as progressives (and democrats)
take their place as his heirs and successors and the 21st century incarnation of the House UnAmerican
Activities Committee.
take their place as his heirs and successors and the 21st century incarnation of the House
UnAmerican Activities Committee
which itself was a progressive invention. There was no "right wing" anywhere in sight when
it was estsblished in 1938.
"... President Eisenhower did not begin his summit with Nikita Khrushchev by berating him for crushing the Hungarian freedom fighters in 1956, a more grievous crime then hacking the emails of John Podesta. ..."
"... Were Trump to start his first summit with Putin by dressing him down, why meet with him at all? ..."
"... Trump would do better to explore where we can work together, as in ending Syria's civil war and averting a new war in Korea. ..."
"... Moreover, when it comes to interference in the internal politics of other nations to bring about "regime change," understandably, Putin might see himself as more sinned against than sinning. ..."
"... Should Trump bring up the email hacking in 2016, Putin could ask him to explain U.S. support for the violent coup d'etat that overthrew a democratically elected pro-Russian government in Ukraine, a land with which Russia has been intimately associated for 1,000 years. ..."
"... Consider the behavior of post-Cold War America, after Moscow gave up its empire, pulled all its troops out of Europe, let the USSR dissolve into 15 nations and held out a hand in friendship. ..."
"... We gathered all the Warsaw Pact nations and three former Russian Federation republics into a NATO alliance targeted at Russia. We put troops, ships and bases into the Baltic on the doorstep of St. Petersburg. We bombed Russia's old ally Serbia for 78 days, forcing it to surrender its birth province of Kosovo. ..."
"... Among the failings of America's post-Cold War foreign policy elites are hubris, arrogance and an utter absence of that greatest of gifts that the gods can give us -- "to see ourselves as others see us." ..."
"... Can we not see why the Russian people, who saw us as friends in the 1990s, no longer do so, and why Putin, a Russia-First nationalist, has an 80 percent approval rating on the issue of standing up for his country? ..."
"... Trump cannot allow this Beltway obsession with Putin to prevent us from closing, if we can, this breach. If we do not bring Russia back into the West, where do we think she will go? ..."
"... I don't see why he should bow to political correctness by making a boiler plate acceptance of the discredited Russia hacking story in light of all of the evidence to the contrary including the unexplained murder of Seth Rich and the recent accidental disclosures by CNN executives and pundits that they knew the story was a false one. ..."
"... Trump himself has aptly compared the story to the false "weapons of mass destruction" story used to foment the Iraq war. Bearing in mind that the publisher of the Nazi rag Der Stuermer was convicted of war crimes at Nuremberg in 1946 for propaganda, it seems to me that the present media leaders going on about these provably false stories are themselves guilty of war crimes. ..."
"... These Americans, of which you speak, are simply angry that Trump won and are looking for someone to blame because they cannot accept what he stands for to a large portion of the electorate. Foreign powers are of course going to fight, however they can, for the candidate they feel will be the most sympathetic to their interests. For example, Clinton was the preferred candidate for Israel and their efforts showed as much. ..."
"... Claiming that the Russians hacked the election, or meddled, or whatever, is an insult to Trump's supporters and voters. People like Buchanan should choose their words more carefully or they're just playing into the narrative. ..."
"... Finally, to those who follow Russia closely, the idea that it could influence the politics of the world's most powerful nation, while failing to prevent the rise to power of an explicitly hostile government in its next door neighbor with whom it shares millennia of history, is patently absurd. ..."
"... Nukes and credible delivery systems are Kim's insurance policy he saw what happened to leaders like Saddam and Ghadaffi when the failed to go there. ..."
"... There is no credible evidence that the Russians "hacked" our 2016 elections, but there is evidence that DHS did. But even if the Russians did, turnabout is fair play. There is credible evidence HRC's State Department hacked Russian elections in 2012, and there was even a Time Mag cover in the '90s crowing about American influence on Russian elections back then. ..."
"... Our entire government is nothing but a bunch of clowns standing in facade for the corprofacists pulling the strings. I am truly disgusted with this country. ..."
"... If I were the average Russian (or Ukrainian or Pole or German, et al), I'd be far more comfortable with aligning culturally with Putin's Russia than with the "West" of Hollywood and the kosher EU. ..."
"... "Americans are rightly angry that Russia hacked the presidential election of 2016." What hacking? Proof? None. ..."
"... Of these the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is not an independent intelligence-gathering organization, so that leaves three. Plus, this seems to have been a project run by a handpicked (read: politicized) group of analysts selected from the three agencies instead of independent analysts from three institutions reaching the same conclusion, we actually have just "one group of like-minded people " ..."
"... I'll echo other posters about Pat's mention of the so called "Russian hacking" of the 2016 presidential election. I don't know if Pat truly believes that or if he's throwing the loony left and neo-cons a bone on this for the appearance of objectivity and non-partisanship and/or to gain more appearances on FOX, but the claim has largely been exposed for the fraud that it is. ..."
"... So the claim "Russia hacked the election" boils down to RT posting some stories online unflattering to Hillary. Why is Buchanan participating in this dishonest shell game? ..."
"... . . .Let's begin with the continued refusal of the DNC to allow DHS or FBI to examine the computer/computers of the DNC where the alleged hack supposed took place. Instead of insisting that the FBI examine their computers, the DNC turned to a private organization–CrowdStrike. It was CrowdStrike that uncovered the "Russian hacking" of the DNC, and when the DNC refused to allow the FBI access to their servers to see the evidence for themselves, it was CrowdStrike that told the FBI that it was the Russians. ..."
President Donald Trump flew off for his first meeting with Vladimir Putin -- with instructions
from our foreign policy elite that he get into the Russian president's face over his hacking in the
election of 2016.
Hopefully, Trump will ignore these people. For their record of failure is among the reasons Americans
elected him to office.
What president, seeking to repair damaged relations with a rival superpower, would begin by reading
from an indictment?
President Eisenhower did not begin his summit with Nikita Khrushchev by berating him for crushing
the Hungarian freedom fighters in 1956, a more grievous crime then hacking the emails of John Podesta.
President Kennedy did not let Russia's emplacement of missiles in Cuba in 1962 prevent him from
offering an olive branch to Moscow in his widely praised American University address of June 1963.
Were Trump to start his first summit with Putin by dressing him down, why meet with him at
all?
Trump would do better to explore where we can work together, as in ending Syria's civil war
and averting a new war in Korea.
Moreover, when it comes to interference in the internal politics of other nations to bring
about "regime change," understandably, Putin might see himself as more sinned against than sinning.
Should Trump bring up the email hacking in 2016, Putin could ask him to explain U.S. support
for the violent coup d'etat that overthrew a democratically elected pro-Russian government in Ukraine,
a land with which Russia has been intimately associated for 1,000 years.
Consider the behavior of post-Cold War America, after Moscow gave up its empire, pulled all
its troops out of Europe, let the USSR dissolve into 15 nations and held out a hand in friendship.
We gathered all the Warsaw Pact nations and three former Russian Federation republics into
a NATO alliance targeted at Russia. We put troops, ships and bases into the Baltic on the doorstep
of St. Petersburg. We bombed Russia's old ally Serbia for 78 days, forcing it to surrender its birth
province of Kosovo.
Among the failings of America's post-Cold War foreign policy elites are hubris, arrogance
and an utter absence of that greatest of gifts that the gods can give us -- "to see ourselves as others
see us."
Can we not see why the Russian people, who saw us as friends in the 1990s, no longer do so,
and why Putin, a Russia-First nationalist, has an 80 percent approval rating on the issue of standing
up for his country?
Looking about the world today, do we really need any more crises or quarrels? Do we not have enough
on our plate? As the Buddhist saying goes, "Do not dwell in the past concentrate the mind on the
present moment."
Americans are rightly angry that Russia hacked the presidential election of 2016. But what was
done cannot be undone. And Putin is not going to return Crimea to Kiev, the annexation of which was
the most popular action of his long tenure as Russian president.
As D.C.'s immortal Mayor Marion Barry once said to constituents appalled by his latest episode
of social misconduct: "Get over it!"
We have other fish to fry.
In Syria and Iraq, where the ISIS caliphate is in its death rattle, Russia and the U.S. both have
a vital interest in avoiding any military collision, and in ending the war. This probably means the
U.S. demand that Syrian President Assad be removed will have to be shelved.
Consider China. Asked by Trump to squeeze Pyongyang on its nuclear missile program, China increased
trade with North Korea 37 percent in the first quarter. The Chinese are now telling us to stop sailing
warships within 13 miles of its militarized islets and reefs in a South China Sea that they claim
belongs to them, and demanding that we cancel our $1.4 billion arms sale to Taiwan.
Hong Kong's 7 million people have been told their democratic rights, secured in Great Britain's
transfer of the island to China, are no longer guaranteed.
Now China is telling us to capitulate to North Korea's demand for an end to U.S. military maneuvers
with South Korea and to remove the THAAD missile system the U.S. has emplaced. And Beijing is imposing
sanctions on South Korea for accepting the U.S. missile system.
Meanwhile, the dispute with North Korea is going critical.
If Kim Jong Un is as determined as he appears to be to build an ICBM with a nuclear warhead that
can hit Seattle or San Francisco, we will soon be down to either accepting this or exercising a military
option that could bring nuclear war.
Trump cannot allow this Beltway obsession with Putin to prevent us from closing, if we can,
this breach. If we do not bring Russia back into the West, where do we think she will go?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles
That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
While, as is usual, I agree with Mr. Buchanan's foreign policy views which he again effectively
and convincingly expresses, I don't see why he should bow to political correctness by making
a boiler plate acceptance of the discredited Russia hacking story in light of all of the evidence
to the contrary including the unexplained murder of Seth Rich and the recent accidental disclosures
by CNN executives and pundits that they knew the story was a false one.
Trump himself has aptly compared the story to the false "weapons of mass destruction" story
used to foment the Iraq war. Bearing in mind that the publisher of the Nazi rag Der Stuermer was
convicted of war crimes at Nuremberg in 1946 for propaganda, it seems to me that the present media
leaders going on about these provably false stories are themselves guilty of war crimes.
Americans are rightly angry that Russia hacked the presidential election of 2016.
These Americans, of which you speak, are simply angry that Trump won and are looking for
someone to blame because they cannot accept what he stands for to a large portion of the electorate.
Foreign powers are of course going to fight, however they can, for the candidate they feel will
be the most sympathetic to their interests. For example, Clinton was the preferred candidate for
Israel and their efforts showed as much.
Claiming that the Russians hacked the election, or meddled, or whatever, is an insult to
Trump's supporters and voters. People like Buchanan should choose their words more carefully or
they're just playing into the narrative.
Besides, if a foreign country really did manage to subvert the US' democracy to such an extent,
that speaks volumes about the weakness of the US system, not its adversaries' malicious intents.
Finally, to those who follow Russia closely, the idea that it could influence the politics
of the world's most powerful nation, while failing to prevent the rise to power of an explicitly
hostile government in its next door neighbor with whom it shares millennia of history, is patently
absurd.
"If Kim Jong Un is as determined as he appears to be to build an ICBM with a nuclear
warhead that can hit Seattle or San Francisco, we will soon be down to either accepting this
or exercising a military option that could bring nuclear war."
Nukes and credible delivery systems are Kim's insurance policy he saw what happened to
leaders like Saddam and Ghadaffi when the failed to go there.
"Americans are rightly angry that Russia hacked the presidential election of 2016.
But what was done cannot be undone."
There is no credible evidence that the Russians "hacked" our 2016 elections, but there
is evidence that DHS did. But even if the Russians did, turnabout is fair play. There is credible
evidence HRC's State Department hacked Russian elections in 2012, and there was even a Time Mag
cover in the '90s crowing about American influence on Russian elections back then.
How come that Pat Buchanan repeats the media lies that the Russians hacked US election? So
far, this allegation is fact-free. Has he finally succumbed to the constant lies the corporate
media are spreading? He is undoubtedly aware of Nazi-Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels saying:
"One must only repeat a lie so long until the people believe it as true."
As the first pictures from this G-20-meeting show, Donald Trump was sidelined by Merkel. Autocrats
like the Chinese President, Erdogan, and Russias Putin were standing next to her, Donald Trump
has sidelined just before French's Macron.
It's funny that even the US political class regards Merkel as powerful. She is just a Stalinist
and a political opportunist who would even sacrifice her loved ones when it would suit her career.
The US should not be carried away and blinded by this made-up spin.
Trump and his 'Russia should stop destabilizing Ukraine.'
Our entire government is nothing but a bunch of clowns standing in facade for the corprofacists
pulling the strings. I am truly disgusted with this country.
I have always respected Pat Buchanan. But it's time to take away his car keys. The Russians
did not hack Podesta. The Podesta files were leaked. Who killed Seth Rich?
Were Trump to start his first summit with Putin by dressing him down, why meet with him
at all?
exactly!
... ... ...
If we do not bring Russia back into the West, where do we think she will go?
the irony is that Russia today is far more expressive of the ancient values of the West than
the zio-West of Merkel's Germany and Islamic France. Let along the home of Hollywood spiritual
sewage spilling out of the ZUSA.
If I were the average Russian (or Ukrainian or Pole or German, et al), I'd be far more comfortable
with aligning culturally with Putin's Russia than with the "West" of Hollywood and the kosher
EU.
I have always respected Pat Buchanan. But it's time to take away his car keys. The Russians
did not hack Podesta. The Podesta files were leaked. Who killed Seth Rich?
Yes, that's an odd phrase, particularly as Mr. Buchanan has expressed incredulity at this sort
of accusation in the past. Perhaps he simply means that Americans' anger at Russia (which I think
he exaggerates; he seems to still believe the media have some actual contact with America) is
justified based on their beliefs?
The New York Times has finally admitted that one of the favorite Russia-gate canards – that
all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies concurred on the assessment of Russian hacking of Democratic
emails – is false.
On Thursday, the Times appended a correction to a June 25 article that had repeated the
false claim, which has been used by Democrats and the mainstream media for months to brush
aside any doubts about the foundation of the Russia-gate scandal and portray President Trump
as delusional for doubting what all 17 intelligence agencies supposedly knew to be true.
However, on Thursday, the Times – while leaving most of Haberman's ridicule of Trump in
place – noted in a correction that the relevant intelligence "assessment was made by four intelligence
agencies -- the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency,
the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not
approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community."
Of these the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is not an independent intelligence-gathering
organization, so that leaves three. Plus, this seems to have been a project run by a handpicked
(read: politicized) group of analysts selected from the three agencies instead of independent
analysts from three institutions reaching the same conclusion, we actually have just "one group
of like-minded people "
I'll echo other posters about Pat's mention of the so called "Russian hacking" of the 2016
presidential election. I don't know if Pat truly believes that or if he's throwing the loony left
and neo-cons a bone on this for the appearance of objectivity and non-partisanship and/or to gain
more appearances on FOX, but the claim has largely been exposed for the fraud that it is.
Let's make no mistake that neo-conservatism, liberal interventionism, Israelphilia and Russophobia
rule Washington, D.C. with an iron fist. Any elected leaders who don't play ball quickly find
themselves marginalized and under attack. Either Trump was playing us during the campaign with
his calls for warmer relations with Russia and a more humble foreign policy or he saw the writing
on the wall after taking office and surrendered without a fight.
I think Trump's loyalty to Israel trumps his loyalty to American first principles and that's
not good.
@KenH "Hacked the election" is a weasel phrase. You can go to shitlib sites and plenty of
them think that Putin changed votes by hacking voting machines. Of course, this hasn't been alleged,
let alone proved. The dishonest pundits using that phrase can claim they meant that Putin hacked
the DNC emails. There's also no evidence for this, but it's hard to prove or disprove (but given
that Podesta fell for a phishing scam, it could have been done by a 15 year old anywhere in the
world). The only thing they can credibly claim is that Russia "interfered" in the US elections
by their state media posting articles that the CIA disagrees with.
So the claim "Russia hacked the election" boils down to RT posting some stories online
unflattering to Hillary. Why is Buchanan participating in this dishonest shell game?
from the web– No, The Russians Did Not Meddle in Our Election by Publius Tacitus
. . .Let's begin with the continued refusal of the DNC to allow DHS or FBI to examine
the computer/computers of the DNC where the alleged hack supposed took place. Instead of insisting
that the FBI examine their computers, the DNC turned to a private organization–CrowdStrike.
It was CrowdStrike that uncovered the "Russian hacking" of the DNC, and when the DNC refused
to allow the FBI access to their servers to see the evidence for themselves, it was CrowdStrike
that told the FBI that it was the Russians.
Here's the problem with this: CrowdStrike's reputation is currently unraveling. Why? It seems
that CrowdStrike is as politically motivated as everyone else in Washington, D.C. The company
is itself an opponent of Vladimir Putin and Russia and was recently caught fabricating a report
that attempted to blame Russian hacking for problems with Urkainian military technology. .
.
@Ludwig Watzal Pat is an old USA conservative. The style of old USA conservatives is agree
with the opponent on all essentials of fact and value then remonstrate defensively. Perfect example:
"Yes, Putin hacked, but we have bigger fish to fry."
USA liberals were called "knee-jerkers," that is people whose liberal reaction is so automatic
it is brain-free. But old USA conservatives also have their "knee-jerk": this is accepting the
opponent's premises then quibbling.
"You're a racist!" "No, I'm certainly not, I swear."
"America is sexist!" "We are doing better lately. Salaries for women are showing progress."
"Putin hacked!" "Yes he did, but there are bigger fish to fry."
An old USA conservative would consider such replies as "fighting back"; but they are only whiny
protests in response to blows.
The old USA conservative style is dated and being replaced by styles more adversarial. Pat
the man is a decent guy and I wish him well.
Should Trump bring up the email hacking in 2016, Putin could ask him to explain U.S. support
for the violent coup d'etat that overthrew a democratically elected pro-Russian government
in Ukraine, a land with which Russia has been intimately associated for 1,000 years.
Buchanan here exhibits his supericial knowledge of Ukrainian/Russian history. Large swaths
of Ukrainian territory never were under Russian hegemony until the middle part of the 20th century,
but were part and and parcel of other European states including the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
and the Hapsburg Empire. Also, insinuating that Trump need to cower in front of Putin during a
hypothetical question and answer series regarding some sort of U.S. directed plot against Russia
in Ukraine is also based on fluff and inuendo, and he should know better. Any 'cookies and milk'
support offered to Ukrainian patriots who paid for their new found freedom by sacrificing their
lives came long after altercations had already started on the Maidan. American ingenuity could
not have created a protest movement of this scope and magnitude, and Buchanan should know better:
"Americans are rightly angry that Russia hacked the presidential election of 2016."
Pat,
You are just echoing and lending credence to the news media, including Fox News as well as
the power elite. This is not the first time you have done this.
I fail to understand why anyone would believe anything the security(spy) agencies promote. They
are incessant liars, as is most of our government. People should never take anything our government
says at face value .always demand proof.
@exiled off mainstreet " . I don't see why he should bow to political correctness by making
a boiler plate acceptance of the discredited Russia hacking story ."
@nickels Trump and his 'Russia should stop destabilizing Ukraine.'
Our entire government is nothing but a bunch of clowns standing in facade for the corprofacists
pulling the strings.
I am truly disgusted with this country. "I am truly disgusted with this country."
Neoliberal presstitutes are now completely discredited. This is just another Iraq WDM case. But
people soon forgot about Iraq WDM thing. None of pressitutute went to jail for misinforming the
public.
Notable quotes:
"... After six solid months of coordinated allegation from the mainstream media allied to the leadership of state security institutions, not one single scrap of solid evidence for Trump/Russia election hacking has emerged. ..."
"... As we have been repeatedly told, "17 intelligence agencies" sign up to the "Russian hacking", yet all these king's horses and all these king's men have been unable to produce any evidence whatsoever of the purported "hack". Largely because they are not in fact trying. Here is another actual fact I wish you to hang on to: The Democrats have refused the intelligence agencies access to their servers to discover what actually happened. I am going to say that again. ..."
"... The heads of the intelligence community have said that they regard the report from Crowdstrike – the Clinton aligned private cyber security firm – as adequate. Despite the fact that the Crowdstrike report plainly proves nothing whatsoever and is based entirely on an initial presumption there must have been a hack, as opposed to an internal download. ..."
"... So those "17 agencies" are not really investigating but are prepared to endorse weird Crowdstrike claims, like the idea that Russia's security services are so amateur as to leave fingerprints with the name of their founder. If the Russians fed the material to WikiLeaks, why would they also set up a vainglorious persona like Guccifer2 who leaves obvious Russia pointing clues all over the place? ..."
"... Of course we need to add from the WikiLeaks"Vault 7" leak release, information that the CIA specifically deploys technology that leaves behind fake fingerprints of a Russian computer hacking operation. ..."
"... Crowdstrike have a general anti-Russian attitude. They published a report seeking to allege that the same Russian entities which "had hacked" the DNC were involved in targeting for Russian artillery in the Ukraine. This has been utterly discredited. ..."
"... Some of the more crazed "Russiagate" allegations have been quietly dropped. The mainstream media are hoping we will all forget their breathless endorsement of the reports of the charlatan Christopher Steele, a former middle ranking MI6 man with very limited contacts that he milked to sell lurid gossip to wealthy and gullible corporations. I confess I rather admire his chutzpah. ..."
"... The old Watergate related wisdom is that it is not the crime that gets you, it is the cover-up. But there is a fundamental difference here. At the center of Watergate there was an actual burglary. At the center of Russian hacking there is a void, a hollow, and emptiness, an abyss, a yawning chasm. There is nothing there. ..."
"... Those who believe that opposition to Trump justifies whipping up anti-Russian hysteria on a massive scale, on the basis of lies, are wrong. ..."
After six solid months of coordinated allegation from the mainstream media allied to the leadership
of state security institutions, not one single scrap of solid evidence for Trump/Russia election
hacking has emerged.
I do not support Donald Trump. I do support truth. There is much about Trump that I dislike intensely.
Neither do I support the neo-liberal political establishment in the USA. The latter's control of
the mainstream media, and cunning manipulation of identity politics, seeks to portray the neo-liberal
establishment as the heroes of decent values against Trump. Sadly, the idea that the neo-liberal
establishment embodies decent values is completely untrue.
Truth disappeared so long ago in this witch-hunt that it is no longer even possible to define
what the accusation is. Belief in "Russian hacking" of the US election has been elevated to a generic
accusation of undefined wrongdoing, a vague malaise we are told is floating poisonously in the ether,
but we are not allowed to analyze. What did the Russians actually do?
The original, base accusation is that it was the Russians who hacked the DNC and Podesta emails
and passed them to WikiLeaks. (I can assure you that is untrue).
The authenticity of those emails is not in question. What they revealed of cheating by the Democratic
establishment in biasing the primaries against Bernie Sanders, led to the forced resignation of Debbie
Wasserman Shultz as chair of the Democratic National Committee. They also led to the resignation
from CNN of Donna Brazile, who had passed debate questions in advance to Clinton. Those are facts.
They actually happened. Let us hold on to those facts, as we surf through lies. There was other nasty
Clinton Foundation and cash for access stuff in the emails, but we do not even need to go there for
the purpose of this argument.
The original "Russian hacking" allegation was that it was the Russians who nefariously obtained
these damning emails and passed them to WikiLeaks. The "evidence" for this was twofold. A report
from private cyber security firm Crowdstrike claimed that metadata showed that the hackers had left
behind clues, including the name of the founder of the Soviet security services. The second piece
of evidence was that a blogger named Guccifer2 and a website called DNCLeaks appeared to have access
to some of the material around the same time that WikiLeaks did, and that Guccifer2 could be Russian.
That is it. To this day, that is the sum total of actual "evidence" of Russian hacking. I won't
say hang on to it as a fact, because it contains no relevant fact. But at least it is some form of
definable allegation of something happening, rather than "Russian hacking" being a simple article
of faith like the Holy Trinity.
But there are a number of problems that prevent this being fact at all. Nobody has ever been able
to refute the
evidence of Bill Binney , former Technical Director of the NSA who designed its current surveillance
systems. Bill has stated that the capability of the NSA is such, that if the DNC computers had been
hacked, the NSA would be able to trace the actual packets of that information as those emails traveled
over the Internet, and give a precise time, to the second, for the hack. The NSA simply do not have
the event – because there wasn't one. I know Bill personally and am quite certain of his integrity.
As we have been repeatedly told, "17 intelligence agencies" sign up to the "Russian hacking",
yet all these king's horses and all these king's men have been unable to produce any evidence whatsoever
of the purported "hack". Largely because they are not in fact trying. Here is another actual fact
I wish you to hang on to: The Democrats have refused the intelligence agencies access to their servers
to discover what actually happened. I am going to say that again.
The Democrats have refused the intelligence agencies access to their servers to discover what
actually happened.
The heads of the intelligence community have said that they regard the report from Crowdstrike
– the Clinton aligned private cyber security firm – as adequate. Despite the fact that the Crowdstrike
report plainly proves nothing whatsoever and is based entirely on an initial presumption there must
have been a hack, as opposed to an internal download.
Not actually examining the obvious evidence has been a key tool in keeping the "Russian hacking"
meme going. On 24 May the Guardian
reported triumphantly , following the Washington Post, that
"Fox News falsely alleged federal authorities had found thousands of emails between Rich and
WikiLeaks, when in fact law enforcement officials disputed that Rich's laptop had even been in possession
of, or examined by, the FBI."
It evidently did not occur to the Guardian as troubling, that those pretending to be investigating
the murder of Seth Rich have not looked at his laptop.
There is a very plain pattern here of agencies promoting the notion of a fake "Russian crime",
while failing to take the most basic and obvious initial steps if they were really investigating
its existence. I might add to that, there has been no contact with me at all by those supposedly
investigating. I could tell them these were leaks not hacks. WikiLeaks The clue is in the name.
So those "17 agencies" are not really investigating but are prepared to endorse weird Crowdstrike
claims, like the idea that Russia's security services are so amateur as to leave fingerprints with
the name of their founder. If the Russians fed the material to WikiLeaks, why would they also set
up a vainglorious persona like Guccifer2 who leaves obvious Russia pointing clues all over the place?
Of course we need to add from the WikiLeaks"Vault 7" leak release, information that the CIA specifically
deploys technology that leaves behind fake
fingerprints of a Russian computer hacking operation.
Crowdstrike have a general anti-Russian attitude. They published a report seeking to allege that
the same Russian entities which "had hacked" the DNC were involved in targeting for Russian artillery
in the Ukraine. This has been
utterly discredited.
Some of the more crazed "Russiagate" allegations have been quietly dropped. The mainstream media
are hoping we will all forget their breathless endorsement of the reports of the charlatan Christopher
Steele, a former middle ranking MI6 man with very limited contacts that he milked to sell
lurid gossip to wealthy and gullible corporations. I confess I rather admire his chutzpah.
Given there is no hacking in the Russian hacking story, the charges have moved wider into a vague
miasma of McCarthyite anti-Russian hysteria. Does anyone connected to Trump know any Russians? Do
they have business links with Russian finance?
Of course they do. Trump is part of the worldwide oligarch class whose financial interests are
woven into a vast worldwide network that enslaves pretty well the rest of us. As are the Clintons
and the owners of the mainstream media who are stoking up the anti-Russian hysteria. It is all good
for their armaments industry interests, in both Washington and Moscow.
Trump's judgment is appalling. His sackings or inappropriate directions to people over this subject
may damage him.
The old Watergate related wisdom is that it is not the crime that gets you, it is the cover-up.
But there is a fundamental difference here. At the center of Watergate there was an actual burglary.
At the center of Russian hacking there is a void, a hollow, and emptiness, an abyss, a yawning chasm.
There is nothing there.
Those who believe that opposition to Trump justifies whipping up anti-Russian hysteria on a massive
scale, on the basis of lies, are wrong. I remain positive that the movement Bernie Sanders started
will bring a new dawn to America in the next few years. That depends on political campaigning by
people on the ground and on social media. Leveraging falsehoods and cold war hysteria through mainstream
media in an effort to somehow get Clinton back to power is not a viable alternative. It is a fantasy
and even were it practical, I would not want it to succeed.
Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster, human rights activist, and former diplomat. He was
British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and Rector of the University of
Dundee from 2007 to 2010. The article is reprinted with permission from
his website .
"... In the wake of a string of special-election defeats, an increasing number of Democrats are calling for an adjustment in party messaging, one that swings the focus from Russia to the economy. The outcome of the 2018 elections, they say, hinges on how well the Democrats manage that shift. ..."
"... "We can't just talk about Russia because people back in Ohio aren't really talking that much about Russia, about Putin, about Michael Flynn," Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) told MSNBC Thursday. "They're trying to figure out how they're going to make the mortgage payment, how they're going to pay for their kids to go to college, what their energy bill looks like." ..."
"... John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus and the author of the dystopian novel Splinterlands . ..."
Shortly after Democrat Jon Ossoff lost a close race in Georgia this
month, Democrats began to speak up about the electoral implications of RussiaGate.
Reports
The Hill
:
In the wake of a string of special-election defeats, an increasing number of
Democrats are calling for an adjustment in party messaging, one that swings the focus from
Russia to the economy. The outcome of the 2018 elections, they say, hinges on how well the
Democrats manage that shift.
"We can't just talk about Russia because people back in Ohio aren't really talking
that much about Russia, about Putin, about Michael Flynn," Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) told
MSNBC Thursday. "They're trying to figure out how they're going to make the mortgage
payment, how they're going to pay for their kids to go to college, what their energy bill
looks like."
At one level, this same debate recurs every election cycle - do people care more about
foreign policy questions or pocketbook issues? The answer is almost always: the economy. At
another level, the debate is about whether Trump's unpopularity can be used against him. It's
another enduring debate: take advantage of the incumbent's negatives or field a positive
alternative? As the 2004 and 2012 election results suggest, the opposition has to offer
something intrinsically appealing or risk defeat.
... ... ...
According to the
triple backlash argument
, Trump
benefited from a worldwide rejection of [neo]liberalism: economically, politically, and
culturally. Large sections of the United States that didn't benefit from economic
globalization watched the disappearance of well-paying jobs from the Rust Belt, rural areas
and small towns, and certain big cities.
These residents of
America
B
blamed politicians from both parties for pushing economic reforms that shifted wealth
upward and out of their communities. And they also blamed a range of "others" for what was
wrong with the country: immigrants, people of color, social liberals. This
economic-political-cultural backlash prepared the ground for a political outsider with an
anti-immigrant agenda and a promise to revive America's sunset industries.
The triple hack argument is much more focused. Trump "hacked" the system in three
important ways, exploiting vulnerabilities to gain his narrow win.
The first hack was of the Electoral College. Trump didn't care about the popular vote. He
knew that he could write off large swathes of the American electorate and concentrate his
forces in a few swing states. So, for instance, the campaign
pulled
resources
out of Virginia, an otherwise important state for Republicans to win, to focus
on the Midwest.
The second hack was the news media. The Trump campaign exploited the mainstream media's
fascination with the outrageous by constantly feeding it new outrages. It also generated a
spate of "fake news" about Hillary Clinton that it distributed on the margins, in places like
Breitbart News and through social media like Facebook and Trump's own Twitter account. Here,
Russian journalists and trolls played a role, though probably not a pivotal one.
Finally, the campaign hacked Facebook in two critical ways. It poured money into an
advertising campaign tailored to the preferences of over 200 million Americans contained in
... ... ...
The investigation into Russian meddling in the American election has inevitably acquired a
partisan taint. The Democrats have used it to question the legitimacy of the election and of
the Trump administration more generally. Trump and the Republicans have accused their
detractors of conducting a witch-hunt.
...
a supposed
effort to "demonize"
Vladimir Putin as part of a campaign to revive Cold War tensions
between Washington and Moscow.
... ... ...
Donald Trump has an answer for the crisis of liberalism and the triple
backlash that produced his electoral victory.
He's challenged the existing global economy by pulling the United States out of the Trans
Pacific Partnership and has promised to tear up - or significantly renegotiate - a number of
other trade deals. He's challenged the liberal administrative state by attempting to gut
social welfare and the government regulatory apparatus across the board. He's challenged
liberal norms of inclusion with his travel ban, an anti-immigrant crusade, and other policies
that will adversely affect women, people of color, and the LGBT community
... ... ...
Russia versus jobs is in some ways a false dichotomy. Progressives have to
devise a comprehensive alternative that responds to both the challenge of Russia and the
failures of liberalism. If we don't, we'll not only lose the mid-terms and the next
presidential election in the United States. We'll lose the planet.
John Feffer is the
director of Foreign Policy In Focus and the author of the dystopian novel
Splinterlands
.
"... Chairperson, the designated Vice Chair as provided for in Article Two, Section 12(b) of the Bylaws, or the next highest ranking officer of the National Committee present at the meeting shall preside. Section 4. The National Chairperson shall serve full time and shall receive such compensation asmay be determined by agreement between the Chairperson and the Democratic National Committee. In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process. ..."
In June of 2016 Jared and Elizabeth Beck filed a lawsuit in Florida against the DNC, (Wilding
v.s. DNC Services Corporation) known mostly online as the #DNCFRAUDLAWSUIT. The case has
slowly wound its way through the courts but has picked up steam in 2017 as court transcripts
and allegations of intimidation have become public.
The plaintiffs have filed a class action suit on behalf of three classes of people,
arguing that the DNC must return all donations given in the 2016 cycle to Bernie Sanders
Donors, DNC Donors and Democrats in general. Why? They claim the DNC defrauded donors in the
2016 primary by failing to remain neutral during the contest. Article 5 section 4 of the
DNC bylaws state
s:
CHARTER
Chairperson, the designated Vice Chair as provided for in Article Two, Section 12(b)
of the Bylaws, or the next highest ranking officer of the National Committee present at the
meeting shall preside. Section 4. The National Chairperson shall serve full time and shall
receive such compensation asmay be determined by agreement between the Chairperson and the
Democratic National Committee. In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of
the Democratic National Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct
of the Presidential nomination process, the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and
evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be
responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National
Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential
nominating process.
Beck and Beck cite the hacked emails from Wikileaks as evidence of Democratic Party
leaders tampering with the primary process.
Political hacks picked up be Clinton stooges in intelligence agencies and guided by Clapper produced what was required on them...
Notable quotes:
"... Stefan Molyneux opens the below video with the song lyrics, "When the walls come crumbling down", as the political analyst comprehensively explains the bullsh**t lie Hillary Clinton and her mainstream media cronies feed the world so as to sabotage Trump's presidency, at the risk of war with Russia. ..."
"... It is a must watch, must share video which puts yet another US Deeep State lie to bed ..."
"... As a reminder as to how stupid the "17 Intelligence Agencies" Russian hacking narrative The FBI did not even get access to the DNC servers. It relied upon data provided by private security firm CrowdStrike, who had to walk back their audit conclusions on the hacks. ..."
"... Because we are certain that the Coast Guard Intelligence Agency, Marine Corps Intelligence Agency, and National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency are authorities when it comes to US election hacking, and thus should be trusted when they sign off to being "highly confident" of Russian election meddling. ..."
Yesterday
The Duran reported that the New York Times was finally forced to admit that the "17 US intelligence agencies" narrative is completely
made up fake news.
The "17 Intelligence Agencies" Russian hacking narrative was the core foundation for which the entire Trump-Russia collusion/cooperation/connection
was built upon.
Stefan Molyneux opens the below video with the song lyrics, "When the walls come crumbling down", as the political analyst
comprehensively explains the bullsh**t lie Hillary Clinton and her mainstream media cronies feed the world so as to sabotage Trump's
presidency, at the risk of war with Russia.
It is a must watch, must share video which puts yet another US Deeep State lie to bed
As a reminder as to
how stupid the "17 Intelligence Agencies" Russian hacking narrative The FBI did not even get access to the DNC servers. It relied
upon data provided by private security firm CrowdStrike,
who had to walk back their audit
conclusions on the hacks.
Below is a complete list of the 16 intelligence agencies in the US Intelligence Community, headed by the Director of National
Intelligence (DNI), whose statutory leadership is exercised through the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), who
under the Obama White House was James R. Clapper making 17 total agencies.
Why the list?
Because we are certain that the Coast Guard Intelligence Agency, Marine Corps Intelligence Agency, and National Geospatial-Intelligence
Agency are authorities when it comes to US election hacking, and thus should be trusted when they sign off to being "highly confident"
of Russian election meddling.
"... Start at 2:25. Chris Hayes to Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell: "How long are you allowed to go before you retroactively file as a foreign agent?" Note Swalwell's carefully phrased non-answers, as well as Hayes' seeming failure to know that not registering is a very common practice. (If video doesn't play in your browser, go here and listen, again starting at 2:25.) ..."
"... The big story is that these chicken-little stories all seam to serve as cover for the bought-and-paid for chicken little politicians ..while those elected politicians who give a damp about their office and those they represent are sidelined. ..."
"... And why do you thing tyrants, despots, emirs and dictators generously donated so much to the phoney Foundation? Because they wanted to further its good works, just like the Saudis are very worried about AIDS prevention? No, they wanted to buy influence. And Clinton gave them what they wanted. And why did these same tyrants, despots, emits and dictators stop donating once Clinton lost? Because she could no longer deliver. ..."
"... Corruption in high places is the norm. It is childish, all this virtue signaling. I would respect the sore losers more if they were honest they want to put Obama in as President for Life the US is Haiti now. Or the Kissinger faction of the MIC could install one of our TV generals as our version of Gen. Pinochet. ..."
"... It was the filthy Clintonites who gave us Trump to begin with. ..."
"... No doubt plenty of insulating layers if money-laundering took place via real estate, though its worth plumbing those depths. But given Trump appointees' soft-ball approach to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, I'd guess that's an arena well worth the time of journalists, insulating layers or not. I recall Sheldon Adelson's disdain for the FCPA likely increasing his fervor to dump Democrats. ..."
"... as I keep reminding people, you can turn on the spigot of MacCarthyism, and you may think that you can turn off that spigot, but you can't. In the case of Joe MacCarthy himself, it didn't truly end till about the time of his premature death from alcoholism. ..."
"... One aspect of the now-thoroughly-rotten system in the U S of A is the constant contesting of election results. As Lambert Strether keeps writing, the electronic voting machines are a black hole, and both parties have been engaged in debasing the vote and diminishing the size of the electorate. The gravamen in both parties is that the voters don't know what they are doing and the ballots aren't being counted properly. Maybe we can do something about that ..."
"... This is an implicit warning about impeachment. I interpret this as a recommendation to vigorously oppose Trump's actions over the next three and a half years, and to effectively campaign against him in 2020. Trump really is a terrible President, but Mike Pence would be terrible, too. And so would Hillary Clinton, but I hope we won't have to worry about her any more. ..."
"... In case you're wondering why I think that Trump is a terrible President, here's a short summary: ..."
"... None of the left-leaning writers who have been pooh-poohing the Russia investigation* have demonstrated a working knowledge of counterintelligence. I've also noticed that they correlate a lack of publicly-known evidence to an actual absence of evidence, which is the purview of the investigation. Investigators will be holding any evidence they discover close to their vests for obvious reasons, but even more so in this case because some of the evidence will have origins where sources and methods will statutorily need to be concealed. ..."
"... If they had anything concrete on Trump we've have heard about it by now. The spooks have been leaking for months – they aren't going to suddenly clam up if they've discovered something that's actually a crime. ..."
"... Until someone presents actual evidence, this investigation is nothing more than Democrat payback for Benghazi, which itself was a BS investigation in search of a crime that went on for years. Unfortunately for sHillary, a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while and they did manage to uncover actual criminality in her case (and brushed it right under the rug). ..."
"... Russia disseminates propaganda that (it hopes) will sway the American election in a direction more favorable to their interests! ..."
"... This is what gets me. We're supposed to me a great power, and we're going nuts on this stuff. It's like an elephant panicking at the sight of a mouse. The political class has lost its grip entirely. ..."
"... How sad, then, that the Pied Piper email showed that the Clinton campaign wanted Trump for their opponent. Or Was she ..."
"... OK, so you are saying that we should trust the word of anonymous leakers from the intelligence community, that is, anonymous leaks from a pack of proven perjurers, torturers, and entrapment artists, all on the basis of supposed evidence that we are not allowed to see. ..."
"... For that matter, how do we know the leakers even exist? When some media outlet wants to publish some made-up story, they can just attribute it to an anonymous source. ..."
"... As Constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz pointed out, the DOJ reports to the President. Trump was completely within his authority to give instructions to Comey and fire him. Dershowitz also points out Trump can pardon anyone, including himself. But Trump doesn't read and oddly no one seems to have clued him in on what Dershowitz has said. ..."
...Gaius quotes Matt Taibbi's line of thought that the relentless Trump investigations will eventually
turn up something, most likely money laundering. However, it's not clear that that can be pinned
on Trump. For real estate transactions, it is the bank, not the property owner, that is responsible
for anti-money-laundering checks. So unless Trump was accepting cash or other payment outside the
banking system, it's going to be hard to make that stick. The one area where he could be vulnerable
is his casinos. However, if I read this history of his casinos correctly,
Trump
could have been pretty much out of that business since 1995 via putting the casinos in a public
entity (although he could have continued to collect fees as a manager). Wikipedia hedges its bets
and says Trump
has been out
of the picture since at least 2011 . He only gets licensing fees and has nada to do with management
and operations. So even if Trump got dirty money, and in particular dirty Russian money, it's hard
to see how that begins to translate into influence over his Presidency, particularly since any such
shady activity took place before Trump was even semi-seriously considering a Presidential bid.
By Gaius Publius
, a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States and frequent contributor to
DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter
@Gaius_Publius ,
Tumblr and
Facebook . GP article archive
here . Originally published at
DownWithTyranny
Start at 2:25. Chris Hayes to Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell: "How long are you allowed to
go before you retroactively file as a foreign agent?" Note Swalwell's carefully phrased non-answers,
as well as Hayes' seeming failure to know that not registering is a very common practice. (If video
doesn't play in your browser, go here and listen, again starting at 2:25.)
"And most pitiful of all that I heard was the voice of the daughter of Priam, of Cassandra" - Homer, The Odyssey
,
Book 11
PRIAM: What noise, what shriek is this? TROILUS: 'Tis our mad sister; I do know her voice. It is Cassandra.
-Shakespeare, Troilus and Cressida ,
Act II, scene 2 "I'll be your Cassandra this week."
-Yours truly
So much of this story is hidden from view, and so much of the past has to be erased to conform
to what's presently painted as true.
Example of the latter: Did you remember that Robert Mueller and Bush's FBI were behind the
highly
suspicious (and likely covered-up) 2001 anthrax investigation - Robert Mueller, today's man of
absolute integrity? Did you remember that James Comey was the man behind the
destruction of the mind of Jose Padilla , just so that Bush could have a terrorist he could point
to having caught - James Comey, today's man of doing always what's right? If you forgot all that
in the rush to canonize them, don't count on the media to remind you - they have
another purpose .
Yes, I'll be your Cassandra this week, the one destined
not to be believed . To what
do I refer? Read on.
How Many Foreign Agents Register as Foreign Agents? A Number Far Smaller Than "All"
Today let's look at one of the original sins pointed to by those trying to take down Trump, leaving
entirely aside whether Trump needs taking down (which he does). That sin - Michael Flynn and Paul
Manafort's failing to register as "foreign agents" (of Turkey and Ukraine, respectively, not Russia)
until very after the fact.
See the Chris Hayes video at the top for Hayes' question to Rep. Eric Swalwell about that. Hayes
to Swalwell: "How long are you allowed to go before you retroactively file as a foreign agent?" What
Swalwell should have answered: "Almost forever by modern American practice."
Jonathan Marshall,
writing at investigative journalist Robert Parry's Consortium News, has this to say about the
current crop of unregistered foreign agents (my emphasis throughout):
The Open Secret of Foreign Lobbying
The alleged hacking of the Hillary Clinton campaign's emails and the numerous contacts of Donald
Trump's circle with Russian officials, oligarchs and mobsters have triggered any number of investigations
into Moscow's alleged efforts to influence the 2016 election and the new administration .
In contrast, as journalist Robert Parry recently
noted , American politicians and the media have been notably silent about other examples of
foreign interference in U.S. national politics. In part that's because supporters of more successful
foreign pressure groups have enough clout to
downplay or deny their very existence . In part it's also because America's political system
is so riddled with big money that jaded insiders rarely question the status quo of influence
peddling by other nations .
The subject of his discussion is the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Under the Act,
failure to properly register carries a penalty of up to five years in prison and $10,000 in fines.
Marshall notes that while the influence of foreign agents was of great national concern during World
War I and World War II, very little is done today to require or enforce FARA registration:
Since the end of World War II, however, enforcement of the Foreign Agents Registration Act
has been notably lax. Its effectiveness has been stymied by political resistance from lobby supporters
as well as by the law's many loopholes -
including Justice Department's admission that FARA "does not authorize the government to inspect
records of those not registered under the Act."
A 2016 audit
by the inspector general of the Department of Justice
determined that half of FARA registrations and 62 percent of initial registrations
were filed late , and 15 percent of registrants simply stopped filing for periods of
six months or more. It also determined that the Department of Justice brought only seven criminal
cases under FARA from 1966 to 2015, and filed no civil injunctions since 1991 .
The result - almost no one registers who doesn't want to.
Here's Russia-savvy
Matt Taibbi , who is looking at the whole Russia-Trump investigation and wonders what's being
investigated. Note his comments about FARA at the end of this quote:
When James Comey was fired I didn't know what to think, because so much of this story
is still hidden from view .
Certainly firing an FBI director who has announced the existence of an investigation targeting
your campaign is going to be improper in almost every case. And in his post-firing rants about
tapes and loyalty, President Trump validated every criticism of him as an impetuous, unstable,
unfit executive who additionally is ignorant of the law and lunges for authoritarian solutions
in a crisis.
But it's our job in the media to be bothered by little details, and the strange timeline of
the Trump-Russia investigation qualifies as a conspicuous loose end.
[So] What exactly is the FBI investigating? Why was it kept secret from other intelligence
chiefs, if that's what happened? That matters, if we're trying to gauge what happened last week.
Is it a FARA (Foreign Agent Registration Act) case involving former National Security Adviser
Michael Flynn or a lower-level knucklehead like Carter Page?
Since FARA is violated more or less daily in Washington and largely ignored by authorities
unless it involves someone without political connections (an awful lot of important people
in Washington who appear to be making fortunes lobbying for foreign countries are merely engaged
in "litigation support," if you ask them), it would be somewhat anticlimactic to find out that
this was the alleged crime underlying our current white-hot constitutional crisis.
Is it something more serious than a FARA case, like money-laundering for instance, involving
someone higher up in the Trump campaign? That would indeed be disturbing, and it would surely
be improper – possibly even impeachable, depending upon what exactly happened behind the scenes
– for Trump to get in the way of such a case playing itself out.
But even a case like that would be very different from espionage and treason . Gutting
a money-laundering case involving a campaign staffer would be more like garden-variety corruption
than the cloak-and-dagger nightmares currently consuming the popular imagination.
Sticking narrowly with FARA for the moment, if this were just a FARA case, it would be more than
"somewhat anticlimactic to find out that this was the alleged crime underlying our current white-hot
constitutional crisis." It would be, not to put to fine a point on it, highly indicative that something
else is going on, that other hands are involved, just as the highly suspicious circumstances around
the takedown of Eliot Spitzer indicate the presence of other hands and other actors.
My best guess, for what it's worth, is that Trump-Russia will devolve into a money-laundering
case, and if it does, Trump will likely survive it, since so many others in the big money world do
the same thing. But let's stick with unregistered foreign agents a bit longer.
John McCain, Randy Scheuneman and the Nation of Georgia
Do you remember the 2008 story about McCain advisor Randy Scheunemann, who claimed he no longer
represented the nation of Georgia while advising the McCain campaign, even though his small (two-person)
firm still retained their business?
In the current [2008] crisis, President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia fell into a Soviet trap
by moving troops into the disputed territory of South Ossetia and raining artillery and rocket
fire on the South Ossetian capital city of Tskhinvali, with a still undetermined loss of civilian
life. As in 1956, the Soviets responded with overwhelming force and additional loss of life. Once
again the United States could offer only words, not concrete aid to the Georgians.
It is difficult to believe that, like the Hungarians in 1956, the Georgians in 2008 could
have taken such action without believing that they could expect support from the United States
. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice denies that the Bush administration was the agent provocateur
in Georgia. To the contrary, a State Department source said that she explicitly warned President
Saakashvili in July to avoid provoking Russia.
If this information is correct, then, by inference, John McCain emerges as the most likely
suspect as agent provocateur . First, McCain had a unique and privileged pipeline to President
Saakashvili (shown to the right in the photo to the right). McCain's top foreign policy advisor,
Randy Scheunemann, was a partner in a two-man firm that served as a paid lobbyist for the Georgian
government . Scheunemann continued receiving compensation from the firm until the McCain campaign
imposed new restrictions on lobbyists in mid-May. Scheunemann reportedly helped arrange a telephone
conversation between McCain and Saakashvili on April 17 of this year, while he was still being
paid by Georgia...
McCain has benefited politically from the crisis in Georgia. McCain's swift and belligerent
response to the Soviet actions in Georgia has bolstered his shaky standing with the right-wing
of the Republican Party. McCain has also used the Georgian situation to assert his credentials
as the hardened warrior ready to do battle against a resurgent Russia. He has pointedly contrasted
his foreign policy experience with that of his Democratic opponent Barack Obama. Since the
crisis erupted, McCain has focused like a laser on Georgia, to great effect . According to
a Quinnipiac
University National Poll released on August 19 he has gained four points on Obama since their
last poll in mid-July and leads his rival by a two to one margin as the candidate best qualified
to deal with Russia.
Was Scheunemann a paid lobbyist for Georgia at the time of these events? He says no. Others
aren't so sure :
Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a liberal-leaning watchdog
group, said Scheunemann still has a conflict of interest because his small firm continues to represent
foreign clients. The records that show Scheunemann ceased representing foreign countries as of
March 1 also show his partner, Michael Mitchell, remains registered to represent the three nations.
Mitchell said Tuesday that Scheunemann no longer has any role with Orion Strategies but declined
to say whether Scheunemann still is receiving income or profits from the firm .
If almost no one registers under FARA who doesn't want to, what's the crime if Flynn didn't register?
The answer seems to be, because he's Trump appointee Michael Flynn, and FARA is a stick his
enemies can beat him with, while they're looking for something better.
The fact that FARA is a stick almost no one is beaten with, matters not at all, it seems.
Not to Democratic politicians and appointees; and not to many journalists either.
An Investigation in Search of a Crime
Questioning the Michael Flynn investigation leads us (and Matt Taibbi) down a further rabbit hole,
which includes two questions: what's being investigated, and how did this investigation start?
Short answer to the first question - no one knows, since unlike the Watergate break-in, this whole
effort didn't start with a crime that needed investigating. It seems to have started with an investigation
(how to get rid of Trump) in search of a crime. And one that still hasn't found evidence of one.
Journalist Robert Parry, who himself was a key Iran-Contra investigator,
makes the same point :
In Watergate , five burglars were caught inside the DNC offices on June 17, 1972, as
they sought to plant more bugs on Democratic phones. (An earlier break-in in May had installed
two bugs, but one didn't work.) Nixon then proceeded to mount a cover-up of his 1972 campaign's
role in funding the break-in and other abuses of power.
In Iran-Contra , Reagan secretly authorized weapons sales to Iran, which was then designated
a terrorist state, without informing Congress, a violation of the Arms Export Control Act. He
also kept Congress in the dark about his belated signing of a related intelligence "finding."
And the creation of slush funds to finance the Nicaraguan Contras represented an evasion of the
U.S. Constitution.
There was also the attendant Iran-Contra cover-up mounted both by the Reagan White House and
later the George H.W. Bush White House, which culminated in Bush's Christmas Eve 1992 pardons
of six Iran-Contra defendants as special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh
was zeroing in on possible indictment of Bush for withholding evidence.
By contrast , Russia-gate has been a "scandal" in search of a specific crime. President
Barack Obama's intelligence chieftains have alleged – without presenting any clear evidence –
that the Russian government hacked into the emails of the Democratic National Committee and of
Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta and released those emails via WikiLeaks and other
Internet sites. (The Russians and WikiLeaks have both denied the accusations.)
The DNC emails revealed that senior Democrats did not maintain their required independence
regarding the primaries by seeking to hurt Sen. Bernie Sanders and help Clinton. The Podesta emails
pulled back the curtain on Clinton's paid speeches to Wall Street banks and on pay-to-play features
of the Clinton Foundation.
Hacking into personal computers is a crime, but the U.S. government has yet to bring any
formal charges against specific individuals supposedly responsible for the hacking of the
Democratic emails. There also has been no evidence that Donald Trump's campaign colluded with
Russians in the hacking.
Lacking any precise evidence of this cyber-crime or of a conspiracy between Russia and the
Trump campaign, Obama's Justice Department holdovers and now special prosecutor Robert Mueller
have sought to build "process crimes," around false statements to investigators and possible
obstruction of justice.
I've yet to see actual evidence of an underlying crime - lots of smoke, which is fine as a starting
point, but no fire, even after months of looking (and months of official leaking about every damning
thing in sight). This makes the current investigation strongly reminiscent of the Whitewater investigation,
another case of Alice (sorry, Ken Starr) jumping into every hole she could find looking for a route
to Wonderland. Ken Starr finally found one, perjury about a blow job. Will Mueller find something
more incriminating? He's still looking too.
Note that none of this means Trump doesn't deserve getting rid of . It just means that
how he's gotten rid of matters. (As you ponder this, consider what you think would be fair
to do to a Democratic president. I guarantee what happens to Trump will be repeated.)
What Was the Sally Yates Accusation Against Flynn Really About?
Short answer to the second question of my two "further rabbit hole" questions - How did this investigation
start? - may be the Sally Yates accusation that Flynn was someone who could be blackmailed.
Here's Parry on that (same link):
In the case of retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump's first national security adviser,
acting Attorney General Sally Yates used the archaic Logan Act of 1799 to create a predicate for
the FBI to interrogate Flynn about a Dec. 29, 2016 conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey
Kislyak, i.e., after Trump's election but before the Inauguration .
Green Party leader Jill Stein and retired Lt. General Michael Flynn attending a dinner marking
the RT network's 10-year anniversary in Moscow, December 2015, sitting at the same table as Russian
President Vladimir Putin.
The Logan Act, which has never resulted in a prosecution in 218 years , was enacted
during the period of the Alien and Sedition Acts to bar private citizens from negotiating on their
own with foreign governments. It was never intended to apply to a national security adviser
of an elected President, albeit before he was sworn in.
But it became the predicate for the FBI interrogation - and the FBI agents were armed with
a transcript of the intercepted Kislyak-Flynn phone call so they could catch Flynn on any gaps
in his recollection, which might have been made even hazier because he was on vacation in the
Dominican Republic when Kislyak called.
Yates also concocted a bizarre argument that the discrepancies between Flynn's account of the
call and the transcript left him open to Russian blackmail although how that would work – since
the Russians surely assumed that Kislyak's calls would be monitored by U.S. intelligence and
thus offered them no leverage with Flynn – was never explained.
Still, Flynn's failure to recount the phone call precisely and the controversy stirred up around
it became the basis for an obstruction of justice investigation of Flynn and led to President
Trump's firing Flynn on Feb. 13.
Do I need, Cassandra-like, to say this again? None of this means that Trump doesn't deserve
getting rid of . It just means that how he's gotten rid of matters.
"So Much of the Story Is Still Hidden From View"
I'm not taking Robert Parry as the final word on this, but he's one word on this, and his
word isn't nothing. If we were looking down rabbit holes for the source of this investigation,
for where all this anti-Trump action started, I don't think Yates' concerns are where it begins.
What I do know is that Manafort and Flynn not registering as foreign agents puts them squarely
in the mainstream of Washington political practice. The fact that these are suddenly crimes of the
century makes me just a tad suspicious that, in Matt Taibbi's words, "so much of this story is still
hidden from view."
I warned you - I'll be your Cassandra this week. crime
I would think that a crime in search of an investigation would be Clinton's private server
while at state and, the tie in thru the Clinton foundation .just saying.
The big story is that these chicken-little stories all seam to serve as cover for the bought-and-paid
for chicken little politicians ..while those elected politicians who give a damp about their office
and those they represent are sidelined.
While some might think there is some tie in with donations to the Clinton Foundation and favors
granted by the political wing of the Clinton Conglomerate and the sudden dissolution of said donations
after the toppling of Dame Clinton by Der Trumpf it appears all such talk originates in the fever
swamp of the right wing echo chamber and it's shot caller the GRU.
Present us evidence that the GRU has any influence, much less is the "shot-caller" with respect
to the "right-wing echo chamber".
And why do you thing tyrants, despots, emirs and dictators generously donated so much to the
phoney Foundation? Because they wanted to further its good works, just like the Saudis are very
worried about AIDS prevention? No, they wanted to buy influence. And Clinton gave them what they wanted. And why did these same tyrants, despots, emits and dictators stop donating once Clinton lost?
Because she could no longer deliver.
I cannot tell if Ed's comment is straight or satire or snarcasm or what. The internet is a
poor place to try such things.
I am going to take it as a straight comment. The Clintons have been grooming Chelsea for public
office and will try desperately to get her elected to something somewhere. That way, they will
still have influence to peddle and their Family of Foundations will still be worth something.
I hope Chelsea's wanna-have political career is strangled in the cradle. And hosed down with
napalm and incinerated down to some windblown ashes.
That investigation has been firmly crammed down the rabbit hole and cemented over.
If it had taken place in a nation where laws meant anything it would have likely disclosed:
Clinton set up a private computer server center to control the information about her background,
financial dealings, and political arrangements while serving as Secretary of State in the Obama
administration.
Obama was aware of the arrangement
Clinton transferred classified and top secrete documents to her private server. This is by
definition theft.
Clinton defied subpoenas, refused to turn over documents, and destroyed evidence. This is
by definition obstruction of justice.
In spite of being informed that the server was not secure, Clinton placed classified and sensitive
national security information on the server. This is equivalent to printing the same documents
on paper and walking through Central Park throwing them at the squirrels. And it fits the legal
definition of treason.
Failure to prosecute Clinton is graphic proof that the US is not a nation of laws, but rather
one where power, bribes and influence peddling determine who the law applies to.
Corruption in high places is the norm. It is childish, all this virtue signaling. I would respect
the sore losers more if they were honest they want to put Obama in as President for Life the
US is Haiti now. Or the Kissinger faction of the MIC could install one of our TV generals as our
version of Gen. Pinochet.
Since he won't be impeached, I assume Gaius meant Trump should be assassinated? In the USA
every four years we have the opportunity to battle over the control of voting machine software,
voter disqualification and hanging chads. But if we want to change Presidents in mid-stream the
traditional method is to have them shot.
It was the filthy Clintonites who gave us Trump to begin with. Let Trump be smeared all over
their face and shoved way deep up their noses till 2020. And if the Clintonite scum give us another Clintonite nominee in 2020, then let Trump be elected
all over again. I'll vote for that.
As regards the 2008 Georgian situation discussed here, Russia seems to have been referred to
as Soviet . Twice. This happened for some years in the '90s but it is rather late to
do so these days. Maybe I misunderstood something?
You did not misunderstand; yes, the author of that article was sloppy. He was switching back
and forth between events of 1956 and 2008, and he failed to adequately proofread what he wrote
about 2008.
Gaius offers a realistic and well-put caution for Democrats and journalists taking their eye
off the ball of the Mnuchin crowd.
I've a good friend who's exasperated when I utter such blasphemies, asking how I could have
missed the constant swell of opinion by Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert, Joe Scarborough, Rachel Meadow,
etc
When I reply that prospects outside the courts of comedians and MSNBC infotainment pundits
goosing their base are different – and I'm not so sure I'd prefer a less crass and crazed President
Pence armed with Trumpster strategies – I'm asked "But what about justice?!!!"
Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown.
No doubt plenty of insulating layers if money-laundering took place via real estate, though
its worth plumbing those depths. But given Trump appointees' soft-ball approach to the Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act, I'd guess that's an arena well worth the time of journalists, insulating
layers or not. I recall Sheldon Adelson's disdain for the FCPA likely increasing his fervor to
dump Democrats.
And let's apply the justice to everyone , not just the "enemy camp" of whoever happens
to be speaking.
And let's apply justice to those at the top first. Only after cleaning out all the top, most
privileged layers, then the layers beneath them, should justice be applied to those at the bottom
socio-economic layers. IOW, the opposite of the strategy we've seen applied over most of our history
in many or most places.
Yves Smith: Thanks for this. Astute observations. And as I keep reminding people, you can turn
on the spigot of MacCarthyism, and you may think that you can turn off that spigot, but you can't.
In the case of Joe MacCarthy himself, it didn't truly end till about the time of his premature
death from alcoholism.
Hence the observation above in the posting that the rightwingers will pull out the same techniques
if a Democrat wins the next election.
One aspect of the now-thoroughly-rotten system in the U S of A is the constant contesting of
election results. As Lambert Strether keeps writing, the electronic voting machines are a black
hole, and both parties have been engaged in debasing the vote and diminishing the size of the
electorate. The gravamen in both parties is that the voters don't know what they are doing and
the ballots aren't being counted properly. Maybe we can do something about that
I'm sure readers will be shocked to learn that the electoral system referred to is that used
in Venezuela in 2012. And it will be the rare person who can distinguish between a superior system
for conducting an election and a result that they don't like.
Do I need, Cassandra-like, to say this again? None of this means that Trump doesn't deserve
getting rid of.
No. You didn't need to say it even once. Another interesting analysis utterly ruined by the writer's incessant feverish need to virtue
signal himself as a Trump hater. Ugh!
You write an article chock-full of information clearly pointing to corruption, venality, un-democratic
machinations, and still you feel the need to repeat over and over and over again that does not
mean that you don't want to remove Trump. Remove him? Like how, Gaius? And why? Why not remove the people you write about in your article? Why not say 40 times you want to
remove them. Undemocratically, of course. As you say in your article, be careful of how the talk about removing people one does not like.
You're a Cassandra alright. And methinks the lady doth protest too much.
Note that none of this means Trump doesn't deserve getting rid of. It just means that how
he's gotten rid of matters. (As you ponder this, consider what you think would be fair to do
to a Democratic president. I guarantee what happens to Trump will be repeated.)
This is an implicit warning about impeachment. I interpret this as a recommendation to
vigorously oppose Trump's actions over the next three and a half years, and to effectively campaign
against him in 2020. Trump really is a terrible President, but Mike Pence would be terrible, too.
And so would Hillary Clinton, but I hope we won't have to worry about her any more.
In case you're wondering why I think that Trump is a terrible President, here's a short
summary:
Scott Pruitt
Betsy DeVos
Jeff Sessions
Steven Mnuchin
Tom Price
Neil Gorsuch
There are other reasons, but that list should suffice for now.
None of the left-leaning writers who have been pooh-poohing the Russia investigation* have
demonstrated a working knowledge of counterintelligence. I've also noticed that they correlate
a lack of publicly-known evidence to an actual absence of evidence, which is the purview of the
investigation. Investigators will be holding any evidence they discover close to their vests for
obvious reasons, but even more so in this case because some of the evidence will have origins
where sources and methods will statutorily need to be concealed.
Furthermore, many of these writers appear to be unfamiliar with the case law governing the
major features of the case. Yes, money laundering may be a part of the case and a financial blog
may emphasize that aspect of the case because that's what they're familiar with, but what we're
fundamentally looking at is possible violations of the Espionage Act, as well as the obstruction
of justice by certain players to hide their involvement. Not a single one of these articles (or
any of the cable news shows) have taken note of one of the juiciest and obscure pieces of evidence
that's right there out in the open, if you'd been following this as closely as I have. As much
as I admire Gaius Publius and Matt Taibbi, and trust their reporting within their demonstrated
and reliable competencies, neither have really written about intelligence activities in a thoroughgoing
manner in order to be identified as journalists specializing in matters pertaining to intelligence,
espionage, spies. Publius writes about political economy and Taibbi is as "Russia savvy" as your
average Russian citizen; maybe less so. And being Russia savvy does not make you FSB savvy. Now
if Sy Hersh wrote something about L'Affaire Russe, that would be worth seriously considering.
*I won't even address the seriousness or motives of the people on the right who have been pooh-poohing
the Russia investigation. But it is curious for otherwise "GOP-savvy" lefties to align with people
who spout Fox News talking points all the live long day, and who are wrong about everything, all
the time, and not in a "broken clock tells correct time twice a day" sort of way.
If they had anything concrete on Trump we've have heard about it by now. The spooks have been
leaking for months – they aren't going to suddenly clam up if they've discovered something that's
actually a crime.
Until someone presents actual evidence, this investigation is nothing more than Democrat payback
for Benghazi, which itself was a BS investigation in search of a crime that went on for years.
Unfortunately for sHillary, a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while and they did manage to
uncover actual criminality in her case (and brushed it right under the rug).
Just what makes Putin "the enemy"? Russia disseminates propaganda that (it hopes) will sway the American election in a direction
more favorable to their interests! and in other news, the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.
> Russia disseminates propaganda that (it hopes) will sway the American election in a direction
more favorable to their interests!
This is what gets me. We're supposed to me a great power, and we're going nuts on this stuff.
It's like an elephant panicking at the sight of a mouse. The political class has lost its grip
entirely.
> Putin must be delighted to have a vainglorious ignoramus presiding over a US government paralyzed
by division
How sad, then, that the Pied Piper email showed that the Clinton campaign wanted Trump for
their opponent. Or Was she Putin's stooge? Perhaps the server she left open to the world
for three months with no password provided the Russkis with some kompromat ? Really,
there's as much evidence for that theory as anything else
> so must also likewise concede that there may be more there than you suppose
So either there's something there or there isn't. That does seem to exhaust the possibilities.
If only Maddow, the Clintonites, whichever factions in the intelligence community that are
driving the "drip, drip, drip" of stories, the Jeff Bezos Shopper, cable, and all the access journalists
writing it all up would take such a balanced perspective .
OK, so you are saying that we should trust the word of anonymous leakers from the intelligence
community, that is, anonymous leaks from a pack of proven perjurers, torturers, and entrapment
artists, all on the basis of supposed evidence that we are not allowed to see.
Because secret squirrel counterintelligence. Ah, now I get it.
We don't know who the leakers are. They're anonymous, but they willingly associate themselves
with an intelligence community, the very organizations that commit perjury, that engage in torture,
that do entrapment, all on a regular basis. Not to mention other crimes for which men have hung,
such as gin up up evidence to drive this country towards aggressive war. So nothing to be suspicious
of here.
These organizations have been leaking on a regular basis but they have not leaked evidence.
That by itself is suspicious, since in a white collar crime case, a serial killer case, etc. we
don't usually have a flood of anonymous leaks coming from supposed investigators.
Nor in a garden-variety criminal investigation do we have the suspect laid out in advance,
and any leaks are intended to make the suspect guilty in the mind of the public, before charges
or brought or a crime is determined.
For that matter, how do we know the leakers even exist? When some media outlet wants to publish
some made-up story, they can just attribute it to an anonymous source.
Nope. Telling us prawns to wait until the evidence is in, or, worse, that only the specialists
can be trusted, is one of the tactics of repression that the elite use while they are busy manufacturing
and/or hiding said evidence. And surely by now we all know that "specialists" have no clothes.
If you want serious analysis by seriously non-left people who have broken rocks in the quarry
of intelligence, you can read Sic Semper Tyrannis. They have offered some hi-valu input on this
whole "Putin diddit" deal.
They also offered some hi-valu input on the Hillary server matter. And Colonel Lang had a thing
or three to say about the Clinton Family of Foundations . . . including a little-remarked-upon
stealth-laundry-pipeline registered in Canada.
Philip Giraldi has also written guest-posts at Sic Semper Tyrannis from time to time. The name
"Philip Giraldi' is one of the pickable subject-category names on the right side of the SST homepage.
> Not a single one of these articles (or any of the cable news shows) have taken note of one
of the juiciest and obscure pieces of evidence that's right there out in the open, if you'd been
following this as closely as I have.
Or, you know, probable cause to investigate based on very public admissions. Production before
a grand jury is secret under penalty of criminal prosecution. Once probable cause is affirmed,
then the indictments will be under seal for what could be some time. I think it's probable that
there may already be indictments against some of the players. DJT may already be a John Doe. The
Fed GJ's in DC are three months long, the current one wrapping up third week of August [a guess
based on past experience as a 3rd party]. Expect movement early this fall.
As Constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz pointed out, the DOJ reports to the President. Trump
was completely within his authority to give instructions to Comey and fire him. Dershowitz also
points out Trump can pardon anyone, including himself. But Trump doesn't read and oddly no one
seems to have clued him in on what Dershowitz has said.
Nixon was a completely different case. There had been an actual crime, a break in. Archibald
Cox was an special prosecutor appointed by Congress. Firing him raised Constitutional issues.
If you really want to go down the rabbit hole, read the complaint in "Kriss et al v. BayRock
Group LLC et al" [ 1:10-cv-03959-LGS-DCF ] in NY Southern District. It's a RICO. It goes from
the 46-story Trump SoHo condo-hotel on Spring Street to Iceland [?] and beyond. Then check out
DJT's deposition in Trilogy Properties "LLC et al v. SB Hotel Associates LLC et al" [ 1:09cv21406
] and his D&O doc production.
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.
I've said repeatedly that people should stop hyperventilating about Trump and Russia and if
anything should be bothered that he was in business with a crook, as in Felix Sater. I was on
this long ago. Sater is Brighton Beach mafia. That means Jewish mafia, BTW; he worked Jewish connections
overseas. He's not connected to anyone of any importance in Russia. No one with any sophistication
would do business with a felon who turned state's evidence. Means he can't be trusted (by upstanding
people, because he's a crook, and by crooks, because he sang like a canary).
On the latest one, "
GOP Operative Sought Clinton Emails From Hackers, Implied a Connection to Flynn ," unlocked
at the WSJ, the main source, long-time Republican oppo researcher Peter W. Smith, left the land
of the living on May 14 of this year, at the age of 81. So, on the up side, we've finally got a source with a name. On the down side, he's dead.
Do better!
There are many keyboard warriors itching for a civil war in the U.S. Some even type "bring it on" and post to popular Internet
forums and comment boards. But do they really know what they are asking for?
Matt Bracken has seen civil wars in various countries where he's served in our armed forces. He's been there, and it ain't pretty.
This is an important broadcast that anyone wanting to understand the war of ideologies taking place right now - the cultural war
we are seeing within the United States - should hear.
He's telling the truth. The left is using the language of incitement to war. It's the leaders and Hollywood scumbags MUST be
taken out and tried for treason. They will start a massive war if we don't neutralize them immediately.
As the instrumentalities of DOJ governance are rebuilt, We The People will probably have to wait until after the August recess
before new US Attorneys and new FBI Director are confirmed. Pivotal window of time - July/ August 2017
I love Matt Bracken. I never miss what he has to say. Scary stuff but reality is scary. Who can deny his knowledge and patriotism?
NOT me.He knows what he talks about and we better listen people. . I look for him here, on Infowars and Caravan to Midnight too.Thank
you Matt.I like to say..."Release the Bracken.".
Democrats Help Corporate Donors Block California Health
Care Measure, And Progressives Lose Again
BY DAVID SIROTA ON 06/26/17 AT 4:06 PM
As Republican lawmakers grapple with their unpopular bill
to repeal Obamacare, Democrats have tried to present a united
front on health care. But for all their populist rhetoric
against insurance and drug companies, Democratic powerbrokers
and their allies remain deeply divided on the issue - to the
point where a political civil war has spilled into the open
in America's largest state.
In California last week, Democratic state Assembly Speaker
Anthony Rendon helped his and his party's corporate donors
block a Democrat-sponsored bill to create a universal health
care program in which the government would be the single
payer.
Rendon's decision shows how progressives' ideal of
universal health care remains elusive - even in a liberal
state where government already foots 70 percent of the total
health care bill.
Until Rendon's move, things seemed to be looking up for
Democratic single-payer proponents in deep blue California,
which has been hammered by insurance premium increases.
There, the Democratic Party - which originally created
Medicare - just added a legislative supermajority to a
Democratic-controlled state government that oversees the
world's sixth largest economy. That 2016 election victory
came as a poll showed nearly two-thirds of Californians
support the creation of a taxpayer-funded universal health
care system in a state whose population is roughly the size
of Canada - which already has such a system.
California's highest-profile federal Democratic lawmaker
recently endorsed state efforts to create single-payer
systems, and 25 members of its congressional delegation had
signed on to sponsor a federal single-payer bill.
Meanwhile, after Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had
twice vetoed state single-payer legislation, California in
2010 elected a governor who had previously campaigned for
president on a pledge to support such a system. Other
statewide elected officials had also declared their support
for single-payer, including the current lieutenant governor,
who promised to enact a universal health care program if he
is wins the governorship in 2018.
None of that, though, made the difference: Late Friday,
Rendon announced that even though a single-payer bill had
passed the Democratic-controlled state senate, he would not
permit the bill to be voted on by the Assembly this year.
"As someone who has long been a supporter of single payer,
I am encouraged by the conversation begun by Senate Bill
562," Rendon said. But "senators who voted for SB 562 noted
there are potentially fatal flaws in the bill, including the
fact it does not address many serious issues, such as
financing, delivery of care, cost controls, or the realities
of needed action by the Trump Administration and voters to
make SB 562 a genuine piece of legislation."
Since 2012, Rendon has taken in more than $82,000 from
business groups and healthcare corporations that are listed
in state documents opposed the measure, according to an
International Business Times review of data amassed by the
National Institute on Money In State Politics. In all, he has
received more than $101,000 from pharmaceutical companies and
another $50,000 from major health insurers.
In the same time, the California Democratic Party has
received more than $1.2 million from the specific groups
opposing the bill, and more than $2.2 million from
pharmaceutical and health insurance industry donors. That
includes a $100,000 infusion of cash from Blue Shield of
California in the waning days of the 2016 election - just
before state records show the insurer began lobbying against
the single-payer bill.
While Rendon oversees a supermajority, it had never been
clear that Assembly Democrats would muster the two-thirds
vote needed under the state constitution to add the new taxes
needed to fund the single-payer system proposed by the
senate-passed bill. That is because the Democratic Assembly
caucus includes progressive legislators but also more
conservative members who are closer to business interests.
In addition to the money given to Rendon, the groups
opposing the single-payer measure have delivered more than
$1.5 million to Democratic assembly members since the 2012
election cycle. In all, the 55 Democratic members of the
80-seat Assembly have received more than $2.7 million from
donors in the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries
in just the last three election cycles.
Complicating matters for this year's single-payer bill was
the fact that the pharmaceutical industry had just spent more
than $100 million to defeat a 2016 ballot measure in
California aimed at lowering drug prices. That wave of money
was a powerful reminder that major industries opposed to
single-payer have virtually unlimited resources to spend
against California's Democratic incumbents in the next
election if those Democrats ultimately try to pass a bill.
"Subject To Enormous Uncertainty"
The episode in California was the latest defeat for
single-payer health care advocates, who have faced a string
of losses at the hands of Democrats whose party has continued
to attract significant cash from the health care industries
that benefit from the current system.
In the last decade, Barack Obama raised millions of
dollars from health care industry donors and then backed off
his previous support for single-payer. He and other
administration officials explicitly declared that the
Affordable Care Act would not become a Medicare-for-all
system. The Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate then failed to
pass a proposal to create a publicly run insurance option to
compete with private insurers.
More recently, Vermont's Democratic Gov. Peter Shumlin
abandoned his state's high-profile push for single-payer in
2014 - just as he was serving as chairman of the Democratic
Governors Association, a group whose top donors included
UnitedHealthcare, Blue Cross, AstraZeneca and the
pharmaceutical industry's trade association.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's
campaign was boosted by millions of dollars from health care
industry donors, and she derided Bernie Sanders for pushing
single payer, saying such an idea would "never, ever come to
pass." In the same 2106 election, prominent Democratic Party
consultants helped lead an insurer-funded campaign - backed
by prominent Democratic lawmakers - to kill a single-payer
ballot measure in Colorado.
And yet despite those defeats, single-payer advocates were
thinking big at the beginning of 2017. Heading into the new
legislative sessions, Democrats controlled both governorships
and legislatures in six states - and another
Democratic-leaning state with a Democratic governor, New
York, appeared to have legislative support for single-payer.
With its Democratic supermajority, California was the biggest
focus of attention among progressive healthcare advocates.
According to a June report by California senate analysts,
the single-payer legislation that was introduced in
Sacramento this year would have created a government agency
called Healthy California that would be "required to provide
comprehensive universal single-payer health care coverage
system for all California residents." The program would have
been prohibited from charging participants premiums and
co-pays and would have covered "all medical care determined
to be medically appropriate by the members' health care
provider," according to the Senate report.
While the report said fiscal estimates "are subject to
enormous uncertainty," it projected that $200 billion worth
of existing federal, state and local health care spending
would offset about half of the estimated $400 billion annual
cost. Shifting that money, though, could require California
to secure waivers from the federal government that would
allow it to redirect the federal money into the new program.
The original bill did not include a specific tax proposal
to raise the rest of the needed revenue. However, the report
estimated that the other $200 billion could be funded by
moving state payroll taxes up to 15 percent , a levy the
report said "would be offset to a large degree by reduced
spending on health care coverage by employers and employees."
"The Only Health Care System That Makes Any Sense"
At the start of California's legislative session, bill
proponents pitched the sweeping measure as a way to protect
the state from Trump administration health care policy. They
may have been banking on support from California's top
Democrat, Gov. Jerry Brown, who endorsed single payer during
his 1992 presidential campaign.
"I believe the only health care system that makes any
sense is a single-payer system," Brown said during a March
1992 Democratic presidential forum. "I don't see any way,
after having worked on this problem in the largest state in
the union, which, after all, has the highest medical costs,
to really contain costs without establishing a single payer
for all basic services."
But as the the California legislation began moving
forward, Brown cast doubts on it in comments to reporters in
March.
"Where do you get the extra money?...This is the whole
question. I don't even get ... how do you do that?" said
Brown, who has collected more than a quarter-million dollars
of campaign contributions from groups opposing the bill.
Supporters of the legislation tried to answer the
governor's question with a detailed economic analysis
asserting that the legislation could save the state money
through lower administrative costs and drug prices.
"Providing full universal coverage would increase overall
system costs by about 10 percent, but ... single payer system
could produce savings of about 18 percent," concluded a May
2017 study led by University of Massachusetts-Amherst
economist Robert Pollin. "The proposed single-payer system
could provide decent health care for all California residents
while still reducing net overall costs by about 8 percent
relative to the existing system."
That same month, U.S. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi
- California's highest-ranking federal official -- seemed to
give the idea a boost. At a Capitol Hill press conference,
she said "the comfort level with a broader base of the
American people is not there yet" for a federal
Medicare-for-all bill, but she promoted state efforts.
"I say to people, if you want that, do it in your states.
States are laboratories. It can work out. It is the least
expensive, least administrative way to go about this," she
said. "States are a good place to start."
Economist Pollin echoed that argument, telling IBT that
the California situation is fundamentally different than
Vermont, which in 2014 abandoned its high-profile effort to
create the nation's first state-based single-payer system.
While single-payer could still be feasible in small states,
he said, the concept was particularly well suited to a very
large state like California.
"The issue of bargaining power is important relative to
pharmaceutical companies, and that's one big area of
savings," he told IBT. "If the pharmaceutical companies say
we're not interested in selling to Vermont, they can walk
away from Vermont. But they can't do the same thing with
California because it's too large a market. It's the same
thing with doctors - they are not going to run away from a
market of 33 million people just because their reimbursement
rates will be at Medicare levels. And the state of California
is already used to running big operations, so it has the
administrative power to do this kind of thing."
"Woefully Incomplete"
Despite Brown's lack of support, and opposition from
Republican lawmakers and health insurers, the California
senate passed the single-payer bill in June. Vermont Sen.
Bernie Sanders pressed the Democratic governor and California
lawmakers to enact the bill.
"As we sit here tonight, the California state senate has
passed single-payer," Sanders told a gathering of thousands
of activists in Chicago. "Now it's up to the California House
and the governor to do the right thing and help us transform
health care in this country by leading the way."
All of the pressure, however, was not enough to persuade
Rendon. Calling the legislation "woefully incomplete," he
announced that "SB 562 will remain in the Assembly Rules
Committee until further notice."
The move was instantly polarizing. Inside the labor
movement, the California branch of the Service Employees
International Union - which has long supported single-payer
health care - issued a statement supporting Rendon's
decision, saying the organization wants changes to the
legislation. SEIU's affiliates have previously negotiated a
collective bargaining agreement with insurer Kaiser
Permanente, which would be "dismantled" under the
single-payer bill, according to Kaiser's lobbyist.
By contrast, the California Nurses Association, which
represents 100,000 unionized nurses in the state, slammed
Rendon, asserting that he had acted "in secret in the
interests of the profiteering insurance companies" and that
he had "destroy[ed] the aspirations of millions of
Californians for guaranteed health care."
The internecine attacks were equally fierce within the
Democratic Party.
"Today's announcement that the Assembly will not be moving
forward on single-payer, Medicare-for-All healthcare for
California at this time is an unambiguous disappointment for
all of us who believe that healthcare is a right for every
Californian," said newly elected California Democratic Party
chairman Eric Bauman, who until the middle of June had worked
in the Assembly speaker's office under Rendon, and ran his
Southern California office. "We understand that SB 562 is a
work in progress, but we believe it should keep moving
forward, especially in light of the widespread suffering that
will occur if Trump and Congressional Republicans succeed in
passing their cold-blooded, morally bankrupt so-called
healthcare legislation."
Perhaps seeking to bridge the divide, Rendon left open the
possibility that the bill will come up next year.
"Because this is the first year of a two-year session,
this action does not mean SB 562 is dead," he said. "In fact,
it leaves open the exact deep discussion and debate the
senators who voted for SB 562 repeatedly said is needed. The
Senate can use that time to fill the holes in SB 562 and pass
and send to the Assembly workable legislation that addresses
financing, delivery of care, and cost control."
Rendon's focus on financing underscored the fact that
passing tax increases to generate hundreds of billions of
dollars of new revenue is generally no easy political task -
and such initiatives can be particularly tricky in
California. There, a 1988-passed measure called Proposition
98 typically requires that a significant amount of any new
tax revenue must go to education. Another 1979 measure known
as the Gann limit also aims to restrict spending increases.
Funding a single-payer system could require complex
legislation or even a separate ballot measure.
Bill proponents, though, say those potential roadblocks
are navigable within the scope of the bill they are pushing.
In an interview with IBT, Michael Lighty of the California
Nurses Association noted that the Senate version of the
legislation included language to make sure that the new
health care system would not launch unless state officials
certified that adequate funding was available.
"The speaker says the bill is 'woefully incomplete' but he
stopped the process that would have completed it," Lighty
said. "We have a failsafe mechanism in the legislation. In
the event anticipated monies are not available from whatever
source for whatever reason, we can address it before full
program operation. There are all sorts of options, but you
can't do any of it if the bill doesn't move forward."
Bauman told IBT that despite the opposition within his own
party, he expects progressive Democrats to continue pushing
for single payer.
"What Democratic activists need to be doing every day is
educating our elected officials and the public on just how
important the fight for health care is, and on why this is
the moral and ethical fight of the day," he said.
"Yes the California Senate pased(sic) a "single
payer" proposal but it is not moving in the House until
someone does the hard work of deciding: (a) what are the
details about what is being provided; and (b) how it will be
paid for."
"... By Norman Solomon, the coordinator of the online activist group RootsAction.org and the executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. He is the author of a dozen books including "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death." ..."
"... The Hill ..."
"... "While the voters have a keen interest in any Russian election interference, they are concerned that the investigations have become a distraction for the president and Congress that is hurting rather than helping the country." ..."
"... In early spring, the former communications director of the 2016 Clinton presidential campaign, Jennifer Palmieri, summarized the post-election approach in a Washington Post ..."
"... Polling data now indicate how wrong such claims are. ..."
"... Initially in lockstep this year, Democrats on Capitol Hill probably didn't give it a second thought if they read my article published by The Hill ..."
"... I find political strategy-speak such as "an adjustment in party messaging" to be sickening. The Democrats still seem to be talking about manipulating perception, rather than actually doing anything fundamentally different. ..."
"... Identity politics is basically a divide and rule strategy to keep progressive candidates off the ballot, the real purpose of the Democratic Party establishment. That is what they are being paid for. ..."
"... The first world has had enough neolib, pendulum has started moving the other way. Macron shows the desperation to try something new without embracing right wing LePen an option not available here, so revulsion to neolib resulted in Trump.. ..."
"... There are already significant legal barriers to the creation of a new party. Both parties will probably gang up on any new party development too. ..."
"... The Dims – because that's what these people truly are – will just assume that they haven't put enough effort into "Russia" and go triple- or quadruple-up on every failed candidate, strategy, platform, message, consultant, focus-group and whatever else a sane leadership should by now have been tarring, feathering and releasing the hounds upon. ..."
"... for Dims. The Russia thing is irresistible because it's supposed to get nationalistic rubes to turn against Trump while sucking up to the military-industrial complex. And yet, it didn't work during the campaign either. ..."
"... The fixation of Clintonites, or frustrated dems with russiagate is very telling and well explained here. It strikes me how the russiagate has treated so uncritically by the "liberal" press in Spain. ..."
"... Even if "evidence" would appear after all this time, do we not suspect it has been cooked in the truth-telling factories of the FBI, CIA, and NSA, all in bed with right-wing warmongers who own both parties ( not just Republicans – sorry, integer )? ..."
"... Comment was to your saying the security establishment "which is primarily GOP owned or aligned". Both parties, in a sense, "own" it, and use segments of it to advantage when necessary. But further, both the parties and agencies are "owned" by the power of capital as it is currently operating, and this power behind the throne makes the security and party establishment dance. You and I are on the ground, trying to avoid the footwork. ..."
"... This is one reason why russiagate is inevitable. Who wants to tell the donors that the Team D brain trust pissed away a billion and a half, with nothing to show for it? But if the election was somehow stolen (eeevil Russkies!) then it wasn't really Team D's fault you see, and then ..."
"... The entire Russia-gate issue ignores/insults the voters the Democrats hope to influence. To some extent, the Democrats are telling the deplorable Trump voters, "The Russians influenced you to vote for Trump, someone who you have been aware of for many years, over the other well-known candidate Hillary Clinton" ..."
"... The Trump voter is probably more than a little irritated to have their voting actions viewed this way, they do not see themselves influenced by the Russians and do not understand why the Russians COULD significantly influence the election when the USA spends so much money on the CIA, FBI, NSA and US military. ..."
"... The entire Russia-gate issue ignores/insults the voters the Democrats hope to influence. ..."
"... To some extent, the Democrats are telling the deplorable Trump voters, "The Russians influenced you to vote for Trump, someone who you have been aware of for many years, over the other well-known candidate Hillary Clinton" ..."
"... Unfortunately for the voters Bill Clinton and Obama and the Dem estab are neoliberals. Bill and O were neoliberals running in New Deal clothing. The current Dem estab is neolib. A better "message" sans better policies isn't any better than focusing on Russia, imo. ..."
"... Gore Vidal (among others) used to point out that the dirty little secret of America's anti-communist right was that they were actually jealous of the brutal tactics the commies could use against their dissenters and secretly – and in many cases, not so secretly – wished they could do the same thing here. ..."
"... What if "RussiaGate" was only really intended to pressure Trump hard against any diplomatic rapprochement with a country the Neocons have targeted? ..."
"... Trump's foreign policy has been relentlessly steered into a direction the Clintons always intended to take it. Ticking off the last countries on Israel's 'enemy list' as compiled by the PNAC creeps. Recall the statement of Col. Wilkerson or one of those old guard people who wandered into an office in the Pentagon to find that there was a list of countries to be destroyed, starting with Iraq and ending finally with Iran. Syria and Libya were on it. ..."
"... This whole thing is about a high level grand strategic plan that involves destabilizing and overthrowing governments the US and Israel find annoying and insufficiently obeisant. The ultimate goal will be breaking the Russian Federation into a bunch of independent statelets. This isn't 'conspiracy theory' – it's what Brzezinski advocated and aligns neatly with the needs of the military-industrial-financial complex and its obsession with total control over world energy supplies as a lever for domination. ..."
"... Cold, you bring up a topic often ignored that I find highly credible. The Deep State with all its power to manufacture information and create chaos has a long-standing interest in maintaining Russiaphobia. The Soviet Union was certainly the best enemy they have ever known. Without it trillions of dollars of armaments would have never been sold and billions of dollars of spy agency bureaucracies never have been funded. ..."
"... This has been mission accomplished for the Dems. You just have to assume they want the country to move right. ..."
By Norman Solomon, the coordinator of the online activist group
RootsAction.org
and
the executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. He is the author
of a dozen books including "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep
Spinning Us to Death."
The plan for Democrats to run against
Russia may be falling apart.
After squandering much of the last six months on faulting Russians for the
horrific presidency of Donald Trump
After blaming America's dire shortfalls of democracy on plutocrats in Russia
more than on plutocrats in America
After largely marketing the brand of their own party as more anti-Russian
than pro-working-people
After stampeding many Democratic Party-aligned organizations, pundits and
activists into fixating more on Russia than on the thousand chronic cuts to
democracy here at home
After soaking up countless hours of TV airtime and vast quantities of ink
and zillions of pixels to denounce Russia in place of offering progressive
remedies to the deep economic worries of American voters
Now, Democrats in Congress and other party leaders are starting to face an
emerging reality: The "winning issue" of Russia is a losing issue.
The results of a reliable new nationwide poll - and what members of Congress
keep hearing when they actually listen to constituents back home - cry out for
a drastic reorientation of Democratic Party passions. And a growing number of
Democrats in Congress are getting the message.
"Frustrated Democrats hoping to elevate their election fortunes have a
resounding message for party leaders: Stop talking so much about Russia,"
The
Hill
reported
over
the weekend. In sharp contrast to their party's top spokespeople,
"rank-and-file Democrats say the Russia-Trump narrative is simply a non-issue
with district voters, who are much more worried about bread-and-butter economic
concerns like jobs, wages and the cost of education and healthcare."
The Hill
coverage added: "In the wake of a string of
special-election defeats, an increasing number of Democrats are calling for an
adjustment in party messaging, one that swings the focus from Russia to the
economy. The outcome of the 2018 elections, they say, hinges on how well the
Democrats manage that shift."
Such assessments aren't just impressionistic or anecdotal. A major poll has
just reached conclusions that indicate party leaders have been operating under
political illusions.
Conducted last week, the Harvard-Harris national poll found a big disconnect
between the Russia obsession of Democratic Party elites in Washington and
voters around the country.
The poll "reveals the risks inherent for the Democrats, who are hoping to
make big gains - or even win back the House - in 2018,"
The Hill
reported.
"The survey found that while 58 percent of voters said they're concerned that
Trump may have business dealings with Moscow, 73 percent said they're worried
that the ongoing investigations are preventing Congress from tackling issues
more vital to them."
The co-director of the Harvard-Harris poll, Mark Penn,
commented
on
the results: "While the voters have a keen interest in any Russian election
interference, they are concerned that the investigations have become a
distraction for the president and Congress that is hurting rather than helping
the country."
Such incoming data are sparking more outspoken dissent from House Democrats
who want to get re-elected as well as depose Republicans from majority power.
In short, if you don't want a GOP speaker of the House, wise up to the politics
at play across the country.
Vermont Congressman Peter Welch, a progressive Democrat, put it this way:
"We should be focused relentlessly on economic improvement [and] we should stay
away from just piling on the criticism of Trump, whether it's about Russia,
whether it's about Comey. Because that has its own independent dynamic, it's
going to happen on its own without us piling on."
Welch said, "We're much better off if we just do the hard work of coming up
with an agenda. Talking about Trump and Russia doesn't create an agenda."
Creating a compelling agenda would mean rejecting what has become the rote
reflex of Democratic Party leadership - keep hammering Trump as a Kremlin tool.
In a typical recent comment, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi pounded away at
a talking point already so worn out that it has the appearance of a bent nail:
"What do the Russians have on Donald Trump?"
In contrast, another House Democrat, Matt Cartwright of Pennsylvania, said:
"If you see me treating Russia and criticisms of the president and things like
that as a secondary matter, it's because that's how my constituents feel about
it."
But ever since the election last November, Democratic congressional leaders
have been placing the party's bets heavily on the Russia horse. And it's now
pulling up lame.
Yes, a truly independent investigation is needed to probe charges that the
Russian government interfered with the U.S. election. And investigators should
also dig to find out if there's actual evidence that Trump or his campaign
operatives engaged in nefarious activities before or after the election. At the
same time, let's get a grip. The partisan grandstanding on Capitol Hill, by
leading Republicans and Democrats, hardly qualifies as "independent."
In the top strata of the national Democratic Party, and especially for the
Clinton wing of the party, blaming Russia has been of visceral importance. A
recent book about Hillary Clinton's latest presidential campaign - "Shattered,"
by journalists Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes - includes a revealing passage.
"Within 24 hours of her concession speech," the authors report, campaign
manager Robby Mook and campaign chair John Podesta "assembled her
communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the
election wasn't entirely on the up-and-up."
At that meeting, "they went over the script they would pitch to the press
and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument."
In early spring, the former communications director of the 2016 Clinton
presidential campaign, Jennifer Palmieri, summarized the post-election approach
in a Washington Post
opinion
piece
:
"If we make plain that what Russia has done is nothing less than an attack on
our republic, the public will be with us. And the more we talk about it, the
more they'll be with us."
Polling data now indicate how wrong such claims are.
Initially in lockstep this year, Democrats on Capitol Hill probably didn't
give it a second thought if they read my
article
published
by
The Hill
nearly six months ago under the headline "Democrats Are
Playing With Fire on Russia." At the outset, I warned that "the most cohesive
message from congressional Democrats is: blame Russia. The party leaders have
doubled down on an approach that got nowhere during the presidential campaign -
trying to tie the Kremlin around Donald Trump's neck."
And I added: "Still more interested in playing to the press gallery than
speaking directly to the economic distress of voters in the Rust Belt and
elsewhere who handed the presidency to Trump, top Democrats would much rather
scapegoat Vladimir Putin than scrutinize how they've lost touch with
working-class voters."
But my main emphasis in that January 9 article was that "the emerging
incendiary rhetoric against Russia is extremely dangerous. It could lead to a
military confrontation between two countries that each has thousands of nuclear
weapons."
I noted that "enthusiasm for banging the drum against Putin is fast becoming
a big part of the Democratic Party's public identity in 2017. And - insidiously
- that's apt to give the party a long-term political stake in further
demonizing the Russian government."
My article pointed out: "The reality is grim, and potentially catastrophic
beyond comprehension. By pushing to further polarize with the Kremlin,
congressional Democrats are increasing the chances of a military confrontation
with Russia."
Here's a question worth pondering: How much time do members of Congress
spend thinking about ways to reduce the risks of nuclear holocaust, compared to
how much time they spend thinking about getting re-elected?
In political terms,
The Hill
's June 24 news article headlined "Dems
Push Leaders to Talk Less About Russia" should be a wakeup call. Held in the
thrall of Russia-bashing incantations since early winter, some Democrats in
Congress have started to realize that they must break the spell. But they will
need help from constituents willing to bluntly
tell
them to snap out of it
.
If there is to be a human future on this planet, it will require
real
diplomacy between the U.S. and Russia
, the world's two nuclear-weapons
superpowers. Meanwhile - even if the nuclear threat from continuing to escalate
hostility toward Russia doesn't rank high on the list of Democrats' concerns on
Capitol Hill - maybe the prospects of failure in the elections next year will
compel a major change. It's time for the dangerous anti-Russia fever to break.
The "Russiagate" farce had its waterloo moment when three CNN faux
journalists were asked kindly to resign for being too faux even for the Clinton
News Network.
Yes, the Democrat politicians who have enough functioning brain cells to
actually go back to their districts and meet with their random constituents can
plainly see that the people want this BS to come to and end immediately if not
three months ago.
Thanks for the link – confirms what I've suspected for months.
If any of y'all have about 9 minutes to spare, this vid. is really
interesting (& damning).
Debates about whether the Democrat wing of the Property Party should
change its PR focus from trying to manufacture Russiaphobia to pretending to
care about the welfare of the working class are worse than debating about
how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It's embarrassing to watch a
highly intelligent group of people like the NC readership engage in
discussions like this while ignoring the facts before them.
The US is not a democracy. Policies bear little or no correspondence to
the desires of the vast majority of citizens while being highly correlated
with the belief systems and self-interest of a tiny ruling class.
Elections are circuses organized for the distraction of the underclasses. They are never contested on the basis of fundamental issues
that determine the future of the country. Rather, they are pissing contests
between advertising agencies who employ all means at hand to temporarily
manipulate public opinion.
Regardless of which party wins, promises in party platforms are
meaningless the day after the election and have little correlation to
candidate behavior.
It follows that it matters little which candidate/figurehead is elected
since they are simply entertainment, while the country continues to be
governed by the banksters, war hawks, medical extortionists, and greedhead
trillionaires who own it.
NC has diligently documented the bankster fraud that characterized the
2007-2008 financial meltdown. Exactly how many of the perpetrators of this
massive theft went to prison?
The US has been at permanent war in the middle east for 20 years under
Democrat and Republican administrations, employing fabrication of events,
torture of prisoners, shock and awe bombing attacks, assassination by remote
control drones, false flag attacks, and proxy funding of Islamic terrorist
organizations. How many CIA torturers, generals, and politicians have been
held accountable for their lies and war crimes?
By "people who have been living in terror" I assume your mean
people who find themselves on the Trump banned country list? Unjust
and anti-humanitarian perhaps, but hardly equivalent to terrorism.
Terrorism is when your wedding party is bombed by a drone being
piloted by a computer operator half a world away because the cyber spy
satellites have detected too many cell phone conversations directed at
one of the guests. Terrorism is when a delusional religious
fundamentalist straps explosives to her body and blows herself up in a
crowded nightclub. And terrorism is when a government funds the
anti-human belief systems that lead to such mad acts.
The first and foremost action should be government funded
elections. Take the money out of politics. Open up ballot access.
Election day should be a national holiday. Paper ballots publicly
counted. Free electioneering on our public airwaves. Run off elections
so that the elected truly have a mandate. The malefactors of wealth
completely control the electoral process. Tall order but nothing else
can be accomplished unless we take back the electoral system,
foundation of democracy.
I find political strategy-speak such as "an adjustment in party
messaging" to be sickening. The Democrats still seem to be talking about
manipulating perception, rather than actually doing anything
fundamentally different.
That was absolutely Nancy Pelosi's line on CBS the other morning.
We're not doing anything wrong we're just not getting our message out
there. Delusional bought and paid for party hack. She has got to go.
Agree. Here's slight modification of one of you points:
Elections are circuses organized for the distraction of the underclasses.
They are never contested on the basis of fundamental issues
that determine the future of the country.
Rather, they are pissing
contests between advertising agencies who employ all means at hand to
temporarily manipulate public opinion
while maximizing their
revenue.
All largely true; however, there remains a large contingent of non-NC
readers (and traditional Democrat supporters) who remain unaware of most
of this and who need to be convinced. Many of these people are our
friends and relatives, and penetrating their illusions is essential if we
are ever to reform the Democrat party by starving its more problematic
members of voter support. The four points you mentioned, while largely
accepted by NC readers, remain very much to be demonstrated when talking
to these kind of people. We can't just lead with something like "Hillary
is a warmongering crony capitalist who sold out the working class a long
time ago." They will switch off if we do. We need to offer concrete,
real-world examples that demonstrate it, along with the necessary context
for them to understand the problem. If they follow along with the
arguments then they will eventually reach the conclusion on their own.
While this article may not be telling NC readers anything they don't
already know, it's a good example of a narrative that we can use in those
situations.
Trojan Horse. It's the Guardian(and CNN) saying: "we deal with faux news
the moment it happens. Look at how clean we are!" The entire MSM will jump
all over this and pretend they've cleaned house, fixed the one isolated
incident, therefore we can once again trust them to be the truth tellers
they are. A wonderful script for the Lefties and the pseudo-Left media, like
the Guardian. It's BS because they lie all the time about everything!
1. The Democratic establishment has vortexed the party's narrative energy
into hysteria about Russia (a state with a lower GDP than South Korea). It
is starkly obvious that were it not for this hysteria insurgent narratives
of the type promoted by Bernie Sanders would rapidly dominate the party's
base and its relationship with the public. Without the "We didn't
lose–Russia won" narrative the party's elite and those who exist under its
patronage would be purged for being electorally incompetent and
ideologically passé. The collapse of the Democratic vote over the last eight
years is at every level, city, state, Congressional and presidential. It
corresponds to the domination of Democratic decision making structures by a
professional, educated, urban service class and to the shocking decline in
health and longevity of white males, who together with their wives,
daughters, mothers, etc. comprise 63% of the US population (2010 census).
Unlike other industrialized countries US male real wages (all ethnic groups
combined) have not increased since 1973. In trying to stimulate engagement
of non-whites and women Democrats have aggressively promoted identity
politics. This short-term tactic has led to the inevitable strategic
catastrophe of the white and male super majorities responding by seeing
themselves as an unserviced political identity group. Consequently in
response to sotto-voce suggestions that Trump would service this group 53%
of all men voted for Trump, 53% of white women and 63% of white men (PEW
Research).
2. The Trump-Russia collusion narrative is a political dead end. Despite
vast resources, enormous incentives and a year of investigation, Democratic
senators who have seen the classified intelligence at the CIA such as
Senator Feinstein (as recently as March) are forced to admit that there is
no evidence of collusion
[
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BS5amEq7Fc
]. Without collusion, we are
left with the Democratic establishment blaming the public for being repelled
by the words of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party establishment. Is
it a problem that the public discovered what Hillary Clinton said to Goldman
Sachs and what party elites said about fixing the DNC primaries against
Bernie Sanders? A party elite that maintains that it is the "crime of the
century" for the public and their membership to discover how they behave and
what they believe invites scorn.
3. The Democrat establishment needs the support of the security sector
and media barons to push this diversionary conspiracy agenda, so they
ingratiate themselves with these two classes leading to further perceptions
that the Democrats act on behalf of an entrenched power elite. Eventually,
Trump or Pence will 'merge' with the security state leaving Democrats in a
vulnerable position having talked up two deeply unaccountable traditionally
Republican-aligned organizations, in particular, the CIA and the FBI, who
will be turned against them. Other than domestic diversion and geopolitical
destabilization the primary result of the Russian narrative is increased
influence and funding for the security sector which is primarily GOP owned
or aligned.
4. The twin result is to place the primary self-interest concerns of most
Americans, class competition, freedom from crime and ill health and the
empowerment of their children, into the shadows and project the Democrats as
close to DC and media elites. This has further cemented Trump's
anti-establishment positioning and fettered attacks on Trump's run away
embrace of robber barons, dictators and gravitas-free buffoons like the
CIA's Mike Pompeo.
5. GOP/Trump has open goals everywhere: broken promises, inequality,
economy, healthcare, militarization, Goldman Sachs, Saudi Arabia & cronyism,
but the Democrat establishment can't kick these goals since the Russian
collusion narrative has consumed all its energy and it is entangled with
many of the same groups behind Trump's policies.
6. The Democratic base should move to start a new party since the party
elite shows no signs that they will give up power. This can be done quickly
and cheaply as a result of the internet and databases of peoples' political
preferences. This reality is proven in practice with the rapid construction
of the Macron, Sanders and Trump campaigns from nothing. The existing
Democratic party may well have negative reputational capital, stimulating a
Macron-style clean slate approach. Regardless, in the face of such a threat,
the Democratic establishment will either concede control or, as in the case
of Macron, be eliminated by the new structure.
I agree with 6. The fact that the Dems reacted to their presidential loss
by immediately accusing their opponent of treason shows how low they have
sunk. Perhaps they thought they were justified in imitating Trump's own
shoot from the lip style but someone has to be the adult in the room.
Meanwhile the country's two leading newspapers turn themselves into social
media sites. The ruling class seems to be cracking up.
Suggested name for new third party: the Not Crazy party.
integer
June 27, 2017 at 5:16 am
Thanks for that!
Again and Again and Again:
"It corresponds to the domination of Democratic decision making structures
by a professional, educated, urban service class and to the shocking decline
in health and longevity of white males, who together with their wives,
daughters, mothers, etc. comprise 63% of the US population (2010 census).
Unlike other industrialized countries US male real wages (all ethnic
groups combined) have not increased since 1973.
In trying to
stimulate engagement of non-whites and women Democrats have aggressively
promoted identity politics. This short-term tactic has led to the inevitable
strategic catastrophe of the white and male super majorities responding by
seeing themselves as an unserviced political identity group. Consequently in
response to sotto-voce suggestions that Trump would service this group 53%
of all men voted for Trump, 53% of white women and 63% of white men (PEW
Research)."
Identity politics is basically a divide and rule strategy to keep
progressive candidates off the ballot, the real purpose of the Democratic
Party establishment. That is what they are being paid for.
The only way to create a new party of actual importance is for it to not
be originated from disenfranchised republicans or disenfranchised democrats,
lest it be branded as extreme by existing power structures, and be resigned
to a fate similar to the libertarian and green parties, which are spoilers
at best.
It would need to be a party that grows out of the moderate center. This
is doable, because will all the gerrymandering they are becoming the least
represented block of voters, that is compounded by the fact that in general
98% of the population are not represented by their representatives anyways.
The center is open to facts and reasonable arguments as to policy
solutions, such as single payer and a restructured health care industry.
That is the executable path to republican and or democrat obsolescence.
The first world has had enough neolib, pendulum has started moving the
other way. Macron shows the desperation to try something new without
embracing right wing LePen an option not available here, so revulsion to
neolib resulted in Trump..
Course, the something new macron is just neolib with a pretty face,
French will be disappointed, either the left will join forces next time or
French desperation will bring LE Pen to power.
Fully agree dems have hollowed themselves out enough to create a vacuum,
country desperate for third party. New media is displacing corp mouthpieces,
never been easier to start new. Still think take over greens, make
functional, because ballot access hard to get, particularly with dems
fighting tooth and nail. Come to think of it, maybe they're not completely
dysfunctional, they did manage to get on the ballot in most states, not
easy, and certainly dems didn't help, they hate the greens.
Dems 30, reps 30, indies 40.
Bernie heading progressive greens gets 1/3 dems, 1/6 reps, 3/4 indies? 45 in
three way race is landslide.
In response to point number six:
There are already significant legal barriers to the creation of a new
party. Both parties will probably gang up on any new party development too.
Secondly, Macron can't be compared to Trump/Sanders. He's just
neoliberalism's Potemkin village in France. Both Trump/Sanders aren't really
comparable as they both contained genuine political outsiders such as Bannon
in Trump's case. I wouldn't compare Melenchon to Sanders either. Melenchon
kinda seems like the Le Pen of the French left. By which I mean he would
govern as a authoritarian.
The Dims – because that's what these people truly are – will just assume
that they haven't put enough effort into "Russia" and go triple- or
quadruple-up on every failed candidate, strategy, platform, message,
consultant, focus-group and whatever else a sane leadership should by now have
been tarring, feathering and releasing the hounds upon.
Just imagine the staff meetings: 'We gotta be right eventually, because
Vince Lombardi said: "Winners never quit and quitters never win"' and politics
is exactly like football. "Ohhh How Deep. Surely advice like that is worth
paying 50 kUSD for".
+ for Dims. The Russia thing is irresistible because it's supposed to get
nationalistic rubes to turn against Trump while sucking up to the
military-industrial complex. And yet, it didn't work during the campaign
either.
'If you are constantly pounding the pudding, shrieking endlessly, and
hysterically so, about the evils of the PUTIN and his supposed
orange-coiffed minion, while refusing to look into a mirror !!! . You just
might be a DIMOCRAT !"
The fixation of Clintonites, or frustrated dems with russiagate is very
telling and well explained here. It strikes me how the russiagate has treated
so uncritically by the "liberal" press in Spain. Nobody, and I say nobody, has
even thougth twice about the political risks associated with the demonization
of Russia that coincides with Ukraine isues and natural gas supplies in Europe.
Interestingly Germans have recently agreed with Russia a new pipeline through
the Baltic sea and there is clamor against these agreement amongst other
European countries that do not benefit from the pipeline, and apparently the
clamor is leaded by the US (the supposedly pro Russian Trump government).
and the German journalists, print or TV were ready 2014 like their
colleges were1933, when Goebbels called . And no physical threat this time,
only probe of character.
And as the Germans since long have learnt to be eager to please their masters they did the trick
again, alas now, when they are the paragons of
success in the west.
But the president Donald, thank God, is disclosing all veils and Putin is
showing a
decent kind of leader on the planet.
Cheers from Bavaria's
So the bottom line is that Hillary, who wouldn't work for anything better
than ObamaCare, is ending up sacrificing ObamaCare itself, all because she got
in a powder about people not buying her messageless campaign? We are literally
a handful of days away from losing not only ObamaCare, but Medicaid as well,
and the Democratic establishment has no strategy except to worry that Bernie
Sanders might score a few points for merely repeating back to the party's base
what that base was already saying? Forty years of trying to create a "centrist"
third party is in shambles, and these people still believe they are entitled to
lead what little remains of the party of the working people.
No wonder we were supposed to worry about the Russians. It was the furthest
place they could find from where the problem really was.
As a side note, no one is mentioning the "progressive" bloggers and news
sites (Young Turks, Majority Report, I'm lookin' at ya) who jumped on this
bandwagon after showing support for Sanders, then switched to standard form to
oppose the "fascist" Trump. It says to me that, just like the more well-known
Democratic Party fronts who could have made an effort to show independence,
they are ultimately fronts, just more distantly positioned for maximum
believability. It all smells, and progressives need to examine their principles
before looking to these "saviors".
Even if "evidence" would appear after all this time, do we not suspect it
has been cooked in the truth-telling factories of the FBI, CIA, and NSA, all in
bed with right-wing warmongers who own both parties (not just Republicans –
sorry, integer)? If anything shows the necessity of party realignment (creating
new ones to replace existing), this idiocy is not just a brick in the wall, but
an entire edifice.
Even if "evidence" would appear after all this time, do we not
suspect it has been cooked in the truth-telling factories of the FBI, CIA,
and NSA, all in bed with right-wing warmongers who own both parties (
not
just Republicans – sorry, integer
)?
Disappointed to read this, as I have never made that claim.
Comment was to your saying the security establishment "which is
primarily GOP owned or aligned".
Both parties, in a sense, "own" it, and use segments of it to
advantage when necessary. But further, both the parties and agencies are
"owned" by the power of capital as it is currently operating, and this
power behind the throne makes the security and party establishment dance.
You and I are on the ground, trying to avoid the footwork.
It looks like the Fusion GPS Trump dossier, that is the basis for all of the
Russian collusion accusations, is getting ready to become even more of a major
embarrassment, hence all the talk about backing away from the current strategy.
Even Planned Parenthood hired this opposition research firm to get dirt on
right to lifers. Your tax dollars and donations at work.
Ahah! Most Americans don't learn foreign languages. This is irrefutable
proof of a fifth columnist element in America plotting against Moose and
Squirrel. Somebody tell the Hillary campaign!
If Hillary with her celebrity and money can't win, what does it say about
the potential future political dreams of the Dems who enthusiastically
supported her? Or even corporate gigs? What good is a Democrat who can't
deliver?
NBCNews has hired Greta, Megan Kelly, and now Hugh Hewitt. The NYT hired
a host of climate change deniers.
For the Clintonistas especially, why would anyone hire them again? It's
really no different on their part than the "OMG Nader" narrative. In an
election with voter suppression, misleading ballots, bizarre recounts, Joe
Lieberman, high youth non-Cuban Hispanic turnout for Shrub, Katherine
Harris, and the fantasy of simply winning Tennessee, who did Democrats
blame? A powerless figure in Nader.
This is one reason why russiagate is inevitable. Who wants to tell the donors that the Team D brain trust pissed away a
billion and a half, with nothing to show for it?
But if the election was somehow stolen (eeevil Russkies!) then it wasn't
really Team D's fault you see, and then
Problem is, anyone smart enough to earn that much dough is likely too
smart to fall for the Russia stole the election BS, which is why
Dumbocrats' fundraising has cratered.
The entire Russia-gate issue ignores/insults the voters the Democrats hope
to influence.
To some extent, the Democrats are telling the deplorable Trump voters, "The
Russians influenced you to vote for Trump, someone who you have been aware of
for many years, over the other well-known candidate Hillary Clinton"
The Trump voter is probably more than a little irritated to have their
voting actions viewed this way, they do not see themselves influenced by the
Russians and do not understand why the Russians COULD significantly influence
the election when the USA spends so much money on the CIA, FBI, NSA and US
military.
The USA is also widely viewed as attempting to influence elections overseas,
with none other than Senator Hillary Clinton recorded stating that 'We should
have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win' in a
Palestine election.
The entire Russia-gate issue ignores/insults the voters the Democrats
hope to influence.
To some extent, the Democrats are telling the deplorable Trump
voters, "The Russians influenced you to vote for Trump, someone who you have
been aware of for many years, over the other well-known candidate Hillary
Clinton"
I think this is not right. The Dems have no interest in the votes of the
deplorables. What only matters is the meme that HRC should have won. The
charitable interpretation is that DNC is still convinced that demographics
are in their favor (in the long run). So they do not have to diss their
corporate patrons and offer real help to real people; they just need to hold
out long enough for the demographics to kick in. The meme that HRC should
have won is a rationale for staying the course.
Of course, the uncharitable explanation is that they would rather lose
than change.
"As James Carville said, "It's the economy, stupid" when running Bill
Clinton's Presidential campaign.
The Democrats need to see this is still good guidance."
Yes, it is. Unfortunately for the voters Bill Clinton and Obama and the Dem estab are neoliberals. Bill and O were neoliberals running in New Deal
clothing. The current Dem estab is neolib. A better "message" sans better
policies isn't any better than focusing on Russia, imo.
Please just go away, Hillary and Hillary clones.
When you think about it, increasing ever so slightly the risk of actual
nuclear war, damaging the Democratic party, and doing untold damage to
legitimate (hate to use the word anymore) "progressive" causes is more or less
the end-game of all this.
And all in service of, what? Vindicating the failures of the inane pundit
class? (God forbid) setting up Hillary 2020?
Shameful shit right there
Even on a purely political level, the whole Russiagate bullshit was doomed
to failure, methinks.
Gore Vidal (among others) used to point out that the dirty little secret of
America's anti-communist right was that they were actually
jealous
of
the brutal tactics the commies could use against their dissenters and secretly
– and in many cases, not so secretly – wished they could do the same thing
here. It wasn't that long ago that the right wing blog-o-sphere and certain wingnut writers were all swooning over Putin's manliness (as opposed to Obama's
alleged 'weakness') like a pack of horny schoolgirls. The dumb bastards were
composing mash notes to the butch Mr. Putin. It was embarrassing.
So if the Dem "leadership" was hoping to turn our own home-grown
reactionaries against Trump over being in bed with Putin, they should have
known better. We all know the right are hypocrites. Even if there
was
anything to Russiagate, they wouldn't care. And the rest of us wouldn't give a
shit, not if it meant ignoring every other problem that needs dealing with.
Since it's all a bunch of bullshit anyway
What if "RussiaGate" was only really intended to pressure Trump hard against
any diplomatic rapprochement with a country the Neocons have targeted?
Trump's foreign policy has been relentlessly steered into a direction the
Clintons always intended to take it. Ticking off the last countries on Israel's
'enemy list' as compiled by the PNAC creeps. Recall the statement of Col.
Wilkerson or one of those old guard people who wandered into an office in the
Pentagon to find that there was a list of countries to be destroyed, starting
with Iraq and ending finally with Iran. Syria and Libya were on it.
This whole thing is about a high level grand strategic plan that involves
destabilizing and overthrowing governments the US and Israel find annoying and
insufficiently obeisant. The ultimate goal will be breaking the Russian
Federation into a bunch of independent statelets. This isn't 'conspiracy
theory' – it's what Brzezinski advocated and aligns neatly with the needs of
the military-industrial-financial complex and its obsession with total control
over world energy supplies as a lever for domination.
Assad is really secondary to the main goals of:
Getting the Russian naval presence out of the Mediterranean (note that Nuland -another PNAC operative- leverages unhappiness with the corruption in
Ukraine to install a fascistic government that would certainly have seized the
Russian naval assets at Sevastopol had Russia not seized the Crimea.
Turning Isreal's neighbors into a collection Mad Max style bantu-stans that
can be manipulated easily by Saudi -which is ironically Israel's ally.
Controlling energy transit and access points.
Again, I'm not saying anything that isn't in the record.
Per Clark, "He said: "Sir, it's worse than that. He said – he pulled up a
piece of paper off his desk – he said: "I just got this memo from the
Secretary of Defense's office. It says we're going to attack and destroy the
governments in 7 countries in five years – we're going to start with Iraq,
and then we're going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and
Iran.""
It was all supposed to occur within 5 years, so by 2008 the dream would
have been accomplished.
But maybe the neocons haven't given up, not installing HRC was a downer,
but maybe Trump can be pulled into line..
Cold, you bring up a topic often ignored that I find highly credible. The
Deep State with all its power to manufacture information and create chaos
has a long-standing interest in maintaining Russiaphobia. The Soviet Union
was certainly the best enemy they have ever known. Without it trillions of
dollars of armaments would have never been sold and billions of dollars of
spy agency bureaucracies never have been funded.
The real power centers in the US are the bankster cabal, robber baron
capitalists, medical extortionists, and the Homeland Insecurity war hawks.
The first three have nothing to fear from a Trump presidency– indeed they
probably will fare better than if the Clinton Crime Syndicate had triumphed.
However (to the extent that he actually stands for anything) Trump's goal of
defusing tensions with Russia and doing oil deals with them is a direct
threat to the War Hawks, and more than sufficient reason to cut him off at
the knees
You do fall into the trap of repeating Deep State propaganda though.
Russia did not seize Crimea. Crimea has been part of the Russian sphere of
influence for generations. It probably is as much Russian as Texas is
American. It's temporary incorporation into Ukraine when the Soviet Union
fractured probably had as much to do with Khrushchev being Ukrainian as it
had to do with creating the best fit. And when the choice was put before a
popular referendum in 2014, 83% of the population turned out to vote and
96.77% voted to join the Russian Federation. Try getting that kind of turn
out and consensus in an American election! And even if there was plenty of
arm twisting behind the scenes, its hard to believe that the result didn't
represent the actual choice of the citizens.
Re Crimea – you're correct of course. The Texas analogy is pretty
good. There was no distinction between Russians and Ukrainians during the
time of the Czars anyway. The territory used to be controlled by the
Hellenes and then the Byzantines. The Germans wanted to annex it as part
of their war goals in ww2
"False flag" operation charges for various "hacks" and "dossiers" now have additional validity. The DNC hack is the most prominent
of them.
Notable quotes:
"... The Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this month threatened to subpoena the firm, Fusion GPS, after it refused to answer questions and provide records to the panel identifying who financed the error-ridden dossier, which was circulated during the election and has sparked much of the Russia scandal now engulfing the White House. ..."
"... "These guys had a vested personal and ideological interest in smearing Trump and boosting Hillary's chances of winning the White House." Fusion GPS was on the payroll of an unidentified Democratic ally of Clinton when it hired a long-retired British spy to dig up dirt on Trump. In 2012, Democrats hired Fusion GPS to uncover dirt on GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney. ..."
"... In September 2016, while Fusion GPS was quietly shopping the dirty dossier on Trump around Washington, its co-founder and partner Peter R. Fritsch contributed at least $1,000 to the Hillary Victory Fund and the Hillary For America campaign, Federal Election Commission data show. His wife also donated money to Hillary's campaign. Property records show that in June 2016, as Clinton allies bankrolled Fusion GPS, Fritsch bought a six-bedroom, five-bathroom home in Bethesda, Md., for $2.3 million. Fritsch did not respond to requests for comment. A lawyer for Fusion GPS said the firm's work is confidential. ..."
"... Senate investigators are demanding to see records of communications between Fusion GPS and the FBI and the Justice Department, including any contacts with former Attorney General Loretta Lynch , now under congressional investigation for possibly obstructing the Hillary Clinton email probe, and deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, who is under investigation by the Senate and the Justice inspector general for failing to recuse himself despite financial and political connections to the Clinton campaign through his Democrat activist wife. Senate investigators have singled out McCabe as the FBI official who negotiated with Steele. Like Fusion GPS, the FBI has failed to cooperate with congressional investigators seeking documents. ..."
"... This pee-pee dossier is a side show compared to dozens of special access program intelligence documents Clinton ran through that server and we still have 30,000 emails that were deleted. Destruction of evidence under subpoena. ..."
"... The FBI is obviously corrupted. Comey backed Crowd Strike on the Russian hacking hoax. Invented "intent" as a new defense to felonies. ..."
So many of you are triggered to the point of feverish insanity. What sort of subhuman will you become when Trump is vindicated
from all Russian collusion claims and the DOJ starts tossing faggots into dank prison cells for ginning up fake intelligence reports
to take down a President? Paul Sperry from the NY Post is out with a report tonight, stating the Senate is about to ramp up their
efforts in investigating the birthplace of the debunked Trump-Russian dossier, the one thar claimed germophobe Trump enjoyed getting
urinated on by Russian hookers. For democrats, this might lead to a Mortal Kombat fatality move if implicated. Criminal charges might
rain fire upon them -- like the second coming of Jesus. Many of you still believe said dossier was, in fact, correct. To those people,
dare I say, prove it.
The Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this month threatened to subpoena the firm, Fusion GPS, after it refused to answer
questions and provide records to the panel identifying who financed the error-ridden dossier, which was circulated during the election
and has sparked much of the Russia scandal now engulfing the White House.
What is the company hiding? Fusion GPS describes itself as a "research and strategic intelligence firm" founded by "three former
Wall Street Journal investigative reporters." But congressional sources say it's actually an opposition-research group for Democrat
s, and the founders, who are more political activists than journalists, have a pro-Hillary, anti-Trump agenda. "These weren't mercenaries
or hired guns," a congressional source familiar with the dossier probe said. "These guys had a vested personal and ideological
interest in smearing Trump and boosting Hillary's chances of winning the White House." Fusion GPS was on the payroll of an unidentified
Democratic ally of Clinton when it hired a long-retired British spy to dig up dirt on Trump. In 2012, Democrats hired Fusion GPS
to uncover dirt on GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney.
And in 2015, Democrat ally Planned Parenthood retained Fusion GPS to investigate pro-life activists protesting the abortion group.
More, federal records show a key co-founder and partner in the firm was a Hillary Clinton donor and supporter of her presidential
campaign.
In September 2016, while Fusion GPS was quietly shopping the dirty dossier on Trump around Washington, its co-founder and
partner Peter R. Fritsch contributed at least $1,000 to the Hillary Victory Fund and the Hillary For America campaign, Federal Election
Commission data show. His wife also donated money to Hillary's campaign. Property records show that in June 2016, as Clinton allies
bankrolled Fusion GPS, Fritsch bought a six-bedroom, five-bathroom home in Bethesda, Md., for $2.3 million. Fritsch did not respond
to requests for comment. A lawyer for Fusion GPS said the firm's work is confidential.
Both partners of Fusion GPS have ties to Mexico -- with Fritsch a former Journal bureau chief in Mexico City, married to a Mexican
woman who worked for Grupo Dina -- a beneficiary of NAFTA. His partner, Thomas Catan, formerly from Britain, once edited a Mexican
business magazine. Perhaps we should now investigate the Democrats' ties to Mexico?
Senate investigators are demanding to see records of communications between Fusion GPS and the FBI and the Justice Department,
including any contacts with former Attorney General Loretta Lynch , now under congressional investigation for possibly obstructing
the Hillary Clinton email probe, and deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, who is under investigation by the Senate and the Justice
inspector general for failing to recuse himself despite financial and political connections to the Clinton campaign through his Democrat
activist wife. Senate investigators have singled out McCabe as the FBI official who negotiated with Steele. Like Fusion GPS, the
FBI has failed to cooperate with congressional investigators seeking documents.
Criminal at Large Loretta Lynch also had a DOJ tax payer slush fund to fund Political Leftists groups.
Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and a group of his colleagues are calling on the newly appointed Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to
immediately investigate how US taxpayer funds are being used by the State Department and the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID) to support Soros-backed, leftist political groups in several Eastern European countries including Macedonia
and Albania. According to the letter, potentially millions of taxpayer dollars are being funneled through USAID to Soros' Open
Society Foundations with the explicit goal of pushing his progressive agenda.
As Fox News pointed out, USAID gave nearly $15 million to Soros' Foundation Open Society - Macedonia, and other Soros-linked
organizations in the region, in the last 4 years of Obama's presidency alone.
Why this, when Clinton committed multiple felonies with her private server conducting state department pay-to-play business
for Clinton Foundation cash?
This pee-pee dossier is a side show compared to dozens of special access program intelligence documents Clinton ran through
that server and we still have 30,000 emails that were deleted. Destruction of evidence under subpoena.
The FBI is obviously corrupted. Comey backed Crowd Strike on the Russian hacking hoax. Invented "intent" as a new defense
to felonies. Etc.
The dossier is not and was not a side show, it was a deliberate creation that failed. I hope all of these cocksuckers have
their assets seized and go to jail ASAP --
I completely agree with Barnes on this one https://youtu.be/oA6FHBCWAyY
Most of you are not any where near pissed off enough and you should be -- No wonder nothing much gets done and we end up with
shit like this in our government when people are so fucking apathetic and acquiescent. We should all be livid and demand accountability
or we certainly won't get it --
Yes the fusion centers nationwide are all part of the Phoenix project brought to us by CIA and in more recent times the invention
of DHS and all the other control mechanisms created here in USA today. The Phoenix project has morphed into the playbook of all
these chicken shit worthless wars that are really just corp control and political control mechanisms for the insane psychopaths
and sociopaths that have dominated Amercian governemnt for a very long time. The terrorism was a creation of these same people
to be used as a tool and controlled. BHOs crew put it all on steroids for all of us to see and in a perverse way that is a very
good thing indeed -- At least now many Americans see some of it. Americans are very slow to comprehend even their own demise.
All of the government agencies are well past out of control, not just the spooks. Look at what IRS did and so far giot away
with ? They also need to be prosecuted and dealt with severely, but they won't unless we demand such and raise hell about all
of it --
So the entire DC Ruling Class is assembled in a circular firing squad, each faction investigating the other and threatening
long prison sentences for all playerswhile the rest of America sits in mortified silence... real Banana Republic stuff... much
of this overlaid with assassination talk, impeachment and vicious propaganda...
Meanwhile the ROW must be amused to watch the Pax Americana Empire self-immolate.
Glenn R. Simpson is FUSION 's President and Managing Partner. Simpson has over 20 years of experience in research and investigations,
including 14 years with The Wall Street Journal as the Washington bureau's lead investigative reporter. Since entering the commercial
intelligence field in early 2009, he has managed complex projects in the US, Asia, the Middle East and Europe.
Simpson specializes in the banking and securities sectors. He is a seasoned expert on the relationship between government and
business and in particular in financial regulation, and is well known in the capital's financial policymaking, regulatory and
enforcement communities. For his articles in The Wall Street Journal and more recently for private clients, he has analyzed numerous
multinational corporations including difficult international subjects such as banks in the Middle East. He is well versed in the
arcana of tax havens, offshore banking, and securities and accounting fraud. He is also in expert in political influence and is
widely known among Washington's top lobbyists, lawyers, journalists and lawmakers.
In addition to his long tenure in Washington, Simpson was stationed for three years in Brussels. There he developed strong
knowledge of European business practices and structures as well as many contacts in the corporate world and media. His recent
research work includes a matter resulting in a significant win for a major government contractor, the exposure of political corruption
in Latin America and the exposure of a case of securities fraud in the UK. In December 2010, his nearly two-year investigation
of a prominent family ended in a favorable client verdict worth over $70 million.
Simpson is a recipient of numerous awards for his articles, speaks frequently in academic fora and has appeared on many broadcast
news programs including CNN, Nightline, Jim Lehrer NewsHour and the BBC. He is the co-author (with Larry J. Sabato) of the book,
Dirty Little Secrets: The Persistence of Corruption in American Politics (Times Books/Random House, 1996).
Peter R. Fritsch is a FUSION Partner and Project Leader. Fritsch is a multilingual investigator, writer and manager with 24
years of experience on four continents. As a reporter and bureau chief for The Wall Street Journal, he led and participated in
Pulitzer Prize-nominated investigations from Mexico, Brazil, Southeast Asia, Brussels and Washington, DC. He founded the WSJ's
Sao Paulo bureau in 1997.
Fritsch has written widely on the global petroleum industry, guided a global team investigating the oil and natural resource
industries for the WSJ, and has run top caliber corporate coverage around the world. He enjoys a large network of contacts in
business, media and politics in Latin America, Asia and Europe.
His U.S. bases have included Houston, Boston and New York. While based in Singapore, he worked extensively in important emerging
markets like Vietnam, Indonesia and India and oversaw newsgathering across South and Southeast Asia.
Most recently, Fritsch led the WSJ's national security and foreign affairs coverage in Washington, DC. In addition to spearheading
coverage of the Pentagon and intelligence community, he has reported extensively on Iran's efforts to evade nuclear sanctions.
Fritsch's work has been recognized with several industry awards. His investigation of a Mexican corporate executive ended in
the executive's eventual prosecution by Mexican authorities. He was among the first to sound the alarm regarding a multi-billion
dollar Ponzi scheme in the Caribbean. His work in Europe included major terror finance and corporate bribery investigations.
Benjamin S. Schmidt is FUSION 's Managing Director. Schmidt is a former government intelligence analyst. Most recently, he
served as Team Lead in the Middle East and Europe office of the US Department of the Treasury's Office of Intelligence and Analysis.
Over 7 years at Treasury, Schmidt ran complex transnational cases involving banking and other forms of financial activity.
His work was often included in the President's Daily Brief and used to guide policy decisions with global ramifications.
Schmidt has worked extensively with Middle East governments and is schooled in identifying and mapping financial networks.
He has wide knowledge of financial regulation, international monetary transfer systems and open-source corporate research. At
Treasury, he collaborated with the intelligence community, regulators, policymakers and foreign partners to design economic sanctions
programs, and has wide knowledge of sanctions laws.
Ben has served as a mentor to a cadre of junior Treasury investigators, instructing his partners in the art of transnational
discovery. He is especially adept at devising databases and customized technological solutions to research problems. He is the
recipient of several prestigious internal awards for his work and holds an MBA from the Robert H. Smith School of Business at
the University of Maryland.
Funny you ask, but when the FBI doesn't cooperate with a congressional inquiry, their boss should fire them!
THE PRESIDENT is the FBI's boss!
He should immediately fire any FBI official who refuses to cooperate with a congressional investigation.
Same for the CIA, NSA, IRS, and all the other Executive branches of Government. The congress holds the purse, but the President
is the person who ultimately holds oversight over these rogue branches of Government.
What the hell is he waiting for, Isn't "Your Fired" part of the mans DNA, did he not promise to drain this swamp?
"... "They're trying to figure out how they're going to make the mortgage payment, how they're going to pay for their kids to go to college, what their energy bill looks like ." ..."
But rank-and-file Democrats say the Russia-Trump narrative is simply a non-issue with district
voters, who are much more worried about bread-and-butter economic concerns like jobs, wages and
the cost of education and healthcare.
In the wake of a string of special-election defeats, an increasing number of Democrats are
calling for an adjustment in party messaging, one that swings the focus from Russia to the economy.
The outcome of the 2018 elections, they say, hinges on how well the Democrats manage that shift.
"We can't just talk about Russia because people back in Ohio aren't really talking that
much about Russia, about Putin, about Michael Flynn," Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) told MSNBC Thursday.
"They're trying to figure out how they're going to make the mortgage payment, how they're going
to pay for their kids to go to college, what their energy bill looks like .
####
Reality bites? There are only a finite amount of resources available and the more spend on
Russia bashing means less on domestic issues that people actually vote on, not foreign policy.
We'll see, but even seguing to blaming Obama for 'not doing anything about Russian hacking' doesn't
seem to cut it, though it does allow the Democrats to lightly step back without having to admit
that they are full of bs all along. It's the usual 'never admit you are wrong/lying', just change
the conversation and forget all that has gone before.
"They're trying to figure out how they're going to make the mortgage payment, how they're
going to pay for their kids to go to college, what their energy bill looks like ."
America has never been so well-off that there was not a significant demographic which was absorbed
with those worries. But the Democrats always act as if they had just discovered it through careful
research and lots of listening to the voters. Bullshit.
And the Republicans are no different – both go through these periods of soul-searching, resulting
in great enlightenment and epiphany, when it's really nothing more than "Our message is not resonating
with voters. They're pissed off with us. We must be doing something wrong. Until we find out what
it is, let's go with 'You talked – we listened. We hear you, and we feel your pain'"
DEMOCRATS & REPUBLICANS: ONE BIRD, 2 WINGS . SAME SHIT
UKRAINE meddled in US 2016 election. In conspiracy to blackmail Trump, Ukraine provided DNC with false accusations against
Manafort, hoping to derail Trump and install Deep State figurehead Hillary Clinton.
See the timeline, and smoking-gun email from Alexandra Chalupa. To steal election, DNC fabricated Trump-Russian collusion stories
which have poisoned US-Russia relations in this administration and stoked impeachment fever. Anti-Russian hysteria serves Israel
by killing Syria & Iran diplomacy. Great journalism by Lee Stranahan.
The fabricated collusion stories strike me as efforts to force Trump to put the US on an aggressive war footing against Russia
in Syria and elsewhere. As such the constitute war crimes efforts and are not only criminal, but stupid in light of the unnecessary
risk they put us to.
"... Being in control of the losing party is still being in control: deals can be made, hands can be shaken, backs can be rubbed. A reformed progressive party means that the current elite lose their relevance, influence and power. And they will have none of that. ..."
"... "Change cannot occur if the displaced ruling class is left intact after a revolution against them." Dems have been running away from Henry Wallace (Roosevelt too) since way before my time. ..."
"... outside ..."
"... The Dems are never going to change unless challenged from outside the party. Sanders' Titanic analogy isn't particularly valid since the first class passengers in this case have their own private lifeboats. ..."
"... Pelosi, Schumer, Clinton, Hoyer. They are all old. In 5 years time, the whole Democratic party could change. There is a saying attributed to Max Planck, "Science advances one funeral at a time.", I suggest the same applies to politics. ..."
"... I'm not sure how you look at the last election cycle and conclude that the 'Democrat' party is even remotely capable of reform from within. For all of Mr. Sanders laudable goals, I think he is still suffering from the delusion that enough people in the party have the courage and moral conviction to do the right thing rather than looking out for their own skin. The money suggests otherwise. ..."
"... These closet elitists espouse popular progressive policies on their face, but when push comes to shove they will happily throw a few people under the bus if it means they won't have to wait in line for their morning latte at Starbucks. ..."
"... Freud, referring to nationalism. called it "the narcissism of superficial differences." It seems to apply very well here, too. ..."
"... Fascinating stuff really, how in America Socialism=USSR=Stalin=Terrorism=Obama. Reminds me of that excellent wikileaks document talking about how they are content to have erased civics and worked to create a clueless population ..."
The quote in the title of this piece is from
Bernie Sanders
, said in a recent interview with David Sirota. Here's just a
part (emphasis and paragraphing mine):
Sirota:
The Democratic Party leadership has lost the White House,
Congress, 1,000 state legislative seats and many governorships. Why is the
party still run by the same group of people who delivered that electoral
record?
Sanders:
Because there are people who, as I often say,
would
rather have first class seats going down with the Titanic, rather than
change the course of the ship
. There are people who have spent their
entire lives in the Democratic Party, there are people who've invested a
whole lot of money into the Democratic Party,
they think the Democratic
Party belongs to them
. You know, they own a home, they may own a boat,
they may own the Democratic Party.
I mean, that's just the way people are, and I think there is reluctance
on some, not all, by the way - I mean, I ran around this country and I met
with the Democratic Party leaders in almost every state in the country. Some
of them made it very clear they did not want to open the door to working
people, they did not want to open to door to young people. They wanted to
maintain the status quo.
On the other hand, I will tell you, there are party leaders around the
country that said, "You know what, Bernie? There's a lot of young people out
there who want to get involved. We think that's a great idea, and we want
them involved."
Those who said "You know what, Bernie? There's a lot of young people out
there who want to get involved. We think that's a great idea" - they don't run
the Party when it comes to its top layers of leadership. Not by a very long
shot.
For the Message to Change, the Leadership Must Change
So what's a progressive to do? It should be obvious. The Democratic Party
has to change its policy offering, from "You can't have what all of you want"
to "If the people want a better life, we will give it to them."
Yet this is not so easily done.
For the message to change, the leadership
must also change.
Which raises the critical question: How do we depose Chuck Schumer, Nancy
Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and the rest of their kind and make people like Bernie
Sanders and Jeff Merkley the Party leaders instead?
After all, if someone like Bernie Sanders isn't Senate Majority Leader, if a
Sanders-like politician (Ted Lieu perhaps) isn't Speaker of the House, what's
the point of electing more back-bench progressives, more "supporting cast"
players?
If there's no way to do that - and soon, given the ticking clock - we're
Sisphus pushing the same heavy bolder up the same high hill, year after year,
decade after decade, till we die or the game is finally truly over. 2018 is
around the bend. 2020 is coming.
Après ça, le déluge
. Not much time to
solve this one.
Completely filling the Second Class cabins on the Titanic with
our
people (that is, populating Congress with progressives who are nevertheless
kept from leadership and control) won't change what goes on in the Captain's
cabin and on the bridge.
Put more simply,
we need to control the Party
, or when the clock
truly runs out, all this effort will truly have been pointless. I'm not
fatalistic. I assume there's a way. So here's my first shot at an answer.
Elected Progressives Must Openly Rebel Against Their "Leaders"
In order for the revolution inside the Democratic Party to work, our elected
progressive congressional representatives senators, must work to depose Pelosi
and Schumer (etc.) and take power.
More - they must do it
visibly,
effectively and now
, in order to convince the 42% of voters that
someone
inside the Party is trying to knock these people out of the Captain's chair.
We voters and activists have our own challenges. This is the challenge for
the electeds we've already put in place. If our elected progressives don't do
this - or won't do this - "tick-tick-tick" says the world-historical clock on
the wall. And we can all go down together, steerage and First Class alike.
It's time to step up, elected progressives. It's also time to be
seen to
step up
. Read the Paul Craig Roberts quote at the top again. If the
Party's failed leaders aren't deposed, the revolution will have failed.
It's a moment for real courage, and moments of courage bring moments of
great fear. I understand that this kind of open rebellion, open public
confrontation, a palace coup in front of the TV cameras, is frightening.
It's also necessary.
My ask: If you agree, write to your favorite elected progressive and say so.
No more gravy train for Democratic elites. Meat and potatoes for voters
instead.
Complete the Sanders revolution by changing House and Senate
leadership - now.
I know this puts some very good people on the spot. But maybe that's a
feature, yes?
Though I believe climate change is well past the point that it can be
mitigated, the attempt to depose the corporate democrats is a noble enough
endeavor.
Stephen Jaffe is running against Nancy Pelosi, a very thoughtful and
progressive candidate.
I'm sure these guys could use any help anyone is willing to offer. I believe
they are both against PAC money, but they can accept donations through actblue.
Yeah but so we have two
white men
running against women, and on
top of that if my google is correct Jaffe is > 70yrs old?
No disrespect to the quality of the candidates, but . seems like more
wheel spinning. Like I keep saying, I don't trust Tulsi as far as I can
throw my gas guzzler, but she has the kind of profile we need.
Yes, she does. But she's from Hawai'i, and a 50 state strategy is
needed. Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein are both Californians, and
they're a couple of phonies. Despite the difficulties, any progressive
Democrats who oppose them in the primaries deserve to be seriously
considered for support. Here are some more web sites for these
candidates:
I love the spike in 2007 from Dems to Independents. That would be about the
time Pelosi said "impeachment is off the table." They came back to vote for
Obama and have been cratering ever since. And Pelosi is still there. But the
problem is: the leadership has not been developing any new leaders. Pelosi is a
disaster but whoever might replace could easily be worse.
I shake my head in wonder at how 'middle America" seems to have been
suckered by Trump, and continues to vote against its self-interest. Yet I
see a comment with a 'conditional but(t) about Pelosi, and I think, "Well,
that is just as inane?"
We need to dump BOTH sides of the same neocon , self-interested corrupt
to the core coin, BOTH parties, and completely re-tool.
The collective 'we' must come up with a simple platform, over 300 new
candidates for congress, as many candidates as there are for the upcoming
Senate seats, in the next 18 months. Tall order, but, it really is up to
'us'. We 'the people'.
The platform that would rally the votes, or a Constitutional convention
and re-work that would satiate the broad center of America is daunting if
even possible.
I have trotted out some ideas, and they just don't resonate with closest
like-minded friends, so how am I going to gain traction with folks that are
of a deeper opposite philosophical perspective?
– Single payor, one system, NOT insurance, but care: same one for
congress, the president, the military, and lowly tax mules like me
– No-deduction, simplified flat-rate income tax with four tiers, 5% 12% 20%
top rate 40%- you tell me where we draw the gross income lines between the %
rates
-Tax return has taxpayer- directed check boxes in front of a simplified
matrix of 'government' , where individuals choose where they want their
money to go. Initial 10 year period of a declining sliding scale- 90% goes
general fund first year, 80% 2nd year, and so on so that by year 10 each
taxpayor only gives 10% to the general fund, 90% is taxpayor-directed
(direct democracy?) Allows lead time for the government to see the direction
the nation, and not the elected officials, want to see their money go
(infrastructure? Bombs and depleted uranium bullets destined for distant
shores and brown people? National Parks and monuments? Starving disabled
widows and children? Public universities and Community College/ Trade
Schools?
-Currency tied to BTU/ energy– value of BTUs based on full-life cycle costs-
including carbon or waste management externalities (Coal, oil/gas, nukes,
hydro) analyzed energy units– incentivize individuals to print their own
money with rooftop solar, wind, conservation, etc ( a new Gold standard
:This is where all the displaced accountants and insurance/ medical staff
can go after the tax code is simplified )
-Reintroduce The Draft, with mandatory service to include civilian work
corps, get parents involved in directing our elected 'reps' to ponder the
slelf licking ice cream cone of perpetual war
I'm sure I am missing many things but boy, between Trump. Pelosi,
McConnell, Schumer, Ryan, Gianforte, we are according to my values and
preferences headed in a 180 degree wrong direction!
Honestly, at this point, every single vote cast in the presidential
election could be argued as being "against one's best interests". This
hackneyed phrase needs to subsume under real qualitative analysis.
it's going to be against one's self interest in all likelihood as
the system one lives in is against most of our self-interest
(including our corrupt money drenched political system). Some votes
can at best be damage control, which I suppose is in one's self
interest to a degree, but only to a degree.
This entire discussion is based upon the false premise that there
are two political parties in the United States. Objectively there is
only one party- the War Party, Empire Party, Kleptocracy Party- call
it whatever you wish. Within it are two factions with slightly
different players and ownership, but both are totally unrepresentative
of the real interests of 99.99% of the citizens.
From the standpoint of the commoners, the two parties are similar to
football teams where fan support is based upon social conformity and
quasi-religious delusion. Loyalty is fostered by staging huge circuses
where the two contestants compete to see which one can fabricate the
most appealing set of lies which they never intend to try to
implement.
"Change cannot occur if the displaced ruling class is left intact
after a revolution against them" The idea that one of these "political
parties" can be captured and transformed into something other than its
very essence is ludicrous. What exactly does the displaced ruling
class (not being) left intact mean? Nancy Pelosi finally succumbing to
old age? Pelosi, Obama, or Trump are hardly the ruling class- merely
its' hired servants who can be replaced. Having the ruling class
overthrown is more likely to mean the Buffets, Bezos', and Dimons of
the world thrown into a maximum security cell In Guantanamo or burned
at the stake than a mere shuffling of political actors.
And Gaius, what basis do you have for calling Trump the worst
presidential candidate in modern history? In order to achieve that
honor he will have to outperform Obama, he of the silver tongue who
ruled for 8 years as a "progressive" while overseeing the destruction
of the middle class, enabling the financialiization of the economy and
the greatest transfer of wealth in history, and becoming the world's
most prolific assassin using a fleet of remote controlled drones. Or
be more evil than George Bush, who sat in the back row of an
elementary classroom while Dick Cheney stage managed the false flag
attack upon New York and the Pentagon and used that to turn the
country into a Homeland Insecurity police state. Granted, Trump is
trying hard to be even more destructive than his predecessors, but he
hasn't yet succeeded.
You effectively echo my thoughts, Mr Horse. The children of the
American Revolution are afraid to revolt perhaps they fear they
will be demoted to economy class on the Titanic if they rebel?
Missing 2 big ones:
1. MONEY IS NOT SPEECH, and shall be subject to regulation by legislation
and/or administrative rules;
2. Corporations ARE NOT PEOPLE and have absolutely ZERO inherent rights.
Any rights assigned to corporations by legislation shall be subordinate
to those of living beings.
The U.S. Constitution IS ONE F'D UP DOCUMENT, that makes things so
hard to change.
But really since it seems this requires an amendment to change
these things, and that is nearly impossible to achieve (well we
haven't had a new amendment in 45 years unless you count congressional
pay – yea approaching near half a century without one), it does just
underscore what a screwed up political construct we live under.
I've always liked Gavin Bryars but just read the above is on Tom Waits' top
ten list of music favorites. So here's something he did with Bryars, also part
of the sinking of the Titanic:
[ Long laundry list horror show of Obama/Clinton bundlers lobbying to
advance Trump agenda. At the end:]
The Intercept spoke to several progressive activists who
expressed outrage that leading Democratic Party officials are now
advancing the Trump agenda, but were reluctant to comment on the
record, for fear of angering powerful Democrats. But a few activists,
like Democracy Sping's Newkirk, decided to speak on the record.
Becky Bond, an activist and former Bernie Sanders adviser who also
spoke out, said, "When Democratic insiders team up with Comcast and
the private prison industry, they make it pretty difficult to see how
the party can recruit relationships with the voters it needs to bring
back into the fold."
"Destroying the internet and maximizing the profitability of mass
incarceration," she added, "is not what I would call a winning
strategy for Democrats who want to take back power in 2018."
If the DNC wanted input from granola crunchers, they would ask for it.
Or, rather, have Blue State Digital ask for it and bill the DNC six
figures.
The doctor has correctly diagnosed the disease, but there is no cure; the
prognosis is terminal. The D party are American to the core: grifting,
hustling, murdering, stealing, tech-douchebaggery, vagina-hatted buffoonery,
egotistical, self-obsessed anti-social psychopathic angry drunks of selfish
parents. I.e, all-American.
"By my count, with the Georgia election Democrats have just blown their
fifth chance in a row to make a new first impression"
Direct and simple. Publius has it right, like Hillel:
"There was an incident involving a Gentile who came before Shammai and said
to him: 'Convert me to Judaism on condition that you will teach me the entire
Torah while I stand on one foot.' Shammai pushed the man away with the building
rod he was holding. Undeterred, the man then came before Hillel with the same
request. Hillel said to him, 'That which is hateful unto you, do not do unto
your neighbor. This is the whole Torah, all the rest is commentary.'" (
Shabbat
31a)
Imagine this scenario with a fast-food worker, a coal miner, an adjunct
professor, a docks trucker. (Evidently Ossoff didn't imagine this, as reports
surface that he didn't campaign for these kind of voters.)
Do not exploit. Single-payer. Debt relief. Free tuition. It's not going to
be easy, but there's no need for fear.
As much as I would like to see a viable third party that owes nothing to the
POS legacy Dems, it does seem like the more likely scenario is a takeover of
the entire party apparatus and leadership.
Actually, the line is by Nobel Laureate, Bob Dylan, from "All Along the
Watchtower." which was, importantly, preceded by the line, "There's no
reason to talk softly now."
"Change cannot occur if the displaced ruling class is left intact
after a revolution against them .
I don't even detect this as a sincere goal among progressives/demos
which is yet another reason I'm not d partying.
If anyone takes over the party without changing nearly every process then
they are just seeking the same results by new faces.
Binding platform/policy established and maintained by as many
people/votes as possible. And this should be done by nearly anyone but
candidates/office holders. Officeholders should represent with instructions
much like a jurist.
True party membership.
No more caucus. Individual private votes on paper ballots for all party
processes. All off which must be counted immediately. Votes should be
scheduled far in advance, with no last minute changes to questions/issues as
we witnessed when given glimpses of inner party shenanigans.
Transparent, real time monitoring of all incoming and outgoing funds.
Down to the office pencils and after hours beers if on party or contracted
dimes.
Otherwise it's a private anti-democratic exclusionary party and you ain't
in it.
Being in control of the losing party is still being in control: deals can be
made, hands can be shaken, backs can be rubbed. A reformed progressive party
means that the current elite lose their relevance, influence and power. And
they will have none of that.
"Change cannot occur if the displaced ruling class is left intact after a
revolution against them."
Dems have been running away from Henry Wallace (Roosevelt too) since way before
my time.
Michael Hudson said this back on this site in March:
"It seems that only a new party can achieve these aims. At the time these
essays are going to press, Sanders has committed himself to working within the
Democratic Party. But that stance is based on his assumption that somehow he
can recruit enough activists to take over the party from Its Donor Class.
I suspect he will fail. In any case, it is easier to begin afresh than to
try to re-design a party (or any institution) dominated by resistance to
change, and whose idea of economic growth is a pastiche of tax cuts and
deregulation. Both U.S. parties are committed to this neoliberal program – and
seek to blame foreign enemies for the fact that its effect is to continue
squeezing living standards and bloating the financial sector."
Further I find it hard to conclude that the Democratic party is salvagable
reading the post here. They have proven time and time again where their
interest lie.
Unless there is a mutiny on the horizon for the democrats, maybe it is
better to abandon ship!
Donor money attracts the status seekers pushing for the status quo,
guaranteeing low voter turnout. Leaders probably love it when the dissenters
just give up and become even more individualistic.
A new party needs to get started promoting:
– pension protections
– universal healthcare
– affordable post secondary education
Interesting how Macron managed to recruit enough members of parliament
to make his EM party viable – just that easily he ousted and replaced
people. I thought it was all too smooth. Here it's a cat fight all the
way. And in the end party politics gets corroded anyway. I'm thinking a
party is secondary to policy, because it is always shifting. Whereas some
bedrock policy, regardless of which "party" might be marching for it, can
survive all the ups and downs of sack-of-potato politics. What we need is
a movement that demands human rights. A constitutional convention would
just be another cat fight – we need to start demanding the basics, as you
list them and maybe a few more like a jobs guarantee program – the right
to work for a living wage.
Human rights are too nebulous: one could see walking down the
street holding a gun a god given right while the other sees being able
to walk in a gun free city
a god given right.
Job guarantees are just as nebulous. Instead of offering job
guarantees, you'd have to guarantee the creation of specific jobs:
cleaning polluted areas, universal daycare, research into X, etc.
I don't think you can compare the situ with the Dems to Macron's
feeble sweep up. He's a Globalist banker construct, a cutout. Obama v
2.0 a la Français. IMHO, of course.
Thank you. The Dems are never going to change unless challenged from
outside
the party. Sanders' Titanic analogy isn't particularly valid
since the first class passengers in this case have their own private
lifeboats. Of course you can get melodramatic and claim the fate of the
world is at stake and therefore the planet itself is the Titanic due to AGW
but that's a problem much bigger than political parties and changing one for
the other isn't likely to make much of a difference.
Since the article brings up Walmart and Amazon perhaps they could serve
as better analogies. They aren't really monopolies of course since they fear
competition including each other and that may be all they fear. I see this
in my own town as new competitors move in and Walmart cleans up its stores,
offers new services etc.
So Michael Hudson had it right. Sanders would have made far more of a
difference if he had started a third party rather than sheepdogging for the
Dems. The barriers are huge and designed to be so but the people running the
Dem party are not going to step aside for our convenience. It's the duopoly
system itself that needs to be overturned and not this perpetual
suggestion–that we've been hearing forever–that the Dems somehow reform
themselves. Their idea of reform is to bring on somebody like Obama to fix
the p.r.
>Sanders would have made far more of a difference if he had started a
third party
Not sure I agree with this. Now you can possibly convince me that he
should, but I feel strongly that the initial attack right in the belly of
the beast was necessary. Now everybody's heard of him, know who he is.
He's on the TeeVee, he brings them eyeballs.
If he started a third party he would have just been ignored in the
media, and the media is all.
He could have started a third party with the justification that the
DNC sabotaged him. We'll never know what would have been the outcome
in 2016, but since I see Bernie as a "first pancake" (don't eat it but
it's necessary to get things going) breaking with the Dem. Party would
have been important on several levels.
You are absolutely correct - as a third party candidate, Sanders
would have received even less media coverage than he did get from the
mainstream media. I think he would have done better than the Greens,
but he still would have lost badly. One of the major lessons of 2016
is that the deck is heavily stacked against third parties in the
United States; neither the Greens nor the Libertarians
in
combination
could muster 5% of the Presidential vote. To
ignore that lesson would be tragic.
In a 4-way election for President of the United States today,
06/10/16, with Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders,
and Gary Johnson all candidates on the ballot, Trump defeats
Clinton 35% to 32%, with Sanders at 18% and Johnson at 4%,
according to SurveyUSA research conducted for The Guardian. Of
those who vote for Sanders if his name is on the ballot, 73% say
theirs is a vote "for" Sanders, 19% say theirs is a vote
"against" Trump, and 7% say theirs is a vote "against" Clinton.
In a 4-way election for President with Sanders' name not on
the ballot, Clinton defeats Trump 39% to 36%, with Johnson at 6%
and Jill Stein at 4%. 5% of all voters tell SurveyUSA they would
"stay home and not vote" in this ballot constellation. Of those
who vote for Sanders when Sanders' name appears on the ballot,
13% say they will stay home if Sanders name is not on the
ballot, 41% vote for Clinton, 15% vote for Johnson, 11% vote for
Stein, and 7% defect to Trump.
I can't help but think that as Sanders got to put his message
out at the debates, when most voters are just starting to tune in,
and then with comey and pussy grabbing there would be a significant
shift to the only not insane candidate with a shot. That is if the
media didn't go ape shit on him for 'handing the election to trump'
as soon as he decided to go 3rd party. That is a big IF, but now I
wonder how much of an effect that would have had with how much
everyone loves the media ..
The Dems are never going to change unless challenged from outside
the party.
Sanders' Titanic analogy isn't particularly valid since the first
class passengers in this case have their own private lifeboats.
To your point the first, it is not an either-or situation. And think
how effective it would be if the Dem Party leadership was challenged from
*both* inside and outside!
To your point the second, the *very* first class passengers feel
assured that they have lifeboats (and they could be wrong), but the
hangers on? Not really. They have not adequately prepared, they are as
few paychecks from disaster as the rest of us are, they are riding on
their employers' ticket, and that is why they are hanging on to the
"donor class" like grim death. The actual "donor class" doesn't pull the
levers of power, they have staff to do that. It is the staff that we are
after.
Pelosi, Schumer, Clinton, Hoyer. They are all old. In 5 years time, the
whole Democratic party could change. There is a saying attributed to Max
Planck, "Science advances one funeral at a time.", I suggest the same
applies to politics.
The history of third parties in the U.S. is not encouraging. Much as I
respect Michael Hudson's writings on economics I tend to adhere to the
writings of G. William Domhoff for analysis of power.
[ http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/class_domination.html ] From the
section "The Power Elite and Government":
" there can be only two main parties due to the structure of the
government and the nature of the electoral rules."
"The fact that Americans select a president instead of a parliament, and
elect legislators from "single-member" geographical areas (states for the
Senate, districts for the House) leads to a two-party system because in
these "winner-take-all" elections a vote for a third party is a vote for the
person's least desired choice. A vote for a very liberal party instead of
the Democrats, for example, actually helps the Republicans."
This last election cycle the Democratic Party too plainly exposed its
empty hull within. It appears vulnerable to take over by mutiny or pirates
from within.
Abandoning ship? - That sounds like a good way to drown. Neither of the
main alternative parties show promise and riding the currents of the present
seas will not carry us to a new island home.
The current situation is an echo of the post-Civil-War elections when the
Farmers' Alliance and Peoples' Party actually elected officials from local
to Federal. They lost, ultimately, to J.P.Morgan and his interests, but
sparked genuine change (a central bank, among other things).
I'm not sure how you look at the last election cycle and conclude that the
'Democrat' party is even remotely capable of reform from within. For all of Mr.
Sanders laudable goals, I think he is still suffering from the delusion that
enough people in the party have the courage and moral conviction to do the
right thing rather than looking out for their own skin. The money suggests
otherwise.
I think it has been proven rather conclusively that political animals are
first and foremost self-serving creatures. That being said, it's probably time
people take the bull by the horns and proceed with forming a party that
actually represents their collective interests rather than "the system".
I have been involved in a discussion group with some highly intelligent
people (mostly PhD types here), and it is fascinating how many of them will
apologize for the destruction created by the previous administration's
policies. These people aren't necessarily wealthy, but they see themselves as
the "resistance" when they are part and parcel part of the problem.
They, like many in the 'Democrat' party, still cling to the Hamiltonian
principles that have alienated so much of the country. Obama was a perfect
example of how destructive this mindset can be. These closet elitists espouse
popular progressive policies on their face, but when push comes to shove they
will happily throw a few people under the bus if it means they won't have to
wait in line for their morning latte at Starbucks. These faux progressives see
themselves as the thinkers and leaders in modern society (much like Orwell's
Animal Farm pigs), and they have no intention of letting the peons without
proper pedigrees institute change which would level the playing field for a
more just and humane social and economic structure.
These closet elitists espouse popular progressive policies on their
face, but when push comes to shove they will happily throw a few people
under the bus if it means they won't have to wait in line for their morning
latte at Starbucks.
This is a perfect definition of a dem tribalist, in all but words they
are the exact same as those suburban republicans the dem party so
desperately longs for, but will never have for the simple reason they are
tribalists as well.
Dems are enraged enough to don little pink hats and march by the
millions, not because of gross inequality, injustice or global warming, but
because their moderate Republican lost.
They say they hate racists and racism, but they steadfastly support the
policies that institutionalize racism. Mass incarceration, economic
injustice, global war, the biggest drivers are just fine with them. The
racism they don't like is the crass kind displayed by individuals that they
see or here. Not really because it's racist but because it tarnishes their
virtue bubble.
Dems are moderate suburban Republicans who don't have stiff enough
constitutions to see, and own the effects of the policies they support. They
are delusional hypocrites.
The crooked leadership in the DimRat party are only interested in fooling
people so they can collect campaign contributions which they promptly lop
off for their personal gain. They don't if they win or lose an election as
long as they can fool people and loot campaign money. They'll swindle the
honest people who stay within the DimRat party and throw them away like used
rags. The people who desire to change the party from within are deluded.
Bernie might have meant well and spoken some truths but when push came to
shove, he ran back to Momma! Let's get with the program and support a third
pary like the Greens who already have registration in ove 40 states.
I washed my hands of the Democrat Party and national politics after the
primary, with the exception of a possible Constitutional convention, which I
see as the best chance we have to dismantle the American empire peaceably. I'll
still vote, as disruptively as I can, but I'm not investing my energy in
national issues only to be left a dry husk. Rather, that energy is being
focused on my garden, my community, and my family.
Your comment is appreciated, perhaps more than you realize. One can
feel quite alone in a decision like this when the massed crowd insists on
marching off the cliff and expects me to not only go along, but to agree
that it is a good idea. Thank you.
Yep. Many, many more. We should create a secret handshake to
identify one another in public. Or maybe we identify our comrades
by the dirt under their fingernails, or the beet left dangling from
their back pocket as a sign of solidarity.
I don't think you are alone at all. I have been planning similarly
for the past 3 years and know several other people who are doing the
same. We have paid off mortgages, pinched pennies and are living a
simple, anti-materialistic life with the end goal of moving to a
rural/small town where we can be largely self-sustaining, focus on our
communities and make due with a much smaller income.
That being said-I will continue to use my voice (in any way that I
can) to express my outrage at the current state of the USA .
Yes! And you can find us at the local community food and music
festivals across North America. National politics has become a
toxic playground for futile argument.
I'm not investing my energy in national issues only to be left a dry
husk. Rather, that energy is being focused on my garden, my community,
and my family.
Simply voting in the Democratic primary doesn't take a lot of energy.
Your family and your community could benefit if you do so (I'm not sure
about your garden).
I strongly second this view! Independents and the alienated [David, by
the lake you seem "alienated"] should register to one of the two parties
- preferably Democratic. Registering for a party means you can vote in
that party's primary and it means you might be called by pollsters and
receive requests for contributions - all offering great potential for
disrupting which are not otherwise available to Independents and the
alienated.
Not that I'm happy with what he does or plans to do, but isn't Trump
already doing a pretty good job of dismantling the American empire?
Given our circumstances, and the patterns of history, isn't it a delusion
for the anti-imperialist Left to think that the empire will shrink/dissolve
into something resembling its preferred model, whatever that is? In fact,
doesn't history show cronies/grifters/looters/shitheel relatives (think
Kushner) as the ones who inherit a failing empire, and get their skim from
the excess energy/capital generated by it collapse?
I've no patience at all for the "Putin did it" memes, but according to
the Caligula/Nero model of imperial decline, he'd have been wise to do
everything in his power to get Trump elected, since Donnie is likely to do
more to undermine the empire than anyone imaginable.
In the BBC series "I Claudius" - Claudius believed favoring Nero would
help bring a return of the Republic.
My chief hope from Trump was that he might draw down our Military and
stop a few of our ruinous wars. Instead he seems to have "outsourced"
control and direction of the Military to the Military. And Trump's
domestic agenda seems oriented toward reducing most of the population to
the condition of self-supporting slaves transferring what wealth they
still hold into the hands of the very wealthy. I suppose this is one way
to dismantle the American Empire.
Trump and the GOP are doing exactly what they do. This might be
dismantling (privatizing) society, but this is what they are and have
been so for many years. They are malevolent, but relatively honest about
it.
The Dems, however, speak through their hats. They are also malevolent,
but do not broadcast it. They are masters of scapegoating and
rationalization. They have been moving right since at least the Carter
Presidency (yes, Carter) and appear to covet the GOP so much that they
have effectively become the GOP of 5 to 10 years ago on a sliding scale.
Since every election is The Most Important EVAH ™, they have kept those
attempting to move the party back to the left unhappily in the party as
"they have nowhere else to go". But the results over the last 50 years
reveal the Dems as liars, and eventually the lessor of 2 evils strategy
(not a typo – they are for lease) stops working as people slowly realize
that the benefits of voting blue no matter who are minimal. Thus the
increase in independents on the above graph.
We have hit the point, globally IMO, where people have had enough.
"Vote GOP/fascist, and those empty-promise Dems/liberals will suffer with
us- and we get to keep our guns." Or don't vote at all. Schadenfreude is
a powerful motivator.
The Dems were the party of conservatives back in the 1800s (remember
slavery?), took a little detour in the 1930s, and have reverted to what
they were. The left (not the vichy-left that is left only relative to the
GOP, but the progressive left) has
no
representation in
US politics. The future for progressives lies outside of the Dem party –
let the aristocratic Dems and GOP become one party with 2 factions
discriminated by the amount of bible thumping they do.
Progressives need to start over very publicly, and the sooner the
better. They need to clearly, loudly describe what they will do, how they
intend to do it, and how it will benefit people. Corbyn and Sanders have
demonstrated that there is a significant fraction of the population that
will support this. It also uses the existing Schadenfreude as a political
tool.
\rant)
"For the message to change, the leadership must change."
For the Democratic-Party leadership to change, we have to get the new
message [we will give you a better life] through to them. They're not listening
to that new [old-school] message, because roughly half of us will vote for them
no matter what the message is [say, the alternative is worse, ya' know] and the
other half of us don't vote at all [read: what difference does it make?].
Let's address that last part first. We should be able to convince the people
that their votes would make a difference if only they'd cast them for at least
five consecutive election cycles. That might entail electing more of the same
sort of Democrats that we have today. But if voter participation on the
Democratic side of the choice increased sufficiently and persistently, then
even the worst of the Democrats would have to remove the tampons from their
ears to hear the people demanding a better life.
Be advised, though, that when the better life arrives–as it briefly did
following the GI Bill, The Interstate Highway Act, the expansion of the
suburbs, the era of urban decay and municipal budget crises wrought by bond
down-grading–a fair number of the people will become Republicans and the great
cycle of rent-seeking expropriation will begin anew.
The foolish Democrats continue to send our house "surveys" as part of their
begging. Usually I just throw them out or write a brief, nasty message in red
marker. This time, with the two that are awaiting my action, I'm going to add a
more detailed "get rid of Pelosi, Schumer, Hoyer etc." message.
Having worked in a Congressional office, I know that I'm not really
"communicating" with anyone, but perhaps if they get a few more of these
specific "suggestions," a light will go on in their lizard brains.
You are saying "socialist" like it's a bad thing. Ever gone for a drive?
To the library? You just dealt with two socialist entities, roads and
libraries. I could go on, but the hour is getting late.
Fascinating stuff really, how in America
Socialism=USSR=Stalin=Terrorism=Obama.
Reminds me of that excellent wikileaks document talking about how they
are content to have erased civics and worked to create a clueless
population
Bernie played it masterfully, disrupting the democrat party and exposing
the fraud, while maintaining an operational voice as a senator. The
aforementioned elites would like nothing more than seeing him go away.
The entrenched power within the Democrat Party in Washington lies with
the campaign committees (DNC, DCCC, DSCC) who are under the thumb of some of
the most sleazy, corrupt people in politics - Democrat
"consultants".
There will be no kind of change without decapitating the party of those
scumbags. They, in turn, owe their jobs to the members of Congress who are
elected by their caucus to "oversee" those campaign committees. DCCC is
headed by Pelosi apparatchiks Lujan and Israel. Israel, in particular, is a
poster child for the corrupt, antideluvian Democrat Party hack. Similar
dynamics apply in the Senate, although the caucus "leaders" are not always
what they appear to be on paper. (Feinstein has long been the "leader" of
the Senate Democrats, though she has never held the title.)
The Democrats are dead to me and have been since 2006 when they "took
impeachment off the table" and acquiesced to the "surge" in Iraq. Whatever
inclination I might have had to remain with them was shattered in the 2008
primaries when any candidate voicing actual progressive thoughts was shunted
aside by the party leadership and their media sycophants in favor of the two
most conservative, war mongering (take another look at the second Obama-McCain
debate if you think only Hellary was a war monger) , corporate/MIC lackeys.
It doesn't matter how many elections Pelosi, Schumer, et. al. lose or how
hollowed out their representation in Congress and state houses become, They
will continue to be supported by the mega-rich neoliberal establishment,
celebrities, tech elites and the coastal intelligentsia. Without an outside
challenge from the left nothing will change inside the party since they are
correct in their observation that the left "have nowhere else to go", well
except to stay home (like they did in 2016). This will result in more Trumps
(who are smarter and more competent than the original model) and then the Dems
will play the "unity" and "resistance" cards.
I agree with 99% of what you say but, if they continue to lose then they
will not be supported by the mega-rich etc.
The sad thing is we now have the Imperial Presidency, and I'd still
probably bet (lightly) against Trump in 2020 so the Dems will probably get
the Presidency again without Congress and the country will continue to spin
its wheels.
They have been losing for decades now and yet they
do
continue to be supported by the mega rich. That's not going to dry up any
time soon as those types do like to hedge their bets.
The Imperial Presidency didn't start in January. And I'll remind you
that statusquObama had a Democrat majority in the House and a
supermajority in the Senate when he took office. He had no need to
compromise with the other side and could have pushed through any truly
progressive reforms that he and the Democrats wanted to and yet the
wheels continued to spin. All that came of that was a pro-corporate
health insurance scam that is now on its last legs.
Please don't continue to labor under the delusion that if only they
controlled more branches of government things would be different. If they
actually wanted to help out the working class in this country they would
have done so already. That they'd rather lose than help the 'deplorables'
has become abundantly clear.
It's ALL one party with a scrum at the margins. St. Bernie stands atop the
burning dumpster, railing about the injustice of it all, while being consumed
by its flames. This is an Empire backed by a full-blown Police State. Nobody is
going anywhere.
You are now free to go about your business enjoying the benefits of our
consumer society. Thank you.
Democratic consultants are to politics as mutual fund managers are to Wall
Street: Put on fronts of intelligence, talent, and insight well beyond their
abilities, act like their expertise is crucial for success when their actual
track record is mixed at best, act like their much more important to the
process than they really are, and it doesn't matter if they win or lose, they
get their hefty fees regardless.
Reforming the so-called Democratic Party is impossible in my opinion. It's
torn between a corporate leadership (appeal progressives) and its regressive
fringes. Let it burn to the ground and make a new party, for true progressives
(am I going in the direction of a "no true Scotsman"?), who would represent the
interests of "We, the people".
Then you have the real radicals, BLM, AntiFa, and the
n
th wave
intersectional feminists, respectively crying about "systemic oppression",
"goddamn nazis everywhere", "the Patriarchy", and collectively: "fugg da
po-pos!". Yes, the Republicans also have their corporate leadership and
fringes, but actual nazis and delusional AnCaps seem a lot less vocal or
significant (at least from Europe) compared to any riot or the madness at the
Evergreen State College. Then again, this is coming from someone living in
Europe, so my perspective isn't very good. Still, I don't feel really good
about the self-proclaimed Leader of the Free World (which it actually used to
be) devolving further.
That's why as small donors, people need to starve the beast--no
contributions to the any DC-based organization (to culturally appropriate
Ronald Reagan).
Support local individuals. Even $20 spent on a losing well-chosen local
state rep. is better spent than $10 for the DNC.
I like the description of the Ossoff race as a Pyrrhic loss – so much
invested by Dems into a candidate with so little to offer, that the loss
looms larger than it would otherwise.
I'm for trying anything that might work, inside or outside the D Party. I
am convinced the rules of the game in the US make it almost impossible for a
3rd Party to succeed. But there is no permanent reason the D Party has to be
one of the two.
The problem/difficulty with taking over the D Party is not just the
handful of leaders in DC. By my count, there are maybe 20 truly
left-progressive Dems in the House and no more than 5 in the Senate (being
truly charitable to people like Warren). So changing the nature of D
representation in DC with require primary-ing the vast majority of current
DC Dems. So the question is, does it make more sense to try to do this in D
primaries and try to take over the D Party apparatus – no doubt against
virtually the entire existing apparatus – or to run a complete slate of 3rd
party candidates in Nov elections. I used to think the former strategy has a
much higher likelihood of success. Now I am not so sure.
One concept that may help here is "party system." We are in the sixth party
system of the U S of A. And it sure looks like we are opening the door to the
seventh party system. So ruling out "third parties" isn't a great idea: Both of
the political parties (D and R) are structures that are dry-rotted. One kick
may send either or both tumbling. In some respects, Trump won the nomination
because Republican voters perceived how corrupted the Republican party is. (He
may be the stereotypical spoiled American businessperson, but to Republican
voters, he was somehow more "real" and "new" than Romney, the well-scrubbed
spoiled Republican businessperson.)
The parties aren't permanent. Is anyone nostalgic for the Whigs? Should we
argue that there was no way to get rid of the American Party (the
Know-Nothings)?
Sanders: "Because there are people who, as I often say, would rather have
first class seats going down with the Titanic, rather than change the course of
the ship."
And then there are those propaganda-gulping people who think that someday
they too will get one of those 1st class berths if they just keep going along
with what the elite wants
I can't believe some of the people I meet who think that somehow that the
neoliberal game plan is going to make their lives better someday
Many here commenting upon G. P.'s post truly hope and wish for change (heard
this one before?), both within the Democratic Party and outside. In both cases,
the answers and suggestions given are very innocent.
To cleanse the entire nation of the influence of corporate cash, corrupted
lackeys, and warmongers is absolutely necessary to accomplish both of those
goals, and we often do not see this nor do we see any method to be used. How
can anyone have the slimmest belief that the moneyed interests, their toadies,
and the hired hands at DoD, State, the Fed, and NSA, FBI, CIA, etc. will go
peacefully into the night when we challenge their puppets within the twin
parties of death? Will they not double down on preserving this system that
promises so much to them? Have they not killed those opposing them in other
countries, as well as here in the good ol' USA? What do we do when we go to
phase two (sorry- a wannabe poet)?
I'd like to see a discussion based upon that reality, with backup plans to
initiate and defend a strategy that knows a "win" in one area of division of
this system guarantees nothing until total victory over the entire ball of wax
is accomplished. In short, we have no global ideology, no encompassing
My gut feeling is that the working poor know, deep in their bones, it was
never as simple as presented by radicals of the sixties or those of us who have
not thought this through to its conclusion. That is why they "oppose" such
ideas and presentations (and, partly, due to well-earned suspicion that some
ideas are meant to rope the poor into a losing proposition, all the better to
hang them out to dry, eh?).
Plan piecemeal, if you must, but "act locally, think globally" means more
than just a surrender to local politics and school board elections. It can also
mean your whole philosophical outlook and approach to the question " after
this, what do we do?".
"around here" it's long been known that the reality is the dems can't win
a school board election. You don't need a gut feeling. Their demise is as
certain as their inability to see it coming.
The sad truth is that history's lurches and spurts are usually the result
of great violence–wars, revolutions. The Russian revolution shaped the
history of the 20th century because the western oligarchs were so afraid
that would happen to them that they had–temporarily it seems–to make
concessions to the welfare state. Their other tactic was to try to destroy
the source of the infection. Hitler and those backing him really had
eliminating the Commies as their principal concern. Lots in the west were
hoping he'd do it and this carried on into the Cold War.
At any rate while waiting for the cataclysm we can at least nibble at the
edges and try to revive the Left to a degree. Sitting around worrying about
what's going on with the hopeless Dems probably isn't all that useful.
All true. But we are a young species still, and the world has changed
so much in the last 100 years that I'm not sure how much of what happened
before sets limits on what we can achieve going forward.
OTOH I certainly agree with Mike that electoral politics is just the
tip of the iceberg. OTO we won't really know what we are up against until
we have some electoral power. But, just as one example, I am not at all
convinced that the grunts in the military would back a soft (or hard)
coup against a left populist with a real strategy and political operation
to improve the lives of most people. (I do think most cops probably
would.) And it is still the case that corporations need customers to make
money – in both the 1910's and 1930's, there were important splits in the
world of big business that provided openings for left politics. One of
our biggest problems is that a huge proportion of the remaining
manufacturing in this country feeds the MIC and it will be hard to get
working people to oppose that.
I did my part for the Sanders revolution by voting for Trump, who campaigned
far to the left of Clinton. But I'm just a het white male brocialist, so what
do I know.
Just one quibble. I don't want us to be at cross purposes. We have a global
way of doing things – for lack of a better description it is "capitalism" but
it falls way short of replacing government – even tho' it has been trying to do
just that for a century. Government is basically a distribution system – the
more equitable the better – and we still rely on Government to deliver. That is
one side of the coin. And it is, so far, all about money. The other side of the
coin is the planet, which has been polluted and exploited almost beyond
recovery by a human population that is way too big and a blind faith in
capitalism and trade. We are already living a contradiction. And we need to fix
it quickly. In order for policies to do us any good they have to repair the
planet while they keep us all alive at some level of comfort. An angry
revolution that has all sides talking past each other won't help anybody. It
will just waste precious time. And I submit that politics is the art of talking
past each other. We need to get above it.
Gov't is more than just distribution – it also structures the whole
capitalist market system – there is no capitalism without limited liability,
bankruptcy, contract law, etc. None of that should be taken as given or
unchangeable.
"If there were only one man in the world, he would have a lot of
problems, but none of them would be legal ones. Add a second inhabitant,
and we have the possibility of conflict. Both of us try to pick the same
apple from the same branch. I track the deer I wounded only to find that
y ou have killed it, butchered it, and are in the process of cooking and
eating it.
The obvious solution is violence. It is not a very good solution; if
we employ it, our little world may shrink back down to one person, or
perhaps none. A better solution, one that all known human societies have
found, is a system of legal rules explicit or implicit, some reasonably
peaceful way of determining, when desires conflict, who gets to do what
and what happens if he doesn't "
David Friedman, "Law's Order: What Economics Has to Do with Law and
Why It Matters"
", unless one wishes to scale the mountain of deliberate, structural
impediments to forming a viable, 50-state third party."
Excuses, excuses. You'd rather scale the mountain of impediments to
reforming the "Democrat" party?
After many years of mountain climbing (figurative), and many, many
discussions with apologists for repeating what didn't work before, I've
concluded the real determinant is not a rational calculation implied by Gaius'
above quote; it's personality. Some people have a much lower tolerance for
betrayal, and a lower attachment to institutions, than others. Personally, I
walked away in disgust when Slick Willy was president and I realized he was
really a Republican – only worse, because of the betrayal. So did others.
Others don't react that way; instead, they stay attached to the institution
and hope to overturn its power structure. I think Bernie's extremely impressive
campaign demonstrated the essential futility of that approach. So did thousands
of Bernie supporters who turned around and joined the Green Party as soon as he
lost. (Oregon has other more-or-less leftwing parties, so I don't think we
caught them all.) The proportion changes over time because it depends on the
severity of the provocation; deliberately choosing the weaker candidate, and
cheating to do it, even in the face of a Trump candidacy, was a very severe
provocation.
OTOH, I'm beginning to wonder what it will take to finish the job; the total
self-immolation of the Dems – or maybe of the country? Just as individuals have
breaking points, so do populations; where is it? My worst fear, and I now
consider it quite likely, is that we shoot right past overturning the party
structure to outright violent insurrection. It's easy to joke about
torches-and-pitchforks, but I'm getting too old for that sort of thing, and the
human costs are truly forbidding.
Politicians, like most people, do difficult things for only two reasons.
Either they have to do them, or they really want to do them. No one does them
because they think it would be a fine idea if someone does them someday.
This means that any strategy like the one proposed in this article needs to
explain how we're going to convince our congress people that they have to
oppose their leaders, not that it's a good idea. When progressives are willing,
in sufficient numbers, to either vote for and support someone else or keep
their votes and support in their pockets will those politicians think that what
we want them to do this. Short of that, no amount of pleading or shaking our
fists is going to matter.
If enough progressives in each Democratically-controlled district are
willing to publicly state they'll withhold their votes and support until this
happens, it has a chance of happening. Otherwise, I don't see how it's going to
be any more of a priority than all the other things we want that aren't being
done.
I think most voters are very wary of the government's ability to deliver
anything in terms of actual services what they want is money from them in some
form or another.
People will vote Democrat again and then they will vote Republican but there
isn't going to be some sea change in the actual policies either way.
Sean Hannity spoke about the murder of late Democratic National Committee (DNC) staffer Seth Rich during his Thursday radio program,
ending a temporary hiatus from the topic.
Hannity brought up the murder while speculating about leaks of damaging DNC emails that he believes may have come from "dissatisfied,
disgruntled" staffers within the group.
"My guess is there are a lot of angry, disgruntled, whistleblowing truth tellers within the DNC that were there that saw the collusion,
that saw that the fix was in against Bernie Sanders, that saw that there was corruption at the highest levels," Hannity said on his
nationally-syndicated radio program.
Released emails via Wikileaks revealed an effort from top officials of the DNC to undermine the campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders
(I-VT) during the primary campaign despite the organization insistence it was neutral in the race.
"Now I don't know anything about Seth Rich in this sense. I don't have any information about why he was murdered except that it
was suspicious," Hannity continued. "And suspicious meaning it wasn't a robbery as they've claimed but otherwise why would you not
steal his wallet, his phone, his necklace, his jewelry and watch and everything else."
"... "You've gone through four U.S. presidents: Clinton, Bush, Obama and now Trump. What changes?" Stone asks him. ..."
"... "Almost nothing. Your bureaucracy is very strong and it is that bureaucracy that rules the world," he says. Then, solemnly,
"There is change...when they bring us to the cemetery to bury us." ..."
"... PUTIN: We didn't hack the election at all. It would be hard to imagine any country, even Russia, being capable of seriously
influencing the U.S. election. Someone hacked the DNC, but I don't think it influenced the election. What came through was not a lie.
..."
"... They were not trying to fool anybody. People who want to manipulate public opinion will blame Russia. But Trump had his finger
on the pulse of the Midwest voter and knew how to pull at their hearts. Those who have been defeated shouldn't be shifting blame to
someone else....We are not waiting for any revolutionary changes. ..."
"... TRUMP: I hope I get along with Putin. I hope I do. But there is a good chance that I won't. ..."
"... PUTIN: It almost feels like hatred of a certain ethnic group, like antisemitism. They are always blaming Russians, like antisemites
are always blaming the Jews. ..."
"... The editors then flashed to footage of John McCain on the floor of the Senate ranting and raving about Putin. Then Joseph Biden
in the Ukrainian parliament, ranting about Russia. Putin tells Stone all of this is unfortunate. He thinks their view is"old world."
He reminds Stone that Russia and the U.S. were allies in World War I and World War II. It was Winston Churchill that started the Cold
War from London, despite having respect for Russia's strongman leader at the time, the real dictator, Joseph Stalin. ..."
But with Trump in the White House, the Trump-Putin conspiracy theory is one reality TV show the news media can't shake. Stone's love
for foreign policy intrigue at least makes him a Putin kindred spirit here. America's age old fear of the Russians, has made Putin
public enemy number one and Stone his sounding board. For some unhappy campers, like John McCain, Putin has "
no moral equivalent " in the United States. He's a
dictator , a
war criminal and
tyrant .
"You've gone through four U.S. presidents: Clinton, Bush, Obama and now Trump. What changes?" Stone asks him.
"Almost nothing. Your bureaucracy is very strong and it is that bureaucracy that rules the world," he says. Then, solemnly,
"There is change...when they bring us to the cemetery to bury us."
In the last installment of the Putin interviews, the Russian leader admitted to liking Trump. "We still like him because he wants
to restore relations. Relations between the two countries are going to develop," he said. It's a sentence very few in congress would
say, and almost no big name politicians outside of Trump would imagine saying on television. On Russia, you scold. There is no fig
leaf.
Stone asked him why did he bother hacking the Democratic National Committee's emails if he believed nothing would change on the
foreign policy front.
STONE: Our political leadership and NATO all believe you hacked the election.
PUTIN: We didn't hack the election at all. It would be hard to imagine any country, even Russia, being capable of seriously
influencing the U.S. election. Someone hacked the DNC, but I don't think it influenced the election. What came through was not
a lie.
They were not trying to fool anybody. People who want to manipulate public opinion will blame Russia. But Trump had his
finger on the pulse of the Midwest voter and knew how to pull at their hearts. Those who have been defeated shouldn't be shifting
blame to someone else....We are not waiting for any revolutionary changes.
Just then, editors cut to a video of Trump talking about Putin.
PUTIN: It almost feels like hatred of a certain ethnic group, like antisemitism. They are always blaming Russians, like
antisemites are always blaming the Jews.
The editors then flashed to footage of John McCain on the floor of the Senate ranting and raving about Putin. Then Joseph
Biden in the Ukrainian parliament, ranting about Russia. Putin tells Stone all of this is unfortunate. He thinks their view is"old
world." He reminds Stone that Russia and the U.S. were allies in World War I and World War II. It was Winston Churchill that started
the Cold War from London, despite having respect for Russia's strongman leader at the time, the real dictator, Joseph Stalin.
"... The U.S. is engulfed in a "crisis of governance" that has been "intentionally misunderstood" by the corporate media and the political elite, said Danny Haiphong , a contributing political analyst at BAR. Anti-Russian hysteria has been whipped up "to medicate political consciousness." "They don't want to discuss how Russia has absolutely nothing to do with the millions of incarcerated people in the U.S., or the fact that it is the U.S. monopoly capitalist economy, not the emerging capitalist economy of Russia, which has automated many of the jobs and siphoned much of the wealth that once belonged to a privileged sector of U.S. workers," said Haiphong. "This system has run its course. War is all the system has left." ..."
"... "If you are resisting Russian collusion with Trump, then what you are resisting is a fantasy," BAR executive editor Glen Ford told the opening plenary of the Left Forum. "And, if you are simply resisting Trump, the idiot in the White House, then you are simply a tool of a Democratic Party strategy." ..."
"Dumping the Democrats for good is the only way to resist Trump," said Black Agenda Report editor
and senior columnist Margaret Kimberley , addressing BAR's panel at the Left Forum, in New York City.
"What have they done since Election Day?" Kimberley asked. "They have refused to give even the appearance
that they are willing to push for even meager reforms. We have to talk about replacing them and having
a true workers party, a true peace party."
Political Elite Use Russia-Baiting to "Medicate" U.S. "Crisis of Governance"
The U.S. is engulfed in a "crisis of governance" that has been "intentionally misunderstood"
by the corporate media and the political elite, said Danny Haiphong , a contributing political analyst
at BAR. Anti-Russian hysteria has been whipped up "to medicate political consciousness." "They don't
want to discuss how Russia has absolutely nothing to do with the millions of incarcerated people
in the U.S., or the fact that it is the U.S. monopoly capitalist economy, not the emerging capitalist
economy of Russia, which has automated many of the jobs and siphoned much of the wealth that once
belonged to a privileged sector of U.S. workers," said Haiphong. "This system has run its course.
War is all the system has left."
A Real Left Would Demand Peace
"If you are resisting Russian collusion with Trump, then what you are resisting is a fantasy,"
BAR executive editor Glen Ford told the opening plenary of the Left Forum. "And, if you are simply
resisting Trump, the idiot in the White House, then you are simply a tool of a Democratic Party strategy."
Ford said the nation needs a rejuvenated anti-war movement, "or else we are defenseless against
this kind of strategy on the part of the Democrats, who pretend that they are an alternative to the
fascist-sounding and definitely virulently white nationalist forces in the Republican Party, but
are themselves intent upon a war policy that can mean the extinction of the human race."
Yes, I voted for Donald Trump. When people confront me
and ask me why, I sort of shuffle off, head down, while muttering something about how
"he wasn't the war candidate."
I even stuck with Trump until he launched
cruise missiles at an airbase in Syria and overnight became the establishment favorite,
with all the media and most politicians singing his praises for attacking a country with
which the United States was not at war over an alleged atrocity that did not involve
Americans-and could easily have been attributed to the terrorists that Damascus has been
fighting. And then he did it again, using fighter bomber aircraft to attack a column of
Syrian government-affiliated militiamen who were allegedly approaching and thereby
threatening a position inside Syria where U.S.-supported "good" insurgents, accompanied
by American advisers, were apparently hunkered down.
Someone should take out a map and show Trump where
Syria is and outline its borders while explaining what "sovereign territory" is supposed
to mean. If he could grasp the concept, possibly by relating it to Mexico, it just might
suggest to him that we Yanks could actually be foreign invaders who have crossed a
national border and are killing local people in gross violation of international law.
And then there is the foreign-policy finesse exhibited
on his recent World Tour. It began with his predictable slobbering all over the Saudis
and Israelis before stiffing the Palestinians. But then he elevated his game by
angering the Pope, whining to the Germans because there are no Chevys on the streets of
Berlin, pushing his way past the Montenegran Prime Minister and, finally, insisting on
riding in a golf cart and arriving late to the photo-op ending the G7 meeting in Sicily
while everyone else walked the 700 yards. His boorishness manifests itself as a nearly
complete unwillingness to make even the smallest gesture that would ease the relations
with other countries and leaders who are important U.S. partners. I guess he sees doing
so as a sign of weakness. Class act all the way, Donald!
But then again, when I am really down on Trump and
what he is doing or not doing, I think of Hillary Rodham Clinton. A good friend of mine
Joe Lauria, formerly a
Wall Street Journal
correspondent, has recently introduced, edited, and provided extensive commentary for a
book entitled
How I Lost By Hillary Clinton
.
It is an indictment of the Clinton campaign "in her own words" and includes a foreword
by Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, who discusses the leaks of Democratic National Committee
(DNC) and John Podesta emails that together provide much of the material included in the
text.
Lauria uses the source material to describe the
Clinton campaign using her own speeches as well as the leaked emails of her close
associates, and it really is refreshing to revisit what made the "inevitable" Hillary so
unappealing, particularly as she is now trying to rebrand herself
without assuming any serious blame
for her shortcomings as a candidate. Along the way, documents reveal the road to
Russiagate and Clinton's plans for more regime change, as well as expose corruption
within the nominally "neutral" DNC, the latter of which led to the deliberate sabotage
of the campaign of Bernie Sanders and the
de
facto
anointment of Clinton as
president-apparent.
The book is organized around two central themes,
Hillary as an elitist and Hillary as a hawk. In his introduction, Lauria describes
Clinton as "an economic and political elitist and a foreign-policy hawk divorced from
the serious concerns of ordinary Americans-the very people she needed to vote for her."
It is a fair assessment and in his introduction Joe also takes aim at Russiagate among
other targets, asking why, after more than a year of investigation and assessment, there
has been no National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on the alleged interference by Moscow
in the U.S. election. NIEs are meticulously prepared to provide detailed analysis of an
issue, to include sourcing and reliability assessments. They are carefully crafted
products of the entire intelligence community and they include dissenting opinions. That
there has been no NIE on Russiagate is unfathomable, unless of course such a report
would reveal that Russiagate is itself a complete fabrication.
Lauria particularly assails Clinton foreign policy,
describing her as a neoliberal interventionist who was the principal driving force
behind a series of U.S.-led actions that turned Libya into a failed state while she was
also urging tough action against Russia and yet another regime change in Syria. Joe
notes that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were arming terrorists in Syria on her watch, which
she was aware of from DIA reporting, while also contributing generously to the Clinton
Foundation, which notoriously intermingled its ostensibly humanitarian programs together
with the political activities of Hillary and Bill. And the Foundation also rewarded the
Clintons directly through generous salaries and substantial perks for the whole family,
to include foundation-funded travel on executive jets, which totaled $12 million in 2011
alone.
The Clinton sense of entitlement knew no limits, with
Bill once accepting a $1 million birthday present from Qatar, the principal funder of
al-Qaeda linked al-Nusra. Citing email evidence, the book documents how major foreign
donors to the foundation were able to enjoy special access to Secretary of State Hillary
Rodham Clinton. Hillary's closest associate Huma Abedin was point person for much of the
activity and was paid a $105,000 salary by the State Department, plus an undisclosed
amount by a consulting firm linked to the foundation, a double dip arrangement of
questionable legality.
Between April 2013 and March 2015, Hillary Clinton
gave 91 speeches and earned over $21 million. The three speeches for Goldman-Sachs that
she made during that time, for which she was paid $675,000, are the best known, mostly
because soon-to-be candidate Clinton refused to release the transcripts. But she also
spoke to just about any group who would pay her upwards of a $200,000 fee plus expenses.
This included several public universities. In her speeches, she sometimes complained
about how awful it was that many Americans had begun to look down on those who have a
lot of money, including a comment to Goldman Sachs that "there is such a bias against
people who have led successful and/or complicated lives." She was referring to herself
and Bill.
It was rare that Hillary's mask would drop and she
would say what she really thought, though it did happen sometimes. A speech at an LGBT
fundraiser in New York included the now infamous line: "You could put half of Trump's
supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist,
homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it they are irredeemable but thankfully
they are not America." Or at least not an America that she would recognize.
Hillary's speeches and the emails of Podesta and her
staff are quoted
in extenso
in the text and appendices. The most enduring impression is how boring most of what she
said really was. Her political experience enabled her to say what her audience wanted to
hear-no more, no less. She rarely spoke of actual policy in concrete terms and, for
example, when speaking to Goldman Sachs, she was instead full of platitudes and generic
praise for the "American way" of democracy promotion combined with good, solid, liberal,
and free-market values. She included how the financial-services industry is in the
forefront of all the positive changes taking place worldwide. There was nary a critical
word about the role of the largely unregulated and predatory big banks in the great
crash of 2008, and when she spoke of the suffering caused by that disaster, she was
referring to the disruptions experienced by those in financial services and government
who were made uncomfortable by being forced to respond to the crisis.
As Joe Lauria observes, Clinton's failure was clearly
her inability to comprehend what many mostly white working-class people in the United
States were experiencing. Her failure to see or understand inevitably became an
inability to empathize with such audiences verbally in a way that would appear to be
sincere. She came across as leaden and scripted. Her speeches increasingly became
sustained attacks on Trump the man and his admittedly flawed personality, combined with
appeals to women to vote for her purely because of her own gender. Her campaign was
singularly lacking in any formula for addressing the real problems experienced by many
in the country.
Speaking to bankers and other elitists from the
Washington-New York axis and Hollywood was a lot easier for Hillary because she was,
after all, one of them. She avoided campaign visits to working-class constituencies. And
she compounded that with a bellicose world view that considered Washington's ambition to
become some kind of benign but resolute global hegemon as both quite practical from a
resources point of view and also the right thing to do, something that most Americans
failed to relate to as a high priority.
So Hillary portrayed largely in her own words is well
worth a read. Unfortunately for our country, there are a lot of Hillary clones still out
there who have not learned the lesson of her defeat. Fortunately for conservatives,
quite a few of them are still in charge of the Democratic Party.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive
director of the Council for the National Interest.
I have little to argue with there; though the lack of a public NIE assessment
on a subject does not mean that none exist? The tragic thing is that, bad as
she is, Mrs. Clinton would have been better at performing the duties of the
office than Mr. Trump. It was always a choice between flogged by Clinton or
flayed by Trump. You can often survive a flogging, being flayed, not so much.
I share your view about the voting choices and what was surely our last, worst
hope for change.
But you know, causing disaffection among the "allies" who
bear increasing resemblance to high maintenance satrapies making entreaties to
the "benign hegemon" imperial court could be a good thing – the discontented
gongs of divorce, breaking up that old gang o' mine.
Hope this book made you feel better about your Dear Leader Donald! While I
continue to dislike Hillary, and voted for her without any relish, the
character, history, idiocy, and absurdity of DJT could make the most abject of
politicians seem like Honest Abe. Even if you really, actually think
'Russiagate' is a "vast left-wing conspiracy," does that make you feel any
better about this president? That's pretty cold comfort . . .
. because conservatives have been such beneficiaries of the loss of the
democratic opposition. Man, the conservative ideals are just going gangbusters!
Or is this new GOP under Trump Conservatism. That would be news to me.
The alternative would have been a sane non sociopath adult. Even many
conservatives recognize that fact. The white working class would be much better
off with good health insurance, and maybe higher wages.
Mr. Giraldi. NOTHING could be worse than putting Moe Howard in charge of U.S.
military power.
A fool is much more dangerous than a wicked man (or woman)
because a wicked man can be trusted to know when he is cutting his own throat.
A fool never.
There is no reason under God's blue earth that you should feel embarrassed
about voting for Mr. Trump. Not a single one.
Anyone listening to Sec. Clinton, speak she was unleashed over the last
couple of weeks would know, exactly what this latest text is saying. Frankly,
it's a bit frightening to hear that level of obtuse thinking. But then one
listens to her hosts and the audience and its down right chilling.
Whatever tentacles the liberal/republican/libertarian intelligentsia have
born is long and deep even in the psyche of the people who benefit the least
from such leadership.
There are three articles about what is essential the primacy press
concerning the global order and what all three indicate is that those running
the show seem to have a common ethic about us poor people, if they could just
get the rest of us to accept our lot in life as underlings of sorts all would
be well.
There are the clan of MustaphaMond. It is the nihilism of Buddhist, Hindi
and other far eastern thought. And while it has been around for quite some
time. It has never fully bonded with our politic openly in the US until now.
When they talk about international law, they don't mean law, they mean the
use of force to create order. And it should cause one pause as much as the
common but ill used phrase "law and order" which stands for my oeder by force
if necessary.
Philip, I share some of your frustrations with President Trump. However, you
should have mentioned that Trump (true to his word) has thus far kept us out of
any new Middle East war and has (against a braying pack of Democratic,
Republican, mainstream media, and deep state conspirator-jackals) continued to
push for detente with Russia, the one power on earth with the nuclear weaponry
to destroy us.
Given your foreign policy expertise and concentration, it is understandable
that you fail to mention that Trump has brought the burning issues of American
jobs, trade deals, illegal immigration, and rebuilding our crumbling
infrastructure front and center via his America First agenda.
About our voting for Trump, Philip: I don't think there's any need to "sort
of shuffle off, head down, while muttering something about how 'he wasn't the
war candidate'." On the contrary, we should stand tall for Trump, because
against all attempts to stop him, he is still fighting to fulfill his campaign
promises.
Just to add: Some of the most dedicated, loyal fighters for good causes that
it has been my good fortune to meet could also get a little "boorish" from time
to time.
You know who still cares about Hillary
Clinton, Trump supporters trying to deflect from the obvious incompetence,
continual stupidity, overt corruption, scandal genocide (plague is too kind a
word), and worthless policy that was supposed to be the new era for
conservatism.
So instead of trying to defend the indefensible, it is back to campaign 2016
to make it seem like you had no choice to go for the worst one possible despite
the glaring red warning lights everyone was saying. But that's ok. At least
Trump isn't a warhawk, even if he undermines the constitutional limitations of
power.
You know an administration is struggling when they are comparing themselves to
the election loser 8 months after the election. (In reality, I wish HRC would
go away for 1 year. She can come back with her husband next year and be popular
again.)
I voted for Mr. Trump, too. I'm not bit ashamed of it. I'd rather we'd had a
different GOP nominee, but it was what it was. And I really like VP Pence.
Hillary was a dreadful candidate but no matter who the Democrats nominated, I
wouldn't be able to vote for them in conscience because of the Democratic
platform.
And can you imagine what the Supreme Court might look like after 4-8 years of
Democratic administration?
Trump has carried through his promise re. the Supreme Ct. So that's something.
But then again, when I am really down on Trump and what he is doing or not
doing, I think of Hillary Rodham Clinton
That's nice, and we all deserve
some time in our happy places. But the 2016 election is over, and the guy you
voted for is setting new gold standards for both corruption and Saudi
boot-licking. How about using the public platform you have here to hold your
guy accountable, rather than indulging in a long, self-justifying digression
about how HRC would have been worse? Someone with your background probably has
a lot of interesting things to say about the blockade of Qatar and Trump's
support for it, the status of the Iranian nuclear deal, and why Trump and the
foreign policy establishment are so beholden to the Saudis. I'd like to read
those pieces.
Excellent précis of the cause of Donald Trump's 2016 presidential win: we voted
for the uncertainty of Trump delivering the goods to the American people over
the certainty of Hillary Clinton delivering us up to the high priests of
Mammonry.
The Establishment might consider that the narrative they sell us
that we erred in so voting, is undercut by their arriving at the same
conclusion by attempting a coup to remove him from office.
A more than interesting piece. I wish you had spelled out the acronym DIA, but
not having done so did force me to learn about an agency of whose existence I
was ignorant. Apparently, NIE's are ordered up by senior government officials.
Couldn't the White House order one and, following your logic, thereby exonerate
itself? This is a genuine question? I would be grateful for your opinion.
I know this is a difficult concept to understand, but it's possible to dislike
Hillary AND not want Trump to be president. I'm glad Trump is president, but
I'm glad he's so incompetent. I laugh at him every day.
I thought from the start of that torturous campaign Hillary either isn't all
that bright , or possibly she and Bill just live in their own corner of the
world, or lastly some influences told her she was a shoe in and just follow the
Obama prior agenda.
As a long-time subscrber to A.C. Giraldi is brightest ,straight shooter aboard.
I couldn't vote for the "know-it-all" and had to vote for Bill's spouse.
However, to pile- on I have to add that she was a "kiss-ass" Israel firster
which made me hold my nose even tighter.
Hillary was awful. That does not make Trump acceptable. Still it was a race to
the bottom, and she bottomed out worse.
We'd have had a much bigger Syria
War. We'd be back in her Libya disaster. We'd have gone into South Sudan. She'd
have armed Ukraine and sent Special Forces.
She'd have done that trade deal in the Pacific, her supporters are now clear
on that despite her lies during the campaign. That is a symptom of the overall
neo-liberal bullet we dodged.
She would not have a scandal about Russia, but she'd have one about Wall
Street and open bribery of the Clinton Foundation cash for access and selling
her office.
Really? This is rearview mirror stuff. What's next, attempts to indict HRC for
"obstruction of justice" because her establishment bona fides – arrogance,
incompetence, and greed made the 'alternative establishment' – equally
arrogant, incompetent and greedy – candidate more appealing?
The reasons why Hillary lost are like sands on the beach, numberless. The
reason HRC lost is because she is a woman and this is America. Oh I know too
simple, it is, but consider too that McCain lost. hm, ah you're crazy. Could
be, but twenty plus years of demonization must have some effect, you think. If
you really want to know why Hillary lost read, 'The Destruction of Hillary
Clinton' by Susan Bordo. That is if you seriously want to know. Challenge the
sands.
Really! "She would not have a scandal about Russia, but she'd have one about
Wall Street and open bribery of the Clinton Foundation cash for access and
selling her office."
Talk about weak tea. Most actual investigations found the Clinton Foundation
fairly clean and the access amounted to small ball compared to the displays of
patronage demanded daily by Trump. Did you read the recent investigation into
the purchases of Trump properties by anonymous corporations, have you looked at
the Wall Street tycoons in Trumps cabinet, or the number of lobbyists. Please
spare me the hand wringing over your hypothetical Clinton administration.
Elitist, hawk, sense of entitlement? Gee, who's that sound like?
Months after
the election (cf. sedition), press still tryna produce a dichotomy betw. Hi-C.
& Trump. I never bought it & never will. The two parties tortured us w/ a
female impersonator & a male one.
Apparently, it came down to how they got their enormous wealth. But Trump's
been "the king of greenmail" (the MCA fiasco, 1988) for lots longer than Frau
Clinton's been barking expensive speeches. So, Junior Nutz there more
experienced: right?
Trump is turning out to be pretty much what I expected. Far from perfect, but
what he's done is far more conservative than any other Republican would have
done. Still far better than Hillary.
"... It could be argued a polarized America has joined a polarized world in taking the course of least resistance and that is to do nothing. It appears most of the developed countries across the world are in exactly the same boat. With Trump's greatest accomplishment being the rolling-back of the Obama agenda the article below argues this may be as good as it gets. ..."
A lot of the debate by the MSM focuses on the careerist power struggle of elites at the top.
That is not what brought Trump to power, nor is ideological purity of any kind the reason, although
college students at elite universities may be motivated by ideology.
Many people who voted for Trump said they had not bothered to vote since Perot. That was the
last time serious economic issues were addressed head-on. There were many cross-over voters in
the Rust Belt and elsewhere, voting for Trump because their party, when not focused on one more
layer of welfare/taxfare for single moms, focuses on racism, sexism and xenophobia.....
....in a "racist" era with a twice-elected Black president, where many government agencies
have 80% Black staff and managers
.....in a "sexist"' era where more than half of the MDs are women, as are half of the managers,
in general, when wealth has never been more concentrated due to assortative mating
....in a "xenophobic" era, where even illegal immigrants are treated much better than millions
of citizens, leading to $113 billion per year in welfare/taxfare expenditures for the illegal
immigrants alone, not counting all of the freebies for 1 million legal immigrants admitted per
year, particularly for those who reproduce
As I said in response to another article I've been off on a kick of reading about the American
unCivil War. The heated rhetoric led up to violence far before either "side" was ready. It proved
to be a messy disaster. Very few thought ahead far enough to even have their own families survive
it. Be very careful of what you wish for. John Michael Greer's "Twilight's Last Gleaming" and
"Retrotopia" should give us serious pause for thought. Our just in time grocery supply system
would fail, fuel delivery from the few states with refineries would crawl and with all those nuclear
power plants needing constant baby sitting everybody needs to settle down and really think this
mess out. Inter US civil divisions would need careful and peaceful negotiations.
The messaging Henninger identifies was rampant for eight years of Obama ("Get in their faces!"
and the Chicago Way--"They bring a knife, you bring a gun.") Social media is/was no different.
Remember the Rodeo Clown wearing an Obama mask who was summarily fired. Any critique of Obama
was automatically racist. I could go on and on with examples. The Left never policed its own,
was constantly on-guard against the Right, with enforcement of political correctness job #1.
The ankle-biting mainstream media is part and parcel the opposition and the resistence--and
the Establishment Republicans at the WSJ are just now noticing?? Someone alert Captain Renault...
In reality no intelligent plans have been written or are moving through the halls of Congress.
It could be argued a polarized America has joined a polarized world in taking the course of least
resistance and that is to do nothing. It appears most of the developed countries across the world
are in exactly the same boat. With Trump's greatest accomplishment being the rolling-back of the
Obama agenda the article below argues this may be as good as it gets.
But, But, ... that sounds like RINOs, DINOs, NeoCons, Neoliberals, those that think Economics
is a Hard Science... Sounds like Propaganda by the Most Powerful Corporations and Family Dynasties...
"Political Disorder Syndrome - "Refusal To Reason Is The New Normal"
PDS - won't get traction since TPTB have to approve of this kind of thing!
- Borders Are Destroyed to Attack the US Labor Rate (Deserved or Undeserved) - Globalism, CAFTA,
NAFTA, Fast-Track by Bill Clinton, deployed to destroy US Labor Rate & US Jobs & US Middle Class
= PROOF that Democrats are Treasonous, are working against the Worker (Either Communist Worker
or Other worker) - US National Security is destroyed by the cost of MIC, $1 Trillion Annually
- US Constitutional Republic is Destroyed, replaced by Globalism Ideology & Propaganda Deep Program
to hide this Fact from Middle Class, from Workers, from Job Losers, from Voters, from Students,
from Youth who will not see the entry level jobs...
IT IS A REAL MESS, Propaganda is the name of the Problem! We all know the history of Propaganda.
We know that Hillary Clinton engaged in an INFO-War long, long ago. 1971 William Renquist Memo
pointed out to Republicans that they must gear up for Foundations to fight Democrats who were
much stronger in Political Organizations at this time.
I think main street has been extremely patient. I think after three decades of being slowly
and consistently shit on though, enough is enough, and they are starting to lose it.
"The event was a political fraud from beginning to end. The basic thread running through all of
the workshops and demagogic speeches was the fiction that the Democratic Party-a party of Wall
Street and the CIA-can be transformed into a "people's party."
LOL!!! Totally spot the F on!!!!!
"Sanders lent his support to the neo-McCarthyite campaign of the Democrats and the military-intelligence
apparatus, which sees Russia as the chief obstacle to US imperialism's drive for regime change
in Syria and Iran. "I find it strange we have a president who is more comfortable with autocrats
and authoritarians than leaders of democratic nations," Sanders said. "Why is he enamored with
Putin, a man who has suppressed democracy and destabilized democracies around the world, including
our own?"
Sanders?? No fool like an old fool and tool of TPTB
Oh, I doubt he's a fool; the creed of the western political class is recognition of its own and
their interests over the interests of the majority. It is technically true that Putin is destabilizing
governments around the world – 'democracies', if you will – but it would presuppose that western
leaders are his accomplices. Because it is through them and their crackdowns and restrictions
and surveillance, which they say they must introduce for our own protection (because, you know,
freedom isn't free) that discontent and destabilization are born.
Reply
"... In the NBC version, Putin's answer has been cut to one empty introductory statement that "Russia is on its way to becoming a democracy" bracketed by an equally empty closing sentence. In the full, uncut version , Putin responds to Kelly's allegations point by point and then turns the question around asking what right the USA and the West have to question Russia's record when they have been actively doing much worse than what was in Kelly's charges. He asks where is Occupy Wall Street today, why US and European police use billy clubs and tear gas to break up demonstrations, when Russian police do nothing of the sort, and so on. ..."
"... In a word, you intentionally made Putin sound like an empty authoritarian, when he is in fact a very sophisticated debater who outranked your Megyn at every turn during the open panel discussion in the Forum, to the point she was the laughing stock of the day. ..."
"... Kelly is like all Yanks, she sells herself for Money. A hired serf does what its told, says what its told to say or they are out-the-door on their arse. She may be a cool smart lady but has to tow- the-line. tom • 6 days ago ..."
"... "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be". ..."
"... CONFIRMED: DNC paid the 'Russian' founder of CrowdStrike to hack its server so it could be blamed on Russia!... ..."
"... She's a media whore...nothing more, nothing less.... ..."
"... Putin was fantastic on Kelly's show he is greatly admired by millions and millions in the west. ..."
An open letter to NBC News about Megyn Kelly's manipulative and shameful interview with Vladimir
Putin Thu, Jun 8, 2017
| 7080
90
Dear NBC News Team,
Congratulations! You have graduated from fake news to falsified news, arriving at a journalistic
level that is identical to that in the Soviet Union in its heyday.
A couple of days ago, the political talk show moderated by Vladimir Soloviev on state television
channel Rossiya 1 broadcast two versions of a segment from Megyn Kelly's interview with Vladimir
Putin last Friday in the St Petersburg on the sidelines of the International Economic Forum. One
was the complete, uncut version that was aired on RT. The other was the cut-to-shreds version that
you put on air for the American audience. (
Watch here, beginning 4 minutes
into the program .)
The segment was Megyn Kelly's aggressive question to Putin, asking his response to what she said
was Americans' understanding of his government, namely one that murders journalists, suppresses political
opposition, is rife with corruption, etc., etc. In the NBC version, Putin's answer has been cut
to one empty introductory statement that "Russia is on its way to becoming a democracy" bracketed
by an equally empty closing sentence. In the full, uncut version , Putin responds to Kelly's allegations
point by point and then turns the question around asking what right the USA and the West have to
question Russia's record when they have been actively doing much worse than what was in Kelly's charges.
He asks where is Occupy Wall Street today, why US and European police use billy clubs and tear gas
to break up demonstrations, when Russian police do nothing of the sort, and so on.
In a word, you intentionally made Putin sound like an empty authoritarian, when he is in fact
a very sophisticated debater who outranked your Megyn at every turn during the open panel discussion
in the Forum, to the point she was the laughing stock of the day.
Who wins from these games? You are only preconditioning the American public for the war that is
coming, whether by intention or by accident. And there will be no one left to have the last laugh
after the first day of that war. So you can forget about your stock options and retirement schemes,
ladies and gentlemen of the News Team.
have a nice day
Gilbert Doctorow
Brussels
Gilbert Doctorow is an independent political analyst based in Brussels. His latest book
Does Russia Have a Future? was published in August 2015. His forthcoming book Does the United States
Have a Future? will be published on 1 September 2017.
The thing that everyone in the American media wants to ignore is this: If any President of
any nation knew that one of the candidates in the national election of his biggest rival intended
to start a nuclear war with his country as soon as they were elected, do you think he might be
tempted to do anything possible to avoid the war? hillary clinton intended to go to nuclear war
with Russia and everybody knew it. Why wouldn't Mr. Putin be tempted to try to keep her out of
office. He says he didn't do so, and because I trust him (something I'm not so stupid as to do
with hillary!!!), I choose to believe him. However, I wouldn't blame him if he had pulled out
all the stops to keep her out of office, and can only thank him or any other "patriotic Russian"
who saved America from a fate worse than death--namely having a fourth-degree black magic witch
as President!!! And that's in addition to saving the lives of millions of people on both sides
of the oceans.
You mentioned in the article that RT ran an uncut version of Megyn Kelly's interview with Vladimir
Putin. I tried going to the link you provided, but the show was in Russian without subtitles.
Is there a version of the full interview offered anywhere with subtitles or voice-over for those
of us in the US who would like to see it? I'd like to know what else Mr. Putin said.
see more
Try you tube and enter "putin megyn kelly" and you'll find dozens of clips ... and as to why
Putin never intervened may become clear if you take notice of the following .... already in the
beginning of 2016 the Russians must have discovered that plans existed to murder Trump ... I read
a leaked message that the Russians were ready for war should that occur ... and apparently sent
a secret message ... long before the election they had already figured out that Trump was going
to win the election because they knew of Hillary's true intentions also ... they had no need to
intervene because there are and were forces opposed to her then existing plans to ignite war ...
and there must be much more to that, because Putin sent an escort to Antarctica before Kyrill
even went there .... and later met the Pope in Mexico ... Kyrill went on to declare a Holy War
against Terror a year ago ... a long time before the election took place .... and Kerry slipped
off on election day to visit Antarctica himself ... and fell out of bed and bumped his head doing
so ... see more
rosewood11
Peter Paul 1950 •
5 days ago I agree with Astrid (below) in thanking you for the youtube hint. You mentioned
the Antarctic. I notice all the globalists seem to be making that a "destination," but I've never
seen Putin go himself (good!!!). Anybody know what the fascination is--Is Steve Quayle right?
see more
One can't really be sure who is right and if any kind of exaggeration plays a large part of
all the tales that have become more public thanks to the internet ...
... it's shrouded in mystery that almost anything seems to make some kind of sense ... I first
heard of the Nazi connection with the discovery and founding of Newschwabenland and Project High
Jump with Admiral Byrd in a private conversation decades in my younger years, but only through
the internet was it possible to find out more ... everyone seem so make it a great mystery that
there is something there nobody dares to make official ... even Vault 7 appears to add to all
the whisperings by adding a collection of photos without comment ... much room for speculation
... but it does seem to be of some importance ... see
more
Kelly is like all Yanks, she sells herself for Money. A hired serf does what its told,
says what its told to say or they are out-the-door on their arse. She may be a cool smart lady
but has to tow- the-line. tom
•
6 days ago
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what
never was and never will be".
Putin should sue NBC for falsifying his interview. And, Putin should never agree again to an
interview by one of the US MSM. Vasya
Pypkin •
6 days ago Faked or falsified news. Could the author provide an example of similar news falsification
by Soviet Union media. After many years I find that Soviet media actually was telling truth but
smart assses among our population tended to believe lies by Western voices. Many who are still
alive regret.
Otherwise good article. The western media is nothing but lies cloaka. Soviet media also was
not entertaining enough mostly talking about industries, crops, health and other substantial and
important things while life was stable and predictable.
Now Russian population is being constantly entertained, but there is little to report on industrial
front and there is no confidence in future. Ruble is up and down and crude same. Was it worth
to fjkuck up great country to have more entertainment and some artifial sausages varieties while
losing what is the most important for human beings. Sorry for a rant.
AMHants •
6 days ago Surprise surprise, George Eliason - Op Ed News, was right, all along:
CONFIRMED: DNC paid the 'Russian' founder of CrowdStrike to hack its server so it could
be blamed on Russia!...
But we all expected this .... It is only that by law, Russia should be able to sue any newscast
for editing and thus misrepresenting in particular -- the Russian president's words and thoughts,
because of occupying the highest office in Russia. As Gilbert said, the gravity of what it could
portend for Americans, is mounting daily...
Rossiya 1 would perhaps be more cautious second time around ... make it a condition that what
the president or any official of the Russian Federation said on tape, should be broadcast in full
and no editing -- or face have their pants sued off . What a shameless and gutless excuse for
a journalist this Kelly is!
The West has never been a democracy! During the Cold War the so called "democracy" was just
a voting facade to hide the fact that the West is OLIGARCHY. What choice do American citizens
have in their elections? TWO (that is 2!) parties which both run basically the same imperialist,
neocolonialist, hegemonic policy. And economic policy is also the same - neoliberal meaning privatization,
outsourcing, policies that favor the rich and harm the poor... Only bloody revolutions can change
things. You cannot change the system with voting pencils! Pencils have never changed anything
anywhere. Robert Keith •
6 days ago Megyn Kelly is, granted, a step above your run-of-the-mil, blond, airhead, TV talking
head. I don't know whether President Putin suffered from the juxtaposition, what with her typical-for-TV
mundane questions, but, probably not, because it allowed him to give down-to-earth answers to
the questions that most Americans seem to be asking themselves, inane though they be. He is very
skilled at this, because he makes himself available to his countryman in the same way on a regular
basis it seems.
If one searched elsewhere for the full video, which was available (on this blog), he came across
very well, I must say. We will spare the readership any comment on the relative merits of his
performance in comparison to what we night have heard from our Chief Executive.
Well, yes it's infuriating, but it was also so very predictable. When I complained about this
wretched woman and her boring, predicted and repetitive questions leaving unasked anything to
do with the forum leaders speeches and the masses of trade discussion that had happened during
the meeting, I was told by many "that this is how Putin can show the West the truth".
No - he can't, because we know they manipulate, cut, change, and frame it to make it look any
way they want. Only those who need no convincing got to see the whole truth - and most of us know
it already.
The only thing to do is ignore America, treat it like the meaningless 3 rd World country it
is rapidly sinking into - and get intelligent moderators from elsewhere.
see more
"... the meaningless 3 rd World country it is rapidly sinking into ..."
*Exactly* the conclusion at which the known French demographer and historian Emmanuel Todd
arrived in his 2001 book "Après L'Empire: essai sur la décomposition du système américain" ("After
the Empire: The Breakdown of the American Order"). His scientific analysis was based primarily
on purely demographic data, in addition to other factors:
https://www.amazon.com/Afte... . An interesting reading.
Interesting. I had not heard of this man - so thank you for the link Peter. He seems to be
thinking along the same lines as Dmitry Orlov, but coming from an Academic and Historian view
point. Orlov just saw much of the Russian collapse - he has family in Russia, it is his native
language, and he lived there during part of the 1990's if I understand him correctly. He drew
a parallel between USSR and America - coming to the same conclusion as this Msr. Todd.
We are all wondering, of course "when". ?
It's like knowing the very obese man next door who already has heart and BP problems coupled
with Diabetes, but takes no exercise and eats fast food like a hungry pig, is going to have a
massive physical break down and die.
It's just that there 's no way of predicting exactly when.
Nofearorfavor
Isabella Jones •
5 days ago I remember when Putin agreed to be interviewed by Charlie Rose in Sep 2015, condition
was that CBS produced the full 60 minutes uncut, which then ran into over 60 minutes. However
found this interesting article on State of the Nation about the interview ... El Maestro wiping
the floor with Rose and not doing anything to help along his flagging ratings ....now this Kelly
tried to do the same and she fell flat on her face... no journalistic integrity at all ...
My recommendation for anyone who is being interviewed for American TV is to find out how long
the TV segment is and only allow the total interview time to be 1.5 times that amount to only
allow reasonable editing, not the standard butchery. So in this case, a 15 minute interview would
be sourced by 25 minutes, not the two hours that Putin must have given Kelly since he spent a
day with her.
In all fairness, they had to butcher the question on Russian democracy, journalist killings,
etc because Kelly chose to spend 95% of the air time on moronic questions about 'election meddling'
as if that deserved more than one question and the expected denial. What the heck did Kelly expect
Putin to day about election meddling, yet she kept going back to it.
see more
Unlike
in America, in the Soviet Union the people knew that there was no truth in the Pravda nor news
in the Izvestya. Nowadays there are more Bolsheviks in New York than in St. Petersburg.
see more
nbc are msnbc the same degenerate-infested propaganda US/ BS.
Putin was fantastic on Kelly's show he is greatly admired by millions and millions in the
west.
Of course the lying bums, the democrats hate it that their 'Miss Piggy' Clinton was beaten,
they will keep on their crap for years, nbc and many other so-called news outlets are democrat-lapping
rats who spew-out the lies, hate and shit everyday, those slime at cnn are the same pork as is
the US poodle Canada's cbc. see more
Where Megyn failed, NBC succeeds in editorializing Putin as the village idiot. How long before
these horse-driven dimwits drown in the cesspools they dig for others? I don't see any way out
of this but war. It's not the fictitious 'deep state' Russia should be concerned with, but Trump
himself. Playing the Elder.
"... Some news now trickling into the blogosphere that the Democratic National Convention paid Crowdstrike – that's the cyber-security firm headed by Dmitri Alperovich with links to the Chalupa sisters and the Ukrainian diaspora in North America – to hack into its own server. ..."
Some news now trickling into the blogosphere that the Democratic National Convention paid
Crowdstrike – that's the cyber-security firm headed by Dmitri Alperovich with links to the Chalupa
sisters and the Ukrainian diaspora in North America – to hack into its own server.
"In the US, talk of a Donald Trump-Russian government collusion against Hillary Clinton gets
more attention than some other possibilities. Cyber-security developer John McAfee said: "If it
looks like the Russians did it, I can guarantee you it was not the Russians." There's a wave of
anti-Russian sentiment, as evidenced by the lack of US mass media and body politic condemnation
to former National Security Agency (NSA) Director James Clapper's bigoted anti-Russian comment.
The subject of anti-Russian propaganda brings to mind the pro-Kiev regime leaning Atlantic
Council and its cyber-security member CrowdStrike. Entities like them are silent in instances
like when Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko falsely stated that Jews in Crimea are prohibited
from observing their faith, since that area's reunification with Russia."
There are several problems with Krugman both as an economist and as a political commentator.
First he does not understand that neoliberal system is inherency unstable and prone to periodic
bubbles and crashes.
FED plays destabilizing role by attempting to save large banks. It essentially provided insurance
for reckless behaviour. This is very "Minsky" -- "stability is destabilizing".
If we believe Jim Rogers, FED policies created a situation in which the next crash is a real
possibility and might happen within a year, or two:
Politically Krugman switched to neocon views and sometimes is undistinguishable from Wolfowitz
: " And consider his refusal to endorse the central principle of NATO, the obligation to come
to our allies' defense... What was that about? Nobody knows..."
NATO became obsolete with the dissolution of the USSR and now serves only as an instrument
of the US foreign policy -- a tool for expansion and maintenance of neoliberal empire and keeping
our European vassals in check.
He also got into Russiagate trap, which is a sign of weak intellect (dementia in cases of Hillary
and McCain), or of a neocon political hack. As Krugman does not have dementia, I suspect the latter.
The standards he tries to apply to Trump would put in jail all three previous presidents starting
from "change we can believe in" bait and switch artist.
In other words his column is highly partisan and as such represents interest only for Hillary
Bots and DemoRats (which are still plentiful and control MSM).
For people who try to find a real way out of the current difficult situation (a crisis of confidence
and, possibly, the start of revolt against neoliberal elite due to side effects of globalization)
the USA now have find itself, this is just a noise. Nothing constructive.
Trump position "get what you want with the brute force; f*ck diplomacy, UN and decency" is
actually an attempt to find a solution for the problems we face. Abhorrent as it is. Kind of highway
robbery policy.
The key problem is whether we should start dismantling neoliberalism before it is too late,
and what should be the alternative. Krugman is useless in attempts to answer those two key questions.
And it is unclear whether it is possible by peaceful means. Those neolib/neocon guys like Bolsheviks
in the past want to cling to power at all costs.
Another question is whether the maintenance of global neoliberal empire led by the USA is now
too costly for US taxpayers and need to be reconsidered. This is the same question British empire
faced in the past. Do we really need 500 or so foreign bases? Do we really need to spend half
a trillion dollars annually on military? Do we need all those never ending wars as in Orwellian
"war is the health of the state" quote (actually this quote is not from 1984, this is the subtitle
of the essay by Randolph Bourne (1918))
What is the real risk of WWIII with such policies? Because there is a chance that nor only
the modern civilization, but all higher forms of life of Earth in general seize to exists after
it.
Concentrating of Trump "deficiencies" Krugman does not understand that Trump is just a Republican
Obama -- another "clean plate" offering to the US electorate, another "bait and switch" artist.
With just different fake slogan "Make America great again" instead of "Change we can believe
in".
And as such any critique of Trump is an implicit critique of Obama presidency, which enabled
Trump election.
Teleprompter personally was a dangerous and unqualified political hack, not that different
from Trump (no foreign policy experience whatsoever; almost zero understanding of economics),
who outsourced foreign policy to the despicable neocon warmonger Clinton and got us into Libya,
Ukraine and Syria wars in addition to existing war in Afghanistan.
Continuing occupation of Afghanistan (which incorrectly called war) and illegal actions in
Syria (there was no UN resolution justifying the USA presence in Syria) are now becoming too costly.
Afghan people definitely want the USA out and will fight for their freedom. Taliban has supporters
in Pakistan and possibly in other Islamic countries.
In Syria the USA now clashed with Russian interests which make it a real power keg. And to
this sociopaths in CIA like Mike "Kill-Russians" Morell and the fact that CIA is not under complete
control of federal government and actually represent "state within the state" force in this conflict,
and the situation looks really dangerous.
And please note that Russia protects a secular government, and the USA supports Islamic fundamentalists
in Syria, to make Israel even greater. Instead of "Making America great again". Such a betrayal
of elections promises... The same policy that Hillary would adopt if she sits on the throne.
So to say that Trump is idiot in foreign policy without saying that Obama was the same dangerous
idiot, who pursued the same neocon policies is hypocritical, because they are manipulated by the
same people in dark suits and are just marionettes, or, at best, minor players. Other people decide
for them what is good for America.
The US army is pretty much demoralized and even with advanced weapons and absolute air superiority
can't achieve much because solders understand that they are just cannon fodder and it is unclear
what they fighting for in Afghanistan.
Because in Syria the USA support the same Islamic fundamentalists it is fighting in Afghanistan.
Or even worse then those -- head choppers like guys from Al Nusra.
So we fight secular government in Syria supporting Sunni fundamentalists (often of worst kind
as KSA supported Wahhabi fighters) and simultaneously are trying to protect secular government
in Afghanistan against exactly the same (or even slightly more moderate) Islamic fundamentalist
forces. Is not this a definition of split personality?
"In the case of Hillary Clinton, not only does that mean more wasted money, it means more wars,
wars we will lose.
Hillary is a wild-eyed interventionist. She gave us the Libyan fiasco, and had Obama been fool
enough to listen to her again, we would now be at war on the ground in Syria.
The establishment refuses to see the limits of American power, and it also refuses to compel
our military to focus on war against non-state opponents, or Fourth Generation war. The Pentagon
pretends its future is war against other states.
The political and foreign-policy establishments pretend the Pentagon knows how to win. They
waltz together happily, unaware theirs is a Totentanz."
Is Mossad for some reasons also interested in fueling Russiagate ;-) ?
Notable quotes:
"... That's an extremely weak story from Bloomberg. The article itself doesn't actually refer to evidence on its own; rather, it
comes from anonymous sources. ..."
"... That's a maddening thing about this subject as it's treated by most mainstream news – it's called "Russian hacking" when, at
best, it's an assumption that Russians, or at least the Russian government, were involved. ..."
"... It's become the identifier for this issue, IOW, it's "Russian hacking", not "hacking of DNC" or "attempted phishing of voting
machine administrators". ..."
"... If the FBI is investigating these incidents, then its possible there actually is evidence we'll hear about eventually, but
so far all we've see or heard is baseless assertions by the intel community. ..."
Re: "Russian Cyber Hacks on U.S. Electoral System Far Wider Than Previously Known" [Bloomberg].
That's an extremely weak story from Bloomberg. The article itself doesn't actually refer to evidence on its own; rather,
it comes from anonymous sources.
Also, it keeps attributing the source of the hacks to Russia, without even attempting to provide evidence of that. The closest
it gets is mentioning that investigators attributed them to certain IP addresses.
That's not all that convincing, as source IPs can be easily masked, which is one of the reasons why attribution is extremely
difficult.
There's much less in the story than meets the eye, particularly when it comes to placing blame on Russia (assuming that these
hacks in fact took place, of course).
That's a maddening thing about this subject as it's treated by most mainstream news – it's called "Russian hacking" when,
at best, it's an assumption that Russians, or at least the Russian government, were involved.
It's become the identifier for this issue, IOW, it's "Russian hacking", not "hacking of DNC" or "attempted phishing of
voting machine administrators".
If the FBI is investigating these incidents, then its possible there actually is evidence we'll hear about eventually,
but so far all we've see or heard is baseless assertions by the intel community.
"... Are there no longer any Sunday PM rallies in US cities against the electoral college which denied the dnc crooks their conned prize? ..."
"... "As for that cherished image of a shining city on a hill*? As my fiend Richard Pitkin says, there is a little city-on-a-hill in all Americans. It is a complicated sort of truth about which even Russian journalists and scholars may have a say." ..."
"... The biggest threat to the republic comes from the fuzz exploding from domestic faux media. So much for diminishing fuzz in the US! Russia's vapid "influence" compares little to the scam run by a pair of political parties owned by Wall St. *The latest refuge of Comey; rolling out Dutch Reagan's 'shiny city' scam......... ..."
Undiminshed fuzz is all the US gets from the dnc corrupted media!
"As for that cherished image of a shining city on a hill*? As my fiend Richard Pitkin says,
there is a little city-on-a-hill in all Americans. It is a complicated sort of truth about which
even Russian journalists and scholars may have a say."
The "shining city on a hill" sustains royalty, secures Wahhabi aims, wars to end "unjust
peace", ousts Qaddafi with no regard for how much turmoil millions endure and drops 27000 bombs
on 7 Muslim countries during 2016 a year of "peace" overseen by a 'peace prize' winner!
The biggest threat to the republic comes from the fuzz exploding from domestic faux media.
So much for diminishing fuzz in the US! Russia's vapid "influence" compares little to the scam
run by a pair of political parties owned by Wall St. *The latest refuge of Comey; rolling out
Dutch Reagan's 'shiny city' scam.........
"Alas the pretend progressives here cannot be bothered."
PGL you're the only "pretend progressive" here. Real leftists do well in an election and so
PGL throws a little temper tantrum. You can't make him discuss it! He won't admit he was wrong!
He supported Corbyn even though he didn't talk about the election once during the entire campaign.
What a tedious phoney.
LONDON - Among the many satisfying outcomes of Britain's general election has been the roll
call of pundits reeling out apologies for getting it so wrong. The Labour Party has, against all
odds, surged to take a 40 percent share of the vote, more than it has won in years. And so the
nation's commentariat, who had confidently thought that the party under Jeremy Corbyn's leadership
would be wiped off the political map, are now eating giant slices of humble pie.
Nobody is in politics to gloat. Labour's leadership team and supporters alike want the party
to win not for the sake of winning, but in order to bring Labour's economic and social agenda
to Britain, to measurably improve people's lives. Still, a little schadenfreude is definitely
in order.
Mr. Corbyn, from the left of the party, unexpectedly took its helm in 2015 after a rule change
allowed, for the first time, rank-and-file members to have an equal vote for their leader. And
he has been ridiculed, dismissed and bemoaned ever since. Cast as an incongruous combination of
incompetent beardy old man and peacenik terrorist sympathizer, Mr. Corbyn faced down a leadership
challenge from his own party about a year ago and constant sniping, criticism and calls for him
to quit throughout.
The political and pundit classes, in their wisdom, thought it entirely inconceivable that someone
like him - so unpolished, so left wing - could ever persuade voters. After Britain's referendum
decision, last June, to leave the European Union, more scathing criticism was piled upon the Labour
leader for his decision to, well, accept the democratic referendum decision, however bad it was.
By the time Prime Minister Theresa May called a snap election six weeks ago, her party ran
a 20-point poll lead ahead of Labour and her personal approval ratings were sky high while Mr.
Corbyn's were abysmally low. Liberal pundits were aghast at the thought of the Labour Party self-destructing
under Mr. Corbyn's supposedly toxic leadership. He was once again urged to step down.
Then the campaign started - and every prediction was turned on its head. The well-funded, hyper-efficient
Conservatives and their chorus of supporters in Britain's mostly right-wing press ran a terrible
campaign. Mrs. May came across as robotic and out of touch; she didn't seem to like engaging with
the press, much less the public. The more people saw of her, the more her ratings sank.
For Mr. Corbyn, the opposite was true. His detractors said his appeal was limited to a niche
of radical left activists, but in reality his quiet confidence, credibility and integrity - so
refreshing at a time when politicians are viewed as untrustworthy careerists - drew crowds of
enthusiastic supporters to ever-growing rallies. At one point, arriving to a televised debate
just over a week before the election, he was greeted with solid cheers en route to the event.
That was when his leadership team sensed something significant was taking place.
Part of this extraordinary success was a result of the party's campaign. Fun, energetic, innovative
and inspiring, it created its own momentum, with organic support mushrooming out of the most unlikely
places, flooding social media with viral memes and messages: Rappers and D.J.s, soccer players,
economists and television personalities alike climbed aboard the Corbyn project. Momentum, a grass-roots
organization of Corbyn supporters, activated the party's estimated 500,000 members - many of whom
had joined because Mr. Corbyn was elected as leader - into canvassing efforts across the country,
including, crucially, in up-for-grabs districts. Supporters were further encouraged by the sight
of Labour candidates demolishing long-hated Conservatives on television, appearances that were
swiftly turned into video clips and raced around the internet.
But the main mobilizer of support was the party's politics. For decades, Labour has been resolutely
centrist, essentially offering a slightly kinder version of neoliberal consensus politics. Those
on the left had long said that this was what had caused the party's slow decline, a hemorrhaging
of support from its traditional working-class voters. With Mr. Corbyn at its helm, the party tacked
firmly to the left, proposing to tax the few for the benefit of the many and offering major national
investment projects, funding for the welfare state, the scrapping of university tuition fees and
the re-nationalization of rail and energy companies.
It was a hopeful vision for a fairer society, offered at a time when the country is experiencing
wage stagnation and spiraling living costs, with many buckling under because of the economic crash
of 2008 and the Conservative Party's savage austerity cuts that followed. Given the chance for
the first time in decades to vote for something else, something better, a surprising number of
voters took it. Young people, in particular, seized this offer: With youth turnout unusually high
at 72 percent, it's clear that Labour brought them to the ballot box in droves.
Labour's shock comeback has tugged the party, along with Britain's political landscape, and
the range of acceptable discourse back to the left. In a hung Parliament, the Conservatives still
came out of the election as the main party, and now looks set to go into coalition government
with the homophobic, anti-abortion Democratic Unionist Party. But the Conservatives are now a
maimed party with a discredited leader - weaknesses to be seized upon and exploited by a now united
and empowered Labour party.
The grifters in the party didn't lose you dope. They all got paid. It's all so very much like
making a movie. So what if it didn't break even at the box office, everyone involved got theirs.
Seriously though you are correct. Sanders would have won against Trump. Everyone knows that,
except the die hard centerist Democrats that are trying hard not to look in mirror.
You wingnuts cant seem to comprehend that the Democratic primaries
was a series of state elections in which Hillary legitimately got more voters to vote for her.
They picked Hillary, for all your bleating about "elites."
Krugman posited once that Bernie might win the nomination by beating Hillary with disaffected
white voters in the red states despite being ultimately unelectable because of his radical views
in the general election. Of course that is not at all what happened.
"....This ties in with an important recent piece by Zack Beauchamp on the striking degree to
which left-wing economics fails, in practice, to counter right-wing populism; basically, Sandersism
has failed everywhere it has been tried. Why?
The answer, presumably, is that what we call populism is really in large degree white identity
politics, which can't be addressed by promising universal benefits. Among other things, these
"populist" voters now live in a media bubble, getting their news from sources that play to their
identity-politics desires, which means that even if you offer them a better deal, they won't hear
about it or believe it if told. For sure many if not most of those who gained health coverage
thanks to Obamacare have no idea that's what happened.
That said, taking the benefits away would probably get their attention, and maybe even open
their eyes to the extent to which they are suffering to provide tax cuts to the rich.
In Europe, right-wing parties probably don't face the same dilemma; they're preaching herrenvolk
social democracy, a welfare state but only for people who look like you. In America, however,
Trump_vs_deep_state is faux populism that appeals to white identity but actually serves plutocrats. That
fundamental contradiction is now out in the open."
I recall something more damning, but have not been able to find it after repeated attempts. My
belief is that it was obviously so far off the mark that it has been taken down off Krugman's
NYT blog and maybe any reference to it here at EV as well.
There are several problems with Krugman both as an economist and as a political commentator.
First he does not understand that neoliberal system is inherency unstable and prone to periodic
bubbles and crashes. FED plays destabilizing role by attempting to save large banks. It essentially provided insurance
for reckless behaviour. This is very "Minsky" -- "stability is destabilizing". If we believe Jim Rogers, FED policies created a situation in which the next crash is a real possibility
and might happen within a year, or two:
Politically Krugman switched to neocon views and sometimes is undistinguishable from Wolfowitz
: " And consider his refusal to endorse the central principle of NATO, the obligation to come to
our allies' defense... What was that about? Nobody knows..."
NATO became obsolete with the dissolution of the USSR and now serves only as an instrument of
the US foreign policy -- a tool for expansion and maintenance of neoliberal empire and keeping our
European vassals in check.
He also got into Russiagate trap, which is a sign of weak intellect (dementia in cases of Hillary
and McCain), or of a neocon political hack. As Krugman does not have dementia, I suspect the latter.
The standards he tries to apply to Trump would put in jail all three previous presidents starting
from "change we can believe in" bait and switch artist.
In other words his column is highly partisan and as such represents interest only for Hillary
Bots and DemoRats (which are still plentiful and control MSM).
For people who try to find a real way out of the current difficult situation (a crisis of confidence
and, possibly, the start of revolt against neoliberal elite due to side effects of globalization)
the USA now have find itself, this is just a noise. Nothing constructive.
Trump position "get what you want with the brute force; f*ck diplomacy, UN and decency" is actually
an attempt to find a solution for the problems we face. Abhorrent as it is. Kind of highway robbery
policy.
The key problem is whether we should start dismantling neoliberalism before it is too late, and
what should be the alternative. Krugman is useless in attempts to answer those two key questions.
And it is unclear whether it is possible by peaceful means. Those neolib/neocon guys like Bolsheviks
in the past want to cling to power at all costs.
Another question is whether the maintenance of global neoliberal empire led by the USA is now
too costly for US taxpayers and need to be reconsidered. This is the same question British empire
faced in the past. Do we really need 500 or so foreign bases? Do we really need to spend half a trillion
dollars annually on military? Do we need all those never ending wars as in Orwellian "war is the
health of the state" quote (actually this quote is not from 1984, this is the subtitle of the essay
by Randolph Bourne (1918))
What is the real risk of WWIII with such policies? Because there is a chance that nor only the
modern civilization, but all higher forms of life of Earth in general seize to exists after it.
Concentrating of Trump "deficiencies" Krugman does not understand that Trump is just a Republican
Obama -- another "clean plate" offering to the US electorate, another "bait and switch" artist.
With just different fake slogan "Make America great again" instead of "Change we can believe in".
And as such any critique of Trump is an implicit critique of Obama presidency, which enabled Trump
election.
Teleprompter personally was a dangerous and unqualified political hack, not that different from
Trump (no foreign policy experience whatsoever; almost zero understanding of economics), who outsourced
foreign policy to the despicable neocon warmonger Clinton and got us into Libya, Ukraine and Syria
wars in addition to existing war in Afghanistan.
Continuing occupation of Afghanistan (which incorrectly called war) and illegal actions in Syria
(there was no UN resolution justifying the USA presence in Syria) are now becoming too costly.
Afghan people definitely want the USA out and will fight for their freedom. Taliban has supporters
in Pakistan and possibly in other Islamic countries.
In Syria the USA now clashed with Russian interests which make it a real power keg. Add to this
sociopaths in CIA like Mike "Kill-Russians" Morell and the fact that CIA is not under complete control
of federal government and actually represent "state within the state" force in this conflict, and
the situation looks really dangerous.
And please note that Russia protects a secular government, and the USA supports Islamic fundamentalists
in Syria, to make Israel even greater. Instead of "Making America great again". Such a betrayal of
elections promises... The same policy that Hillary would adopt if she sits on the throne.
So to say that Trump is idiot in foreign policy without saying that Obama was the same dangerous
idiot, who pursued the same neocon policies is hypocritical, because they are manipulated by the
same people in dark suits and are just marionettes, or, at best, minor players. Other people decide
for them what is good for America.
The US army is pretty much demoralized and even with advanced weapons and absolute air superiority
can't achieve much because solders understand that they are just cannon fodder and it is unclear
what they fighting for in Afghanistan.
Because in Syria the USA support the same Islamic fundamentalists it is fighting in Afghanistan.
Or even worse than those -- head choppers like guys from Al Nusra.
So we fight secular government in Syria supporting Sunni fundamentalists (often of worst kind
as KSA supported Wahhabi fighters) and simultaneously are trying to protect secular government in
Afghanistan against exactly the same (or even slightly more moderate) Islamic fundamentalist forces.
Is not this a definition of split personality?
New Labour (neoliberal democrats) especially what is called DemoRats in the USA (Clinton's wing
of the Democratic Party) sold themselves to financial oligarchy becoming a just a more moderate
branch of the Republican party.
They counted the working class has nowhere to go. They miscalculated. In the USA working class
moved right. In case of GB -- left. But in both cases they were shown three finger salute.
BTW why Putin was sleeping and did not interfere in elections like he did in France, leading
to Macron victory ;-). His dream of Brexit now is in danger :-)
Not so much? The usual librul suspects here are downright depressed by Corbyn's success...first,
we had their opposition to Bernie' now to Corbyn...they represent nothing less than the left
hand of the plutocracy, Republicans representing the right hand.
Jeremy Corbyn has caused a sensation – he would make a fine prime minister
by Owen Jones
Fri. June 9 107
This is one of the most sensational political upsets of our time. Theresa May – a wretched
dishonest excuse of a politician, don't pity her – launched a general election with the sole purpose
of crushing opposition in Britain. It was brazen opportunism, a naked power grab: privately, I'm
told, her team wanted the precious "bauble" of going down in history as the gravediggers of the
British Labour party. Instead, she has destroyed herself. She is toast.
She has just usurped David Cameron as the "worst ever prime minister on their own terms" (before
Cameron, it had been a title held by Lord North since the 18th century). Look at the political
capital she had: the phenomenal polling lead, almost the entire support of the British press,
the most effective electoral machine on Earth behind her. Her allies presented the Labour opposition
as an amusing, eccentric joke that could be squashed like a fly that had already had its wings
ripped off. They genuinely believed they could get a 180-seat majority. She will leave No 10 soon,
disgraced, entering the history books filed under "hubris".
But, before a false media narrative is set, let me put down a marker. Yes, the Tory campaign
was a shambolic, insulting mess, notable only for its U-turns, a manifesto that swiftly disintegrated,
robotically repeated mantras that achieved only ridicule. But don't let media commentators – hostile
to Labour's vision – pretend that the May calamity is all down to self-inflicted Tory wounds.
This was the highest turnout since 1997, perhaps the biggest Labour percentage since the same
year – far eclipsing Tony Blair's total in 2005. Young and previous non-voters came out in astonishing
numbers, and not because they thought, "Ooh, Theresa May doesn't stick to her promises, does she?"
Neither can we reduce this to a remainer revolt. The Lib Dems threw everything at the despondent
remainer demographic, with paltry returns. Many Ukip voters flocked to the Labour party.
No: this was about millions inspired by a radical manifesto that promised to transform Britain,
to attack injustices, and challenge the vested interests holding the country back. Don't let them
tell you otherwise. People believe the booming well-off should pay more, that we should invest
that money in schools, hospitals, houses, police and public services, that all in work should
have a genuine living wage, that young people should not be saddled with debt for aspiring to
an education, that our utilities should be under the control of the people of this country. For
years, many of us have argued that these policies – shunned, reviled even in the political and
media elite – had the genuine support of millions. And today that argument was decisively vindicated
and settled.
Don't let them get away with the claim that, "Ah, this election just shows a better Labour
leader could have won!" Risible rot. Do we really think that Corbyn's previous challengers to
the leadership – and this is nothing personal – would have inspired millions of otherwise politically
disengaged and alienated people to come out and vote, and drive Labour to its highest percentage
since the famous Blair landslide? If the same old stale, technocratic centrism had been offered,
Labour would have faced an absolute drubbing, just like its European sister parties did.
Labour is now permanently transformed. Its policy programme is unchallengeable. It is now the
party's consensus. It cannot and will not be taken away. Those who claimed it could not win the
support of millions were simply wrong. No, Labour didn't win, but from where it started, that
was never going to happen. That policy programme enabled the party to achieve one of the biggest
shifts in support in British history – yes, eclipsing Tony Blair's swing in 1997.
Social democracy is in crisis across the western world. British Labour is now one of the most
successful centre-left parties, many of which have been reduced to pitiful rumps under rightwing
leaderships. And indeed, other parties in Europe and the United States should learn lessons from
this experience.
....
JohnH -> Christopher H.... June 09, 2017 at 01:09 PM
Great catch!
You will be hard pressed to find any such piece ever printed in the opinion pages of any
newspaper in the American 'free' press.
By shunning candidates like Bernie and Corbyn, the American librul commentariat has been
exposed for what it is--corrupted by wealthy, powerful interests.
The USA opened this can of works with Flame and Stixnet. Now it needs to face consequences of its
reckless actions.
Both Hillary staff and DNC staff behaves like complete idiots, taking into account the level of
mayhem the USA caused in other countries, including Russia. Blowback eventually came and bite their
ass. In addition Hillary "private" staff was definitely incompetent.
Notable quotes:
"... The validity of outrage anyway vis-a-vis the Russians, is, to some extent, misplaced ( ..everyone's doin' it aren't they? For starters, recall the Time cover of' '96: ..."
Incessantly reporting 24/7 on whether the Russians did it or not doesn't take into account the
critical failure by a leading political party of the "free world" – a nation supposedly at the forefront
of technology – to appropriately secure their digital communications along with those of a potential
POTUS.
This is a question of how US government, or a potential one, works, and how it should work in
the future.
The validity of outrage anyway vis-a-vis the Russians, is, to some extent, misplaced ( ..everyone's
doin' it aren't they? For starters, recall the Time cover of' '96:
"... The Glass Stegal repeal was passed under Clinton not Reagan. ..."
"... Yep, the Dems would do well to drop the Russia/FBI swung the election thing and the all Red State inhabitants are poorly educated idiots mentality and concentrate on developing some policies that appeal to the majority of people. ..."
"... There's a bit of bait 'n switch here. All this Davos/Deregulation/NeoLiberal whatever is a product of Republican -- right wing -- thinking. It first gained serious traction during the Reagan administration. The Democrats merely drifted into the vacuum formed by the Republican party lurching from Right/Center to Hard Right. Since then any drifting back has been subject to extreme criticism as 'socialism', 'communism' and the like. Now we're in the rather weird situation that the party of neoliberal economics is pushing the line that the Democrats are the party of entrenched money and they are the Party of the People. It beggars belief, especially when journalists take it up and run with it instead of calling the the BS that it is. ..."
"... I am so glad that the Russians are responsible for electing Trump. It would be awful to think that it was because Democrats had a really, really bad candidate in Hillary Clinton. It just could not be -- she was, after all -- the MOST QUALIFIED PERSON EVER TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT, as we were instructed endlessly by Obama. Voters thought otherwise and their support for Trump was mainly to keep Hillary out, not to have a billionaire lunatic elected. But it would not matter since they all serve their master class bankers and war-makers. ..."
"... Republicans starting with Reagan made refusing to enforce financial laws they did not like a policy. It was continued under Bush43/Cheney on speed. Regulator of mortgage brokers refused to let state AGs (including Maine) move against fraudsters and refused to act himself. Chris Cox ignored the risky complex financial products that tanked our economy. ..."
"... Was Clinton an idiot to allow Rubin and Summers any where near financial market policy YES. Was Obama a bigger fool for bringing Summers into his admin- absolutely since he had already displayed financial incompetence at Harvard, YES. ..."
The Glass Stegal repeal was passed under Clinton not Reagan.
Reagan did the Savings
& Loan deregulation which led to the S&L bailout under G.W. Bush during which they prosecuted
over 1,000 bank executives and got convictions including five sitting senators with four forced
resignations.
After Clinton did the deregulation that led to the financial crisis and Obama prosecuted zero,
let me say that again, zero, bank executives and provided $9 trillion in bailout liquidity.
Take Amtrak between Chicago and Washington DC and witness wreckage of heartland industry along
a corridor 800 miles long. People still live there, forgotten. Bernie Sanders is not finished.
Listen to him; and put yourself up for election locally, on a Park District board; or a Township
position; as an Election Judge or for County or State office. And listen to your neighbors, who
are suffering. Then do something about it. When I ran for State Representative, the Democratic
Party sent me a highlighted map instead of a check for my campaign. The map showed "70% Republican"
voting registration in my State Representative district. No Party cash for my campaign was forthcoming.
The only way to change this Gerrymandering is to be on-hand in the State House following the next
decennial census in 2020. It will be "too late" to do anything -- again -- unless "we" change
the Party; and the Party changes the re-districting scam. Bernie Sanders is right about pitching
in to re-shape and re-form the Democratic Party. The Party, as constructed, is passé... and as
hollowed-out as the miles and miles of decrepit buildings with thousands of gaping, broken windows
that lie between Chicago and DC. Go see the devastation for yourself. Then get serious about answers.
Yep, the Dems would do well to drop the Russia/FBI swung the election thing and the all Red
State inhabitants are poorly educated idiots mentality and concentrate on developing some policies
that appeal to the majority of people.
I'm going to sound like a broken record, but Identity Politics has FAILED. The Dems are not
going to cobble together some sort of Ruling Coalition out of Transgendered people and urban people
of color. That's an insane strategy of hoping you will win national elections by appealing to
25% or less of the population of whom only half that number actually vote if you are lucky.
I'm not saying abandon those struggles. Under a just system those struggles will continue and
prevail - the Constitution guarantees that unless you get dishonest justices on the Supreme Court
- which seems more likely the more national elections you blow. Democrats need to stop worrying
about narrow single issues like that and focus on developing a BROAD national strategy to appeal
to the Majority of Americans.
So says the guy from Punjab who is NOT a poorly educated white person and who has voted Democrat
since 1980.
There's a bit of bait 'n switch here. All this Davos/Deregulation/NeoLiberal whatever is a
product of Republican -- right wing -- thinking. It first gained serious traction during the Reagan
administration. The Democrats merely drifted into the vacuum formed by the Republican party lurching
from Right/Center to Hard Right. Since then any drifting back has been subject to extreme criticism
as 'socialism', 'communism' and the like. Now we're in the rather weird situation that the party
of neoliberal economics is pushing the line that the Democrats are the party of entrenched money
and they are the Party of the People. It beggars belief, especially when journalists take it up
and run with it instead of calling the the BS that it is.
The problem with the Rust Belt states is that they keep on electing Republican state governments.
These fail to deliver on anything useful for working people -- they're more interested in entrenching
their power by tweaking the elections -- but then people turn to the Federal government as if
this is some kind of savior capable of turning around their fortunes overnight.
Anyway, don't take my word for it. Just keep electing those regressive state legislators (and
keep drinking that tainted water....).
Great comment on the article, but I think even you have been kind in your criticism of it. I can
only hope that the writer started out with the intention of saying that while the GOP and their
rich and big business political patrons are responsible for the impoverishment of those in the
article, the Democrats have missed out on messaging and on more specific policies that addresses
those wrongs committed against a voting block they can own. Instead the entire piece is written
as though the Democrats have earned the scorn and anger of these voters. One can argue the Democrats
have failed to focus more on the plight of these voters, but they are NOT the cause of these voters'
plight; and there is nothing in this piece to make that distinction or about the irony of why
these same voters flock to a political party primarily responsible for what has happened to them.
In fact consider this below from the article:
"Mention how the Democrats betrayed working people over the years, however, and the radio station's
board immediately lights up with enthusiastic callers. "
Yes, that is right! The political anomaly that Trump is can be be explained by the successful
exploitation of the improvised classes by media outlets that voice these voters' anger to acquire
a capture audience and then lay the blame for what has happened to them on immigrants & liberals.
You never hear anything on those outlets about the unholy triad of the GOP political class, big
business and media outlets in their orbit. I don't need to drive through these flyover states
to know they are hurting; and I don't need to sit down with them to know they are real human beings
with a great deal in common with me or to know that despite their general decency they are full
of misplaced anger and resentment.
I am so glad that the Russians are responsible for electing Trump. It would be awful to think
that it was because Democrats had a really, really bad candidate in Hillary Clinton. It just could
not be -- she was, after all -- the MOST QUALIFIED PERSON EVER TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT, as we were
instructed endlessly by Obama. Voters thought otherwise and their support for Trump was mainly
to keep Hillary out, not to have a billionaire lunatic elected. But it would not matter since
they all serve their master class bankers and war-makers.
Interesting he choices of examples for how liberals let the mid west down. Republican president
Reagan deregulated S&Ls with predictable awful results. Republicans under Clinton (they controlled
the Senate and house ) when Glass Steagsll was repealed. Republic Phil Gramm also rescinded the
AntiBucket Shop Law which loosed the disaster of the naked CDS,
Republicans starting with Reagan made refusing to enforce financial laws they did not like
a policy. It was continued under Bush43/Cheney on speed. Regulator of mortgage brokers refused
to let state AGs (including Maine) move against fraudsters and refused to act himself. Chris Cox
ignored the risky complex financial products that tanked our economy.
It was Republican Sen. Phil Gramm who said in hearings on CSPAN that these instruments of financial
mass destruction (Warren Buffet's words) were too complicated to understand and therefore should
not be regulated.
Republicans wanted to free up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy subprime even NINJA loans and
made it so.
Was Clinton an idiot to allow Rubin and Summers any where near financial market policy
YES. Was Obama a bigger fool for bringing Summers into his admin- absolutely since he had already
displayed financial incompetence at Harvard, YES.
But, it is republicans who either drove the bad financial ideas or controlled them. Republicans
who support IRS rules and their laws that promote off shoring jobs and stashing cash untaxed off
shore.
Eisenhower, Goldwater, Ford, Bush41 - even Nixon - would not know these people.
Oh, and as for the rest of the party and its defeats: A quick look at the numbers show that Democrats
keep losing not because voters are switching to the Republican brand, but because they no longer
bother to vote for Democrats who are just going to shiv them in the back with Republican economic
policies.
But now liberals and the Democratic Party are to get the lion's share of the blame for everything?
As I've said on numerous occasions in the past: The reason Trump beat Hillary is the same reason
Obama beat her in the 2008 primaries: Voters knew her and what she stood for -- and so were willing
to take a chance on the other candidate.
Thank you for the Abramson reminder -- as a retired journalist I know the importance of providing
clear and accurate information to the general public. While Abramson and Frank and others are
writing Opinion in the Guard and elsewhere, too many people do not understand positioning and
propaganda. Media must make money to stay in business and often it is opinion writers/tv hosts
etc that generate interest and coin to keep the words rolling and the money coming in.
It is especially ironic as wages are cut, jobs disappear, cost of living rises so fewer people
can afford to subscribe or pay for actual news and information. Not to mention the political idiocy
of reducing school funding so that the electorate knows nothing of history or how politics works.
Trump wants to take us back to Ronnie Reagan and Maggie Thatcher years that left us with trillion
dollar deficits and decimation of the middle class that is now on the downward slide to actual
poverty...
No, it is a crap comment. From the neo-liberal 'pseudo science' that economics supposedly is (almost
forgot to use the word neo-liberal, a must these days to make your point) , to the greed and the
rapacity of the "one percenters".
Such a simple problem isn't it? Let's just go back in time rather than find more creative and
up-to-date solution for the problems there are. Globalisation isn't going to go away, the world
is too small a place. Globalisation has created problems for people, but many more people have
benefitted from it.
"The wreckage that you see every day as you tour this part of the country is the utterly predictable
fruit of the Democratic party's neoliberal turn. Every time our liberal leaders signed off on
some lousy trade deal, figuring that working-class people had "nowhere else to go," they were
making what happened last November a little more likely. "
---
As someone who's middle aged, I am getting sick and tired of this historical revisionist nonsense
that all the country's woes and economic climate can be mostly pinned on the liberals and that
somehow, it's something that they did wrong that is the reason why they "lost" constituents in
the Midwest. Someone can peddle this nonsense over and over again with the smug belief that everyone
on on the internet is too young to know whether what he's saying is true. But there are some of
us "old folks" who are also on the internet and as an old folk, I have no issues calling out this
article out for the nonsense that it is.
Everything that is going on now in terms of jobs can be 100% attributable to Reaganomics--period,
end of. It's nothing to do with liberals. It's 100% to do with the devastating rippling effect
that his neoliberal policies has had on the country since the 1980s, only made 100x worse by Republican
pols who have been further carrying out his neoliberalist agenda to full effect for the past several
decades.
It was under Reagan that the country began experiencing mass layoffs (euphemistically called
"downsizing"). It was under Reagan that corporations began slashing benefits, cutting wages and
closing up shop to ship thousands of jobs overseas. It was under Reagan that the middle class
American dream died--aka, the expectation that if got a diploma, you could start working for a
company full time straight out of college, work for decades with decent benefits and perks, save
up enough money to buy a house and retire with a generous pension. Gone. All gone.
Remember the "Buy American" grassroots campaign? That started in the 1980s, precisely because
under Reagan, the country had relied increasingly on imported goods at the expense of domestic
manufacturing. Here's an actual article from 1989 that shows you that the roots of everything
going on now started decades ago. It's actually a defeatist article telling people to *stop* wasting
their time to get everyone to "Buy American" because it had become virtually impossible to buy
American-made goods.
As for the idea that there's always been a staunchly"Democratic" following in the Midwest that
has been "lost" because of something that the party is doing wrong and that this caused them to
turn to populism? False. It may have been true a very long time ago that this constituency has
been staunchly Democratic and not amenable to populism, but not recently. It has voted on populist
platforms before. Remember "welfare queens?" Remember "Willie Horton?" Willie Horton, the black
bogeyman, was the "bad hombres" of today.
In addition, this constituency has been increasingly voting against its best interests for
decades since Reagan was voted into office. Why? Because demagogues like Rush Limbaugh and the
large number of puppets at Rupert Murdoch's vast media empire have been selling them a bill of
goods since the 1990s that the reason why they're becoming poorer is that liberals are giving
all their "white" hard-earned money to shiftless, lazy blacks and immigrants and losing out to
them because of affirmative action. In the famous words of South Park, "THEY TOOK R JERBS" and
"IT'S ALL DUH LIBRUHL'S FAULTS!!"
This constituency has developed such a deep-seated hatred and loathing for liberals because
of the demagogues at FOX or news radio that even when Michael Moore directly spoke to their plight
in Roger and Me, they derided him as a typical Communist-loving, anti-Capitalist pinko. Because,
you see, according to FOX demagogues, calling out rich corporate fatcats who also happen to be
white is attacking white people, a form of class warfare and anti-Capitalist.
Given all that, for someone to try to paint a picture that this constituency would otherwise
be embracing liberalism if not for the Democratic Party adopting an "ideology" is laughable. They
were never going to win because anything short of ranting, "They took r jerbs" and "Damned brown
people on welfare and illegals stealing taking all our money" was going to cost them the election.
Bottom line, the Midwest was never the liberals' or Democratic Party's constituency to lose,
and Reagan is behind all of the economic devastation that the region is experiencing. Anyone else
trying to say otherwise is just using spin and historical revisionism.
That's exactly what America needs -- another neocon/neolib, just like Macron! As if Obama and
the Clintons hadn't been neocon/neolib enough!
Reply Share
Frank is right that the white working class in the Midwestern states have been the swing votes
for presidential elections since the Reagan election of 1984, when the white Democratic South
became more fully the white Republican South. But he is wrong in not recognizing that the Democratic
Party has three major constituents and it needs all of them to win elections and to do the progressive
things while in office that would help people like those in the Midwest. Democrats need the votes
of the white working class, but also of race/ethnic minorities, and the "new class" professionals
and others. The problem is that these groups have been fighting with each other since the 1960s,
continually undermining the chances for Democrats to win. In the period of the Civil Rights Movement
and the Vietnam War, students and professionals joined with race and ethnic minorities to challenge
the influence of the unionists, big city mayors, and white working class in the Democratic Party,
which is what gave us Nixon, Reagan, and the Bushes. Through this period, predictably, more white
working class people either stopped voting or moved to the Republican Party. In the 2016 election,
with the Bernie Sanders influence, students and professionals began to attack the influence of
race and ethnic minorities (and women?) in the Democratic Party, ostensibly in support of the
white working class over "identity politics," with the result that we got Trump. Globalization
is a difficult and complex issue, but the reality is that since the 1970s the U.S. economy has
not been able to prosper, nor the working class jobs that it requires, by selling things only
in the U.S. We have to be in global markets and integrated with other economies around the world
and that requires trade deals that balance our interests against those of other countries. This
has generated winners and losers in the economy, and it will continue to do so. While it may not
be possible to bring back the same kinds of jobs that pay a middle class wage for those with not
much education, it should be possible to create new jobs that pay a middle class wage and to invest
in education and skill development, infrastructure, and a welfare state that sustains people through
periods of disruption and transformation. The Republican Party and the New Right that took it
over are fighting to the death to undermine what is left of the social safety net to force people
to take whatever jobs are available at exploitative wages, and they have been successful exploiting
anti-government sentiment by using racial animosity and more recently anti-immigrant hysteria.
The right has been successful because those on the left who should support the Democratic Party
and then fight for more progressive policies within it just keep fighting each other and in the
last election delivered Trump by voting third party (along with gutting of the Voting Rights Act,
voter suppression, Russian influences that helped Sanders and vilified Hillary Clinton, the rogue
FBI, Citizens United, and so on). The only option for the left in a two party system is to support
the Democratic Party. Staying home or voting third party is a vote for your worst enemy. France
is experiencing the same thing, with the left candidate refusing to support the more centrist
candidate against Le Pen. We all need to learn how to form coalitions and to keep our focus on
winning elections, not winning ideological battles.
Umm, the real goals of labor unions have been beach houses and new SUVs for labor leadership.
Unions have been adept at screwing over their memberships since at least the 1970s -- no wonder
they keep supporting anti-union Dims.
Maddow has to defend the Corporate Democratic Establishment any way she can. Maddow to my knowledge
has never mentioned:
Russia's largest bank, Sberbank, has confirmed that it hired the consultancy of Tony Podesta,
the elder brother of John Podesta who chaired Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, for lobbying
its interests in the United States.
The two Russian banks spent more than $700,000 in 2016 on Washington lobbyists as they sought
to end the U.S. sanctions, according to Senate lobbying disclosure forms and documents filed with
the Department of Justice. The Podesta Group charged Sberbank $20,000 per month, plus expenses,
on a contract from March through September 2016.
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: `Two vast and trunkless cankles of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear -
"My name is Ozywomandias, queen of queens:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
They became the party of neocons and defense establishment. The party of MIC lobbyists. nothing
to do with the democracy.
Notable quotes:
"... What, pray tell, is the Democratic Party's message otherwise? That they don't like Russia, except when they did? That they believe Russia is the biggest national security threat to America, except when it wasn't? ..."
"... Where the rubber meets the road for me is in the total abrogation of interest in controlling state legislatures and governorships. This is the level of governance where not only Congressional districting is decided, but also where influential policies and laws such as insurance regulation and such happens. ..."
"The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee said Sunday there is no "smoking gun" so
far showing collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign in an effort to influence the 2016 election,
adding that hearings this week will be crucial to congressional investigations into the matter" [
Wall Street Journal ]. "'Listen, there's a lot of smoke. We have no smoking gun at this point,'
Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia said on CNN on Sunday. 'But there is a lot of smoke.'" Named sources
with evidence the public can see would be nice, especially considering that some Democrats frame
Russian "meddling" as a casus belli . I mean, in both the Gulf of Tonkin and the Iraq WMDs,
the administration that wanted war had the common decency to fake some physical evidence; they didn't
rely on anonymous "officials," "17 intelligence agencies," and so forth. (Oh, the word now seems
to be "colluding." It used to be "meddling.")
"The Latest: France says no trace of Russian hacking Macron" [
AP ]. I'm so old I remember when that was a done deal. Everybody believed it!
"A Noun, a Verb and Vladimir Putin" [
Politico ]. "To those with a bit of distance from cable news-that is, every sane person in America-Democrats
seem to be replaying the exact strategy that lost them the last election. What, pray tell, is
the Democratic Party's message otherwise? That they don't like Russia, except when they did? That
they believe Russia is the biggest national security threat to America, except when it wasn't?
Democrats appear to have spent about two minutes trying to figure out why the voters of Wisconsin,
Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and, very nearly, Minnesota rejected them only a few months ago. And
why, despite an ostensibly popular Obama presidency, they now have less political power than at any
point in memory. But this is hard and painful spadework, and what's unearthed might prove unpleasant.
So why bother?"
Realignment and Legitimacy
"'We call for a #MarchForTruth on Saturday, June 3rd to raise our voices and let our elected leaders
know that Americans want answers,' the site reads
. 'The legitimacy of our democracy is more important than the interests of any party, or any
President" [ Time
].
"A Field of Lavender Nourished by Trump's Tweets" [
HyperAllergic ]. "Using a Raspberry Pi, [artist Martin] Roth has synced grow lights on the small
room's ceiling so the strength of their bulbs corresponds with the activities of nearly two dozen
Twitter accounts. Most belong to people in President Trump's closest circle: feeds included along
with @POTUS and @realDonaldTrump are those of Press Secretary Sean Spicer and White House counselor
Kellyanne Conway. Other accounts represent the mainstream media, from CNN to Fox News. When any of
these accounts retweets a tweet, the grow lights brighten, increasing in power if there's a flurry
of retweets With all of this curious wiring, Roth intends to create a sort of underground retreat
that transforms our media-born anxieties into something therapeutic.
Lavender has long been used to soothe the mind and encourage better sleep in addition to healing
physical wounds; the more these select politicians and pundits fire tweets, the stronger the scent
to the installation's visitors ." You can visit the exhibit until June 21 if you are in the New York
City area;
here are the details .
"RONALD REAGAN, THE FIRST REALITY TV STAR PRESIDENT" [
JSTOR ].
"'Politics in the United States has always been a performance art,' writes Tim Raphael in his
analysis of
the branding and image-crafting that now dominate our political system . Throughout his eight
years as president, Ronald Reagan had much more positive poll numbers (60-70%) as a person than
did his actual policies (40%). Raphael attributes Reagan's success to the potent combination of
advertising, public relations, and a television in every home. (There were 14,000 TVs in America
in 1947; by 1954, 32 million; by 1962, 90% of American homes plugged in.) Ronald, Nancy, and
four-year-old Patti were TV's 'first all-electric family' with 'electric servants' making magic
as the folks at home watched and dreamed of the good life as seen on television."
>>Article lists Biden, Warren, cites Mike Allen approvingly on Kirsten Gillibrand, Mark Cuban
(!), ..
The Democrats have no bench. That's what you get when one circle of cronies has controlled
the DNC apparatus since 1992. (even Obama is a partially Clinton creation as Obama's political
career was propelled by William Daley, a Bill Clinton Chief of Staff)
The DNC had some potential to build a bench when Howard Dean was running the show through his
50 state strategy with its grass roots level organizing in the states and its success in winning
majorities in both houses. Opportunity that had the potential to bring new younger blood into
the party and have them move up the food chain. Guess Barack and Rahm got too scared of the left
getting the upper hand and scaring the big donors away, so they brought in stiffs like Tim Kaine
and DWS to keep the donors happy, even at the expense of congressional majorities and bench building.
Where the rubber meets the road for me is in the total abrogation of interest in controlling
state legislatures and governorships. This is the level of governance where not only Congressional
districting is decided, but also where influential policies and laws such as insurance regulation
and such happens.
The Democrat party is all about centralized power in Washington. This enhances the effectiveness
of Congressional grifting; toll gates ahead, mofos. To them states should only be administrative
districts of the Federal government.
Whoops, it's a federal republic; more limited than in the past due to overreach through the
Interstate Commerce Clause expansion over time, and through the Feds' propensity to declare war
on everything which has the effect of giving them primacy on matters that could equally well,
or perhaps in a superior fashion, be addressed on a state (or even local) level.
When the centralizing strategy comes a cropper, they have so disempowered themselves on the
state level, that they got nothin'. Well, not them personally, 'cause they have generally seen
to that aspect; but the citizens who might be habitual Democrat voters, and who favor old-school
Democrat priorities are rude, screwed, and tattooed.
"... I posted 99% anti-Hillary material. It consisted mostly of newspaper articles about many issues, ranging from her support for a right wing coup in Honduras that resulted in an escalation of violence, to her massive pay to play at the State Dept, to her disastrous regime change attempts in Libya and Syria (not to mention her support for the coup in Ukraine and the installation of a Neo Nazi regime). There were also many articles about her numerous campaign promise betrayals, such as her support for bad trade deals with Colombia, South Korea, and Singapore, despite her promises to oppose these (her change of position re: Colombia was after getting a $10 million donation). These articles were all from mainstream sources, including The Nation, The Hill, even the NYT. ..."
"... The thing is, Hillary was so corrupt and her judgment and actions so bad, that there was a seemingly never-ending wealth of bad things to post about her. It wasn't fake news, it was the actual historical record of her dastardly deeds. It wasn't just I who did this. This is what folks on FB and other social media sites did throughout. She probably would refer to what we all posted as "fake news" because she psychopathically denies the truth on a continual basis. ..."
"... Keep in mind that I had not mentioned where I'd gotten my information; I simply said I had done broad research of St. Hillary's history and found it bore little to no resemblance to what the media said about her. ..."
"... When I patiently explained this (and added my journalist's credentials), the attack-cultist then switched to their second favorite: I support Trump, and am guilty of his election. I don't know how long she kept on posting her foam-mouthed mantras, because I departed using my standard response: I no longer engage in battles of facts with unarmed opponents. ..."
Lots of people, including myself, created FB accounts solely to post material related to the
2016 Democratic Primary and the election. I have just under 5,000 friends on FB, all of whom are
"friends in Bernie."
I posted 99% anti-Hillary material. It consisted mostly of newspaper articles about many issues,
ranging from her support for a right wing coup in Honduras that resulted in an escalation of violence,
to her massive pay to play at the State Dept, to her disastrous regime change attempts in Libya
and Syria (not to mention her support for the coup in Ukraine and the installation of a Neo Nazi
regime). There were also many articles about her numerous campaign promise betrayals, such as
her support for bad trade deals with Colombia, South Korea, and Singapore, despite her promises
to oppose these (her change of position re: Colombia was after getting a $10 million donation).
These articles were all from mainstream sources, including The Nation, The Hill, even the NYT.
The thing is, Hillary was so corrupt and her judgment and actions so bad, that there was
a seemingly never-ending wealth of bad things to post about her. It wasn't fake news, it was the
actual historical record of her dastardly deeds. It wasn't just I who did this. This is what folks
on FB and other social media sites did throughout. She probably would refer to what we all posted
as "fake news" because she psychopathically denies the truth on a continual basis.
It consisted mostly of newspaper articles about many issues, ranging from her support for
a right wing coup in Honduras that resulted in an escalation of violence, to her massive pay
to play at the State Dept, to her disastrous regime change attempts in Libya and Syria (not
to mention her support for the coup in Ukraine and the installation of a Neo Nazi regime).
Funny you should mention. I responded to yet another episode of Russian hysteria yesterday
and was immediately attacked by a Clinton cultist. Understand, this woman had no idea who I am
and clearly didn't bother to find out. I said something against St. Hillary, and was therefore
the enemy. Of course, the basis of her attack was that my sources of information were all "fake
news."
Keep in mind that I had not mentioned where I'd gotten my information; I simply said I
had done broad research of St. Hillary's history and found it bore little to no resemblance to
what the media said about her.
When I patiently explained this (and added my journalist's credentials), the attack-cultist
then switched to their second favorite: I support Trump, and am guilty of his election. I don't
know how long she kept on posting her foam-mouthed mantras, because I departed using my standard
response: I no longer engage in battles of facts with unarmed opponents.
TheCubanGentlemen
,
27 Apr 2017 10:42
Sorry Mr. Cuban but Barney has a point. Sympathy for criminals? How
about a system that extracts wealth by taking family members that have
made a mistake hostage. Private prisons are incredibly corrupt. They pay
their guards $7 an hour, barely train them and then throw them into a
hellhole of starved and abused prisoners, prisoners who's families are
charged $2-5 a MINUTE to talk to them! Prisoners who are charged for
laundry, for new underwear, for sanitary napkins, for extra food
anything they can, they charge them for, all to meet a higher quarterly
profit. If they work, prisoners get only .25 an hour! Menawhile, the
items they make get a proud MADE IN AMERICA sticker and sold at a
premium netting the company MORE money. This is a direct threat to
DEMOCRACY! Why not contract our work to prisons with no liability and
infinitesimal wages to lower costs. Gee, doesn't that sounds like a
threat to low skilled workers?! Everything matters because EVERYTHING IS
CONNECTED!!!
--
,
iamwhiskerbiscuit
Ramus
,
27 Apr 2017 09:35
Very little differences between neoncons and neoliberals these days.
They're both in Goldman Saacs corner, they both support war even when
they claim otherwise during their election... Both laugh at the idea of
emulating countries that offer free Healthcare, free college, higher
minimum wage and lower cost of living. Bush tax policy = Obama tax
policy. Bush stance on war = Obama stance on war. Whats the difference?
Abortion and gun rights. That's pretty much all thats different. Pro
militarist, world police, globalists who favor a regressive tax system.
Don't like it? Don't vote... You have no say in this debate.
Yes, the Democratic Party are essentially corporate shills who talk
pretty to the poor and oppressed and then serve their corporate masters.
But that isn't why people voted against them. That would be assuming
some sort of political sophistication among the masses. It is rather,
IMHO, the corporate owned media in the form of AM radio, cable and local
news outlets, and most local newspapers who either report on nothing
that might change the status quo or are actual propaganda outlets for
the ultra right. The fact that Fox news and right wing radio is the
background music of mid America, should not be discounted. And secondly,
the seizure of nearly all of the church pulpits by the 'religious'
right. People vote the way their pastor tells them to vote. This isn't
rocket science. When there is a coup, the first order of business has
always been to seize the radio and TV stations. Bernie who ?
In a close election, there is something of
everything. But this concept that the
election turned on these displaced workers is
hilarious. In truth, we've been talking about
things like this since the 70s or before. Why
now? Because now, a wave of xenophobia and
racism swept the world and that was the wave
Trump rode to office. Many of his so-called
displaced workers overlap with those groups.
Add the religious evangelicals. That's how
Trump won... take away the evangelicals, take
away the racists, take away the xenophobes,
take away the screaming about the Mexican
this, the Muslims that, the Syrians, the
pandering to far-right groups who in the past
were considered the underbelly of the
country..and Trump doesn't have a chance.
This is a man with Mike Pence as vice
president. This is a man who brings people
like Steve Bannon into the administration.
That's how he won and that's how he remains
popular with his base. The rest is an
illusion
What happens to those good old days when a job could support an entire
family? Reagan happened. Massive tax cuts for the wealthy, building up
our military 10 times as big as the next largest military, deregulating
banks and brokerage... Then Clinton continued to deregulate further.
Then Bush brought about more tax cuts for the rich and Obama kept his
tax policy on place. In 68, a minimum wage worker with 3 kids fell 500
dollars above the poverty line. (5,000 in today's money). Today, a
minimum wage worker with 3 kids falls 10,000 below the poverty line. And
the neocon/neoliberal answer to that is women must work, single people
need roommates and the wealthy need tax relief. What a load of crap.
The Democratic Party is still owned and operated by the Wall Street,
fossil fuel and war interests. The fact that the DNC installed Tom
Perez, who is not inspired by the idea of health care as a human right,
is telling. The DNC is the enemy of lower-middle class working (or
non-working) people. The DNC nominated the candidate least likely to win
over Trump. The Democrats need to send their bank/war/oil candidates to
the Republicans. We need a whole new truly progressive party..but since
our governement has been sold to the highest bidder, it make take some
unpleasantness in the streets to achieve power over the special
interests. And EVERYONE must vote EVERY TIME.
The problem is US elites, who are only exceptional in their stupidity.
"Income inequality is not killing capitalism in the United States,
but rent-seekers like the banking and the health-care sectors just
might"
Nobel-winning economist Angus Deaton
The exceptionally stupid US elite are going for the easy money and
destroying their nation.
Its elites are always rigging stuff in their favour and forgetting
the reality they have hidden.
There is a huge difference between wealth creation and wealth
extraction, but today we have no idea of even the concept of wealth
extraction.
Well, one of our 21st Century Nobel prize winning economists, Angus
Deaton, has just remembered the problem.
The Classical Economists of the 19th Century were only too aware of
the two sides of capitalism, the productive side where wealth creation
takes place and the parasitic side where wealth extraction takes place.
The US was a key player in developing neoclassical economics and it's
what we use today.
It looks after the interests of the old money, idle rich rentiers.
The distinction between "earned" income (wealth creation) and
"unearned" income (wealth extraction) disappears and the once separate
areas of "capital" and "land" are conflated. The old money, idle rich
rentiers are now just productive members of society and not parasites
riding on the back of other people's hard work.
It happens at the end of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, but
doesn't blow up until the 21st century when the exceptionally stupid US
elite have forgotten what they have done.
Monetary theory has been regressing for the last one hundred years.
Credit creation theory -> fractional reserve theory -> financial
intermediation theory
" banks make their profits by taking in deposits and lending the
funds out at a higher rate of interest"
Paul Krugman, 2015.
One of today's Nobel Prize winning economists spouting today's
nonsense.
Progress in monetary theory has been in the reverse direction,
leading to many of today's problems.
There was massive debt and money creation in the US leading up to the
2008 bust:
Get back to the Classical Economists to learn how you tax "unearned"
income to provide subsidized housing, healthcare, education and other
services to provide a low cost economy whose workforce isn't priced out
of the global market place.
When you understand money you can see in the money supply when Wall
Street is getting really stupid and about to blow up the economy.
Throughout history, the "people" were ruled by the powerful even if the
powerful were idiots, thieves, rapists and murderers. Times have
changed. People don't accept that anymore. But if Democrats have made a
blanket error it was in assuming that everyone sees the world as they
do, and in assuming that everyone is a rational being committed to the
ideals of a republic. Clearly that is not the case. And the "people"
want leaders, not pals. They want security. Democrats need a person who
combines the guile of a Machiavelli with the smarts of an Obama and the
steel fist of a Cromwell. Thing is, under such conditions, it's doubtful
if the "people" are governable anymore, in the sense of making decisions
based on reality as opposed to a combination of superstition, myth, and
misinformation. Oh, and vanity is an important factor: ask Susan
Sarandon and her proxy vote for Trump--she voted for Stein.
It was the DLC ("Democrats Led by Clintons") that brought the DP to its
current condition of self-satisfied atrophy and irrelevance by embracing
Davos "meritocracy" and neo-liberal economics combined with
neo-conservative foreign policy for the past 30 years. They sealed their
fate by turning the Party (DNC, DSCC, DCCC, DGA, most state committees)
into stale and pale imitations of Reagan's GOP; and Party 'leaders' are
far too comfortable with their own sense of entitlement to power and
wealth to understand either the fallacies of their tunnel vision, or the
consequences (like electing Trump and keeping the GOP in control of
Congress and most states) of their blinkered myopia.
The only hope for the DP is to let the genuine 'progressives' (aka the
socialist/green 'left') take over management of the political apparatus
because what passes for 'liberalism' these days is no longer an
electoral/policy option, at least as far as the electorate is concerned.
And all the early indications are that the from the DNC down the Party
establishment is more concerned about stamping out the Bernie Bro and Ho
heresies than defeating Republicans.
Our politicians have been brainwashed by neoliberal economists.
These
economists produce models that factor-in all the upsides to
globalisation, but fail to model any of the crippling,
expensive-to-treat consequences of shutting down entire towns in places
like Michigan or Lancashire.
They assume people live frictionless lives; that when the European
ship-building industry moves to Poland, riveters in Portsmouth can just
up-sticks and move to Gdansk with no problem. They encourage a narrative
that implies such an English riveter are lazy if he fails to seize this
opportunity.
(Let's drop a few economists in Gdansk with £100 in their pockets,
and see how their families do.)
Economics is a corrupt pseudo-science that gives a pseudo-scientific
justification for the greed and rapacity of One Percenters. Its
methodological flaws are glaring. It's time economists went back to the
social science faculty, where they belong.
"... Tell people about how the Russians stole the election for Trump and everyone knows you're just reiterating a Beltway talking point. Mention how the Democrats betrayed working people over the years, however, and the radio station's board immediately lights up with enthusiastic callers. Remind people of the ways in which the Democrats have reoriented themselves around affluent, tasteful white-collar people and you hear a chorus of angry yesses; talk about how the Democrats live to serve the so-called "creative class" and a murmur of recognition sweeps the room. ..."
"... People in the labor movement that I met in my turn around the midwest expressed complicated feelings about Donald Trump. On the one hand, everyone understands that he is an obvious scoundrel and they fear that his administration will bring about (via a possible supreme court ruling against public-sector unions) an epic defeat for organized labor. ..."
"... Economics is a corrupt pseudo-science that gives a pseudo-scientific justification for the greed and rapacity of One Percenters. Its methodological flaws are glaring. It's time economists went back to the social science faculty, where they belong. ..."
Another thing that is inexcusable from Democrats: surprise at the economic disasters that have
befallen the midwestern cities and states that they used to represent.
The wreckage that you see every day as you tour this part of the country is the utterly predictable
fruit of the Democratic party's neoliberal turn. Every time our liberal leaders signed off on some
lousy trade deal, figuring that working-class people had "nowhere else to go," they were making what
happened last November a little more likely.
Every time our liberal leaders deregulated banks and then turned around and told working-class
people that their misfortunes were all attributable to their poor education, that the only answer
for them was a lot of student loans and the right sort of college degree ... every time they did
this they made the disaster a little more inevitable.
Pretending to rediscover the exotic, newly red states of the Midwest,
in the manner of the New York Times , is not the answer to this problem. Listening to the voices
of the good people of Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan is not really the answer, either. Cursing those
bad people for the stupid way they voted is an even lousier idea.
What we need is for the Democratic party and its media enablers to alter course. It's not enough
to hear people's voices and feel their pain; the party actually needs to change. They need to understand
that the enlightened Davos ideology they have embraced over the years has done material harm to millions
of their own former constituents. The Democrats need to offer something different next time. And
then they need to deliver.
They are already failing on this front. Consider the idea, currently approaching revealed truth
among American liberals, that last November's electoral upset was in fact an act of political vandalism
attributable to some violation of fair play by the Russians or the FBI director; that it had no greater
historical significance than does an ordinary act of shoplifting.
I met few who are actually buying that line. Tell people about how the Russians stole the election
for Trump and everyone knows you're just reiterating a Beltway talking point. Mention how the Democrats
betrayed working people over the years, however, and the radio station's board immediately lights
up with enthusiastic callers. Remind people of the ways in which the Democrats have reoriented themselves
around affluent, tasteful white-collar people and you hear a chorus of angry yesses; talk about how
the Democrats live to serve the so-called "creative class" and a murmur of recognition sweeps the
room.
People in the labor movement that I met in my turn around the midwest expressed complicated feelings
about Donald Trump. On the one hand, everyone understands that he is an obvious scoundrel and they
fear that his administration will bring about (via a possible
supreme court ruling against public-sector unions) an epic defeat for organized labor.
In the union hall of the Steelworkers local that represents workers at the Indianapolis Carrier
plant – a union hall where you might expect Trump to be venerated – I spotted instead a flyer depicting
the billionaire president with his famous pompadour on fire. The headline: "Lying Con and Volatile
Gasbag is Enemy of the Working Class."
On the other hand, Trump at least pretended to be a friend of the working class, and it was working-class
people in this part of America who turned against the Democrats and helped delivered him into the
White House. By a certain school of thought, this should make working-class people the Number One
swing group for Democrats to court.
Of course it isn't working out that way. So far, liberal organs seem far less interested in courting
such voters than they do in scolding them, insulting them for their coarse taste and the hate for
humanity they supposedly cherish in their ignorant hearts.
Ignorance is not the issue, however. Many midwesterners I met share an outlook that is profoundly
bleak. They believe that the life has gone out of this region; indeed, they fear that a civilization
based on making things is no longer sustainable.
They tell me about seniors falling prey to Fox News syndrome and young people who are growing
up without hope. And just about everyone I talked to believes that the national Democratic party
has abandoned them. They are frustrated beyond words with the stupidity of the party's leadership.
One thing we must never forget about the midwest, however, is that radicalism lurks just beneath
the surface. The region has always swung back and forth between contentment and outrage; between
Chicago Tribune-style business-worship and Eugene Debs-style socialism. I was reminded of this one
night in Minneapolis, when a friend told me the story of a local Teamsters strike in 1934, a conflict
that briefly plunged the Twin Cities into something akin to civil war.
I have no doubt that people in this part of America would respond enthusiastically to a populist
message that addressed their unhappy situation – just look, for example, at the soaring
popularity of Bernie Sanders.
As things have unfolded thus far, however, our system seems designed to keep such an alternative
off the table. The choice we are offered instead is between Trumpian fake populism and a high-minded
politics of personal virtue. Between a nomenklatura of New Economy winners and a party of traditional
business types, willing to say anything to get elected and (once that is done) to use the state to
reward people like themselves. The public's frustration with this state of affairs, at least as I
heard it on my midwestern trip, is well-nigh overwhelming.
The way I see it, the critical test for our system will come late next year. The billionaire great-maker
in the Oval Office has already turned out to be an incompetent buffoon, and his greatest failures
are no doubt yet to come. By November 2018, the winds of change will be in full hurricane shriek,
and unless the Democratic Party's incompetence is even more profound than it appears to be, the D's
will sweep to some sort of mid-term triumph.
But when "the resistance" comes into power in Washington, it will face this question: this time
around, will Democrats serve the 80% of us that this modern economy has left behind? Will they stand
up to the money power? Or will we be invited once again to feast on inspiring speeches while the
tasteful gentlemen from JP Morgan foreclose on the world?
Writing that Trump is an 'incompetent buffoon' only highlights the foolishness of the Washington
establishment, and why millions see the media with disdain.
While you may dislike the man, you still have to contend with the fact that the guy has been successful,
and he is a byproduct of a system that rewards success. It is similar to the derision that Obama
experienced when he claimed that 'you didn't build that."
Historically hard work and self determination has been a shared American value, and during the
campaign we saw one who skated through process and the other who worked his butt off to win. To
dismiss this American value as incompetent and buffoonery is the height of elitism from a pointed
headed pencil pusher.
Reply Share
Share on Facebook Facebook
Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick - >
Report
-> mmercier0921
->
deborahmconner
,
29 Apr
2017 15:32 Americans of age are not bolshevik's. What is killing the rat party is reality
that the immigrants here tend to want freedom or anarchy, not old communists loading over them.
The stunted domestic children's have proven mostly... dysfunctional at the political levels so
far, and a burden on us all.
The only hope for the Democrat party at this point is economic colapse and war... their only
remaining tried and true methods.
Mr. Frank may be overestimating the Democrats' chances next year. My senator is one of the most
liberal but already this year she has voted for new sanctions on Iran and admitting Montenegro
into NATO.
I'm seriously considering staying home on election day next year -- for the first time in my
life.
The turmoil in financial markets was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards
for subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 through 2007. That's when Republicans controlled
all branches of government. The share of mortgages held by Fannie and Freddie during that time
went from 48% to 24%, being eclipsed by private mortgage banks.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html
Bush's Securities and Exchange Commission allowed the nation's largest financial institutions
to "self-regulate;" taking the cops off the beat. Unregulated mortgage brokers sold subprime loans
aided by the NINA (No Income No Assets) program. Major financial institutions packaged those bad
mortgages into securities and sold them as low-risk investments.
In 2007, FOX News taking heads, Art Laffer, Ben Stein and others laughed themselves silly over
an impending housing collapse they had championed. They said "It can't happen," claiming lasting
wealth had been created by subprime loans. Check it out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zz_yw0kq3MM
First of all, the idea that the nationalist right is exclusively 'Nazi', or that Trump is a 'white
supremacist', is more than a bit silly, but regardless:
My argument has absolutely nothing to do with Trump's tax cuts (which, fwiw, I'm hugely opposed
to).
--
As an outside observer I am not well enough informed to dig deep into regional issues in America,
but on a national level many can see the some root causes.
The US has a political system that does not monitor and control election spending by parties or
candidates. You get the best people that money can buy, not the best people.
You have an electoral "commission" that is a privately run club of 2 parties whose stated aim
is to keep it like that, and do so by strangling any dissent at birth.
You also have a media circus with players like Rupert Murdoch involved and wherever he goes you
find mischief, spin, downright lies all mobilised to get you all to believe in whatever movement
is generating him the most cash.
You also have a large and powerful group of dark suits that "advise" the administration, whoever
it is, on foreign policy and how to control, manipulate or even overthrow, foreign governments
of countries that have resources America needs.
As a result, your idea of living in a Demoracy is just that, a nice idea.
You can argue with me all day long, but the fact remains, that I have watched all of the above
actually happen over a 70 year period, with my own eyes, while still of sound mind.
Much the same is happening in the UK too, creating diabolical levels of inequality that are destroying
large sections of society.
It will get much worse before it gets much better. Will it get better before the planet shrugs
humans off it though?
not like electing Hillary would have helped us. she's just as complacently sure that neoliberalism
works. well, yeah, for the billionaires it does. hasn't done us much good though.
I'm not supporting Trump's election. but as far as economic problems, neither of the two main
candidates offered us much of anything but more of the same.
not like electing Hillary would have helped us. she's just as complacently sure that neoliberalism
works. well, yeah, for the billionaires it does. hasn't done us much good though.
I'm not supporting Trump's election. but as far as economic problems, neither of the two main
candidates offered us much of anything but more of the same.
They won the popular vote ONLY because of Democrats overwhelming strength in Los Angeles, California
& New York City...if you remove the votes for BOTH Hillary & Donald from those two regions, Trump
would have won by 2 million votes. That alone is why the men who wrote the US Constitution instituted
the Electoral College. It was to keep a few large cities from choosing the president and essentially
ignoring the rest of the country. It was called the Virginia Compromise...
I'm an analytics professional that worked on Obama's primary & re-election where I saw first hand
a robust machine learning process. Electoral politics is so insanely tribal because you're seeing
voter outcomes reflect voter self image based on their general zip code/geographic living space.
Electorally we don't know how Bernie would have performed because it's unknown how the oppo
research would have impacted older voters outcomes. This is even harder to predict because of
the $$ spent required to run in a general. You can assume Bernie would have gotten 60% of Millennials
instead of Hillary's 55% (matching Obama's number in 2012). However; we don't know what happens
in the reverse manner.
Hillary had entrenched Democratic loyalty with urban blanks/latinos/Asians /Jews/White educated
women. Because Latino/Asian turnout rates increased from 46% to 56% Clinton basically outperformed
Obama in ever major metro area except ( Detroit / Milwaukee). That's because black turnout rates
dropped from 64% to 54%. And these two metros are heavily AA .
Hillary slightly outperformed Obama in Philly metro; but she was brutalized in literally all
these heavily white working class areas.
"The wreckage that you see every day as you tour this part of the country is the utterly predictable
fruit of the Democratic party's neoliberal turn."
Yup! And the means doing away with public sector unions in their present form, it means securing
the borders, it means getting big banks and wall street under control, it means dropping the left
wingnut social policies and getting the government out of peoples lives, not the other way 'round.
Ain't gonna happen.
The liberal/progressive leftist totalitarians are in charge of the party, and unless they change
their ways, as previously described, they are going to wander in the wilderness for a very long
time.
It's fine to blame the Democratic Party and let it go at that, but let's frame the problem somewhat
more clearly: the United States hasn't managed its transition from industrial capitalism to
post-industrial capitalism wisely, or really at all.
The Republican Party? Well, everyone pretty much expects them to act like worshipers of the
Great God Mammon; they wrongly think any kind of capitalism is perfect, so they offer no modifications
to a situation that has left millions of Americans behind.
The Democrats? You would expect them at least to show some appreciation of the problem and
to go beyond lip service when it comes to economic justice and opportunity for all. But you would
be mostly mistaken in that, since they have (if at times ambivalently) embraced the shifting lay
of the land -- an attitude that amounts to a species of fatalism. That leaves them little to offer
except support for some important but not fully curative improvements in American life: support
for equality for LGBTQI people, for example. That support, proper though it is, then gets slammed
by vicious, sneering Republicans as elitism or extremism. The truth is that if the Dems appear
to be all about such issues, it's only because right-wing morons oppose them with primitive ferocity
at every turn, making the Dems' steadfast belief in fairness look like a mere obsession with "boutique"
issues that only directly affect very small segments of the population. So the answer isn't for
Democrats to drop their support for civic and human rights for all people -- that isn't the problem.
This is a genuine dilemma because the pain the country's going through has fundamentally to
do with our economic system and the technological shifts to it, and we really aren't going to
jettison that system. But I suggest that the Democrats are better positioned to become the great
"rearticulators" of why we are in the fix we are in and of a more compassionate social system
that won't ignore the working class, won't embrace some kind of neoliberal fatalism that writes
people off as "collateral damage" of an inevitable shift.
The Democratic Party has gradually become the party of the status quo and business as usual instead
of the progressive-- working people's party-- it use to be under Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy.
Even Obamacare is a concept originally conceived by the Republicans to force all Americans into
the arms of the private health insurance companies.
Instead of more trickle down economics, Democrats should be trying to focus on creating a worker's
paradise in order to re-energize the American economy:
1. A 32 hour work week (overtime beyond 32 hours):
2. Up to six weeks of annual Federally mandated paid vacation
3. Reduction of individual income tax to just 1% for individuals that make less than $60,000
a year
4. Employer payment of all Federal payroll taxes for all employees that make less than $60,000
a year
5. A $1000 a year workers rebate from the Federal government if you work full time or part
time or employ full time or part time workers
6. Federal infrastructure program providing matching funds for cities that want to build affordable
urban-- rental housing-- for senior citizens and the working class families and individuals, who
don't own their own home who make less than $60,000 a year.
7. Federal and employer financed medical savings accounts for all American citizens
8. High tariffs (15% to 100%) on all imports coming in from nations that are not free and democratic
(China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.). Low tariffs (1% to 10%) on imports from nations that
are free and democratic. How Democrats could have ever gone along with allowing a fascist state
like China to have full and free trading access to the American economy is almost incomprehensible
(and it also cost Americans more than 3 million jobs)!
I'm at a loss as to why anyone would think voting for Trump conveys a desire for these things.
He has spent his entire career taking advantage of working class people who had the misfortune
to be employed by him, and he was literally fighting charges for running a fraudulent, for-profit
university during the campaign.
Lets review the key points of Democratic politics as they now pronounce it (through words and
action)
1 - Save the planet - translation - regulate any and all forms of energy to be too expensive
then subsidize renewable energy. This means a few major companies will win huge government contracts
to put up windmills while, power plant operators, miners, natural gas workers and countless supporting
industries go dark.
2 - Identity Politics - Translation - Vast swaths of America are understood only in context
of their race, gender (chosen or otherwise) or political perspective. They will be administered
according to an as yet unpublished preference chart favoring some over others. Meaning that individuals
don't matter and needs don't matter. Only that you fit into some defined category where political
messaging will tell you why your oppressed and that only democrats can free you.
3 - Free Trade Agreements - In short - how to off shore manufacturing to cheap labor countries.
That one is very simple.
4 - Sanctuary Cities - People who arrived into this country illegally will be protected from
deportation, even identifcation as illegal regardless of the law. This reduces the cost of labor
for less skilled workers and drives up costs - which drive up taxes to provide services. In point
of fact California is in the process of creating a single payer healthcare system that will provide
free (only if your don't earn and income) healthcare to anybody in California - no questions asked.
What is missing? Jobs. There are zero plans to bring back jobs. The coasties don't care about
manufacturing. They only buy the highest quality imports with the right labels on them anyway.
Their answer - why more government "programs" designed to robe Peter to pay Paul. Job training
for jobs that don't exist where people live, and often disappeared years ago.
I am entirely sympathetic to Frank's point of view. My question is what kind of economic policy
would help the working class people he is talking about. I'm reading Eric Hobsbawm's The Age of
Revolution (1789-1848) and here's what he has to say about the mechanization of the cotton industry
in Britain: "Everywhere weaving was a mechanized a generation after spinning, and everywhere,
incidentally, the handloom weavers died a lingering death, occasionally revolting against their
awful fate, when industry no longer had any need for them." You can't stop technological progress.
Nor (although I'm less sure of this) does it seem like a good idea for governments to intervene
in preventing production from migrating to the countries where it is cheapest. What public policy
can do is offer displaced persons a choice: government support to go back to school to learn a
skill that will make you employable; or government employment at a job that uses the skills you
already have on projects that the private sector would not undertake but which fulfills a social
need (from infrastructure to building affordable housing in low income areas to driving a bus
from poor neighborhoods to jobs). Financed, of course, by higher taxes on the wealthy.
Thomas Frank is at least a liberal who recognizes that the Democrats offer nothing to the working
class, but he fails to really see how Democratic policies have made states under Democratic governance
less attractive to those businesses that would actually hire the working class. He make make snide
remarks about lousy trade deals, yet many foreign car manufacturers have set up some of the most
sophisticated plants in the US, but in southern states. In fact, US manufacturing output is near
all time highs, but it is ever more automated. Even some rust belt states, under Republican governance,
are attracting industry back to these states.
The Dems really crises is going to come when blue collar Hispanics conclude that their economic
interests are not dissimilar to those of blue collar whites. They too might conclude that their
best course is to deal with those who might actually hire them as opposed to those that will never
hire them but who want to set the terms whereby others might. That will surely dash the idea (or
fantasy) that changing demographics portend a coming brown progressive paradise led by old white
hippies.
Meritocracy?
The best of the best of the best?
Not for the Smugatocratic World Rigging Nepotistic 'Davos' Elite!
(Busy "Late Night" Offices)
Seth Myer's Secretary
Seth! Call; "Line 1" You better take it
Seth Myers
Hello?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
Seth My Dear Boy I really need you to do me a solid
you remember my Granddaughter Brittany?
Seth Myers
Ummm .Not really .?
Who is this?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
No matter .You met her last year at Davos
Seth Myers
Ahhh .I didn't actually go to Davos last year?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
Well she just graduated from Emerson Gawd knows what they learn there?
AAAAAANYWAAAYS .
this whole "Clinton Kerfuffle" has kind of put us in a little bind
Seth Myers
Oh really?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
And Britt had her dear little heart set on interning with Hilly and Billy
Seth Myers
Oh....She did?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
Now, she'd really like to work on your show
Seth Myers
My show?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
Oh .She's a really good writer
Seth Myers
Writer .Wow .Why not just host?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
You think? Well, maybe?
K Thanks Gottah Run Love Yah' Bunches Britt will just be so thrilled!
See you at Davos .
Seth Myers
Wait I'm not go
Seth Myer's Secretary
Seth! Call; "Line 2" You better take it
Seth Myers
Hello?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
Seth .My Dear Boy I really, really need you to do me a solid you remember my Granddaughter...Gemma?
Special interests are intertwined with the Dems as much as they are with Repubs now, that's what's
changed. The article speaks of the neoliberal policies that are destroying the Democratic party
(deregulation, pro-corporate/anti-worker policies).
Yes, Republicans do those things and always have, but the point is that the Dems now do them
too. And they need to step away from neoliberal policies like that if they want to be relevant
again.
The 1970s were the beginning of the end because oil was no longer cheap, and our factories were
in northern cities and both ran on oil. Unions didn't help with strikes and corruption. Unions
were also divided on race. Manufacturing was more expensive in terms of energy and labor in the
North than in the South. Since then paper mills and auto plants have followed areas where unions
never caught on, the growing season for trees is short, and which have mild winters. This is logic,
not NAFTA.
Now we glorify unions of a hazy past, but then they seemed to have gotten too big for their
britches. Midwesterners voted for Reagan and neoliberal policies back then, which is ignored in
this discussion.
NAFTA, passed under George HW Bush, and signed when Clinton was new in office, recognized that
industry was changing. It also created new markets for agriculture, which is also a Midwest product,
let it not be forgotten. Oh, but agriculture was Republican territory. Which is why it was passed
under Bush.
NAFTA isn't the issue but is an excuse. The refusal of the auto industry to wake up until they
had to in the recent recession or refusal to face the cost of energy that fueled it is the issue.
It couldn't have been the companies where people could work for $25/hr with only a H.S. Diploma??
No, it must be those "others" from far away, right?
While it is true that Hillary and the Neoliberal wing of the Democrats has prevailed, until 2016
the Neoliberals were the only wing of the Republicans. Trump can talk a good game offer some hope
to the Rust Belt Hopeless, but does anyone really believe the commercial interests that have been
the backbone of the GOP since Lincoln are going to let Trump cancel NAFTA, reimpose tariffs and
cut of the flow of cheap labor?
No doubt about it, the industrial towns of the Midwest have been savaged by Globalization and
the wages of a lot on essentially unskilled worker have fallen behind but there are a lot of people
who have benefited from it as well, like everyone who shops at Walmart or drives a car.
How much more are you willing to pay for "stuff" so that somebody in Youngstown Ohio can get
the $25 an hour job he thought would be waiting for him when he graduated from H.S.?
Changes in the world economy create winners and losers and losers seek relief from the federal
government. They don't want help navigating the changed situation they find themselves in, they
want things back to the way they were before.
I equate neoliberalism with MBA NATION. The stupidity of book learning the economics of numbers
but not of their effects on human life.
I recall hearing an interview with an economist who was dismissing something Trump said about
how he'd handle certain things in the economy. "Sure," the economist huffed, "It would put more
money in average people's pockets but it wouldn't improve the GDP or the economy as a whole."
The interview didn't call the "expert" out on this nonsense. It stopped me in my tracks (I
was walking past the office lunch room). As a citizen, I would very much like to be living in
a world where we put more money in my neighbours' pockets (as well as my own, of course) than
watch it magnetize to the rich and ever-more-powerful, making the big numbers look impressive
while the average person abandons all hope of a decent future for themselves and their children.
I am not a Trump supporter, but I will say that I am an MBA NATION loather. Free trade that
lines the pockets of rich people and robs citizens of the right to intervene or shift or change
the deal is obscene.
"What we need is for the Democratic party and its media enablers to alter course. It's not
enough to hear people's voices and feel their pain; the party actually needs to change. They
need to understand that the enlightened Davos ideology they have embraced over the years has
done material harm to millions of their own former constituents."
Yes of course. But that's not gonna happen. Demanding such a thing is demanding that rational
self-interested individuals go against their entrenched self-interest, which goes against everything
held sacred in an enlightened market economy and against the sacred neoclassical tenet of the
rational homo economicus . You don't wish to be perceived as an apostate now Mr. Frank,
do you? It is in the interest of the operatives and functionaries of the party to maintain the
current status quo by acting in the interest of Wall Street and Silicon Valley and other top economic
players to the detriment of their base.
The Democratic party took a drubbing from the right with the dawn of the Reagan era. The emergence
of the so-called Third Way in the 1990s was an acknowledgement of this defeat. Clinton's major
political innovation was to secure a source of funding for the Democrats by prostrating before
the financial sector. This is a formula that has proven successful, and no Democratic candidate
will deviate from this script as long as it continues to be so. Essentially, the Democratic party
transformed itself from the "loser" representative of unions, teachers, and ordinary folk in general,
to a "kinder, gentler" version of the Republican party. The they-have-nowhere else-to-go strategy
was quite rational and has worked for more than two decades, and will conceivably work for at
least four more presidential election cycles. However, the initial givenness of the Democratic
base in 1992 was a finite source of electoral fuel, and as the election of Trump has shown this
resource is nearing depletion.
"One thing we must never forget about the midwest, however, is that radicalism lurks just
beneath the surface."
Please, that ship sailed a long time ago, at least a century to be more precise. This is red-state
Heartland territory now through-and-through, respect the empirical data.
"The choice we are offered instead is between Trumpian fake populism and a high-minded politics
of personal virtue. Between a nomenklatura of New Economy winners and a party of traditional
business types, willing to say anything to get elected and (once that is done) to use the state
to reward people like themselves."
To use a quantitative scale, the choice offered to the non-elite voters is between a zero-to-slightly-positive
socially liberal neoliberalism, and a negative socially conservative neoliberalism. Put another
way, economically the choice is between the nothing of the Democrats and the worse-than-nothing
of the Republicans. The calm and stability at the center of wealth and power masks the constant
rattling sound of the lives perturbed and dislocated by the dominant economic forces. At this
point, the relation of the non-elite voters to the D-R duopoly resembles sadomasochism. Or perhaps
the working people voting for Trump is a form of supplication before their god: "Shoot me now
Lord, please."
To be more generous and grant the Heartland left-behind a measure of agency and rationality,
they - and one group in particular, the Reagan Democrats - took a chance on his and his descendants'
rhetoric of the shining city upon a hill, and when they realized that the end result was the loss
of jobs and diminution of their standards of living and that of their offspring, they graciously
accepted the verdict and had the fortitude and decency to bear the burden of their own decision.
There is nothing the matter with Kansas, the only thing that needs attention is the inconsistency
between its pronunciation and that of Arkansas.
Thomas Frank offers an advice to democrats - break up with your neoliberal fallacies and embrace
Bernie Sanders. It clearly means a break up with their true (core) base - big money. Such choice
is too stark, hard to believes they are willing or capable of making it.
Rather than pleading with them, I could offer a better option - reject republico-cratic duopoly
(and its enterprising scoundrels) altogether, and embrace an American version of La France insoumise
"All this Davos/Deregulation/NeoLiberal whatever is a product of Republican -- right wing -- thinking."
Yes, originally, but the Clinton-third way wing of the Democratic Party went along with it and
adopted neoliberalism lite. That's the problem. Instead of offering an alternative vision to what
Republicans were doing, they offered "me, too."
The Glass Stegal repeal was passed under Clinton not Reagan. Reagan did the Savings & Loan
deregulation which led to the S&L bailout under G.W. Bush during which they prosecuted over 1,000
bank executives and got convictions including five sitting senators with four forced resignations.
After Clinton did the deregulation that led to the financial crisis and Obama prosecuted zero,
let me say that again, zero, bank executives and provided $9 trillion in bailout liquidity.
--
They can offer the illusion with the proper candidate but with the same congressmen and senators
that currently hold the seats none of the substance.
--
Take Amtrak between Chicago and Washington DC and witness wreckage of heartland industry along
a corridor 800 miles long. People still live there, forgotten. Bernie Sanders is not finished.
Listen to him; and put yourself up for election locally, on a Park District board; or a Township
position; as an Election Judge or for County or State office. And listen to your neighbors, who
are suffering. Then do something about it. When I ran for State Representative, the Democratic
Party sent me a highlighted map instead of a check for my campaign. The map showed "70% Republican"
voting registration in my State Representative district. No Party cash for my campaign was forthcoming.
The only way to change this Gerrymandering is to be on-hand in the State House following the next
decennial census in 2020. It will be "too late" to do anything -- again -- unless "we" change
the Party; and the Party changes the re-districting scam. Bernie Sanders is right about pitching
in to re-shape and re-form the Democratic Party. The Party, as constructed, is passé... and as
hollowed-out as the miles and miles of decrepit buildings with thousands of gaping, broken windows
that lie between Chicago and DC. Go see the devastation for yourself. Then get serious about answers.
Yep, the Dems would do well to drop the Russia/FBI swung the election thing and the all Red State
inhabitants are poorly educated idiots mentality and concentrate on developing some policies that
appeal to the majority of people.
I'm going to sound like a broken record, but Identity Politics has FAILED. The Dems are not
going to cobble together some sort of Ruling Coalition out of Transgendered people and urban people
of color. That's an insane strategy of hoping you will win national elections by appealing to
25% or less of the population of whom only half that number actually vote if you are lucky.
I'm not saying abandon those struggles. Under a just system those struggles will continue and
prevail - the Constitution guarantees that unless you get dishonest justices on the Supreme Court
- which seems more likely the more national elections you blow. Democrats need to stop worrying
about narrow single issues like that and focus on developing a BROAD national strategy to appeal
to the Majority of Americans.
So says the guy from Punjab who is NOT a poorly educated white person and who has voted Democrat
since 1980.
There's a bit of bait 'n switch here. All this Davos/Deregulation/NeoLiberal whatever is a product
of Republican -- right wing -- thinking. It first gained serious traction during the Reagan administration.
The Democrats merely drifted into the vacuum formed by the Republican party lurching from Right/Center
to Hard Right. Since then any drifting back has been subject to extreme criticism as 'socialism',
'communism' and the like. Now we're in the rather weird situation that the party of neoliberal
economics is pushing the line that the Democrats are the party of entrenched money and they are
the Party of the People. It beggars belief, especially when journalists take it up and run with
it instead of calling the the BS that it is.
The problem with the Rust Belt states is that they keep on electing Republican state governments.
These fail to deliver on anything useful for working people -- they're more interested in entrenching
their power by tweaking the elections -- but then people turn to the Federal government as if
this is some kind of savior capable of turning around their fortunes overnight.
Anyway, don't take my word for it. Just keep electing those regressive state legislators (and
keep drinking that tainted water....).
Great comment on the article, but I think even you have been kind in your criticism of it. I can
only hope that the writer started out with the intention of saying that while the GOP and their
rich and big business political patrons are responsible for the impoverishment of those in the
article, the Democrats have missed out on messaging and on more specific policies that addresses
those wrongs committed against a voting block they can own. Instead the entire piece is written
as though the Democrats have earned the scorn and anger of these voters. One can argue the Democrats
have failed to focus more on the plight of these voters, but they are NOT the cause of these voters'
plight; and there is nothing in this piece to make that distinction or about the irony of why
these same voters flock to a political party primarily responsible for what has happened to them.
In fact consider this below from the article:
"Mention how the Democrats betrayed working people over the years, however, and the radio station's
board immediately lights up with enthusiastic callers. "
Yes, that is right! The political anomaly that Trump is can be be explained by the successful
exploitation of the improvised classes by media outlets that voice these voters' anger to acquire
a capture audience and then lay the blame for what has happened to them on immigrants & liberals.
You never hear anything on those outlets about the unholy triad of the GOP political class, big
business and media outlets in their orbit. I don't need to drive through these flyover states
to know they are hurting; and I don't need to sit down with them to know they are real human beings
with a great deal in common with me or to know that despite their general decency they are full
of misplaced anger and resentment.
I am so glad that the Russians are responsible for electing Trump. It would be awful to think
that it was because Democrats had a really, really bad candidate in Hillary Clinton. It just could
not be -- she was, after all -- the MOST QUALIFIED PERSON EVER TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT, as we were
instructed endlessly by Obama. Voters thought otherwise and their support for Trump was mainly
to keep Hillary out, not to have a billionaire lunatic elected. But it would not matter since
they all serve their master class bankers and war-makers.
Interesting he choices of examples for how liberals let the mid west down. Republican president
Reagan deregulated S&Ls with predictable awful results. Republicans under Clinton (they controlled
the Senate and house ) when Glass Steagsll was repealed. Republic Phil Gramm also rescinded the
AntiBucket Shop Law which loosed the disaster of the naked CDS,
Republicans starting with Reagan made refusing to enforce financial laws they did not like
a policy. It was continued under Bush43/Cheney on speed. Regulator of mortgage brokers refused
to let state AGs (including Maine) move against fraudsters and refused to act himself. Chris Cox
ignored the risky complex financial products that tanked our economy.
It was Republican Sen. Phil Gramm who said in hearings on CSPAN that these instruments of financial
mass destruction (Warren Buffet's words) were too complicated to understand and therefore should
not be regulated.
Republicans wanted to free up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy subprime even NINJA loans and
made it so.
Was Clinton an idiot to allow Rubin and Summers any where near financial market policy YES.
Was Obama a bigger fool for bringing Summers into his admin- absolutely since he had already displayed
financial incompetence at Harvard, YES.
But, it is republicans who either drove the bad financial ideas or controlled them. Republicans
who support IRS rules and their laws that promote off shoring jobs and stashing cash untaxed off
shore.
Eisenhower, Goldwater, Ford, Bush41 - even Nixon - would not know these people.
Oh, and as for the rest of the party and its defeats: A quick look at the numbers show that Democrats
keep losing not because voters are switching to the Republican brand, but because they no longer
bother to vote for Democrats who are just going to shiv them in the back with Republican economic
policies.
Reply Share
But now liberals and the Democratic Party are to get the lion's share of the blame for everything?
As I've said on numerous occasions in the past: The reason Trump beat Hillary is the same reason
Obama beat her in the 2008 primaries: Voters knew her and what she stood for -- and so were willing
to take a chance on the other candidate.
Thank you for the Abramson reminder -- as a retired journalist I know the importance of providing
clear and accurate information to the general public. While Abramson and Frank and others are
writing Opinion in the Guard and elsewhere, too many people do not understand positioning and
propaganda. Media must make money to stay in business and often it is opinion writers/tv hosts
etc that generate interest and coin to keep the words rolling and the money coming in.
It is especially ironic as wages are cut, jobs disappear, cost of living rises so fewer people
can afford to subscribe or pay for actual news and information. Not to mention the political idiocy
of reducing school funding so that the electorate knows nothing of history or how politics works.
Trump wants to take us back to Ronnie Reagan and Maggie Thatcher years that left us with trillion
dollar deficits and decimation of the middle class that is now on the downward slide to actual
poverty...
No, it is a crap comment. From the neo-liberal 'pseudo science' that economics supposedly is (almost
forgot to use the word neo-liberal, a must these days to make your point) , to the greed and the
rapacity of the "one percenters".
Such a simple problem isn't it? Let's just go back in time rather than find more creative and
up-to-date solution for the problems there are. Globalisation isn't going to go away, the world
is too small a place. Globalisation has created problems for people, but many more people have
benefitted from it.
"The wreckage that you see every day as you tour this part of the country is the utterly predictable
fruit of the Democratic party's neoliberal turn. Every time our liberal leaders signed off on
some lousy trade deal, figuring that working-class people had "nowhere else to go," they were
making what happened last November a little more likely. "
---
As someone who's middle aged, I am getting sick and tired of this historical revisionist nonsense
that all the country's woes and economic climate can be mostly pinned on the liberals and that
somehow, it's something that they did wrong that is the reason why they "lost" constituents in
the Midwest. Someone can peddle this nonsense over and over again with the smug belief that everyone
on on the internet is too young to know whether what he's saying is true. But there are some of
us "old folks" who are also on the internet and as an old folk, I have no issues calling out this
article out for the nonsense that it is.
Everything that is going on now in terms of jobs can be 100% attributable to Reaganomics--period,
end of. It's nothing to do with liberals. It's 100% to do with the devastating rippling effect
that his neoliberal policies has had on the country since the 1980s, only made 100x worse by Republican
pols who have been further carrying out his neoliberalist agenda to full effect for the past several
decades.
It was under Reagan that the country began experiencing mass layoffs (euphemistically called
"downsizing"). It was under Reagan that corporations began slashing benefits, cutting wages and
closing up shop to ship thousands of jobs overseas. It was under Reagan that the middle class
American dream died--aka, the expectation that if got a diploma, you could start working for a
company full time straight out of college, work for decades with decent benefits and perks, save
up enough money to buy a house and retire with a generous pension. Gone. All gone.
Remember the "Buy American" grassroots campaign? That started in the 1980s, precisely because
under Reagan, the country had relied increasingly on imported goods at the expense of domestic
manufacturing. Here's an actual article from 1989 that shows you that the roots of everything
going on now started decades ago. It's actually a defeatist article telling people to *stop* wasting
their time to get everyone to "Buy American" because it had become virtually impossible to buy
American-made goods.
As for the idea that there's always been a staunchly"Democratic" following in the Midwest that
has been "lost" because of something that the party is doing wrong and that this caused them to
turn to populism? False. It may have been true a very long time ago that this constituency has
been staunchly Democratic and not amenable to populism, but not recently. It has voted on populist
platforms before. Remember "welfare queens?" Remember "Willie Horton?" Willie Horton, the black
bogeyman, was the "bad hombres" of today.
In addition, this constituency has been increasingly voting against its best interests for
decades since Reagan was voted into office. Why? Because demagogues like Rush Limbaugh and the
large number of puppets at Rupert Murdoch's vast media empire have been selling them a bill of
goods since the 1990s that the reason why they're becoming poorer is that liberals are giving
all their "white" hard-earned money to shiftless, lazy blacks and immigrants and losing out to
them because of affirmative action. In the famous words of South Park, "THEY TOOK R JERBS" and
"IT'S ALL DUH LIBRUHL'S FAULTS!!"
This constituency has developed such a deep-seated hatred and loathing for liberals because
of the demagogues at FOX or news radio that even when Michael Moore directly spoke to their plight
in Roger and Me, they derided him as a typical Communist-loving, anti-Capitalist pinko. Because,
you see, according to FOX demagogues, calling out rich corporate fatcats who also happen to be
white is attacking white people, a form of class warfare and anti-Capitalist.
Given all that, for someone to try to paint a picture that this constituency would otherwise
be embracing liberalism if not for the Democratic Party adopting an "ideology" is laughable. They
were never going to win because anything short of ranting, "They took r jerbs" and "Damned brown
people on welfare and illegals stealing taking all our money" was going to cost them the election.
Bottom line, the Midwest was never the liberals' or Democratic Party's constituency to lose,
and Reagan is behind all of the economic devastation that the region is experiencing. Anyone else
trying to say otherwise is just using spin and historical revisionism.
That's exactly what America needs -- another neocon/neolib, just like Macron! As if Obama and
the Clintons hadn't been neocon/neolib enough!
Reply Share
Frank is right that the white working class in the Midwestern states have been the swing votes
for presidential elections since the Reagan election of 1984, when the white Democratic South
became more fully the white Republican South. But he is wrong in not recognizing that the Democratic
Party has three major constituents and it needs all of them to win elections and to do the progressive
things while in office that would help people like those in the Midwest. Democrats need the votes
of the white working class, but also of race/ethnic minorities, and the "new class" professionals
and others. The problem is that these groups have been fighting with each other since the 1960s,
continually undermining the chances for Democrats to win. In the period of the Civil Rights Movement
and the Vietnam War, students and professionals joined with race and ethnic minorities to challenge
the influence of the unionists, big city mayors, and white working class in the Democratic Party,
which is what gave us Nixon, Reagan, and the Bushes. Through this period, predictably, more white
working class people either stopped voting or moved to the Republican Party. In the 2016 election,
with the Bernie Sanders influence, students and professionals began to attack the influence of
race and ethnic minorities (and women?) in the Democratic Party, ostensibly in support of the
white working class over "identity politics," with the result that we got Trump. Globalization
is a difficult and complex issue, but the reality is that since the 1970s the U.S. economy has
not been able to prosper, nor the working class jobs that it requires, by selling things only
in the U.S. We have to be in global markets and integrated with other economies around the world
and that requires trade deals that balance our interests against those of other countries. This
has generated winners and losers in the economy, and it will continue to do so. While it may not
be possible to bring back the same kinds of jobs that pay a middle class wage for those with not
much education, it should be possible to create new jobs that pay a middle class wage and to invest
in education and skill development, infrastructure, and a welfare state that sustains people through
periods of disruption and transformation. The Republican Party and the New Right that took it
over are fighting to the death to undermine what is left of the social safety net to force people
to take whatever jobs are available at exploitative wages, and they have been successful exploiting
anti-government sentiment by using racial animosity and more recently anti-immigrant hysteria.
The right has been successful because those on the left who should support the Democratic Party
and then fight for more progressive policies within it just keep fighting each other and in the
last election delivered Trump by voting third party (along with gutting of the Voting Rights Act,
voter suppression, Russian influences that helped Sanders and vilified Hillary Clinton, the rogue
FBI, Citizens United, and so on). The only option for the left in a two party system is to support
the Democratic Party. Staying home or voting third party is a vote for your worst enemy. France
is experiencing the same thing, with the left candidate refusing to support the more centrist
candidate against Le Pen. We all need to learn how to form coalitions and to keep our focus on
winning elections, not winning ideological battles.
Umm, the real goals of labor unions have been beach houses and new SUVs for labor leadership.
Unions have been adept at screwing over their memberships since at least the 1970s -- no wonder
they keep supporting anti-union Dims.
Maddow has to defend the Corporate Democratic Establishment any way she can. Maddow to my knowledge
has never mentioned:
Russia's largest bank, Sberbank, has confirmed that it hired the consultancy of Tony Podesta,
the elder brother of John Podesta who chaired Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, for lobbying
its interests in the United States.
The two Russian banks spent more than $700,000 in 2016 on Washington lobbyists as they sought
to end the U.S. sanctions, according to Senate lobbying disclosure forms and documents filed with
the Department of Justice. The Podesta Group charged Sberbank $20,000 per month, plus expenses,
on a contract from March through September 2016.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-09/russias-largest-bank-confirms-hiring-podesta-group-lobby-ending-sanctions
Sorry Mr. Cuban but Barney has a point. Sympathy for criminals? How about a system that extracts
wealth by taking family members that have made a mistake hostage. Private prisons are incredibly
corrupt. They pay their guards $7 an hour, barely train them and then throw them into a hellhole
of starved and abused prisoners, prisoners who's families are charged $2-5 a MINUTE to talk to
them! Prisoners who are charged for laundry, for new underwear, for sanitary napkins, for extra
food anything they can, they charge them for, all to meet a higher quarterly profit. If they work,
prisoners get only .25 an hour! Menawhile, the items they make get a proud MADE IN AMERICA sticker
and sold at a premium netting the company MORE money. This is a direct threat to DEMOCRACY! Why
not contract our work to prisons with no liability and infinitesimal wages to lower costs. Gee,
doesn't that sounds like a threat to low skilled workers?!
Everything matters because EVERYTHING IS CONNECTED!!!
-
Very little differences between neoncons and neoliberals these days. They're both in Goldman Saacs
corner, they both support war even when they claim otherwise during their election... Both laugh
at the idea of emulating countries that offer free Healthcare, free college, higher minimum wage
and lower cost of living. Bush tax policy = Obama tax policy. Bush stance on war = Obama stance
on war. Whats the difference? Abortion and gun rights. That's pretty much all thats different.
Pro militarist, world police, globalists who favor a regressive tax system. Don't like it? Don't
vote... You have no say in this debate.
Yes, the Democratic Party are essentially corporate shills who talk pretty to the poor and oppressed
and then serve their corporate masters. But that isn't why people voted against them. That would
be assuming some sort of political sophistication among the masses. It is rather, IMHO, the corporate
owned media in the form of AM radio, cable and local news outlets, and most local newspapers who
either report on nothing that might change the status quo or are actual propaganda outlets for
the ultra right. The fact that Fox news and right wing radio is the background music of mid America,
should not be discounted. And secondly, the seizure of nearly all of the church pulpits by the
'religious' right. People vote the way their pastor tells them to vote. This isn't rocket science.
When there is a coup, the first order of business has always been to seize the radio and TV stations.
Bernie who ?
In a close election, there is something of everything. But this concept that the election turned
on these displaced workers is hilarious. In truth, we've been talking about things like this since
the 70s or before. Why now? Because now, a wave of xenophobia and racism swept the world and that
was the wave Trump rode to office. Many of his so-called displaced workers overlap with those
groups. Add the religious evangelicals. That's how Trump won... take away the evangelicals, take
away the racists, take away the xenophobes, take away the screaming about the Mexican this, the
Muslims that, the Syrians, the pandering to far-right groups who in the past were considered the
underbelly of the country..and Trump doesn't have a chance. This is a man with Mike Pence as vice
president. This is a man who brings people like Steve Bannon into the administration. That's how
he won and that's how he remains popular with his base. The rest is an illusion
What happens to those good old days when a job could support an entire family? Reagan happened.
Massive tax cuts for the wealthy, building up our military 10 times as big as the next largest
military, deregulating banks and brokerage... Then Clinton continued to deregulate further. Then
Bush brought about more tax cuts for the rich and Obama kept his tax policy on place. In 68, a
minimum wage worker with 3 kids fell 500 dollars above the poverty line. (5,000 in today's money).
Today, a minimum wage worker with 3 kids falls 10,000 below the poverty line. And the neocon/neoliberal
answer to that is women must work, single people need roommates and the wealthy need tax relief.
What a load of crap.
The Democratic Party is still owned and operated by the Wall Street, fossil fuel and war interests.
The fact that the DNC installed Tom Perez, who is not inspired by the idea of health care as a
human right, is telling. The DNC is the enemy of lower-middle class working (or non-working) people.
The DNC nominated the candidate least likely to win over Trump. The Democrats need to send their
bank/war/oil candidates to the Republicans. We need a whole new truly progressive party..but since
our governement has been sold to the highest bidder, it make take some unpleasantness in the streets
to achieve power over the special interests. And EVERYONE must vote EVERY TIME.
The problem is US elites, who are only exceptional in their stupidity.
"Income inequality is not killing capitalism in the United States, but rent-seekers like
the banking and the health-care sectors just might" Nobel-winning economist Angus Deaton
The exceptionally stupid US elite are going for the easy money and destroying their nation.
Its elites are always rigging stuff in their favour and forgetting the reality they have hidden.
There is a huge difference between wealth creation and wealth extraction, but today we have
no idea of even the concept of wealth extraction.
Well, one of our 21st Century Nobel prize winning economists, Angus Deaton, has just remembered
the problem.
The Classical Economists of the 19th Century were only too aware of the two sides of capitalism,
the productive side where wealth creation takes place and the parasitic side where wealth extraction
takes place.
The US was a key player in developing neoclassical economics and it's what we use today.
It looks after the interests of the old money, idle rich rentiers.
The distinction between "earned" income (wealth creation) and "unearned" income (wealth extraction)
disappears and the once separate areas of "capital" and "land" are conflated. The old money, idle
rich rentiers are now just productive members of society and not parasites riding on the back
of other people's hard work.
It happens at the end of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, but doesn't blow up until
the 21st century when the exceptionally stupid US elite have forgotten what they have done.
Monetary theory has been regressing for the last one hundred years.
Credit creation theory -> fractional reserve theory -> financial intermediation theory
" banks make their profits by taking in deposits and lending the funds out at a higher rate
of interest" Paul Krugman, 2015.
One of today's Nobel Prize winning economists spouting today's nonsense.
Progress in monetary theory has been in the reverse direction, leading to many of today's problems.
There was massive debt and money creation in the US leading up to the 2008 bust:
Get back to the Classical Economists to learn how you tax "unearned" income to provide subsidized
housing, healthcare, education and other services to provide a low cost economy whose workforce
isn't priced out of the global market place.
When you understand money you can see in the money supply when Wall Street is getting really
stupid and about to blow up the economy.
Throughout history, the "people" were ruled by the powerful even if the powerful were idiots,
thieves, rapists and murderers. Times have changed. People don't accept that anymore. But if Democrats
have made a blanket error it was in assuming that everyone sees the world as they do, and in assuming
that everyone is a rational being committed to the ideals of a republic. Clearly that is not the
case. And the "people" want leaders, not pals. They want security. Democrats need a person who
combines the guile of a Machiavelli with the smarts of an Obama and the steel fist of a Cromwell.
Thing is, under such conditions, it's doubtful if the "people" are governable anymore, in the
sense of making decisions based on reality as opposed to a combination of superstition, myth,
and misinformation. Oh, and vanity is an important factor: ask Susan Sarandon and her proxy vote
for Trump--she voted for Stein.
It was the DLC ("Democrats Led by Clintons") that brought the DP to its current condition of self-satisfied
atrophy and irrelevance by embracing Davos "meritocracy" and neo-liberal economics combined with
neo-conservative foreign policy for the past 30 years. They sealed their fate by turning the Party
(DNC, DSCC, DCCC, DGA, most state committees) into stale and pale imitations of Reagan's GOP;
and Party 'leaders' are far too comfortable with their own sense of entitlement to power and wealth
to understand either the fallacies of their tunnel vision, or the consequences (like electing
Trump and keeping the GOP in control of Congress and most states) of their blinkered myopia.
The only hope for the DP is to let the genuine 'progressives' (aka the socialist/green 'left')
take over management of the political apparatus because what passes for 'liberalism' these days
is no longer an electoral/policy option, at least as far as the electorate is concerned. And all
the early indications are that the from the DNC down the Party establishment is more concerned
about stamping out the Bernie Bro and Ho heresies than defeating Republicans.
Our politicians have been brainwashed by neoliberal economists.
These economists produce models that factor-in all the upsides to globalisation, but fail to
model any of the crippling, expensive-to-treat consequences of shutting down entire towns in places
like Michigan or Lancashire.
They assume people live frictionless lives; that when the European ship-building industry moves
to Poland, riveters in Portsmouth can just up-sticks and move to Gdansk with no problem. They
encourage a narrative that implies such an English riveter are lazy if he fails to seize this
opportunity.
(Let's drop a few economists in Gdansk with £100 in their pockets, and see how their families
do.)
Economics is a corrupt pseudo-science that gives a pseudo-scientific justification for the
greed and rapacity of One Percenters. Its methodological flaws are glaring. It's time economists
went back to the social science faculty, where they belong.
Racism if fake reason because the same voters managed somehow to elect Obama.
Notable quotes:
"... "...despite significant evidence that Trump voters were largely driven by racism." This is one of two main Dems "Monday morning quarterbacking" storylines. I am not so sure. I think the most significant factor in the recent election was voters rejection of neoliberal establishment and, specifically, neoliberal globalization, that destroyed American jobs. In other words, people voted by-and-large not "for" but "against". That's why Trump have won. ..."
"...despite significant evidence that Trump voters were largely driven by racism." This is
one of two main Dems "Monday morning quarterbacking" storylines. I am not so sure. I think the
most significant factor in the recent election was voters rejection of neoliberal establishment
and, specifically, neoliberal globalization, that destroyed American jobs. In other words, people
voted by-and-large not "for" but "against". That's why Trump have won.
"... During his primary campaign against Hillary Clinton, Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-proclaimed socialist, lived up to the grand Democratic tradition of favoring the underdog at the expense of the rich. He proposed hammering the affluent by raising taxes in the amount of $15.3 trillion over ten years. New revenues would finance about half the cost of a $33.3 trillion boost in social spending ..."
"... Trouble brews when a deeply held commitment to the underdog comes into conflict with the self-interested pocketbook and lifestyle concerns of the upper middle class. ..."
"... In rhetoric reminiscent of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman, Sanders declared: We must send a message to the billionaire class: "you can't have it all." You can't get huge tax breaks while children in this country go hungry.But Sanders spoke to the Democratic Party of 2016, not the Democratic Party of the Great Depression. ..."
"... In days past, a proposal to slam the rich to reward the working and middle classes meant hitting Republicans to benefit Democrats. ..."
"... Even as recently as 1976, according to data from American National Election Studies, the most affluent voters, the top 5 percent, were solidly in the Republican camp, 77-23. Those in the bottom third of the income distribution were solidly Democratic, 64-36. ..."
"... In the 2016 election, the economic elite was essentially half Democratic, according to exit polls: Those in the top 10 percent of the income distribution voted 47 percent for Clinton and 46 percent for Trump. Half the voters Sanders would hit hardest are members of the party from which he sought the nomination. ..."
Has the Democratic Party Gotten Too Rich for Its Own Good?
by Thomas B. Edsall
JUNE 1, 2017
During his primary campaign against Hillary
Clinton, Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-proclaimed
socialist, lived up to the grand Democratic tradition of
favoring the underdog at the expense of the rich. He
proposed hammering the affluent by raising taxes in the
amount of $15.3 trillion over ten years. New revenues
would finance about half the cost of a $33.3 trillion
boost in social spending
The Sanders tax-and-spending plan throws into sharp
relief the problem that the changing demographic makeup of
the Democratic coalition creates for party leaders.
Trouble brews when a deeply held commitment to the
underdog comes into conflict with the self-interested
pocketbook and lifestyle concerns of the upper middle
class.
The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found that under the
Sanders plan, a married couple filing jointly with an
income below $10,650 would continue to pay no income tax;
everyone else would pay higher taxes. Those in the second
quintile would pay an additional $1,625 and those in the
middle quintile would see their income tax liability
increase by $4,692. Those in the top quintile would pay
$42,719 more.
Higher up the ladder, the tax increase would grow to
$130,275 for those in the top 5 percent, to $525,365 for
those in the top one percent and to $3.1 million for the
top 0.1 percent.
When the additional revenues from the Sanders tax hike
are subtracted from the additional spending his proposals
would demand, the net result is an $18.1 trillion increase
in the national debt over 10 years, according to the
center.
In rhetoric reminiscent of Franklin Delano
Roosevelt and Harry Truman, Sanders declared: We must send
a message to the billionaire class: "you can't have it
all." You can't get huge tax breaks while children in this
country go hungry.But Sanders spoke to the Democratic
Party of 2016, not the Democratic Party of the Great
Depression.
In days past, a proposal to slam the rich to reward
the working and middle classes meant hitting Republicans
to benefit Democrats.
Even as recently as 1976, according to data from
American National Election Studies, the most affluent
voters, the top 5 percent, were solidly in the Republican
camp, 77-23. Those in the bottom third of the income
distribution were solidly Democratic, 64-36.
In other words, 41 years ago, the year Jimmy Carter won
the presidency, the Sanders proposal would have made
political sense.
But what about now?
In the 2016 election, the economic elite was
essentially half Democratic, according to exit polls:
Those in the top 10 percent of the income distribution
voted 47 percent for Clinton and 46 percent for Trump.
Half the voters Sanders would hit hardest are members of
the party from which he sought the nomination.
The problem for the Democratic Party is that "them" has
become "us."
...
As the Democratic elite and the Democratic electorate
as a whole become increasingly well educated and affluent,
the party faces a crucial question. Can it maintain its
crucial role as the representative of the least powerful,
the marginalized, the most oppressed, many of whom belong
to disadvantaged racial and ethnic minority groups - those
on the bottom rungs of the socioeconomic ladder?
This will be no easy task. In 2016, for the first time
in the party's history, a majority of voters (54.2
percent) who cast Democratic ballots for president had
college degrees. Clinton won all 15 of the states with the
highest percentage of college graduates.
The steady loss of Democratic support in the white
working class, culminating in Trump's Electoral College
victory on the backs of these white voters, must
inevitably send a loud and clear signal to the Democratic
elite: The more the party abandons the moral imperative to
represent the interests of the less well off of all races
and ethnicities, the more it risks a repetition of the
electoral disaster of 2016 in 2018, 2020 and beyond.
Why they try to suppress Kim Dotcom evidence... Why on the Earth Cloudflare was
allowed to investigate DNC leak by FBI? Is it really based in Ukraine ?
Notable quotes:
"... CrossTalking with Hank Sheinkopf, H. A. Goodman, and Alex Christoforou. ..."
"... The Company Cloudflare who investigated the server is based out of the Ukraine, you can also find the connection to Soros. Media is just covering up the truth. ..."
On July 10, 2016, DNC staffer Seth Rich was murdered in Washington D.C. Was Rich the source who
provided Wikileaks with the DNC's internal emails? Some have speculated that this is the reason for
his murder. If true, what becomes of the mantra "Russia did it?"
CrossTalking with Hank Sheinkopf, H. A. Goodman, and Alex Christoforou.
dontdoleft
The facts are the collusion was thought up between Robbie Mook, Hillary Clinton and John Podesta.
Read on politico's site a article by Kenneth Vogel, "Ukrainian Efforts to Sabotage Trump Backfires"
The only colluding going on was by the Ukraine and the Democrats.
The Company Cloudflare who investigated
the server is based out of the Ukraine, you can also find the connection to Soros. Media is just
covering up the truth.
A pretty accurate (for Vox ;-) description of Neo-McCarthyism hysteria that the USA currently experience...
Notable quotes:
"... Twitter is the Russiasphere's native habitat. Louise Mensch, a former right-wing British parliamentarian and romance novelist, spreads the newest, punchiest, and often most unfounded Russia gossip to her 283,000 followers on Twitter . Mensch is backed up by a handful of allies, including former NSA spook John Schindler ( 226,000 followers ) and DC-area photographer Claude Taylor ( 159,000 followers ). ..."
"... Experts on political misinformation see things differently. They worry that the unfounded speculation and paranoia that infect the Russiasphere risk pushing liberals into the same black hole of conspiracy-mongering and fact-free insinuation that conservatives fell into during the Obama years. ..."
"... Mensch is quite combative with the press. When I asked her to email me for this piece, she refused and called me a "dickhead." But she's backed up by an array of different figures, who spend a lot of time swapping ideas on Twitter. ..."
"... One of them is Schindler, the former NSA spook. A former Naval War College professor who resigned in 2014 after a scandal in which he sent a photograph of his penis to a Twitter follower , he thinks Mensch doesn't get it right all the time. But he does think she was onto the truth about Trump and Russia "long before the MSM cared" (the two have been amiably chatting on Twitter since 2013 ). ..."
"... "Louise has no counterintelligence background, nor does she speak Russian or understand the Russians at a professional level, and that makes her analysis hit or miss sometimes," he told me. "That said, very few people pontificating on Kremlingate have those qualifications, so if that's disqualifying, pretty much everyone but me is out." ..."
"... dezinformatsiya ..."
"... These three - Mensch, Schindler, and Taylor - form a kind of self-reinforcing information circle, retweeting and validating one another's work on a nearly daily basis. ..."
"... The Palmer Report, and its creator, little-known journalist Bill Palmer, is kind of a popularizer of the Russiasphere. It reports the same kind of extreme, thinly sourced stuff - for instance, a story titled "CIA now says there's more than one tape of Donald Trump with Russian prostitutes" - often, though not always, sourced to Mensch and company. This seems to personally irk Mensch, who has occasionally suggested the Palmer Report is ripping her off . ..."
"... Yet nonetheless, Palmer appears to have built up a real audience. According to Quantcast , a site that measures web traffic, the Palmer Report got around 400,000 visitors last month - more than GQ magazine's website. The Russian prostitute story was shared more than 41,000 times on Facebook, according to a counter on Palmer's site; another story alleging that Chaffetz was paid off by Trump and Russia got about 29,000. ..."
"... "Misinformation is much more likely to stick when it conforms with people's preexisting beliefs, especially those connected to social groups that they're a part of," says Arceneaux. "In politics, that plays out (usually) through partisanship: Republicans are much more likely to believe false information that confirms their worldview, and Democrats are likely to do the opposite." ..."
"... actual conspiracy. ..."
"... For instance, after the New York Times published the Mensch piece back in March, former DNC chair Donna Brazile tweeted out the story, with a follow-up thanking Mensch for "good journalism": ..."
"... What you've got are prominent media figures, political operatives, scholars, and even US senators being taken in by this stuff - in addition to the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of ordinary people consuming it on Twitter and Facebook. These people, too, are letting their biases trump interest in factual accuracy. ..."
"... Will the mainstreaming of the Russiasphere speed up - and birth something like a Breitbart of the left? If so, it'll create an environment where the people most willing to say the most absurd things succeed, pulling the entire Democratic Party closer to the edge - and leaving liberals trapped in the same hall of mirrors as conservatives. ..."
President Donald Trump is
about to resign as a result of the Russia scandal.
Bernie Sanders
and Sean
Hannity are Russian agents. The
Russians have paid off House Oversight Chair Jason Chaffetz to the tune of $10 million, using
Trump as a go-between. Paul Ryan is a
traitor for
refusing to investigate Trump's Russia ties. Libertarian heroine Ayn Rand was
a secret Russian
agent charged with discrediting the American conservative movement.
These are all claims you can find made on a new and growing sector of the internet that functions
as a fake news bubble for liberals, something I've dubbed the Russiasphere. The mirror image of Breitbart
and InfoWars on the right, it focuses nearly exclusively on real and imagined connections between
Trump and Russia. The tone is breathless: full of unnamed intelligence sources, certainty that Trump
will soon be imprisoned, and fever dream factual assertions that no reputable media outlet has managed
to confirm.
Twitter is the Russiasphere's native habitat. Louise Mensch, a former right-wing British parliamentarian
and romance novelist, spreads the newest, punchiest, and often most unfounded Russia gossip to her
283,000 followers on Twitter . Mensch
is backed up by a handful of allies, including former NSA spook John Schindler (
226,000 followers ) and DC-area photographer
Claude Taylor ( 159,000 followers
).
There's also a handful of websites, like
Palmer Report , that seem devoted nearly
exclusively to spreading bizarre assertions like the theory that Ryan and Sen. Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell
funneled Russian money to Trump - a story that spread widely among the site's
70,000 Facebook fans.
Beyond the numbers, the unfounded left-wing claims, like those on the right, are already seeping
into the mainstream discourse. In March,
the New York Times published an op-ed by Mensch instructing members of Congress as to how they
should proceed with the Russia investigation ("I have some relevant experience," she wrote). Two
months prior to that, Mensch had penned a
lengthy letter to Vladimir Putin titled "Dear Mr. Putin, Let's Play Chess" - in which she claims
to have discovered that Edward Snowden was part of a years-in-the-making Russian plot to discredit
Hillary Clinton.
Last Thursday,
Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) was forced to apologize for spreading a false claim that a New York grand
jury was investigating Trump and Russia. His sources, according to the Guardian's Jon Swaine, were
Mensch and Palmer:
Members of the Russiasphere see themselves as an essential counter to a media that's been too
cautious to get to the bottom of Trump's Russian ties.
"There's good evidence that the Kremlin was planning a secret operation to put Trump in the White
House back in 2014," Schindler told me. "With a few exceptions, the MSM [mainstream media] hasn't
exactly covered itself in glory with Kremlingate. They were slow to ask obvious questions about Trump
in 2016, and they're playing catch-up now, not always accurately."
Experts on political misinformation see things differently. They worry that the unfounded
speculation and paranoia that infect the Russiasphere risk pushing liberals into the same black hole
of conspiracy-mongering and fact-free insinuation that conservatives fell into during the Obama years.
The fear is that this pollutes the party itself, derailing and discrediting the legitimate investigation
into Russia investigation. It also risks degrading the Democratic Party - helping elevate shameless
hucksters who know nothing about policy but are willing to spread misinformation in the service of
gaining power. We've already seen this story play out on the right, a story that ended in Trump's
election.
"One of the failures of the Republican Party is the way they let the birther movement metastasize
- and that ultimately helped Donald Trump make it to the White House," says Brendan Nyhan, a professor
at Dartmouth who studies the spread of false political beliefs. "We should worry about kind of pattern
being repeated."
Anatomy of a conspiracy theory
The Russiasphere doesn't have one unifying, worked-out theory - like "9/11 was an inside job"
or "Nazi gas chambers are a hoax." Instead, it's more like an attitude - a general sense that Russian
influence in the United States is pervasive and undercovered by the mainstream media. Everything
that happens in US politics is understood through this lens - especially actions taken by the Trump
administration, which is seen as Kremlin-occupied territory.
There are, of course, legitimate issues relating to Trump's ties to Russia - I've
written about them personally
over and
over again . There are even legitimate reasons to believe that Trump's campaign worked with Russian
hackers to undermine Hillary Clinton. That may or may not turn out to be true, but it is least plausible
and
somewhat supported by the available evidence .
The Russiasphere's assertions go way beyond that.
Take Mensch, who is probably the Russiasphere's most prominent voice. She actually did have one
legitimate scoop, reporting in November that the FBI had been granted a warrant to watch email traffic
between the Trump Organization and two Russian banks (
before anyone else had ). Since then, though, her ideas have taken a bit of a turn. In January,
she launched a blog - Patribotics - that's
exclusively dedicated to the Trump/Russia scandal. It's ... a lot.
Liberals fall for lies for the same reasons conservatives do: partisanship
"Sources with links to the intelligence community say it is believed that Carter Page went to
Moscow in early July carrying with him a pre-recorded tape of Donald Trump offering to change American
policy if he were to be elected, to make it more favorable to Putin," Mensch claimed in an
April post . "In exchange, Page was authorized directly by Trump to request the help of the Russian
government in hacking the election."
Another post , allegedly based on "sources with links to the intelligence community," claimed
that Trump, Mike Pence, and Paul Ryan were all going to be arrested on racketeering charges against
"the Republican party" owing to collaboration with Russia.
She's also suggested that
Anthony Weiner was brought down as part of a Russian plot to put the Clinton emails back in the
news:
I can exclusively report that there is ample evidence that suggests that Weiner was sexting
not with a 15 year old girl but with a hacker
, working for Russia, part of the North Carolina hacking group 'Crackas With Attitude', who
hacked the head of the CIA, and a great many FBI agents, police officers, and other law enforcement
officials.
And that the protests against police brutality in Ferguson were secretly a Russian plot:
Mensch is quite combative with the press. When I asked her to email me for this piece, she
refused and called me a
"dickhead."
But she's backed up by an array of different figures, who spend a lot of time swapping ideas
on Twitter.
One of them is Schindler, the former NSA spook. A former Naval War College professor who resigned
in 2014 after a scandal in which he sent
a photograph of his penis to a Twitter follower , he thinks Mensch doesn't get it right all the
time. But he does think she was onto the truth about Trump and Russia "long before the MSM cared"
(the two have been amiably chatting on Twitter
since 2013
).
"Louise has no counterintelligence background, nor does she speak Russian or understand the
Russians at a professional level, and that makes her analysis hit or miss sometimes," he told me.
"That said, very few people pontificating on Kremlingate have those qualifications, so if that's
disqualifying, pretty much everyone but me is out."
Schindler's role in the Russiasphere is essentially as a validator, using his time working on
Russia at the NSA to make the theories bandied about by Mensch seem credible. Schindler peppers his
speech with terms pulled from Russian spycraft - like deza , short for dezinformatsiya
(disinformation), or Chekist
, a term used to describe the former spies who hold significant political positions in Putin's
Russia.
This lingo has become common among the Russiasphere, a sort of status symbol to show that its
members understand the real nature of the threat. Schindler and Mensch will often refer to their
enemies in the media and the Trump administration using the hashtag #TeamDeza, or accuse enemies
of being Chekists.
Claude Taylor is the third core member of the Russia sphere. He's a DC-area photographer who claims
to have worked for three presidential administrations; his role is to provide inside information
into the alleged legal cases against the president. He also routinely claims to have advance knowledge
what's happening, even down to the precise number of grand juries impaneled and indictments that
are on the way.
These anonymous intelligence community tip-offs lead him to tweet, with certainty, that Trump
is finished. His tweets routinely get thousands of retweets.
These three - Mensch, Schindler, and Taylor - form a kind of self-reinforcing information
circle, retweeting and validating one another's work on a nearly daily basis. A quick Twitter
search reveals hundreds of interactions between the three on the platform in recent months, many
of which reach huge audiences on Twitter (judging by the retweet and favorite counts). They're also
reliably boosted by a few allies with large followings - conservative NeverTrumper
Rick Wilson , the anonymous Twitter account
Counterchekist
, and financial analyst
Eric Garland
(best known as the "time for some game theory" tweetstormer.)
Yet nonetheless, Palmer appears to have built up a real audience. According to
Quantcast ,
a site that measures web traffic, the Palmer Report got around 400,000 visitors last month - more
than GQ magazine's website. The Russian prostitute story was shared more than 41,000 times on Facebook,
according to a counter on Palmer's site; another story alleging that
Chaffetz was paid off by Trump and Russia got about 29,000.
This stuff is real, and there's a huge appetite for it.
These theories are spreading because the Russia situation is murky - and Democrats are out of
power
To understand how Democrats started falling for this stuff so quickly, I turned to three scholars:
Dartmouth's Nyhan, the University of Exeter's Jason Reifler, and Temple's Kevin Arceneaux. The three
of them all work in a burgeoning subfield of political science, one that focuses on how people form
political beliefs - false ones, in particular. All of them were disturbed by what they're seeing
from the Russiasphere.
"I'm worried? Alarmed? Disheartened is the right word - disheartened by the degree to which the
left is willing to accept conspiracy theory claims or very weakly sourced claims about Russia's influence
in the White House," Reifler says.
The basic thing you need to understand, these scholars say, is that political misinformation in
America comes principally from partisanship. People's political identities are formed around membership
in one of two tribes, Democratic or Republican. This filters the way they see the world.
"Misinformation is much more likely to stick when it conforms with people's preexisting beliefs,
especially those connected to social groups that they're a part of," says Arceneaux. "In politics,
that plays out (usually) through partisanship: Republicans are much more likely to believe false
information that confirms their worldview, and Democrats are likely to do the opposite."
In
one study , Yale's Dan Kahan gave subjects a particularly tricky math problem - phrased in terms
of whether a skin cream worked. Then he gave a random subset the same problem, only phrased in terms
of whether a particular piece of gun control legislation worked.
The results were fascinating. For the people who got the skin cream problem, there was no correlation
between partisanship and likelihood of getting the right answer. But when people got the same question,
just about gun control, everything changed: Republicans were more likely to conclude that gun control
didn't work, and Democrats the other way around. People's political biases overrode their basic mathematical
reasoning skills.
"[Some] people are willing to second-guess their gut reactions," Arceneaux says. "There just aren't
that many people who are willing to do that."
In real-life situations, where the truth is invariably much murkier than in a laboratory math
problem, these biases are even more powerful. People want to believe that their side is good and
the other evil - and are frighteningly willing to believe even the basest allegations against their
political enemies. When your tribe is out of power, this effect makes you open to conspiracy theories.
You tend to assume your political enemies have malign motives, which means you assume they're doing
something evil behind the scenes.
The specific nature of the conspiracy theories tends to be shaped by the actors in question. So
because Obama was a black man with a non-Anglo name, and the Republican Party is made up mostly of
white people, the popular conspiracy theories in the last administration became things like birtherism
and Obama being a secret Muslim. This was helped on by a conservative mediasphere, your Rush Limbaughs
and Fox Newses and Breitbarts, that had little interest in factual accuracy - alongside one Donald
J. Trump.
There have been random smatterings of this kind of thing catering to Democrats throughout the
Trump administration, like the now-infamous Medium piece alleging that Trump's Muslim ban was a
"trial balloon for a coup." But most conspiracy thinking has come to center on Russia, and for
good reason: There's suggestive evidence of an actual conspiracy.
We know that Trump's team has a series of shady connections to the Kremlin. Some of Trump's allies
may have coordinated with Russian hackers to undermine the Clinton campaign. But we still don't know
the details of what actually happened, so there's a huge audience of Democratic partisans who want
someone to fill in the blanks for them.
"Conspiracy entrepreneurs are filling the void for this kind of content," Nyhan says. "If you're
among the hardcore, you can follow Louise Mensch, and the Palmer Report, and John Schindler and folks
like that - and get an ongoing stream of conspiracy discourse that is making some quite outlandish
claims."
This kind of thing is poisonous. For Republicans, it made their party more vulnerable to actual
penetration by hacks - the "Michele Bachmanns" and "Sean Hannitys," as Nyhan puts it. It allows unprincipled
liars and the outright deluded to shape policy, which both makes your ideas much worse and discredits
the good ones that remain. In the specific case of the Russia investigation, the spread of these
ideas would make the president's accusations of "fake news" far more credible.
Luckily for the Democratic Party, there isn't really a pre-built media ecosystem for amplifying
this like there was for Republicans. In the absence of left-wing Limbaughs and Breitbarts, media
outlets totally unconcerned with factual rigor, it's much harder for this stuff to become mainstream.
But hard doesn't mean impossible. The most worrying sign, according to the scholars I spoke to,
is that some mainstream figures and publications are starting to validate Russiasphere claims.
For instance, after the New York Times published the Mensch piece back in March, former DNC
chair Donna
Brazile tweeted out the story, with a follow-up thanking Mensch for "good journalism":
A current DNC communications staffer - Adrienne Watson - favorably retweeted a Mensch claim that
the Russians had "kompromat," or blackmail, on Rep. Chaffetz:
Two former Obama staffers, Ned Price and Eric Schultz, favorably discussed a
Palmer Report
story aggregating Mensch's allegations about Chaffetz ("interesting, if single-source," Price
tweeted). Larry Tribe, an eminent and famous constitutional law professor at Harvard, shared the
same Palmer Report story on Twitter - and even defended his decision to do so in an email to
BuzzFeed 's Joseph Bernstein.
"Some people regard a number of its stories as unreliable," Tribe wrote of Palmer. Yet he defended
disseminating its work: "When I share any story on Twitter ... I do so because a particular story
seems to be potentially interesting, not with the implication that I've independently checked its
accuracy or that I vouch for everything it asserts."
What you've got are prominent media figures, political operatives, scholars, and even US senators
being taken in by this stuff - in addition to the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of ordinary
people consuming it on Twitter and Facebook. These people, too, are letting their biases trump interest
in factual accuracy.
This is the key danger: that this sort of thing becomes routine, repeated over and over again
in left-leaning media outlets, to the point where accepting the Russiasphere's fact-free claims becomes
a core and important part of what Democrats believe.
"Normal people aren't reading extensively about what Louise Mensch claims someone told her about
Russia," Nyhan says. "The question now is whether Democrats and their allies in the media - and other
affiliated elites - will promote these conspiracy theories more aggressively."
That's how the GOP fell for conspiracy thinking during the Obama years. There's nothing about
Democratic psychology that prevents them from doing the same - which means the burden is on Democratic
elites to correct it.
Democratic partisans and liberal media outlets are the ones best positioned to push back against
this kind of stuff. Rank-and-file Democrats trust them; if they're saying this stuff is ridiculous,
then ordinary liberals will start to think the same thing. Even if they just ignore it, then the
Russiasphere will be denied the oxygen necessary for it to move off of Twitter and into the center
of the political conversation.
"Scrutiny from trusted media sources and criticism from allied elites can help discourage this
kind of behavior," Nyhan says. "It won't suppress it - there are always places it can go - but on
the margin, allies can help limit the spread of conspiracy theorizing inside their party."
So that's the key question going forward: Will the mainstreaming of the Russiasphere speed
up - and birth something like a Breitbart of the left? If so, it'll create an environment where the
people most willing to say the most absurd things succeed, pulling the entire Democratic Party closer
to the edge - and leaving liberals trapped in the same hall of mirrors as conservatives.
The Russia-screwed-the-Dems meme is obviously fantastical bullshit and it's absolutely disgraceful
that the neoliberal MSM are running this garbage 24/7 like it's the gospel truth.
Notable quotes:
"... "Therefore, we should not build up tensions or invent fictional threats from Russia, some hybrid warfare etc.," the Russian leader told his French hosts. "What is the major security problem today? Terrorism. There are bombings in Europe, in Paris, in Russia, in Belgium. There is a war in the Middle East. This is the main concern. But no, let us keep speculating on the threat from Russia." ..."
"... Case in point, in the latest attempt to stir up an anti-Russian frenzy, America's biggest neocon, John McCain said that Russia is even more dangerous than ISIS . "You made these things up yourselves and now scare yourselves with them and even use them to plan your prospective policies. These policies have no prospects. The only possible future is in cooperation in all areas, including security issues." ..."
"... It is glaringly obvious that the (worthless) Rats painted themselves into a small corner. Blaming the Russians is both desperate and hilarious. ..."
With McCarthyism 2.0 continues to run amok in the US, spread like a virulent plague by unnamed, unknown,
even fabricated sources , over in France one day after his first meeting with French president Emanuel
Macron, the man who supposedly colluded with and was Trump's pre-election puppet master (but had
to wait until after the election to set up back-channels with Jared Kushner) Vladimir Putin sat down
for an interview with
French newspaper Le Figaro in which the Russian president expressed the belief that Moscow and
Western capitals "all want security, peace, safety and cooperation."
"Therefore, we should not build up tensions or invent fictional threats from Russia, some hybrid
warfare etc.," the Russian leader told his French hosts. "What is the major security problem today?
Terrorism. There are bombings in Europe, in Paris, in Russia, in Belgium. There is a war in the Middle
East. This is the main concern. But no, let us keep speculating on the threat from Russia."
Case in point, in the latest attempt to stir up an anti-Russian frenzy, America's biggest neocon,
John McCain said that
Russia is even more dangerous than ISIS . "You made these things up yourselves and now scare
yourselves with them and even use them to plan your prospective policies. These policies have no
prospects. The only possible future is in cooperation in all areas, including security issues."
"Hacking" Clinton And the DNC
Even with the FBI special investigation on "Russian collusion" with the Trump campaign and administration
taking place in the background, Putin
once again dismissed allegations of Russian meddling in last year's U.S. presidential election
as "fiction" invented by Democrats to divert the blame for their defeat. Putin repeated his strong
denial of Russia's involvement in the hacking of Democratic National Committee emails that yielded
disclosures that proved embarrassing for Hillary Clinton's campaign. Instead, he countered that claims
of Russian interference were driven by the " desire of those who lost the U.S. elections to improve
their standing ."
"They want to explain to themselves and prove to others that they had nothing to do with it, their
policy was right, they have done everything well, but someone from the outside cheated them," he
continued. "It's not so. They simply lost, and they must acknowledge it. " That has proven easier
said than done, because half a year after the election,
Hillary Clinton still blames Wikileaks and James Comey for her loss . Ironically, what Putin
said next, namely that the "people who lost the vote hate to acknowledge that they indeed lost because
the person who won was closer to the people and had a better understanding of what people wanted,"
is precisely what
even Joe Biden has admitted several weeks ago , and once
again yesterday . Maybe Uncle Joe is a Russian secret agent too...
In reflecting on the ongoing scandal, which has seen constant, daily accusations of collusion
and interference if no evidence (yet), Putin conceded that the damage has already been done and Russia's
hopes for a new detente under Trump have been shattered by congressional and FBI investigations of
the Trump campaign's ties to Russia. In the interview, Putin also said the accusations of meddling
leveled at Russia have destabilized international affairs
Going back to the hotly debated topic of "influencing" the election, Putin once again made a dangerous
dose of sense when he argued that trying to influence the U.S. vote would make no sense for Moscow
as a U.S. president can't unilaterally shape policies. " Russia has never engaged in that, we don't
need it and it makes no sense to do it ," he said. " Presidents come and go, but policies don't change.
You know why? Because the power of bureaucracy is very strong ." Especially when the bureaucracy
in question is the so-called "deep state."
Asked who could have been behind the hacking of the Democrats' emails, The Russian leader added
that he agreed with Trump that it could have been anyone. "Maybe someone lying in his bed invented
something or maybe someone deliberately inserted a USB with a Russian citizen's signature or anything
else," Putin said. "Anything can be done in this virtual world." This echoed a remark by Trump during
a September presidential debate in which he said of the DNC hacks: "It could be Russia, but it could
be China, could also be lots of other people. It could be someone sitting on their bed that weighs
400 pounds."
Assad, Red-Lines and Chemical Weapons
Putin was asked about French President Emmanuel Macron's warning that any use of chemical weapons
in Syria was a "red line" that would be met by reprisals, to which the Russian president said he
agreed with that position. But he also reiterated Russia's view that Syrian President Bashar Assad's
forces weren't responsible for a fatal chemical attack in Syria in April. Putin said Russia had offered
the U.S. and its allies the chance to inspect the Syrian base for traces of the chemical agent. He
added that their refusal reflected a desire to justify military action against Assad. "There is no
proof of Assad using chemical weapons," Putin insisted in the interview. "We firmly believe that
that this is a provocation. President Assad did not use chemical weapons."
"Moreover, I believe that this issue should be addressed on a broader scale. President Macron
shares this view. No matter who uses chemical weapons against people and organizations, the international
community must formulate a common policy and find a solution that would make the use of such weapons
impossible for anyone," the Russian leader said.
On NATO's Military Buildup across Russian borders
Weighing on the outcome of the recent NATO summit, at which Russia was branded a threat to security,
Putin pointed to the ambiguous signals Moscow is receiving from the alliance. "What attracted my
attention is that the NATO leaders spoke at their summit about a desire to improve relations with
Russia. Then why are they increasing their military spending? Whom are they planning to fight against?"
Putin said, adding that Russia nevertheless "feels confident" in its own defenses. Washington's appeal
to other NATO members to ramp up their military spending and alleviate the financial burden the US
is forced to shoulder is "understandable" and "pragmatic," Putin said.
But the strategy employed by the alliance against Russia is "shortsighted," the Russian president
added, referring to the NATO's expanding missile defense infrastructure on Russia's doorstep and
calling it "an extremely dangerous development for international security." Putin lamented that an
idea of a comprehensive security system envisioned in the 1990s that would span Europe, Russia and
US has never become a reality, arguing that it would have spared Russia many challenges to its security
stemming from NATO. "Perhaps all this would not have happened. But it did, and we cannot rewind history,
it is not a movie."
junction -> Boris Badenov •May 30, 2017 10:03 PM
Paging Seth Rich. Oh, he can't say anything about the reason why the Democrats lost. Maybe
Hillary could try to contact him using witchcraft and the Satanist arts she follows. Then again,
her old reliable is her hit team of FBI agents, not her sacrifices to Moloch.
GooseShtepping Moron •May 30, 2017 10:01 PM
Putin packs more truth into one newspaper interview than the entire Western media publishes
in a year.
Francis Marx •May 30, 2017 10:01 PM
Who would they blame if Russia was suddenly gone?
rejected -> Francis Marx •May 30, 2017 10:05 PM
Iran.
GooseShtepping Moron -> Francis Marx •May 30, 2017 10:06 PM
Me and you, the basket of deplorables.
Billy the Poet -> rwmctrofholz •May 30, 2017 10:25 PM
I find this little cut and paste job to be effective when addressing this issue:
Background to "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections": The
Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution
"DHS assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not
involved in vote tallying."
"Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries."
The Russia-screwed-the-Dems thing is obviously fantastical bullshit and it's absolutely disgraceful
that the mainstream media are running this garbage 24/7 like it's the gospel truth.
ogretown •May 30, 2017 10:43 PM
It is glaringly obvious that the (worthless) Rats painted themselves into a small corner. Blaming
the Russians is both desperate and hilarious. But who else could they blame? If instead they had
started a campaign that focused on the Muslims trying to ruin America and (correctly)
identified
Saudi Arabia as America's greatest enemy, imagine the votes they would have received from the
soft-right, independents, (relatively) sane liberals. If the (worthless) liberals opted for a
moratorium on squandering any more money on the pseudo-science of global warming and insisted
on a balanced panel to investigate the issue once and for all - even more votes.
Ditto with exotic pro-globalist trade deals...instead if the (worthless) Rats would have opted
for town hall discussions on how a vast international trade deal would have may be helped America,
they would have been viewed as the party of balance, consideration and the thoughtful.
But all of that means having smart and dedicated people as either part of the party or willing
to trust the party - none of which exist. Instead the party of bankrupt ideals and impoverished
morality finger point the Russians and try to blame it all on them.
"... When establishment mainstream media "blacklists" the topic, it just makes us all suspect "they" have something to hide. Why can't we have an open and honest exploration of what really happened? ..."
Tremendous kudos goes to OANN network for putting together this powerful documentary. The fact
of the matter is the Seth Rich murder is unanswered and people want the truth.
When establishment mainstream media "blacklists" the topic, it just makes us all suspect
"they" have something to hide. Why can't we have an open and honest exploration of what really
happened?
America is in lots of trouble this is one of many deaths around the Clinton crime family do
your own research see what comes up suicides with 2 shots back of head weird accidents people
just disappearing these people must not be like my family high powered rifles and crack shots we
would make sure justice was served.
Carlette Duperior
What a great documentary well done filled in a lot of blanks and questions that I had very
professional very objective nice to see Great reporting.
"... Why didn't the FBI do their own investigation? ..."
"... "They say that, but it's bogus," Cohen argued. "When Clapper, the director of national intelligence, signed that report in January, technically he represents all seventeen. I'll bet you a dime to a nickel you couldn't get a guest on, unprepared, who could name ten of them. This figure -- seventeen -- is bogus!" ..."
"... "The one agency that could conceivably have done a forensic examination on the Democratic computers is a national security agency ..."
Professor Stephen Cohen: Not One Piece of Factual Evidence That Russia 'Hacked the Election' March 31, 2017
chat 176 comments
Prof. Cohen: Not One Piece of Factual Evidence That Russia 'Hacked the Election'
Stephen F. Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies at New York University and Princeton, spoke Thursday evening with
Fox News' Tucker Carlson about the
latest shoes to drop in the investigations into the Trump campaign's possible ties to Russia.
The Wall
Street Journal reported late Thursday that Michael Flynn, President Trump's former national security advisor, has told the FBI
and congressional investigators that he is willing to be interviewed in exchange for a grant of immunity from prosecution -- not
a particularly good sign for the Trump White House.
Cohen, one of the country's foremostexperts on Russia, has been arguing for months that the anti-Russia hysteria in Washington,
D.C., is becoming a
"grave national security threat."
Carlson began the discussion by bringing up what he sees as the core issue-- the allegations that the Russian government "hacked
our election" by breaking into email accounts at the DNC and the Clinton campaign office.
"Everyone assumes this is true," he said. "We're all operating under the assumption that it's true. Do we know it's true?"
"No," Cohen answered flatly. "And if you listen to the hearings at the Senate today, repeatedly it was said -- particularly by
Senator Warner, the Democratic co-chair of the proceedings -- that Russia had hijacked our democracy. What he means is that, the
Russians, at Putin's direction, had gone into the Democratic National Committee's emails, which were embarrassing to Mrs. Clinton,
given them to Wikileaks, Wikileaks then released them to damage Mrs. Clinton and put Trump in the White House."
He noted, "This is a very dramatic narrative and they're saying in Washington that this was an act of war.... So whether or not
it's true is existential. Are we at war?"
After studying Russian leadership for 40 years, focusing on Putin in particular, Cohen said it was hard for him believe that the
Russian president would have done such a thing.
"I could find not one piece of factual evidence," he said. "The only evidence ever presented was a study hired by the Clintons
-- the DNC -- to do an examination of their computers.They
[Crowdstrike] concluded the Russians did it. Their report
has fallen apart." He
added, " Why didn't the FBI do their own investigation? "
Tucker pointed out that even Republicans say that seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies (including Coast Guard Intelligence!) have
concluded that Russian intelligence was behind this.
"They say that, but it's bogus," Cohen argued. "When Clapper, the director of national intelligence, signed that report in
January, technically he represents all seventeen. I'll bet you a dime to a nickel you couldn't get a guest on, unprepared, who could
name ten of them. This figure -- seventeen -- is bogus!"
The professor made one more critical point: "The one agency that could conceivably have done a forensic examination on the
Democratic computers is a national security agency ," he said.
He continued: "When they admit that they have no evidence, they fall back on something else which I think is very important. They
say Putin directed Russian propaganda at us and helped elect Trump. I don't know about you, Tucker, but I find that insulting --
because the premise they're putting out ... at this hearing is that the American people are zombies. ... It's the premise of democracy
that we're democratic citizens," he said. "That we have a B.S. detector in us and we know how to use it."
ValVeggie •
2 months ago Maybe not, but let's not forget that there IS evidence that the Obama administration apparently employed police-state
tactics to spy on their political rivals during the election, and to widely disseminate the information they collected in hope
that it would be illegally leaked in order to undermine the Trump administration.
Remember, the only felony we have clear proof of is the leak of Flynn's surveillance data to the press.
Time to get focused on where the crimes are, and stop falling for the progressive's shell game.
RedDog
ValVeggie •
2 months ago Now what do we have here....
WikiLeaks Reveals "Marble": Proof CIA Disguises Their Hacks As Russian, Chinese, Arabic...
"... A lawsuit last year against the DNC was filed in the Southern District of Florida by attorney Shaun Lucas. ..."
"... A month after Lucas filed the papers to sue the DNC, he was found dead at the age of 38. 14 prosecutors have been killed in
100 years. ..."
"... One of those was Lucas - the man who served the DNC papers. ..."
"... The lawsuit was filed on June 28 by Bernie Sanders supporters against the DNC and then DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz,
who resigned in the wake of the WikiLeaks email scandal. ..."
"... And now a young federal prosecutor working in the Southern District of Florida is also found dead. Florida Prosecutor Beranton
J. Whisenant Jr., 37, was investigating fraud and visa case in Wasserman-Schultz's back yard district. Was he working on the case against
the DNC? ..."
A Florida federal attorney who was investigating against the DNC, specifically, Wasserman-Shultz district, was found dead on a
beach with what authorities describe as "head trauma."
COINCIDENCE?
A lawsuit last year against the DNC was filed in the Southern District of Florida by attorney Shaun Lucas.
A month after Lucas filed the papers to sue the DNC, he was found dead at the age of 38. 14 prosecutors have been killed in
100 years.
One of those was Lucas - the man who served the DNC papers.
The lawsuit was filed on June 28 by Bernie Sanders supporters against the DNC and then DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz,
who resigned in the wake of the WikiLeaks email scandal.
And now a young federal prosecutor working in the Southern District of Florida is also found dead. Florida Prosecutor Beranton
J. Whisenant Jr., 37, was investigating fraud and visa case in Wasserman-Schultz's back yard district. Was he working on the case
against the DNC?
HOLLYWOOD, Fla. (AP) - The body of a federal prosecutor has been found on a Florida beach with possible head trauma.
Hollywood police spokeswoman Miranda Grossman said Thursday that the body of 37-year-old Beranton J. Whisenant Jr. was found early
Wednesday by a passerby on the city's beach. She said detectives are trying to determine if the death was a homicide, suicide or
something else.
Whisenant worked for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Miami in its major crimes unit. He had joined the office in January. Court
records show he had been handling several visa and passport fraud cases.
Acting U.S. Attorney Benjamin G. Greenberg said in a statement that Whisenant was a "great lawyer and wonderful colleague." The
office declined to comment on the investigation.
Amy Moreno is a Published Author
, Pug Lover & Game of Thrones Nerd. You can reach her on Facebook here .
On July 8, 2016, 27 year-old Democratic staffer Seth Conrad Rich was murdered in Washington DC. The killer or killers took nothing
from their victim, leaving behind his wallet, watch and phone .
Shortly after the killing, Redditors and social media users were pursuing a "lead" saying that Rich was en route to the FBI the
morning of his murder, apparently intending to speak to special agents about an "ongoing court case" possibly involving the Clinton
family .
Seth Rich's father Joel told reporters, "If it was a robbery - it failed because he still has his watch, he still has his money
- he still has his credit cards, still had his phone so it was a wasted effort except we lost a life."
,,, ,,, ,,,
The Metropolitan police posted a $25K reward for information on Rich's murder.
One America News Network (OAN) is offering a $100,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of a suspect in former DNC
staffer Seth Rich 's murder case.
The Herring Networks, Inc. media company OAN joins a number of individuals and groups that are willing to pay for information
that solves the July 10, 2016, killing of Mr. Rich
. The election-season murder continues to spark conspiracy theories based on the suggestion that
Mr. Rich provided DNC data to the anti-secrecy
website WikiLeaks.
"One America News believes solving this case - and bringing
Rich 's murderer to justice - is essential to exposing
the truth for the American people," OAN's Greta Wall
reported Monday. "We are offering a $100,000 reward for any information that leads to the arrest of a suspect in the case.
If you have any information, please email us at [email protected]."
Others offering rewards
include the Washington,
D.C. Police Department ($25,000); WikiLeaks ($20,000); and Republican strategist Jack Burkman ($130,000).
businessman and investor Martin Shkreli is putting up $100,000 for information leading to the arrest of the person responsible for
the murder of Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich.
Shkreli, former chief executive officer of Turing Pharmaceuticals and KaloBios Pharmaceuticals Inc., made the announcement via
his Facebook page Friday.
Rich, 27, was the voter expansion data director at the DNC, according to Roll Call, and had been employed for two years. Rich
also worked on a computer application to help voters locate polling stations, and had just accepted a job with Hillary Clinton's
presidential campaign.
According to Washington D.C. Metropolitan Police reports, officers patrolling the Bloomingdale neighborhood heard gunshots at
around 4:20 a.m. on the morning of July 10, 2016. Officers discovered a "conscious and breathing" Rich at 2100 Flagler Place NW.
Police have not yet solved the case, but surmised that Rich was a victim of a botched robbery. Police said that they found his
wallet, credit cards and cellphone on his body. The band of his wristwatch was torn but not broken. The current theory maintains
that the shooters panicked after shooting Rich and immediately fled the scene.
"You are graduating at a time when there is a full-fledged assault
on truth and reason. Just log on to social media for ten seconds.
It will hit you right in the face. People denying science, concocting
elaborate, hurtful conspiracy theories about child-abuse rings
operating out of pizza parlors, drumming up rampant fear about
undocumented immigrants, Muslims, minorities, the poor, turning
neighbor against neighbor and sowing division at a time when
we desperately need unity. Some are even denying things we see
with our own eyes, like the size of crowds, and then defending
themselves by talking about quote-unquote 'alternative facts.'
"But this is serious business. Look at the budget that was just
proposed in Washington. It is an attack of unimaginable cruelty
on the most vulnerable among us, the youngest, the oldest, the
poorest, and hard-working people who need a little help to gain
or hang on to a decent middle class life. It grossly under-funds
public education, mental health, and efforts even to combat the
opioid epidemic. And in reversing our commitment to fight climate
change, it puts the future of our nation and our world at risk.
And to top it off, it is shrouded in a trillion-dollar mathematical
lie. Let's call it what it is. It's a con. They don't even try
to hide it.
"Why does all this matter? It matters because if our leaders
lie about the problems we face, we'll never solve them. It matters
because it undermines confidence in government as a whole, which
in turn breeds more cynicism and anger. But it also matters because
our country, like this College, was founded on the principles
of the Enlightenment – in particular, the belief that people,
you and I, possess the capacity for reason and critical thinking,
and that free and open debate is the lifeblood of a democracy.
Not only Wellesley, but the entire American university system
– the envy of the world – was founded on those fundamental ideals.
We should not abandon them; we should revere them. We should
aspire to them every single day, in everything we do.
"And there's something else. As the history majors among you
here today know all too well, when people in power invent their
own facts, and attack those who question them, it can mark the
beginning of the end of a free society. That is not hyperbole.
It is what authoritarian regimes throughout history have done.
They attempt to control reality – not just our laws and rights
and our budgets, but our thoughts and beliefs."
Hillary should be in a hut somewhere in the Canadian north
staring at election returns. Her shameless ambition her heedless self seeking industry
and undaunted entitled drive reminds me of the worst results of meritocracy
"... One thing we don't need are "progressives" who whine about irregularities (without proof) when they lose a close election. That will help the right wing more than anything they themselves can do. She is clearly not mature enough to take any leadership role anywhere. ..."
"... "neoliberal tears" about Hillary loss might create "dragon's teeth" effect... For example look at the Twit: "Fmr Kasich Supporter: Hostile Media Makes Me Support Trump " Chinese torture of Trump using well timed leaks also can have the same effect. ..."
"... sections of Trump voters and population in general now harbored "a uniform distrust of the national news media." ..."
"... There are still a lot of morons who voted for Trump and are sure he will do the part of his promises they listened to and believed. He is brilliant at the short con. That is how he made his money (or is it failed to loss his inheritance). He promises whatever he sense that the costumer want to hear and get a signature on the deal. Then as soon as the costumer have handed over their money (votes) he runs away from what he promised. ..."
"... That (short) con works in real estate where he really don't need to do another deal with people after he conned them. In politics he will be faced with the voters he conned in the first place, so either he chose to be a one-term president or he will realize why a one-trick pony shouldn't try to do a new trick. ..."
One thing we don't need are "progressives" who whine about irregularities (without proof) when
they lose a close election. That will help the right wing more than anything they themselves can
do. She is clearly not mature enough to take any leadership role anywhere.
"One thing we don't need are "progressives" who whine about irregularities (without proof) when
they lose a close election"
That's a very good point. I would say more: "neoliberal tears" about Hillary loss might create
"dragon's teeth" effect... For example look at the Twit: "Fmr Kasich Supporter: Hostile Media Makes Me Support Trump " Chinese torture of Trump using well timed leaks also can have the same effect.
that all means that it's not only just former #NeverHillary types who still stand by the president. Other
sections of Trump voters and population in general now harbored "a uniform distrust of
the national news media."
There are still a lot of morons who voted for Trump and are sure he will do the part of his promises
they listened to and believed. He is brilliant at the short con. That is how he made his money
(or is it failed to loss his inheritance). He promises whatever he sense that the costumer want
to hear and get a signature on the deal. Then as soon as the costumer have handed over their money
(votes) he runs away from what he promised.
That (short) con works in real estate where he really
don't need to do another deal with people after he conned them. In politics he will be faced with
the voters he conned in the first place, so either he chose to be a one-term president or he will
realize why a one-trick pony shouldn't try to do a new trick.
But it will almost certainly take at least a year before a large number of the Trump voters
realize that they have been conned. It is very difficult for people to admit that they made a
stupid mistake - especially difficult for stupid people.
"But it will almost certainly take at least a year before a large number of the Trump voters realize
that they have been conned."
Not true. I know many who already "get it " ;-)
"That (short) con works in real estate where he really don't need to do another deal with people
after he conned them. In politics he will be faced with the voters he conned in the first place,
so either he chose to be a one-term president or he will realize why a one-trick pony shouldn't
try to do a new trick."
But both Bush II an Barack Obama were reelected. So "bait and switch" game might not be that
fatal for politicians in the USA as it is in some other countries.
I agree that shortermism is the name of the game.
"It is very difficult for people to admit that they made a stupid mistake"
Large part of "alt-right" (anti war right) already abandoned Trump. Those did it first. Paleoconservatives
followed and now are one just step from open hostility mostly because of media attacks on Trump.
Libertarians, especially former Ron Paul supporters, now are openly hostile and their critique
is really biting.
Do not know about evangelicals and other fringe groups, but I doubt that any of them still
have illusions about Trump.
IMHO, the only factor that still allows Trump to maintain his base is unending attacks of neoliberal
media and this set of well coordinated leaks.
"... Democrats may have some difficulty winning elections, but they've become quite adept at explaining their losses. ..."
"... According to legend, Democrats lose because of media bias, because of racism, because of gerrymandering, because of James Comey and because of Russia (an amazing 59 percent of Democrats still believe Russians hacked vote totals). ..."
"... the "deplorables" comment didn't just further alienate already lost Republican votes. It spoke to an internal sickness within the Democratic Party ..."
"... About 2/3 in that election voted early -- before the slam down. ..."
"... I agree with you that Democrats should make unions a priority instead just regurgitating the usual pablum about how they support unions without doing anything. ..."
"... The dem pols alliance outside the south with organized " private sector " unions was the legacy of the new deal and the CIO uprising. That alliance broke down in the 70's with the rise of the cultural liberals after the civil rights and anti war struggles. Union often seen by Clintons as reactionary saw their economic interests pushed aside... ..."
The Democrats Need a New Message. After another demoralizing
loss to a monstrous candidate, Democrats need a reboot
by Matt Taibbi
19 hours ago
... ... ...
The electoral results last November have been repeated
enough that most people in politics know them by heart.
Republicans now control 68 state legislative chambers, while
Democrats only control 31. Republicans flipped three more
governors' seats last year and now control an incredible 33
of those offices. Since 2008, when Barack Obama first took
office, Republicans have gained somewhere around 900 to 1,000
seats overall.
There are a lot of reasons for this. But there's no way to
spin some of these numbers in a way that doesn't speak to the
awesome unpopularity of the blue party. A recent series of
Gallup polls is the most frightening example.
Unsurprisingly, the disintegrating Trump bears a
historically low approval rating. But polls also show that
the Democratic Party has lost five percentage points in its
own approval rating dating back to November, when it was at
45 percent.
The Democrats are now hovering around 40 percent, just a
hair over the Trump-tarnished Republicans, at 39 percent.
Similar surveys have shown that despite the near daily
barrage of news stories pegging the president as a bumbling
incompetent in the employ of a hostile foreign power, Trump,
incredibly, would still beat Hillary Clinton in a rematch
today, and perhaps even by a larger margin than before.
If you look in the press for explanations for news items
like this, you will find a lot of them.
Democrats may
have some difficulty winning elections, but they've become
quite adept at explaining their losses.
According to legend, Democrats lose because of media
bias, because of racism, because of gerrymandering, because
of James Comey and because of Russia (an amazing 59 percent
of Democrats still believe Russians hacked vote totals).
Third-party candidates are said to be another implacable
obstacle to Democratic success, as is unhelpful dissension
within the Democrats' own ranks. There have even been
whispers that last year's presidential loss was Obama's
fault, because he didn't campaign hard enough for Clinton.
The early spin on the Gianforte election is that the
Democrats never had a chance in Montana because of corporate
cash, as outside groups are said to have "drowned" opponent
Rob Quist in PAC money. There are corresponding complaints
that national Democrats didn't do enough to back Quist.
A lot of these things are true. America is obviously a
deeply racist and paranoid country. Gerrymandering is a
serious problem. Unscrupulous, truth-averse right-wing media
has indeed spent decades bending the brains of huge
pluralities of voters, particularly the elderly. And
Republicans have often, but not always, had fundraising
advantages in key races.
But the explanations themselves speak to a larger problem.
The unspoken subtext of a lot of the Democrats' excuse-making
is their growing belief that the situation is hopeless – and
not just because of fixable institutional factors like
gerrymandering, but because we simply have a bad/irredeemable
electorate that can never be reached.
This is why the "basket of deplorables" comment last
summer was so devastating. That the line would become a
sarcastic rallying cry for Trumpites was inevitable. (Of
course it birthed a political merchandising supernova.) To
many Democrats, the reaction proved the truth of Clinton's
statement. As in: we're not going to get the overwhelming
majority of these yeehaw-ing "deplorable" votes anyway, so
why not call them by their names?
But
the "deplorables" comment didn't just further
alienate already lost Republican votes. It spoke to an
internal sickness within the Democratic Party
,
which had surrendered to a negativistic vision of a
hopelessly divided country.
About 2/3 in that election voted
early -- before the slam down.
Re: exciting Democrat issue
Nobody would argue I think that when 1935 Congress passed
the NLRA(a) it consciously left criminal prosecution of union
busting blank because it desired states to individually take
that up in their localities. Conversely, I don't think
anybody thinks Congress deliberately left out criminal
sanctions because it objected to such.
Congress left criminal sanctions blank in US labor law
because it thought it had done enough. States disagree?
States are perfectly free to fill in the blanks protecting
not just union organizing but any kind of collective
bargaining more generally -- without worrying about federal
preemption. Don't see why even Trump USC judge would find
fault with that.
"About 2/3 in that election voted early -- before the slam
down."
Good point, I agree. But Taibbi - who wrote a great
obit of Roger Ailes - still makes a good argument.
I
agree with you that Democrats should make unions a priority
instead just regurgitating the usual pablum about how they
support unions without doing anything.
The dem pols alliance outside the south with organized "
private sector " unions was the legacy of the new deal and
the CIO uprising. That alliance broke down in the 70's with
the rise of the cultural liberals after the civil rights and
anti war struggles. Union often seen by Clintons as
reactionary saw their economic interests pushed aside...
"... A few days before his firing, Mr. Comey reportedly had asked for still more resources to hunt the Russian bear. Pundit piranhas swarmed to charge Mr. Trump with trying to thwart the investigation into how the Russians supposedly "interfered" to help him win the election. ..."
"... Truth is, President Trump had ample reason to be fed up with Mr. Comey, in part for his lack of enthusiasm to investigate actual, provable crimes related to "Russia-gate" -- like leaking information from highly sensitive intercepted communications to precipitate the demise of Trump aide Michael Flynn ..."
"... we suspect Mr. Comey already knows who was responsible.) ..."
"... In contrast, Mr. Comey evinced strong determination to chase after ties between Russia and the Trump campaign until the cows came home. In the meantime, the investigation (already underway for 10 months) would itself cast doubt on the legitimacy of Mr. Trump's presidency and put the kibosh on plans to forge a more workable relationship with Russia -- a win-win for the establishment and the FBI/CIA/NSA "Deep State"; a lose-lose for the president. ..."
"... So far, it has been all smoke and mirrors with no chargeable offenses and not a scintilla of convincing evidence of Russian "meddling" in the election. The oft-cited, but evidence-free, CIA/FBI/NSA report of Jan. 6, crafted by "hand-picked" analysts, according to then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper , is of a piece with the "high-confidence," but fraudulent, National Intelligence Estimate 15 years ago about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. ..."
"... On March 31, 2017, WikiLeaks released original CIA documents - ignored by mainstream media - showing that the agency had created a program allowing it to break into computers and servers and make it look like others did it by leaving telltale signs like Cyrillic markings, ..."
"... It is altogether possible that the hacking attributed to Russia was actually one of several "active measures" undertaken by a cabal consisting of the CIA, FBI, NSA and Mr. Clapper - the same agencies responsible for the lame, evidence-free memorandum of Jan. 6. ..."
"... Mr. Comey displayed considerable discomfort on March 20, explaining to the House Intelligence Committee why the FBI did not insist on getting physical access to the Democratic National Committee computers in order to do its own proper forensics, but chose to rely on the those done by DNC contractor Crowdstrike. Could this be explained by Mr. Comey's fear that FBI technicians not fully briefed on CIA/NSA/FBI Deep State programs might uncover a lot more than he wanted? Did this play a role in Mr. Trump's firing of Mr. Comey? ..."
"... President Trump has entered into a high-stakes gamble in confronting the Deep State and its media allies over the evidence-free accusations of his colluding with Russia. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, publicly warned him of the risk earlier this year. "You take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you," ..."
Donald Trump
said he had fired FBI
Director James
Comey over "this Russia thing, with Trump and Russia." The president labeled it a "made-up story" and, by all appearances, he
is mostly correct.
A few days before his firing, Mr. Comey reportedly had asked for still more resources to hunt the Russian bear. Pundit piranhas
swarmed to charge Mr. Trump with trying to thwart the investigation into how the Russians supposedly "interfered" to help him win
the election.
But can that commentary bear close scrutiny, or is it the "
phony narrative "
Senate
Republican Whip John Cornyn of Texas claims it to be? Mr. Cornyn has quipped that, if impeding the investigation was Mr. Trump's
aim, "This strikes me as a lousy way to do it. All it does is heighten the attention given to the issue."
Truth is, President Trump had ample reason to be fed up with Mr. Comey, in part for his lack of enthusiasm to investigate
actual, provable crimes related to "Russia-gate" -- like leaking information from highly sensitive intercepted communications to
precipitate the demise of Trump aide
Michael
Flynn . Mr. Flynn was caught "red-handed," so to speak, talking with Russia's ambassador last December. (In our experience,
finding the culprit for that leak should not be very difficult; we suspect Mr. Comey already knows who was responsible.)
In contrast, Mr. Comey evinced strong determination to chase after ties between Russia and the Trump campaign until the cows
came home. In the meantime, the investigation (already
underway for 10 months)
would itself cast doubt on the legitimacy of Mr. Trump's presidency and put the kibosh on plans to forge a more workable relationship
with Russia -- a win-win for the establishment and the FBI/CIA/NSA "Deep State"; a lose-lose for the president.
So far, it has been all smoke and mirrors with no chargeable offenses and not a scintilla of convincing evidence of Russian
"meddling" in the election. The oft-cited, but evidence-free, CIA/FBI/NSA report of Jan. 6, crafted by "hand-picked" analysts, according
to then-Director of National Intelligence James
Clapper , is of a piece with the "high-confidence," but fraudulent, National Intelligence Estimate 15 years ago about weapons
of mass destruction in Iraq.
But what about "Russia hacking," the centerpiece of accusations of Kremlin "interference" to help Mr.Trump?
On March 31, 2017,
WikiLeaks released original CIA documents - ignored by mainstream media - showing that the agency had created a program allowing
it to break into computers and servers and make it look like others did it by leaving telltale signs like Cyrillic markings,
for example. The capabilities shown in what WikiLeaks calls the "Vault 7"
trove of CIA documents required the creation of hundreds of millions of lines of source code. At $25 per line of code, that amounts
to about $2.5 billion for each 100 million code lines. But the Deep State has that kind of money and would probably consider the
expenditure a good return on investment for "proving" the Russians hacked.
It is altogether possible that the hacking attributed to Russia was actually one of several "active measures" undertaken by
a cabal consisting of the CIA, FBI, NSA and Mr. Clapper - the same agencies responsible for the lame, evidence-free memorandum of
Jan. 6.
Mr. Comey displayed considerable discomfort on March 20, explaining to the House Intelligence Committee why the FBI did not
insist on getting physical access to the Democratic National Committee computers in order to do its own proper forensics, but chose
to rely on the those done by DNC contractor Crowdstrike. Could this be explained by Mr. Comey's fear that FBI technicians not fully
briefed on CIA/NSA/FBI Deep State programs might uncover a lot more than he wanted? Did this play a role in Mr. Trump's firing of
Mr. Comey?
President Trump has entered into a high-stakes gamble in confronting the Deep State and its media allies over the evidence-free
accusations of his colluding with Russia. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, publicly warned him of the
risk earlier this year. "You take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you," Mr.
Schumer told MSNBC's
Rachel
Maddow on Jan. 3.
If Mr. Trump continues to "take on" the Deep State, he will be fighting uphill, whether he's in the right or not. It is far from
certain he will prevail.
Ray McGovern ([email protected]) was a CIA analyst for 27 years; he briefed the president's daily brief one-on-one to
President Reagan's most senior national security officials from 1981-85. William Binney ([email protected]) worked for
NSA for 36 years, retiring in 2001 as the technical director of world military and geopolitical analysis and reporting; he created
many of the collection systems still used by NSA.
The public owes a tremendous debt of gratitude to both Mr. McGovern and Mr. Binney, who are substantial individuals with sterling
reputations, for putting themselves forward and informing the public of the crimes that are taking place in DC behind closed doors.
The fact that paid shills and trolls would make the effort to post content free criticisms of this article only serves to underline
the article's importance to a thoughtful reader. The people who sponsor these posters obviously have complete contempt for the
public. However, each day, thanks to articles like this and the idiotic attempts to criticize them, more and more people are becoming
aware of the fraud that is DC.
"... Repeat: "A politicized analysis that violated normal rules for crafting intelligence assessments." That says it all, doesn't it? ..."
"... Comey is a vicious political opportunist who doesn't mind breaking a few legs if it'll advance his career plans. I wouldn't trust the man as far as I could throw him. Which isn't far. ..."
"... Comey was a participant in the intelligence gathering for political purposes ..."
"... Are we suggesting that the heads of the so called Intelligence Community are at war with the Trump Administration and paving the way for impeachment proceedings? ..."
"... Yep, we sure are. The Russia hacking fiasco is a regime change operation no different than the CIA's 50-or-so other oustings in the last 70 years. The only difference is that this operation is on the home field which is why everyone is so flustered. These things are only suppose to happen in those "other" countries. ..."
"... Trump might be the worst US president of all time, in fact, he probably is. But that doesn't mean there aren't other nefarious forces at work behind the smokescreen of democratic government. There are. In fact, this whole flap suggests that there's an alternate power-structure that operates completely off the public's radar and has the elected-government in its death-grip. This largely invisible group of elites controls the likes of Brennan, Clapper and Comey. And, apparently, they have enough influence to challenge and maybe even remove an elected president from office. (We'll see.) ..."
"... Since that Fox News blockbuster report, the Rich-family private investigator, Rod Wheeler, has disavowed and retracted the claims he had made earlier about Rich's contacts with WikiLeaks. So that's the end of that. The Rich family now has a DNC operative as their spokesperson, who is representing the family pro bono. ..."
"... This is a coup. We are now officially Turkey, where the secret police and the army high command feel entitled to 'vet' our elected leaders, and overthrow them if they deem it necessary. ..."
"... sadly mike we are witnessing the several thousand strong bipartisan establishment rather destroy the united states as a governable nation instead of reforming themselves by putting the country first instead of their own venal interest. ..."
"... The Rich family now has a DNC operative as their spokesperson, who is representing the family pro bono. ..."
"... Though never a Trump fan, I am becoming increasingly sympathetic to his plight. More and more, this is taking on the trappings of a coup d'etat. ..."
"... Well, I'm pretty convinced they removed 2 presidents in my lifetime. The first with extreme prejudice, namely JFK, and the 2nd somewhat less extremely, namely Nixon. They then gave Reagan & Clinton a damn good scare and forced them to come around to seeing the world as they wanted it seen. ..."
"... Frankly, I am greatly heartened by this recent brouhaha. That "invisible group" are outing themselves. By the ferocity and volume of their totally overblown, caricaturized(sp?) accusations, they're making their existence and program pretty plain to alert citizens, and by continuing along this path they'll cause more and more of the inattentive to awaken. Now, even the likes of CNBC are suggesting that the assault on Trump looks more like a coup than partisan political infighting. ..."
"... They're in the process of transforming themselves from subjects of conspiracy theories, to mainstream political players. Maybe it's sooner than planned, and perhaps a little more chaotically than they would have wished, but the combination of geopolitical & economic/financial pressures with the rise of the Trumpian Deplorables has forced their hand. Should they ever get to end of that process, America will be indistinguishable from Orwell's Oceania. The question is what can stop them? ..."
"... Right; (((Big Media))) and the ruling class are spending a Hell of a lot of legitimacy on the campaign against Trump. And they've been bleeding legitimacy for years as it was. ..."
"... The author says that if he worked for media or FBI he'd be beating the bushes. Nope. Simple logic. If the Russian hacking version is true, there's no reason to beat the bushes. Everything coming out of media and FBI is true. ..."
"... If it's not true, then Seth Rich was killed by the Clintons, which is consistent with a 40 year history of Clinton mafia action. If you work in media or FBI, you KNOW FOR SURE that the Clintons kill their enemies. You don't want to die, so you go along with the official line. ..."
"... All the neocons/SJW/neoliberals (pretty much all the same thing now) don't believe in a nation yet they still believe in "national security", I don't think it will be too long until the term is replaced with a more acceptable (according to them) "global security". ..."
"... But isn't the time now to drain this swamp? Why wait? I mean, we live in a dictatorship. Our liberty has been stripped away. We have nothing left. The future for our children is grim. How much longer will the Jews and the elites and the banksters strong arm us into submission? I keep hearing how our overlords are hell bent on eradicating the white race, and that we are well on our way to becoming Brazil. What awakening will it take for YOU to leave your armchair and become a warrior? ..."
"... It is incomprehensible to me why USA citizens who want the truth bother with details since Sept 11. Anyone with the guts to see through propaganda now knows what USA politicians and media are capable of. Even those who refuse to see Sept 11 for what it is, must see the mess the USA created, still creates, in Middle East, and North Africa, soon also in middle Africa, when the drone base in Nigeria will be in operation. ..."
"... It is quite possible that Russia tried to influence USA elections, as Obama did with the French. The difference is only that the USA is entitled to do such things, but not Russia. ..."
"... It looks like CNN Has tried to pull the wool over our eyes once again. This time, they used a screenshot from the Fallout 4 Video game to paint the picture of Russian Hacking. To bad that's not what a real hacking screen looks like. And an image you will only find in the video game! ..."
"... December 28, 2016 OUTRAGEOUS: Election hacks traced back to Obama's Department of Homeland Security ..."
"... Rick Falkvinge, founder of the original pirate party and head of privacy at PrivateInternetAccess com, joins us to discuss his recent article, "Today, the FBI becomes the enemy of every computer user and every IT security professional worldwide." ..."
Why is it a "conspiracy theory" to think that a disgruntled Democratic National Committee staffer gave WikiLeaks the DNC emails,
but not a conspiracy theory to think the emails were provided by Russia?
Why?
Which is the more likely scenario: That a frustrated employee leaked damaging emails to embarrass his bosses or a that foreign
government hacked DNC computers for some still-unknown reason?
That's a no-brainer, isn't it?
Former-DNC employee, Seth Rich, not only had access to the emails, but also a motive. He was pissed about the way the Clinton
crowd was "sandbagging" Bernie Sanders. In contrast, there's neither evidence nor motive connecting Russia to the emails. On top
of that, WikiLeaks founder, Julien Assange (a man of impeccable integrity) has repeatedly denied that Russia gave him the emails
which suggests the government investigation is completely misdirected. The logical course of action, would be to pursue the leads
that are most likely to bear fruit, not those that originate from one's own political bias. But, of course, logic has nothing to
do with the current investigation, it's all about politics and geopolitics.
We don't know who killed Seth Rich and we're not going to speculate on the matter here. But we find it very strange that neither
the media nor the FBI have pursued leads in the case that challenge the prevailing narrative on the Russia hacking issue. Why is
that? Why is the media so eager to blame Russia when Rich looks like the much more probable suspect?
And why have the mainstream news organizations put so much energy into discrediting the latest Fox News report, when– for the
last 10 months– they've showed absolutely zero interest in Rich's death at all?
According to Fox News:
"The Democratic National Committee staffer who was gunned down on July 10 on a Washington, D.C., street just steps from his home
had leaked thousands of internal emails to WikiLeaks, law enforcement sources told Fox News.
A federal investigator who reviewed an FBI forensic report detailing the contents of DNC staffer Seth Rich's computer generated
within 96 hours after his murder, said Rich made contact with WikiLeaks through Gavin MacFadyen, a now-deceased American investigative
reporter, documentary filmmaker, and director of WikiLeaks who was living in London at the time .
Rod Wheeler, a retired Washington homicide detective and Fox News contributor investigating the case on behalf of the Rich
family, made the WikiLeaks claim, which was corroborated by a federal investigator who spoke to Fox News .
"I have seen and read the emails between Seth Rich and Wikileaks," the federal investigator told Fox News, confirming the MacFadyen
connection. He said the emails are in possession of the FBI, while the stalled case is in the hands of the Washington Police Department."
("Family of slain DNC staffer Seth Rich blasts detective over report of WikiLeaks link", Fox News)
Okay, so where's the computer? Who's got Rich's computer? Let's do the forensic work and get on with it.
But the Washington Post and the other bogus news organizations aren't interested in such matters because it doesn't fit with their
political agenda. They'd rather take pot-shots at Fox for running an article that doesn't square with their goofy Russia hacking
story. This is a statement on the abysmal condition of journalism today. Headline news has become the province of perception mandarins
who use the venue to shape information to their own malign specifications, and any facts that conflict with their dubious storyline,
are savagely attacked and discredited. Journalists are no longer investigators that keep the public informed, but paid assassins
who liquidate views that veer from the party-line.
WikiLeaks never divulges the names of the people who provide them with information. Even so, Assange has not only shown an active
interest in the Seth Rich case, but also offered a $20,000 reward for anyone providing information leading to the arrest and conviction
of Rich's murder. Why? And why did he post a link to the Fox News article on his Twitter account on Tuesday?
I don't know, but if I worked for the FBI or the Washington Post, I'd sure as hell be beating the bushes to find out. And not
just because it might help in Rich's murder investigation, but also, because it could shed light on the Russia fiasco which is being
used to lay the groundwork for impeachment proceedings. So any information that challenges the government version of events, could
actually change the course of history.
Have you ever heard of Craig Murray?
Murray should be the government's star witness in the DNC hacking scandal, instead, no one even knows who he is. But if we trust
what Murray has to say, then we can see that the Russia hacking story is baloney. The emails were "leaked" by insiders not "hacked"
by a foreign government. Here's the scoop from Robert Parry at Consortium News:
"Former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray, has suggested that the DNC leak came from a "disgruntled" Democrat upset
with the DNC's sandbagging of the Sanders campaign and that the Podesta leak came from the U.S. intelligence community .He (Murray)
appears to have undertaken a mission for WikiLeaks to contact one of the sources (or a representative) during a Sept. 25 visit
to Washington where he says he met with a person in a wooded area of American University. .
Though Murray has declined to say exactly what the meeting in the woods was about, he may have been passing along messages
about ways to protect the source from possible retaliation, maybe even an extraction plan if the source was in some legal or physical
danger Murray also suggested that the DNC leak and the Podesta leak came from two different sources, neither of them the Russian
government.
"The Podesta emails and the DNC emails are, of course, two separate things and we shouldn't conclude that they both have the
same source," Murray said. "In both cases we're talking of a leak, not a hack, in that the person who was responsible for getting
that information out had legal access to that information
Scott Horton then asked, "Is it fair to say that you're saying that the Podesta leak came from inside the intelligence services,
NSA [the electronic spying National Security Agency] or another agency?"
"I think what I said was certainly compatible with that kind of interpretation, yeah," Murray responded. "In both cases they
are leaks by Americans."
("A Spy Coup in America?", Robert Parry, Consortium News)
With all the hullabaloo surrounding the Russia hacking case, you'd think that Murray's eyewitness account would be headline news,
but not in Homeland Amerika where the truth is kept as far from the front page as humanly possible.
Bottom line: The government has a reliable witness (Murray) who can positively identify the person who hacked the DNC emails and,
so far, they've showed no interest in his testimony at all. Doesn't that strike you as a bit weird?
Did you know that after a 10 month-long investigation, there's still no hard evidence that Russia hacked the 2016 elections? In
fact, when the Intelligence agencies were pressed on the matter, they promised to release a report that would provide iron-clad proof
of Russian meddling. On January 6, 2017, theDirector of National Intelligence, James Clapper, released that report. It was called
The Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA). Unfortunately, the report fell far-short of the public's expectations. Instead of a
smoking gun, Clapper produced a tedious 25-page compilation of speculation, hearsay, innuendo and gobbledygook. Here's how veteran
journalist Robert Parry summed it up:
"The report contained no direct evidence that Russia delivered hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary
Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta to WikiLeaks .The DNI report as presented, is one-sided and lacks any actual proof. Further,
the continued use of the word "assesses" .suggests that the underlying classified information also may be less than conclusive
because, in intelligence-world-speak, "assesses" often means "guesses." ("US Report Still Lacks Proof on Russia 'Hack'", Robert
Parry, Consortium News)
Repeat: "the report contained no direct evidence", no "actual proof", and a heckuva a lot of "guessing". That's some "smoking
gun", eh?
If this 'thin gruel' sounds like insufficient grounds for removing a sitting president and his administration, that's because
it is. But the situation is even worse than it looks, mainly because the information in the assessment is not reliable. The ICA was
corrupted by higher-ups in the Intel food-chain who selected particular analysts who could be trusted to produce a document that
served their broader political agenda. Think I'm kidding? Take a look at this excerpt from an article at Fox News:
"On January 6, 2017, the U.S. Intelligence Community issued an "Intelligence Community Assessment" (ICA) that found Russia
deliberately interfered in the 2016 presidential election to benefit Trump's candidacy (but) there are compelling reasons to believe
this ICA was actually a politicized analysis that violated normal rules for crafting intelligence assessments to ensure this one
reached the bottom line conclusion that the Obama administration was looking for.
.Director of National Intelligence James Clapper explained in his testimony that two dozen or so "seasoned experts" were "handpicked"
from the contributing agencies" and drafted the ICA "under the aegis of his former office" While Clapper claimed these analysts
were given "complete independence" to reach their findings, he added that their conclusions "were thoroughly vetted and then approved
by the directors of the three agencies and me."
This process drastically differed from the Intelligence Community's normal procedures. Hand-picking a handful of analysts from
just three intelligence agencies to write such a controversial assessment went against standing rules to vet such analyses throughout
the Intelligence Community within its existing structure. The idea of using hand-picked intelligence analysts selected through
some unknown process to write an assessment on such a politically sensitive topic carries a strong stench of politicization .
A major problem with this process is that it gave John Brennan, CIA's hyper-partisan former director, enormous influence over
the drafting of the ICA. Given Brennan's scathing criticism of Mr. Trump before and after the election, he should have had no
role whatsoever in the drafting of this assessment. Instead, Brennan probably selected the CIA analysts who worked on the ICA
and reviewed and approved their conclusions .
The unusual way that the January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment was drafted raises major questions as to whether
it was rigged by the Obama administration to produce conclusions that would discredit the election outcome and Mr. Trump's presidency
."
("More indications Intel assessment of Russian interference in election was rigged", Fox News)
Repeat: "A politicized analysis that violated normal rules for crafting intelligence assessments." That says it all, doesn't
it?
Let's take a minute and review the main points in the article:
1–Was the Intelligence Community Assessment the summary work of all 17 US Intelligence Agencies?
No, it was not. "In his May 8 testimony to a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing, Clapper confirmed (that) the ICA reflected
the views of only three intelligence agencies - CIA, NSA and FBI – not all 17."
2–Did any of the analysts challenge the findings in the ICA?
No, the document failed to acknowledge any dissenting views, which suggests that the analysts were screened in order to create
consensus.
3– Were particular analysts chosen to produce the ICA?
Yes, they were "handpicked from the contributing agencies" and drafted the ICA "under the aegis of his former office" (the Office
of the Director of National Intelligence.)
4– Was their collaborative work released to the public in its original form?
No, their conclusions "were thoroughly vetted and then approved by the directors of the three agencies and me." (Clapper) This
of course suggests that the document was political in nature and crafted to deliver a particular message.
5–Were Clapper's methods "normal" by Intelligence agency standards?
Definitely not. "This process drastically differed from the Intelligence Community's normal procedures."
6–Are Clapper and Brennan partisans who have expressed their opposition to Trump many times in the past calling into question
their ability to be objective in executing their duties as heads of their respective agencies?
Absolutely. Check out this clip from Monday's Arkansas online:
"I think, in many ways, our institutions are under assault, both externally - and that's the big news here, is the Russian
interference in our election system," said James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence. "I think as well our institutions
are under assault internally."
When he was asked, "Internally, from the president?" Clapper said, "Exactly." (Clapper calls Trump democracy assailant", arkansasonline)
Brennan has made numerous similar statements. (Note: It is particularly jarring that Clapper– who oversaw the implementation of
the modern surveillance police state– feels free to talk about "the assault on our institutions.")
7–Does the ICA prove that anyone on the Trump campaign colluded with Russia or that Russia meddled in the 2016 elections?
No, it doesn't. What it shows is that –even while Clapper and Brennan may have been trying to produce an assessment that would
'kill two birds with one stone', (incriminate Russia and smear Trump at the same time) the ICA achieved neither. So far, there's
no proof of anything. Now take a look at this list I found in an article at The American Thinker:
"12 prominent public statements by those on both sides of the aisle who reviewed the evidence or been briefed on it confirmed
there was no evidence of Russia trying to help Trump in the election or colluding with him:
The New York Times (Nov 1, 2016);
House Speaker Paul Ryan (Feb, 26, 2017);
Former DNI James Clapper , March 5, 2017);
Devin Nunes Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, March 20, 2017);
James Comey, March 20, 2017;
Rep. Chris Stewart, House Intelligence Committee, March 20, 2017;
Rep. Adam Schiff, House Intelligence committee, April 2, 2017);
Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senate Intelligence Committee, May 3, 2017);
Sen. Joe Manchin Senate Intelligence Committee, May 8, 2017;
James Clapper (again) (May 8, 2017);
Rep. Maxine Waters, May 9, 2017);
President Donald Trump,(May 9, 2017).
Senator Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, indicated that his briefing confirmed Dianne Feinstein's view that
the President was not under investigation for colluding with the Russians."
("Russian Hacking and Collusion: Put the Cards on the Table", American Thinker)
Keep in mind, this is a list of the people who actually "reviewed the evidence", and even they are not convinced. It just goes
to show that the media blitz is not based on any compelling proof, but on the determination of behind-the-scenes elites who want
to destroy their political rivals. Isn't that what's really going on?
How does former FBI Director James Comey fit into all this?
First of all, we need to set the record straight on Comey so readers don't get the impression that he's the devoted civil servant
and all-around stand-up guy he's made out to be in the media. Here's a short clip from an article by Human Rights First that will
help to put things into perspective:
"Five former FBI agents raised concerns about his (Comey's) support for a legal memorandum justifying torture and his defense
of holding an American citizen indefinitely without charge. They note that Comey concurred with a May 10, 2005, Office of Legal
Counsel opinion that authorized torture. While the agents credited Comey for opposing torture tactics in combination and on policy
grounds, they note that Comey still approved the legal basis for use of specific torture tactics.
"These techniques include cramped confinement, wall-standing, water dousing, extended sleep deprivation, and waterboarding,
all of which constitute torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment in contravention of domestic and international law,"
the letter states.
Those signing the letter to the committee also objected to Comey's defense of detaining Americans without charge or trial and
observed, "Further, Mr. Comey vigorously defended the Bush administration's decision to hold Jose Padilla, a United States citizen
apprehended on U.S. soil, indefinitely without charge or trial for years in a military brig in Charleston, South Carolina." ("FBI
Agents Urge Senate Judiciary Committee to Question Comey on Torture, Indefinite Detention", Human Rights First)
Get the picture?
Comey is a vicious political opportunist who doesn't mind breaking a few legs if it'll advance his career plans. I wouldn't
trust the man as far as I could throw him. Which isn't far.
American Thinker's Clarice Feldman explains why Comey launched his counter-intel investigation in July 2016 but failed to notify
Congress until March 2017, a full eight months later. Here's what she said:
"There is only one reasonable explanation for FBI Director James Comey to be launching a counter-intel investigation in July
2016, notifying the White House and Clapper, and keeping it under wraps from congress. Comey was a participant in the intelligence
gathering for political purposes - wittingly, or unwittingly." ("Russian Hacking and Collusion: Put the Cards on the Table",
American Thinker)
Are we suggesting that the heads of the so called Intelligence Community are at war with the Trump Administration and paving
the way for impeachment proceedings?
Yep, we sure are. The Russia hacking fiasco is a regime change operation no different than the CIA's 50-or-so other oustings
in the last 70 years. The only difference is that this operation is on the home field which is why everyone is so flustered. These
things are only suppose to happen in those "other" countries.
Does this analysis make me a Donald Trump supporter?
Never. The idea is ridiculous. Trump might be the worst US president of all time, in fact, he probably is. But that doesn't
mean there aren't other nefarious forces at work behind the smokescreen of democratic government. There are. In fact, this whole
flap suggests that there's an alternate power-structure that operates completely off the public's radar and has the elected-government
in its death-grip. This largely invisible group of elites controls the likes of Brennan, Clapper and Comey. And, apparently, they
have enough influence to challenge and maybe even remove an elected president from office. (We'll see.)
American history is not silent about the proclivities of unchecked security forces, a short list of which includes the Palmer
Raids, the FBI's blackmailing of civil rights leaders, Army surveillance of the antiwar movement, the NSA's watch lists, and the
CIA's waterboarding. . Who would trust the authors of past episodes of repression as a reliable safeguard against future repression?"
("Security Breach– Trump's tussle with the bureaucratic state", Michael J. Glennon, Harper's Magazine)
Since that Fox News blockbuster report, the Rich-family private investigator, Rod Wheeler, has disavowed and retracted the
claims he had made earlier about Rich's contacts with WikiLeaks. So that's the end of that. The Rich family now has a DNC operative
as their spokesperson, who is representing the family pro bono.
This is a coup. We are now officially Turkey, where the secret police and the army high command feel entitled to 'vet'
our elected leaders, and overthrow them if they deem it necessary.
In case there was any doubt, the constitution is now officially dead. We are a dictatorship run by the deep state.
As to, "Where are the journalists?" there was a classified annex to the PATRIOT that outlawed journalism. That's why you haven't
seen any in the US for years. They tried to spread its reach to the world by a secret annex to FATCA, but that effort has largely
been limited to the wimps in Europe.
sadly mike we are witnessing the several thousand strong bipartisan establishment rather destroy the united states as a
governable nation instead of reforming themselves by putting the country first instead of their own venal interest.
imo its hopeless. within a decade or two the usa is done as a superpower perhaps even a nation of the first rank. the way washington
projects its power is through the us dollar as reserve currency. for now there is no substitute.
once the dollar rallies strongly in the next few years as the euro project implodes and frightened money comes here looking
for safety our exports from a high dollar will make for a profoundly deflationary evironment and doom our economy and with it
out ability project power.
our military is already a bit of a joke capable of only defeating the semi disarmed and poorly led. against true adversaries
like russia and china the pentagon won't even attempt a confrontation knowing they can not win.
forget the internecine warfare going on in america. it is cancer cells attacking the remnants of a healthy american host and
the media opinion makers are rooting for cancer to win.
watch the dollar over the next few years as it rises in value our american future will grow dimmer. by 203? it will be lights
here.
@Mark Caplan Since that Fox News blockbuster report, the Rich-family private investigator, Rod Wheeler, has disavowed and
retracted the claims he had made earlier about Rich's contacts with WikiLeaks. So that's the end of that. The Rich family
now has a DNC operative as their spokesperson, who is representing the family pro bono.
This largely invisible group of elites controls the likes of Brennan, Clapper and Comey. And, apparently, they have enough
influence to challenge and maybe even remove an elected president from office. (We'll see.)
Well, I'm pretty convinced they removed 2 presidents in my lifetime. The first with extreme prejudice, namely JFK, and
the 2nd somewhat less extremely, namely Nixon. They then gave Reagan & Clinton a damn good scare and forced them to come around
to seeing the world as they wanted it seen.
Frankly, I am greatly heartened by this recent brouhaha. That "invisible group" are outing themselves. By the ferocity
and volume of their totally overblown, caricaturized(sp?) accusations, they're making their existence and program pretty plain
to alert citizens, and by continuing along this path they'll cause more and more of the inattentive to awaken. Now, even the likes
of CNBC are suggesting that the assault on Trump looks more like a coup than partisan political infighting.
They're in the process of transforming themselves from subjects of conspiracy theories, to mainstream political players.
Maybe it's sooner than planned, and perhaps a little more chaotically than they would have wished, but the combination of geopolitical
& economic/financial pressures with the rise of the Trumpian Deplorables has forced their hand. Should they ever get to end of
that process, America will be indistinguishable from Orwell's Oceania. The question is what can stop them?
Whether he won the popular vote or not, it is clear that Trump has a massive voter base that knows, however vaguely, that there
is an Everglades' worth of something long past rotten in DC.
That base is growing, thanks in very large part to the invisible group's damn-the-torpedoes onslaught. I doubt the awakening
is big enough today to put a million armed Deplorables on Capital Hill, but if these invisible elites continue to flounder like
this, they may awaken just enough of the population to make that possible.
And then, the gates of hell break open in America.
@Seamus Padraig This is a coup. We are now officially Turkey, where the secret police and the army high command feel entitled
to 'vet' our elected leaders, and overthrow them if they deem it necessary.
In case there was any doubt, the constitution is now officially dead. We are a dictatorship run by the deep state.
Assuming this is the case, are you going to sit there and take it like an impotent chump? Or, since you are imprisoned in
this cage, will you channel your inner white rage and lead the charge to rid yourself from those who control you?
Post your address, tough guy, and we'll find out.
Frankly, I am greatly heartened by this recent brouhaha. That "invisible group" are outing themselves. By the ferocity and
volume of their totally overblown, caricaturized(sp?) accusations, they're making their existence and program pretty plain
to alert citizens, and by continuing along this path they'll cause more and more of the inattentive to awaken. Now, even the
likes of CNBC are suggesting that the assault on Trump looks more like a coup than partisan political infighting.
Right; (((Big Media))) and the ruling class are spending a Hell of a lot of legitimacy on the campaign against Trump. And
they've been bleeding legitimacy for years as it was.
Whether he won the popular vote or not, it is clear that Trump has a massive voter base that knows, however vaguely, that
there is an Everglades' worth of something long past rotten in DC.
I keep trying to explain this "popular vote" thing: The Electoral College system is essentially mandatory voting: every person
casts a vote via the electoral college, whether they actually fill out a ballot or not. Choosing not to fill out a ballot is a
vote for "I'll go with the majority's decision." The entire population of the United States of America is represented in this
process: everyone is either a proxy (voter), or has his vote cast by a proxy.
The "popular vote" mantra is the scuzzbucket Democrat way of dismissing the legitimacy of the people who vote by proxy. It's
Democrats' way of saying these people don't matter. And this from the party that claims to support mandatory voting!
The will of the people is expressed in the Electoral College. And in the 2016 election, that will very much favored Trump over
Clinton.
@Corvinus "I doubt the awakening is big enough today to put a million armed Deplorables on Capital Hill, but if these invisible
elites continue to flounder like this, they may awaken just enough of the population to make that possible."
But isn't the time now to drain this swamp? Why wait? I mean, we live in a dictatorship. Our liberty has been stripped away.
We have nothing left. The future for our children is grim. How much longer will the Jews and the elites and the banksters strong
arm us into submission? I keep hearing how our overlords are hell bent on eradicating the white race, and that we are well on
our way to becoming Brazil. What awakening will it take for YOU to leave your armchair and become a warrior?
There are honestly serious questions. I would like to know your thoughts.
As this seems to be addressed to me, I'll say that I did not misunderstand either the legal-constitutional concept of the
Electoral College, or its workings. I know well that Trump won the election as defined by the American Constitution. Perhaps
I should have said " won the popular vote count ".
As for "I'll go with the majority's decision.", that pretty much applies to any "first past the post" electoral system.
My point is that talk of "the popular vote" should be met with derision, not entertained or repeated.
I think your all crazy there. I was born in Canada of Scottish decent, and I won't go to the States anymore. You are a military
dictatorship and gun worshipers. It's like being a dutch farmer hearing about the candle-light vigils of the NAZI's from Holland
mid last century. I tell my family to stay away.
@Carlton Meyer Private investigator Rod Wheeler made a few bucks doing an investigation, but soon realized that he stirred
up a high-level hornets nest. Whoever killed Rich would not hesitate to threaten Wheeler or his family or his pension. Suddenly,
Wheeler recants everything that he recently put in writing, with no explanation. Soon he will claim that he never did the investigation
and has never even been to DC.
The author says that if he worked for media or FBI he'd be beating the bushes. Nope. Simple logic. If the Russian hacking
version is true, there's no reason to beat the bushes. Everything coming out of media and FBI is true.
If it's not true, then Seth Rich was killed by the Clintons, which is consistent with a 40 year history of Clinton mafia
action. If you work in media or FBI, you KNOW FOR SURE that the Clintons kill their enemies. You don't want to die, so you go
along with the official line.
Those are the two possibilities. Neither one leads to public exposure of truth.
All the neocons/SJW/neoliberals (pretty much all the same thing now) don't believe in a nation yet they still believe in
"national security", I don't think it will be too long until the term is replaced with a more acceptable (according to them) "global
security".
@Corvinus "I doubt the awakening is big enough today to put a million armed Deplorables on Capital Hill, but if these invisible
elites continue to flounder like this, they may awaken just enough of the population to make that possible."
But isn't the time now to drain this swamp? Why wait? I mean, we live in a dictatorship. Our liberty has been stripped
away. We have nothing left. The future for our children is grim. How much longer will the Jews and the elites and the banksters
strong arm us into submission? I keep hearing how our overlords are hell bent on eradicating the white race, and that we are well
on our way to becoming Brazil. What awakening will it take for YOU to leave your armchair and become a warrior?
There are honestly serious questions. I would like to know your thoughts.
It is incomprehensible to me why USA citizens who want the truth bother with details since Sept 11. Anyone with the guts
to see through propaganda now knows what USA politicians and media are capable of. Even those who refuse to see Sept 11 for what
it is, must see the mess the USA created, still creates, in Middle East, and North Africa, soon also in middle Africa, when the
drone base in Nigeria will be in operation.
It is quite possible that Russia tried to influence USA elections, as Obama did with the French. The difference is only
that the USA is entitled to do such things, but not Russia.
I still hope that Trump wants good, normal, relations with Russia, as long as I can keep this hope, Deep State will try to
remove Trump one way or another, and will continue the anti Russian propaganda. Once Trump is removed, the war can begin. As Sol
Bloom, a friend of Roosevelt, writes in his memoirs, 'the great accomplishment of Roosevelt was to prepare the USA people slowly
for war'. We now can write 'the great accomplishment of CNN, Washpost and NYT, is to prepare the USA people for war against Russia'.
"Trump might be the worst US president of all time, in fact, he probably is."
I am no fan of Trump, but how can anyone make such a statement concerning someone that has only been in office for 4 months?
I have noticed Whitney's writing before. He has ridiculous comments inserted in with lucid ones. I wonder if his residence in
Washington State is the cause of his delusions?
We are now officially Turkey, where the secret police and the army high command feel entitled to 'vet' our elected leaders,
and overthrow them if they deem it necessary.
That statement is confused on so many levels. I haven't seen one convincing analysis of the recent failed coup in Turkey, but
my impression is that they were Kemalists, wanting to get rid of Sultan Erdogan for very good reasons. Erdogan claims it was due
to his fellow Islamist, Gulen. Point is, the coup was a massive failure, and almost certainly incited by those loyal to Erdogan,
as a piece of theatre to maximise the vote for him in his referendum to assume despotic power.
He has sacked hundreds of thousands, military, judicial, and civil service, arrested tens of thousands, closed many educational
institutions. None of that in the USA.
As a sympathizer with constitutionalist, freedom-loving, and oppressed USA people, it is clear that if Trump were at all sincere
about his campaign promises, he needs to do a much better job of decapitating the political appointees in the civil service (unlike
the victims in Turkey, no tears need be shed, they would all end up in other kinds of overly remunerated playtime).
He would do well to cut fed. money for the courses in culti-Marxi, etc., and to universities emphasizing that. Since none of
that is going to happen (unfortunately) there may be another key factor. Turkey was best buddies with Israel for a long time,
and almost has returned to that. They were never a colony of Israel. The USA is. Witness Prex Trump's craven obsequiousness right
now (or in the last 24 hours). The tail that wags the dog, indeed.
Jan 2, 2017 BOOM! CNN Caught Using Video Game Image In Fake Russian Hacking Story
It looks like CNN Has tried to pull the wool over our eyes once again. This time, they used a screenshot from the Fallout
4 Video game to paint the picture of Russian Hacking. To bad that's not what a real hacking screen looks like. And an image you
will only find in the video game!
December 28, 2016 OUTRAGEOUS: Election hacks traced back to Obama's Department of Homeland Security
In an unbelievable development that ought to outrage every single American, election officials in Georgia are essentially accusing
the Obama administration of attempting to hack into the state's electronic balloting machines in what appears to be a naked political
ploy.
Jan 3, 2017 With Rule 41 the FBI Is Now Officially the Enemy of All Computer Users
Rick Falkvinge, founder of the original pirate party and head of privacy at PrivateInternetAccess com, joins us to discuss
his recent article, "Today, the FBI becomes the enemy of every computer user and every IT security professional worldwide."
@Carlton Meyer Private investigator Rod Wheeler made a few bucks doing an investigation, but soon realized that he stirred
up a high-level hornets nest. Whoever killed Rich would not hesitate to threaten Wheeler or his family or his pension. Suddenly,
Wheeler recants everything that he recently put in writing, with no explanation. Soon he will claim that he never did the investigation
and has never even been to DC.
Must adding, another very good article from Mike Whitney.
Assange, a man of impeccable integrity?
It is Julian, not Julien.
I cannot vouch for impeccable. As a hacker, sure, no approval of the fraud types (minuscule at the time, but there). Past that
slight connection at second-degree of separation, he is the media figure to me. Doesn't like to wash, so a dirty hippy. Reportedly
extremely smelly. I would imagine the Ecuadorian embassy has house-trained him.
Attempts at political treatises are sub-undergraduate and pompous. Led by his penis, thus the trap in Sweden. Also done some
great things, and been betrayed by MSM organisations (NYT and Guardian come to mind, in particular, the latter never shut up about
the false rape charges). Now that those are over, it would be beautiful if Queen Elizabeth would grant him a pardon for his default
on bail.
The electoral college is the "equalizer" which forces the candidates to campaign in all 50 states
That's the theory. The reality is more like:
The electoral college is the "equalizer" which forces the candidates to campaign in all 15 battleground states
or better still:
The electoral college is the "equalizer" which forces the candidates to campaign in all 5 states (CO, FL, NV, OH, VA) that
have been truly competitive over the last five presidential elections
@anarchyst The electoral college was put in place to keep the major population centers from determining the vote. Without
the electoral college, the prospective presidential candidates would only have to cater to the major population centers and could
safely ignore "flyover country", as the east and west coasts would have enough "clout" to determine the direction of the vote.
The electoral college is the "equalizer" which forces the candidates to campaign in all 50 states...
What awakening will it take for YOU to leave your armchair and become a warrior?
Being neither American, nor living anywhere near it, the only dog I have in what is still an internal American struggle is that
I live on the same planet. America being what it is, it's (what I believe to be) existential struggle may well spill over its
borders to impact all, in some cases violently.
So, I throw the question (quite seriously) backatchya. Will the Deplorables put their money on the table, and at what point will
they do that?
But isn't the time now to drain this swamp? Why wait?
The swamp's ooze has permeated all of the power structures of the body politic, and its vapours much of the society. It cannot
be drained in a day, and it cannot be drained without massive dislocation of both America's geo-political position, and its national
cohesion. To "drain the swamp" is to manage the dissolution of a global empire while the resulting centrifugal forces work to
tear the homeland apart.
The USA electoral system dates back to the time individual states were important. The GB system, the same. The French system,
to the time De Gaulle wanted powers to be able to rule the country.
Generals fight the last war, just German generals in WWII had no experience in WWI, as had French genererals, so German tanks
were more than twice as fast as French tanks, and the German system for fuelling tanks, jerrycans, was so much faster than the
French system, tank lorries, with a waiting line, that France could be overrun.
At present in Europe we see that the election system is such that the majority in countried with high unemployment, the southern
countries, those in the ages of 18 to 35 or so, are contemplating rebellion.
At the same time, the euro is the cause of the unemployment, devaluation impossible, to make the country competitive in a moment,
Schäuble, a euro profiteer, is talking about 'strenghtening the euro zone'.
@Erebus Since Wheeler and the Riches found the dead horse heads at the foot of their beds, things started happening...
Kim Dotcom announced he's prepared to submit written testimony, with real evidence to Congress should they include Seth Rich's
death in their probe into Russian election tampering.
I knew Seth Rich. I know he was the @Wikileaks source. I was involved. https://t.co/MbGQteHhZM
- Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) May 20, 2017
I'm meeting my legal team on Monday. I will issue a statement about #SethRich on Tuesday. Please be patient. This needs
to be done properly.
- Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) May 20, 2017
Then, Newt Gingrich, on Fox News, , "... (Rich) was assassinated at 4 in the morning after having giving Wikileaks something
like 53,000 emails and 17,000 attachments. Nobody's investigating that. And what does that tell you about what is going on?"
Well, we know that Kim's chances of attracting Congressional interest was just about nil, but then Sean Hannity invited Dotcom
to discuss his evidence in the Seth Rich case on his shows.
Stay tuned. Public invitation Kim Dotcom to be a guest on radio and TV. #GameChanger Buckle up destroy Trump media. Sheep that
u all are!!! https://t.co/3qLwXCGl6z
- Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) May 20, 2017
Most recently, he tweeted:
Complete panic has set in at the highest levels of the Democratic Party. Any bets when the kitchen sink is dumped on my head??
https://t.co/Zt2gIX4zyq
- Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) May 22, 2017
So, I'm taking heart. The swamp may be getting warm.
God help the Dems because this man certainly will not
Notable quotes:
"... three House Democrats involved in mapping out the party's strategy to win in 2018 are going to make a pilgrimage to Chicago to seek out the advice of none other than Mayor Rahm Emanuel" [ Fusion ]. Please kill me now. ..."
"... It seems to me that both the AEI comment and Rahm Emmanuel case are evidence of the same basic problem. In both cases the parties or party establishments have actually lost their ability to understand people outside of them. While there was some initial hope that the Trumpquake would shake things up it appears that in both cases the establishments have hardened their navel gaze. ..."
"DNC reports worst April of fundraising since 2009" [
Washington Examiner ]. True, these things fluctuate, but DNC fundraising should be through the
roof, right? Idea: Focus more on Putin.
"In a break from
recent tradition , the Democrats are planning to widely expand the number of districts they plan
to contest in the 2018 midterm elections. But, in a sign that not every tried-and-true Democratic
instinct is being thrown out, they're planning on dumpster diving for help doing it, with Politico
reporting that three House Democrats involved in mapping out the party's strategy to win in 2018
are going to make
a pilgrimage to Chicago to seek out the advice of none other than Mayor Rahm Emanuel" [
Fusion ]. Please kill me now.
(
Some fun Rahm anecdotes here , including the one where he calls "liberals" - that is, anybody
to his left - "f*#king retards." So, phase one would be to unify the party, phase two would be to
get the left out on the trail campaigning for the Democrat Establishment, and phase three would be
to kick the left, which is just what Rahm did after the last wave election (Pelosi, too).
"Florida Democratic Party Exec: Poor Voters Don't Care About 'Issues,' Vote Based on 'Emotions'"
[
Miami New Times ]. "Last night, the party's new second-in-command, Sally Boynton Brown, spoke
in front of the Democratic Progressive Caucus of Broward County. And throughout the exchange, she
steadfastly refused to commit to changing the party's economic or health-care messaging in any concrete
way .
Brown, the former executive director of the Idaho Democratic Party, was hired last month to take
over for the outgoing executive director, Scott Arceneaux. Last night was her first encounter with
local progressives, who are already disgruntled after Stephen Bittel - a billionaire real-estate
developer, gas station franchiser, environmental dredging company executive, and major political
donor - was elected to serve as party chair earlier this year.
Many progressives accused him of buying his way into the job via campaign donations." Read the
whole thing. It's vile.
It seems to me that both the AEI comment and Rahm Emmanuel case are evidence of the same
basic problem. In both cases the parties or party establishments have actually lost their ability
to understand people outside of them. While there was some initial hope that the Trumpquake would
shake things up it appears that in both cases the establishments have hardened their navel gaze.
Consider the AEI. While we have come to expect dismissal of sick people as just numbers or
the "perhaps 1-2 million" this misses the greater points. First is it not merely "1-2 million"
but likely much larger given the broad definition of "pre-existing condition" that is in the actual
bills. Second that is >1-2 million people who have families and friends and communities who up
until now have often been picking up the slack, or trying to. And third, we are stuck quibbling
about the cost of a few million "uninsured" and never ever considering whether or not insurance
is even the right mechanism.
As to the Democrats, they are still sending me emails from James Carville so compared to that
Rahm Emmanuel is practically young hip and in touch.
And as to Rahm Emmanuel, forget the hippie punching isn't Homan square enough? What will he
be in charge of minority outreach?
@Carlton Meyer Private investigator Rod Wheeler made a few bucks doing an investigation, but
soon realized that he stirred up a high-level hornets nest. Whoever killed Rich would not hesitate
to threaten Wheeler or his family or his pension. Suddenly, Wheeler recants everything that he
recently put in writing, with no explanation. Soon he will claim that he never did the investigation
and has never even been to DC.
Compare this with his unflattering assessment of Hillary released in leaked emails from his Google account. Would it so good if
hillary was elected ?
The fact that NYT and WaPo suffered some reputational damage, if true (I think NYT time expanded its circulation during this period)
is encouraging as they both were in bed with Hillary. essentially a part of Hillary campaign staff. That means more power to the Internet
media. While I don't approve of Trump's cavalier joke suggesting that the Russians find and turn over the emails that were destroyed
by Clinton, I think it's a very, very big stretch to combine the fact that the DNC obviously plotted to undermine Sanders with the failure
of the staff to repel predictable hacking and conclude that the person at fault here is Donald Trump.
"He suggested that the media should have helped the Clinton campaign fuel the Russian angle, instead of reporting on his emails."
-- this is not a suggestion, this is "Podesta strategy", which actually was successfully implemented. russian witch hunt as the mean
to distruct attention from Hillary email and DNC corruption. "Look, a squirrel" type, "turd blossom" style political hack. The extent
to which that narrative is working is an indictment of the US MSM
As for "an "echo system" ... that raised the social media profile of articles that were damaging to Democrats." such echo system
emerge for any society in crisis. This was true for the USSR after 70th, this is true for the USA in 2010th. Neoliberal society is in
crisis, both ideological, political and economical. Neoliberal globalization is under direct attack (Brexit, Trump election)
Notable quotes:
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Podesta explained that it was one more example of how the Russians were "very active in propagating and distributing fake news,
working with these alt-right sites in conjunction with them." He also cited an "echo system" created by the Russians that raised the
social media profile of articles that were damaging to Democrats. ..."
"... He pointed out that "legitimate sites" like the Washington Post ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... He suggested that the media should have helped the Clinton campaign fuel the Russian angle, instead of reporting on his emails.
..."
"... "I think if you contextualize it - if you say that 'The Russians are coming,' and 'The Russians are here' - that can give people
a sense of that they need to be more careful in the way they assess what they're hearing and what they're seeing and what's being peddled,"
he said. ..."
"... He described the period of leaks as "the Soviet days" and griped that the "low burn" of email stories helped revive questions
about Clinton's own private emails. ..."
"... "We hadn't put it to bed completely," he admitted. ..."
Hillary Clinton's former campaign chief John Podesta attacked the First Amendment rights of the free press as he continued to
spin his conspiracy theory of Russia colluding with American news websites to damage Democrats.
During a conversation with the
Washington Post 's Karen Tumulty, he cited the "participation and the support of the alt-right media," naming "guys
like Sean Hannity" and "disgusting" Newt Gingrich for helping spread "fake news" to hurt Democrats. He specifically criticized Hannity
and Gingrich for asking questions about DNC staffer Seth Rich's murder and whether or not it had a connection with Wikileaks.
Podesta explained that it was one more example of how the Russians were "very active in propagating and distributing fake
news, working with these alt-right sites in conjunction with them." He also cited an "echo system" created by the Russians that raised
the social media profile of articles that were damaging to Democrats.
He pointed out that "legitimate sites" like the Washington Post and the New York Times suffered, as other
"alt-right" websites got more traction during the election.
Podesta blamed websites in the United States for publishing emails from Emmanuel Macron during the French presidential election
to influence the outcome.
"The first reports of them came from U.S. alt-right sites back into France," he said. "This is a global phenomena."
He praised the French media for helping censor the information to stop it from damaging Macron's campaign.
"I think unfortunately for us, but maybe fortunately for the world, I think the French press was more sensitive to it," he said,
praising them for helping Macron "win by a landslide" after censoring their reporting on the hacked emails.
He suggested that the American media should have done the same things with his leaked emails.
"I didn't feel like that really happened last fall the mainstream U.S. press was much more interested in the gossip," he said.
Podesta warned the media about Russia's efforts to use the emails to hurt Democrats, pointedly directing them to be more responsible.
He suggested that the media should have helped the Clinton campaign fuel the Russian angle, instead of reporting on his emails.
"I think if you contextualize it - if you say that 'The Russians are coming,' and 'The Russians are here' - that can give
people a sense of that they need to be more careful in the way they assess what they're hearing and what they're seeing and what's
being peddled," he said.
He described the period of leaks as "the Soviet days" and griped that the "low burn" of email stories helped revive questions
about Clinton's own private emails.
"We hadn't put it to bed completely," he admitted.
Despite the pleas of a grieving family, and the growing unease of his own employer, right-wing commentator Sean Hannity insists
he willnot back down from his increasingly problematic claims that Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich was slain last
summer because he'd leaked information to Wikileaks. His murderers, in this warped version of the story, are presumably liberal operatives
out for silence and revenge.
"I retracted nothing," Hannity said on Tuesday afternoon. The defiant statement was in response to Fox News retracting a story,
published last week, that suggested Rich had been in contact with Wikileaks.
Fox
News posted a statement on its website that said, in part :"The article was not initially subjected to the high degree of editorial
scrutiny we require for all our reporting. Upon appropriate review, the article was found not to meet those standards and has since
been removed."
Nobody has done more to promulgate the Seth Rich conspiracy theory than Hannity, who believes that a link between the DNC staffer
and Wikileaks would absolve the Trump administration of charges of collusion with Russia. That suggests, however, a cynically simplistic
understanding of the investigation into the Trump campaign's ties to Russia. More troublingly, it relies on a wholly invented narrative
about Rich's tragic death, which appears to have taken place during a late-nightrobbery gone horribly awry.
"I feel so badly for this family and what they have been through," Hannity said on his radio show on Tuesday afternoon. A little
later, he hinted at why he has insistently peddled the ugly conspiracy theory: "This issue is so big now that the entire Russia collusion
narrative is hanging by a thread."
That seems unlikely, given the appointment of former FBI director Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate ties between
the Trump campaign and Russia, which many believe to be extensive and some think could be criminal. A few even believe they may be
grounds for impeachment.
"... Having just noticed the latest by-line in Antiwar.com, I am forced to raise the question we should all be asking ourselves
"Was it Russia or was it .. Seth Rich ? " ..."
"... If there was indeed a "soft coup" in our country, did it not occur at the DNC convention when our back room oligarchs decided
to "putsch" Bernie Sanders out of the race, and gift the nomination to Hillary ? ..."
"... Was it not Bernie Sanders who was igniting the young progressive liberal base by the tens of millions ? Was it not Bernie who
was gaining enormous momentum as the race for the nomination went on ? Was it not Bernie's "message" that began to ring true for so
many voters across the country ? ..."
"... The homicide detective hired by the family , also pointed out, after doing some rudimentary due diligence, that word had come
down through the DC mayor's office to stymie its own detectives in the murder investigation of Mr. Rich. Strange thing, especially when
we are dealing with a homicide .No, Mr Giraldi ? If the Seth Rich murder was a "botched robbery" as is claimed, why won't the DC police
release Seth's laptop computer to his family ? ..."
Certainly writers like Robert Parry and Ray Mcgovern, as well as yourself, have earned the highest of marks from internet readers
around the globe, anxious for some integrity of analysis , as they seek to understand our nation's policy decisions. As long as
gentlemen like you, as well as others, keep writing , you will find your readership growing at an exponential rate.
Having just noticed the latest by-line in Antiwar.com, I am forced to raise the question we should all be asking ourselves
"Was it Russia or was it .. Seth Rich ? "
If there was indeed a "soft coup" in our country, did it not occur at the DNC convention when our back room oligarchs decided
to "putsch" Bernie Sanders out of the race, and gift the nomination to Hillary ?
Was it not Bernie Sanders who was igniting the young progressive liberal base by the tens of millions ? Was it not Bernie
who was gaining enormous momentum as the race for the nomination went on ? Was it not Bernie's "message" that began to ring true
for so many voters across the country ?
Was it not Bernie Sanders who may well have swept the DNC nomination, were it not for the "dirty pool" being played out in
the back room ?.
According to the retired homicide detective, hired by the family of Seth Rich to investigate their son's bizarre murder, it
was Seth Rich who WAS in contact with Wikileaks.
(For all those who don't know who Seth Rich was , he was the 27 year old "voter data director" at the DNC, shot to death on
july 10, 2016, in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington D.C.)
In an interview three days after Seth Rich was found dead, Julian Assange intimated, too, that Seth Rich HAD contacted Wikileaks
.NOT Russia.
The homicide detective hired by the family , also pointed out, after doing some rudimentary due diligence, that word had
come down through the DC mayor's office to stymie its own detectives in the murder investigation of Mr. Rich. Strange thing, especially
when we are dealing with a homicide .No, Mr Giraldi ? If the Seth Rich murder was a "botched robbery" as is claimed, why won't
the DC police release Seth's laptop computer to his family ?
We are all aware there were "shenanigans" going on in the DNC that put the kibosh on the Bernie nomination.(we all know this)
This makes sense too, given the fact that the DNC party bosses and their oligarchs, wanted Bernie running in the general election
against the Donald like they wanted a "hole in the head". What we "cannot" see ..is how decisive Bernie's margin of victory might
have been, Nor can we see what "crimes" were committed to ensure Hillary's run at the W. H. It is not much of a stretch to assume
Seth Rich had hard evidence, perhaps of multiple counts of treasonous fraud and other sorted felonies that would have brought
down "the back room" of the DNC.
Not good for the party..not good for its oligarchs .and not good for their Hillary anointment.
"Russia-gate" may prove to be the most concerted effort, by the powers that be, to DEFLECT from an investigation into their
OWN "real"criminality .
How savvy and how clever they are to manipulate the public's perceptions, through Big Media, by grafting the allegations of
the very crimes they may well have committed .onto Russia, the Donald, and Vladimir Putin.
Clever, clever, clever.
Can any of us imagine, how cold a day in hell it will be before Rachel Maddow(or any MSM "journalist") asks some basic questions
about the Seth Rich laptop .or what was on it ?
"... Then, Newt Gingrich, on Fox News, says: " (Rich) was assassinated at 4 in the morning after having giving Wikileaks something
like 53,000 emails and 17,000 attachments. Nobody's investigating that. And what does that tell you about what is going on?" ..."
"... Well, we know that Kim's chances of attracting Congressional interest was just about nil, but then Sean Hannity invited Dotcom
to discuss his evidence in the Seth Rich case on his shows. ..."
"... Complete panic has set in at the highest levels of the Democratic Party. Any bets when the kitchen sink is dumped on my head?
..."
Private investigator Rod Wheeler made a few bucks doing an investigation, but soon realized that he stirred
up a high-level hornets nest. Whoever killed Rich would not hesitate to threaten Wheeler or his family or his pension. Suddenly,
Wheeler recants everything that he recently put in writing, with no explanation. Soon he will claim that he never did the investigation
and has never even been to DC.
Since Wheeler and the Riches found the dead horse heads at the foot of their beds, things started happening
Kim Dotcom announced he's prepared to submit written testimony, with real evidence to Congress should they include Seth Rich's
death in their probe into Russian election tampering.
I knew Seth Rich. I know he was the @Wikileaks source. I was involved.
https://t.co/MbGQteHhZM
- Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) May 20, 2017
I'm meeting my legal team on Monday. I will issue a statement about #SethRich on Tuesday. Please be patient. This needs
to be done properly.
- Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) May 20, 2017
Then, Newt Gingrich, on Fox News, says: " (Rich) was assassinated at 4 in the morning after having giving Wikileaks something
like 53,000 emails and 17,000 attachments. Nobody's investigating that. And what does that tell you about what is going on?"
Well, we know that Kim's chances of attracting Congressional interest was just about nil, but then Sean Hannity invited
Dotcom to discuss his evidence in the Seth Rich case on his shows.
Stay tuned. Public invitation Kim Dotcom to be a guest on radio and TV. #GameChanger Buckle up destroy Trump media. Sheep
that u all are!!! https://t.co/3qLwXCGl6z
- Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) May 20, 2017
Most recently, he tweeted:
Complete panic has set in at the highest levels of the Democratic Party. Any bets when the kitchen sink is dumped on
my head?? https://t.co/Zt2gIX4zyq
- Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) May 22, 2017
So, I'm taking heart. The swamp may be getting warm.
She, and Whitney, include the principals (primary sources) and their witness and actions:
Julian Assange -recipient of Democratic emails. Gavin MacFadyen -alleged recipient of Seth Rich's emails according to law enforcement
source. Craig Murray -recipient of Democratic emails in a DC park.
Now we have another man claiming to be a principal, Kim Dotcom. Says he was a friend of Seth's and worked on the leak. He has
lived in New Zealand since 2010, I believe. The main principal, Julian Assange, just spoke out again on Seth Rich, seemingly in
response to Kim, that informants may have spoken to others, but they don't out leakers.
Anyway, as always, keep your eye on the principals.
Written by: Diana West
Saturday, May 20, 2017 12:23 PM
June 14, 2016 : The Washington Post
reports "Russian government hackers penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National Committee." On what did the paper
base this claim? The Post cites "committee officials and security experts who responded to the breach."
These "security experts" are with CrowdStrike, a private cyber security firm hired and paid by the DNC.
While reading the following chronology, it is important to bear in mind that the FBI has never examined the DNC computer
network because the DNC prohibited the FBI from doing so. Also, that the FBI, under former Director Comey, not to mention
former President Obama and the "Intelligence Community," thought this was perfectly ok.
In the June 14, 2016 story, DNC chief executive Amy Dacey explained to the Post what happened after she received a call from "her
operations chief" about "unusual network activity" noticed by the IT team in "late April."
That evening , she spoke with Michael Sussman, a DNC lawyer who is a partner with Perkins Coie in Washington. Soon after, Sussmann,
a former federal prosecutor who handled computer crime cases, called [ CrowdStrike president Shawn Henry], whom he has known for
many years.
I highlight "that evening" "DNC lawyer" "Perkins Coie" "Crowdstrike" and "many years" to highlight the political nature of this
chain of damage control.Dacey spoke with Sussman, the DNC lawyer, that evening -- instead of, say , the FBI cyber
crime unit that day. As a Perkins Coie partner, Sussmann is with the leadingDemocrat law firm: Perkins Coie has produced an
Obama White House Counsel; a lawyer to ferry that copy of Obama's "birth certificate" from Hawaii to the White House; and it has
represented the DNC, Democrats in Congress, Obama's presidential campaign, and, at that moment in June 2016, the Clinton presidential
campaign.
With all of those Democrat interests in mind, the DNC and Perkins Coie chose to turn to CrowdStrike. Who, what is Crowdstrike?
Here is one hair-raising theory.
It is a fact that CrowdStrike's Moscow-born co-founder
Dmitri Alperovitch is a nonresident
senior fellow of the Atlantic Council, a globalist, interventionist and swampist think tank, which gave Hillary Clinton its Distinguished
International Leadership Award in 2013.
The political nature of the DNC's choice of a politically connected cyber-security firm itself is not surprising; what is five-alarm-shocking,
though, is that the FBI has never verified the firm's "Russian hacking" findings.
June 22, 2016: John Ashe dies of his throat being crushed by a barbell at his home shortly before appearing in court with co-defendant
Ng Lap Seng in a fraud case alleging payola to the late UN official. As New York Post notes: "Seng was identified in a 1998 Senate
report as the source of hundreds of thousands of dollars illegally funneled through an Arkansas restaurant owner, Charlie Trie, to
the Democratic National Committee during the Clinton administration."
June 27, 2016: Bill Clinton and AG Loretta Lynch meet privately in her jet on the tarmac in Phoenix, AZ.
July 5, 2016 : FBI Director Comey holds a press conference enumerating Secretary Clinton's "extremely careless" handling of classified
and secret information, announcing:
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment
is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
July 10, 2016 : DNC staffer Seth Rich, whose title is reported as "voter expansion data director," is murdered in the street near
his home in Washington, DC. The police will attribute his murder to robbery, although nothing was stolen from Rich. His murder remains
unsolved.
Here, thanks to William Craddick of
Disobedient Media , is the crime report, which tells us that three of the officers at the scene were wearing body cams.
July 12, 2016 : Bernie Sanders endorses Hillary Clinton
July 22, 2016 : It is three days before the start of DNC convention, and
Wikileaks starts releasing 44,053 emails and 17,761 attachments from
the Democratic National Committee. The emails document the DNC's efforts to sink Bernie Sanders' primary run against Hillary Clinton.
DNC chairmanWasserman Schultz will resign over this election-meddling scandal within the week.
July 23, 2016 : A spate of Trump-Putin stories
begins
to appear about now, including FP's Julia Ioffe's piece titled, "Is Trump a Russian Stooge?" A deflection to "Russian hacking"
from DNC primary-rigging is immediately apparent, at least
on the Left
: "So what was once dismissed out of hand -- that the DNC was actively working against the Sanders campaign -- is now obviously
true, but not a big deal."
July 25, 2016 : Sanders supporters boo DNC chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz off the stage at national convention event over Wikileaks
revelations of DNC collusion in Hillary Clinton's favor. W-S resigns from the DNC on July 28, 2016.
August 1, 2016: Peter Schweizer publishes "
From Russia with Money,
" a stunning report on Clinton cronyism and corruption detailing multiple and profitable connections between Hillary Clinton,
the Clinton Foundation, John Podesta, and Russia. (
More info on Podesta and his Russian business dealings will followfrom Wikileaks.) Hillary-tanked MSM ignore evidence of "Russian
influence" on Clinton and Podesta both.
On or about August 9, 2016 : During an interview (video above), Julian Assange brings up the recent murder of DNC staffer Seth
Rich while discussing the great risks Wikileaks sources take. Wikileaks will contribute $20,000 to what grows to more $125,000 in
reward money for information leading to arrest of the murderer(s) of Seth Rich. According to private investigator Rod Wheeler, no
one has come forward to try to claim the money.
September 5, 2016: Washington Post
reports DNI James Clapper is leading an investigation into Russian efforts to "sow distrust" in the presidential election and
U.S. institutions.
The Kremlin's intent may not be to sway the election in one direction or another, officials said, but to cause chaos and provide
propaganda fodder to attack U.S. democracy-building policies around the world, particularly in the countries of the former Soviet
Union.
U.S. intelligence officials described the covert influence campaign here as "ambitious" and said it is also designed to counter
U.S. leadership and influence in international affairs.
October 7, 2016 : Washington Post: "US government officially accuses Russia of hacking campaign to interfere with elections."
The story reports on a
joint statement released by the DNI and DHS. The paper only quotes this much:
"The U.S. Intelligence Community is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from U.S.
persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations," said a joint statement from the two agencies. ". . . These
thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the U.S. election process."
Also of October 7, 2016 : The Washington Post releases Access Hollywood/Trump tape, although the
published story is dated October 8, 2016.
Also on October 7, 2016 : Wikileaks releases the
first cache of Podesta emails.
October 14, 2016 : Jonathan Rich, Seth Rich's cousin,
tweets the following:
October 17, 2016: Julian Assange accuses a "state party" of severing his internet connection.
October 19, 2016 : Hillary Clinton turns the DHS-DNI statement into"17 intelligence agencies" during a debate with Donald Trump:
CLINTON: We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks,
come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election.
I find that deeply disturbing. And I think it is time -
TRUMP: She has no idea whether it is Russia, China or anybody else.
CLINTON: I am not quoting myself. I am quoting 17, 17 - do you doubt?
TRUMP: Our country has no idea.
October 20, 2016 : At National Review, Fred Fleitz
writes
:
First of all, only two intelligence entities – the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) – have weighed in on this issue, not 17 intelligence agencies.
Fleitz goes on to quote from the same joint DNI-DHS statement the Post cited so sparingly. The disclosures ...
are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere
with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow - the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europa
and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that
only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.
Fleitz, formerly with the CIA, writes: "Saying we think the hacks `are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed
efforts' is far short of saying we have evidence that Russia has been responsible for the hacks."
October 22, 2016 : Gavin McFadyen died of lung cancer in London on October 22, 2016 at the age of 76. According to a May 2017
Fox News
report , Gavin McFadyen was Seth Rich's Wikileaks' contact.
October 28, 2016 : FBI Director Comey
writes to congressional leaders informing them that "in connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence
of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation" of Secretary Clinton's personal email server, and that the FBI will review
these emails for classified information.
November 2, 2016 : Jonathan Rich, Seth Rich's cousin,
tweeted the following
reply to a question about the Clinton body count:
November 6, 2016 : FBI Director Comey informs congressional leaders: "Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions
that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton."
Around November 9 or 10, 2016: According to the April 2017 book
Shattered , Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook and chairman John Podesta gather campaign staff in Brooklyn
to set the post-election defeat narrative: Hillary's unsecured email sever was major over-reported story of the campaign, and
Russian hacking was the major unreported story of the campaign.
The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency,
rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.
Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands
of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, according to U.S.
officials. Those officials described the individuals as actors known to the intelligence community and part of a wider Russian operation
to boost Trump and hurt Clinton's chances.
December 14, 2016 : Former UK Amb. to Uzbekistan and Wikileaks associate Craig Murray tells the
Daily Mail that he flew to Washington in September 2016 to receive emails from one of Wikileaks' sources. Both the DNC emails
and the Podesta emails, Murray said, came from inside leaks, not hacks. "He said the leakers were motivated by 'disgust at the corruption
of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.' "
December 22, 2016: The Washington Post
reports CrowdStrike links Russian hacking of the DNC to Russian hacking of the Ukrainian military. Said CrowdStrike's Alperovitch:
'The fact that [these hackers] would be tracking and helping the Russian military kill Ukrainian army personnel in eastern Ukraine
and also intervening in the U.S. election is quite chilling."
This new Russian hacking claim will be widely and loudly debunked by British, Ukrainian and other sources.
December 29, 2016: DHS and FBI release a joint report entitled "Russian Malicious Cyber Activity." The FBI, to repeat, has not
examined the DNC servers to verify Crowdstrike's findings of "Russian hacking," but President Obama goes ahead orders sanctions
on Russia and expels 35 diplomats anyway!
Russia does not respond in kind, which intensifies an air of unreality about the whole exercise. It all feels stagey.
January 10, 2017: For the first time, then-FBI Director James Comey
publicly addresses the DNC-Russian hacking story, affirming that the FBI has not had direct access to the DNC servers or (bonus!)
John Podesta's personal devices, despite "multiple requests at different levels."
Comey told the Senate committee, "Our forensics folks would always prefer to get access to the orginal device or server that's
involved ..." but no worries! " A highly respected private company eventually got access and shared with us what they saw there."
Right then and there, President-elect Trump should have planned to ask Comey to resign over this single act of rank incompetence
(or corruption).
March 15, 2017 : According to
Daily Mail,
"CrowdStrike's Alperovitch cancels interview with VOA, the news outlet that first reported CrowdStrike had misstated data ..."
Also in March of 2017 and also according to
Daily Mail
, CrowdStrike is stonewalling:
CrowdStrike's co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch and its president Shawn Henry turned down an invitation to testify before the House
Intelligence Committee about Russian interference in the U.S. election.
'They declined the invitation, so we're communicating with them about speaking to us privately,' said Jack Langer, a spokesperson
for House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes.
"Speaking to us privately..."
(A request: Could Republicans please roll over, pull the trigger and put us out of their misery?)
Also in March 2017: In a May 16, 2017 interview
with Sean Hannity, private investigator Rod Wheeler says that in March, when he began his investigation into the murder of Seth
Rich on behalf of the Rich family, he called the DCPD but didn't hear back from anyone for two to three days. Wheeler says he learned
from the family on May 15 that during that March interim, a high-ranking official at the DNC got the information about his query
and called the Rich family "wanting to know why I was snooping around." (Who in the DCPD called the DNC official and why?)
In this same interview, Wheeler adds that Seth Rich was having problems at work, and that the person he was having problems with
was the same DNC officialwho called the father.
March 20, 2017 : Then-FBI Director Comey and NSA Director Rogers appear before the House Intelligence Committee.
HURD: Have you been able to -- when did the DNC provide access for -- to the FBI for your technical folks to review what happened?
COMEY: Well we never got direct access to the machines themselves. The DNC in the spring of 2016 hired a firm that ultimately
shared with us their forensics from their review of the system.
HURD: Director Rogers, did the NSA ever get access to the DNC hardware?
ROGERS: The NSA didn't ask for access. That's not in our job. ..
HURD: ... So director FBI notified the DNC early, before any information was put on Wikileaks and when -- you have still been
-- never been given access to any of the technical or the physical machines that were -- that were hacked by the Russians.
COMEY: That's correct although we got the forensics from the pros that they hired which -- again, best practice is always to get
access to the machines themselves, but this -- my folks tell me was an appropriate substitute.
Again, this shocking dereliction alone is enough to justify Comey's removal -- plus a thorough investigation into exactly how
it was that DNC/CrowdStrike was able to thwart an FBI investigation -- and why Director Comey, not to mention why Barack
Obama and on down, went along with all of it .
Smells, the whole thing, the whole gang, to high heaven.
March 27, 2016: Jonathan Rich, Seth Rich's cousin whose Twitter account bases him in Omaha, tweets that former DNC Chairman Donna
Brazile, fired by CNN for leaking debate questions to Hillary, was "here."
April 5, 2017: Alana Goodman of the Daily Mail
reports
CrowdStrike has "quietly retracted" key portions from its debunked Ukrainian report "after the firm was found to have relied
on inaccurate data posted online by a pro-Putin 'propaganda' blogger."
Too bizarre --
The errors prompted both the Ukrainian military and a prominent British think tank to issue public statements disputing CrowdStrike's
data.
The Daily Mail quotes cybersecurity expert Jeffrey Carr, who, as the paper puts it, explained that "this is part of 'a pattern'
for [Crowdstrike], and raises concerns about its credibility."
Carr:
'They just found what they wanted to find they didn't stop for a moment to question it, they didn't contact the primary source,'
added Carr. 'This is like an elementary school-level analysis.'
Note: It is this same "elementary school-level analysis" that remains the basis of the DNC-"Russian hacking" story!
This is outrageous and alarming on multiple levels. To begin with, if a private firm claims that a foreign power has cyber-attacked
a leading political organization critical to the functioning of the US national election process, how does the US government
not become involved to investigate to ensure that any actions the US government may take in response -- sanctions, expulsions,
to take the real- world example -- to that foreign attack are based on verified findings?
It does not seem possible that the DNC has the authority to rebuff the FBI in a case of a purported foreign strike --
unless the fix is already in. I mean, imagine a private eye putting off the FBI, saying, don't worry, we've got that Rosenberg spy
ring covered, and we'll keep you fully apprised.
It's not really all that different.
There's more.
The Daily Mail:
There remain unanswered questions about the sequence of events which led to the secrets of the DNC being laid bare.
The DNC said it originally hired CrowdStrike in late April last year after discovering suspicious activity on its computer system
indicating a 'serious' hack.
That's right. See entry for June 16, 2016 above.
But according to internal emails, CrowdStrike was already working for the DNC to investigate whether Bernie Sanders campaign
staffers had gained unauthorized access to its voter database.
That five-week investigation appeared to have wrapped up on April 29, 2016. ...
"Already working for the DNC" in this timeframe of still-undisclosed anti-Bernie collusion means, in effect, already working in
support of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign against Sanders. Great source for non-partisan and official intelligence.
And check this out: voter data base, Bernie Sanders staffers. Seth Rich's job at the DNC has been reported as "voter expansion
data director." Related? Should the Seth Rich chronology go back to
alleged dirty tricks in December 2015 involving yet another data breach?
Yes, my head hurts, too. But out of this giant headache may emerge some clear truths. In the meantime, it is extremely notable
that Twitter talk of supression of the investigation into or even discussion of whetherSeth Rich was a DNCsource for Wikileaks and
murdered as a result is coming not only from the MSM, but hard Left and Democrat "data" professionals.
Take, for example, Andrew Therriault, former "Director of Data Science" for the DNC.
Zero Hedge reportsthat Therriault tweeted and deleted the following tweet calling Seth Rich "an embarassment" -- ten months after
his murder.
More recently, Therriault retweeted Rob Flaherty's tweet (below), which includes a link to a petitionagainst the advertisers
of WTTG, which re-introduced the Seth Rich story this past week.
Flaherty, too, is a Democratic operative, data pro, Hillary Clinton supporter, and works for the lavishly
Soros-funded PAC, Priorities USA.
The petition, by the way, written by another hard left activist, Karl Frisch of
Allied Progress,
announces a boycott of WTTG advertisers unless they pull their WTTG advertising until the news station retracts their developing
Seth Rich story.
Think there are some high stakes hiding in the tall Swamp grass? Just keep saying "Russian hacking," "Russian hacking." Everything
will be just fine.
"... Occam's razor's obvious: Seth and Assange, both had opportunity+motive+means. ..."
"... Seth, his family, the MSM, the politically appointed police and others were true believers, who love their god, the Demorat
party, too dearly to accept the truth. ..."
"... There is a trail of dead bodies behind the Clintons. Kim Dotcom had the motive+opportunity+means to enable Seth+Assange. ..."
"... Was it a DNC leak or a Russian hack? Government and media say it was a hack, based on a report supplied by computer-tech company
Crowdstrike, which has close connections to the Atlantic Council - an anti-Russian think tank. Already we have a bias in the reporting,
and the FBI has opted to accept this finding without ever securing the evidence and analyzing the DNC data base itself. Pretty big decision
there... dropping the ball a little? ..."
"... A hack is traceable and the FBI should be able to firm that up, whereas a flash drive could be untraceable. The FBI investigation
was being dragged out and going nowhere - Comey deserved to be fired for that alone. ..."
"... If this is true, James Comey has already lied to Congress in saying that Trump wasn't "wiretapped." In this regard, he is no
different than James Clapper and Brennan, who also denied spying to Congress, until Edward Snowden came out. ..."
Last week, Fox 5 DC's report incited a storm of controversy after formerD.C.
police homicide detectiveRod Wheeler stated that there was tangible evidence on murdered Democratic National Committee (DNC) staffer
Seth Rich's laptop suggesting that he was communicating with Wikileaks prior to his death. The story generated a large amount of
outrage, with outlets like the Washington Post and
Vice labelling it a "conspiracy theory" and claiming that it had no basis in
fact. But details regarding the political affiliation of spokespeople and representatives of the Rich family appear to indicate that
the DNC may beprioritizing its own interests, minimizing alleged political elements to the tragedy.
I. Legal Representatives And Spokespeople For Rich Family Have Ties To DNC, Crime Connected Unions
Since Fox 5 DC's report, a number of individuals speaking on behalf of the Rich family have blasted Fox News and Rod Wheeler for
speaking out on the case. Rich family spokesman Brad Baumaninsisted thatanyone who continued to push the story either had a "transparent
political agenda," or were a sociopath. But an August 2016 tweet from Wikileaks
revealed that Bauman is a crisis public relations consultant working with the
Pastorum Group . A media
release from the Pastorum Group reveals that Bauman previously worked for the DNC and theService Employees International Union
(SEIU).
The SEIU has previously been reported by the Wall Street Journal as a "top
spender" for the Democrats, openly endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2016and
actively assisted in her campaign. It has been
widely criticized by some groups for the involvement of union members in crimes
including embezzlement, criminal conspiracy, perjury and identity theft.The SEIU is also a client of the
Strategic Consulting Group , which was founded by the Democratic operative
Robert Creamer . In 2016, Creamer was implicated in footage obtained by journalist
James O'Keefe whichrevealed that Creamer was engaging in voting fraud and violentdisruption
of politicalevents, sometimes using his connections to unions who were as clients of his.
Bauman's past professional ties to the DNC and the SEIU raise questions about the vehemence with which he has attacked journalists
reporting on the circumstances of Seth Rich's murder.
On May 19th, Rod Wheeler was sent a cease and desist letter on behalf of
the Rich family byJoseph Ingrisano of the law firm Kutak
Rock LLP . Kutak Rock has a long history of incredibly close affiliation with DNC politicians.The law firm donated$21,850 and$13,400
to President Barack Obama during his 2008 and
2012 campaigns, respectively. Kutak also gave$11,800 to
Hillary Clinton during her2016 presidential bid.
Kutak also has ties to the Rose Law Firm, which was at the center of the infamous
Whitewater Controversy during the 1990's.
Hillary Clinton as well as White House staffer Vince Foster both practiced
law at Rose, though Clinton has sought to distance herself from the firm given the allegations of scandal that surrounded it. On
April 13th,1998, Arkansas Business reported that a number of attorneys from
Rose left the firm for Kutak Rock. Kutak Rock continues to maintain offices
in Little Rock, Arkansas.
Pro-Democrat interests have also taken to Change.org to attack companies
advertising with Fox 5 DC. The boycott campaign is organized by Karl Frisch
, a former senior fellow at propaganda groupMedia Matters for America who spent his time at the organization helping develop "long-term
strategy to target Fox News as a political actor."
II. Rich Family's Statements To The Public Are Inconsistent With Those Of Their Representatives
Despite the instance of representatives to the contrary, the Rich family have released multiple statements expressing gratitude
to individuals privately attempting to help answer questions surrounding Rich's murder and indicating fatigue at efforts from both
sides to politicize the tragedy. On April 24th, Seth Rich's parents released a video
thanking those who had "stepped forward" to help identify their son's killers and donated to the family's GoFundMe. A May 18th
update to the GoFundMe page by Seth Rich's brother Aaron exhibited a general
annoyance at third parties who were using the family for political motives. He asked for help that would allow the family to solve
Rich's murder without having to "rely on aid offered with strings."
Message from Seth Rich's brother criticizing "third parties" for politicizing Rich's murder
The Rich family themselves appears divided on who was responsible for Seth Rich's murder. Rich's cousin,
Jonathan Rich , told Sean Hannity on Twitter that he suspected Rich might have
been in touch with Wikileaks. The topic clearly continues to remain controversial for the family.
III. The Investigation Into Rich's Murder Has Been Marked By Incompetence
Facts about the investigation into Rich's murder continue to raise concerns about the Washington D.C. Metropolitan Police Department's
efforts to identify Seth Rich's killers. The public incident report filed after
Rich's death shows that several officers who responded to the scene of the crime were wearing body cameras. But the Metropolitan
Police claimed the footage was "lost" when met with requests to release the videos, which might have provided important clues. A
May 21st, 2017 report by World Net Daily has also established that police failed
to speak with staff at Lou's City Bar (where Rich was last seen alive) to enquire about whether they had any pertinent evidence.
Even stranger, police chief Cathy Lanier resigned just a month after Rich's
death. Her replacement, Peter Newsham , has been plagued by past allegations
of alcoholism and domestic violence. Newsham was also accused of severely mishandling a rape case after the family of an 11 year
old girl alleged that he allowed the victim to becharged with filing a false report despite several medical accounts detailing her
sexual injuries and genetic evidence indicating that she had been abused by multiple assailants.
It is also not clear why police would seize Rich's laptop for an investigation into what was supposed to be a robbery gone bad.
The Washington Post claimed that neither the FBI nor the police were in possession
of Rich's laptop. But this claim contradicts a report by the Washington Examiner
which cited a former law enforcement official who stated that the laptop was examined during the investigation.
Whether the truth about who killed Seth Rich will emerge or not remains to be seen. In the aftermath of Fox 5 DC's claims, Megaupload
founder Kim Dotcom claimed he would provide proof thatSeth Rich was the source
of Wikileaks DNC email release on May 23rd. Wikileaks founder Julian Assange
has additionally hinted that while Wikileaks never discloses their own sources, other parties may hold important information
concerning Seth Rich's potential communications with the publisher.
Should information emerge showing that Seth Rich did in fact act as a source for Wikileaks, the intense denials from national
media outlets and the intimate involvement of figures tied to the DNC in the case will undoubtedly fuel renewed allegations of a
politically motivated cover up.
DNC and dem elites have modern history of buying off families, starting with Mary Jo. Kopechne's. Hannity has vowed to keep
this story on the front burner. Hannity should stay out of Ft. Marcy Park and hire a food taster.
To all non believers, I suppose you think that there are very corrupt gov's and leaders in other countries but this cannot
be happening here in murica....
Go back to sitcoms, comic books and the Kardashian's at least you woun't get on the way.
I wonder if anyone (DNC or affiliate) has made payments to the family? I know a few million bucks won't bring their son back,
but it might be enough to keep the family from seeking prosecution in any serious way.
Rich family spokesman Brad Bauman insisted that anyone who continued to push the story either had a "transparent political
agenda," or were a sociopath.
Isn't Brad including himself in his statement! Isn't he a DNC Crisis manager! Wouldn't they ( DNC) consider this a crisis!
He sustained a "small injury" to his liver and "several small bowel injuries" - none of which was fatal.
He was taken to the operating room, where his injuries were treated.
He was then moved to ICU (Intensive Care Unit) where he received blood transfusion. He was stable, his blood pressure normal.
8 hours after Rich arrived at the hospital, the place "swarmed" with law enforcement officers. Everyone, except the attending
physician and a few nurses, was kicked out of the ICU. There were no visiting hours, which is abnormal for ICU.
That morning, Anonymous and the other doctors were instructed not to make rounds (visits) on "the VIP that came in last night"
(Seth Rich).
When Rich died, no one other than the attending physician was allowed to see him. There was no code alert or call for a cardiopulmonary
resuscitation team . Although Anonymous was with a patient in the next room, he/she was blocked from attending to Rich.
At the time, Anonymous couldn't understand why the patient Rich was treated that way and thought the whole thing to be "fishy".
Later, when he found out that the patient was Seth Rich, Anonymous "was terrified".
Here's a screenshot of Anonymous' post (click to enlarge):
4chan deletes its contents at the end of each day, but the thread on which Anonymous had posted was briefly
archived
, which enabled me to copy what Anonymous wrote (see below) before the archived thread was removed.
Below are Anonymous' post and his responses to 4chan readers' queries:
4th year surgery resident here who rotated at WHC (Washington Hospital Center) last year, it won't be hard to identify me but
I feel that I shouldn't stay silent.
Seth Rich was shot twice , with 3 total gunshot wounds (entry and exit, and entry). He was taken to the OR emergently [sic]
where we performed an exlap and found a small injury to segment 3 of the liver which was packed and several small bowel injuries
(pretty common for gunshots to the back exiting the abdomen) which we resected ~12cm of bowel and left him in discontinuity (didn't
hook everything back up) with the intent of performing a washout in the morning. He did not have any major vascular injuries otherwise.
I've seen dozens of worse cases than this which survived and nothing about his injuries suggested to me that he'd sustained a
fatal wound.
Note: "OR" means operating room; "exlap" refers to
exploratory laparotomy -> is a surgical operation
where the abdomen is opened and the abdominal organs examined for injury or disease. It is the standard of care in various blunt
and penetrating trauma situations in which there may be multiple life-threatening injuries; "resected" means cut off or remove.
In the meantime he was transferred to the ICU and transfused 2 units of blood when his post-surgery crit came back ~20. He
was stable and not on any pressors , and it seemed pretty routine. About 8 hours after he arrived we were swarmed by LEOs and
pretty much everyone except the attending and a few nurses was kicked out of the ICU ( disallowing visiting hours -normally every
odd hour, eg 1am, 3am, etc- is not something we do routinely ). It was weird as hell. At turnover that morning we were instructed
not to round on the VIP that came in last night (that's exactly what the attending said, and no one except for me and another
resident had any idea who he was talking about).
Note: "post-surgery crit" is post-surgery critical care, referring to the patient's hematocrit level, i.e., the percentage
of red blood cells circulating in the blood; "
pressor " means "tending to increase blood
pressure"; "LEOs" is law enforcement officers; "not to round" means not to make bedside visits.
No one here was allowed to see Seth except for my attending when he died. No code was called. I rounded on patients literally
next door but was physically blocked from checking in on him. I've never seen anything like it before , and while I can't say
100% that he was allowed to die, I don't understand why he was treated like that. Take it how you may, /pol/, I'm just one low
level doc. Something's fishy though, that's for sure .
Note: "No code was called" means no emergency alert was sounded for a cardiopulmonary resuscitation team ; "/pol/" refers to
"politically incorrect" posts on 4chan .
A commenter challenged Anonymous:
prove you are not a larper. what are the list of medications you administered throughout the entire process?
Note: "a larper" is someone who engages in larp or live action role playing, i.e., someone online pretending to be someone
else.
When he [Seth Rich] arrived to the trauma ward he had LR running, I don't keep up with how much he got but less than 2 liters
before we rolled to the OR.
Note: "LR" is Lactated Ringers (solution), a common fluid replacement for patients who have lost blood or other body fluids;
"PRBC" is packed red blood cells; "FFP" is fresh frozen plasma.
No transfusion was done in trauma; the massive transfusion protocol was started because he was hypotensive on arrival but by
the time the cooler (4u PRBC, 2u FFP) was ready we were on the way to the OR and honestly I don't remember if he got any of it
beforehand; he responded well to just IVF resuscitation so we went ahead with the surgery any just ended up giving him 2 units
afterwards (the crit we got in trauma was returned just after we left and was low, ~24 IIRC but it wasn't communicated to us teamwork
fail for sure but that can happen when we're rushing to the OR)
Note: "hypotensive" means abnormally low blood pressure.
As for the rest of the meds? You'd have to ask anesthesia I guess. He didn't need anything from us in the ICU except a propofol/fentanyl
drip to maintain sedation while intubated but that's pretty par for the course. The important part was that he was hemodynamically
stable and not requiring pressors.
I haven't spoken to the attending who was on staff that night but the other resident I was with that night doesn't remember
it in any clarity (he was called to traumas as part of his rotation but that was ancillary to his ICU -different ICU btw- duties).
Basically he said, "yeah that was weird, right?" At the time we were way more concerned with the rising class / new interns (July
1st is a terrifying time to be a patient lol) to make much notice it always stuck in my head as something super bizarre but it
was a long time before I even realized it was Seth Rich. When he arrived he was assigned by our system a trauma number, not a
name as his patient ID. I only knew him at that time as Tra### (no freaking way that I remember the actual number). When it came
to light who he was a while later I was floored. And terrified.
Nope, nothing in the head so no freaking way we'd CT before going to the OR with a clear intraabdominal GSW. No need to FAST
or anything, just stabilize and go to the OR
Note: "CT" is CAT scan; "GSW" is gunshot wound.
One could always just increase the propofol drip or give him a ton of roc and screw with the vent settings. No idea if that
happened but it'd be easy if you have the right meds and access
He had two holes in his right flank and one in the left upper quadrant. In trauma you always assume by protocol that 3 holes
= 3 bullets but it was pretty clear that he was shot twice by the trajectory of the bullet (eg, his liver injury). I've also seen
enough GSWs to know that the media doesn't get the number right every time.
Yeah, I'm not going to do that. Way too dangerous.
Alright anons it's been swell but I'll be gone for the next few hours for regular residency meeting / journal club BS. Take
everything you read especially from the MSM with a grain of salt as usual but don't stop digging.
hmmm. the WaPo and other MSM, plus the DNC guilty in obstructing justics, conspiracy and murder?
not that the other 10,000 people murdered over the last 8 months are not equally important, but this smacks of murder for profit
and political gain running into tens of billions of dollars from federal contracts via a run for presidency (busted apart thank
god).
Wonder why the FBI isn't involved? Because it's their job to cover up for the swamp. Here's a reminder of how Comey got rich
burying and ignoring scandals http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=72788
The FBI is as corrupt and against real Americans as the CIA Disband/dissolve both. They do nothing to make our lives better.
For most of the the US's history, we had neither.
Aren't there any decent FBI and/or DC cops around any longer? I guess not. Anyone of those agents with verifiable intel on
this case could blow it wide open by appearing on Hannity and exposing the truth. Come on guys, grow a pair!
In this vid it is described how the new cia members take an oath to the cia and how they and their family will be destroyed
if they brake it. John Kiriakou, CIA whistle blower part
1
They are trying. An FBI source confirmed what the DC Private Investigator claimed. Basically, this FBI agent claimed he saw
Seth Rich's laptop and the emails from the DNC that were sent to Wikileaks. Considering what happened to Seth Rich though, I am
not surprised that this FBI source is staying anonymous.
Occam's razor's obvious: Seth and Assange, both had opportunity+motive+means.
Seth, his family, the MSM, the politically appointed police and others were true believers, who love their god, the Demorat
party, too dearly to accept the truth.
There is a trail of dead bodies behind the Clintons. Kim Dotcom had the motive+opportunity+means to enable Seth+Assange.
Comey, at best Inspector Clouseau, is a corrupt political hack with a long history of covering for the Clintons beginning with
New Square's 4 rabbis and the Marc Rich pardon. Clinton/DNC apparatchiks arranged Seth's murder.
Seems to me, as an independent observer of the political morass this great USA has devolved into, that Seth was obviously dispatched
by the same 'team' that took care of Vince Foster, Ron Brown and several others.
What truly is astounding appears to be the fact that those 'behind the scene' of this obvious Democrat's problem solving methodology
appear to be the most vocal purveryors of the anti-Putin agenda claiming that he is Evil because he murders his political opponents!
Diabolical, is it not?
Saul Alinsky Diabolical. Projection has been Hillary's, Obama's and the DNC's play plan all along. The Alt right Media has
put a kink in their play book.
Here's my take on the situation, with thanks to DuneCreature:
Was it a DNC leak or a Russian hack? Government and media say it was a hack, based on a report supplied by computer-tech
company Crowdstrike, which has close connections to the Atlantic Council - an anti-Russian think tank. Already we have a bias
in the reporting, and the FBI has opted to accept this finding without ever securing the evidence and analyzing the DNC data base
itself. Pretty big decision there... dropping the ball a little?
A hack is traceable and the FBI should be able to firm that up, whereas a flash drive could be untraceable. The FBI investigation
was being dragged out and going nowhere - Comey deserved to be fired for that alone.
Mike Whitney is an independent journalist who frequently writes for a left-wing website (Counterpunch) and has no love for
Donald Trump. However, I think he describes the present situation pretty well. A lot of the discussion here is just a red-herring.
Neither the media, nor government agencies, are digging into the real facts. (Mike Whitney's Bottom Line " The government has
a reliable witness (Craig Murray) who can positively identify the person who hacked the DNC emails and, so far,they've showed
no interest in his testimony at all. Doesn't that strike you as a bit weird?")
There's roughly $250,000 in reward monies now for further information on what happened in the murder of Seth Rich (the reported
DNC leaker). He apparently wasn't robbed, and the running narrative is that the DC police have not investigated further on orders
from above (the mayor, who apparently is on good terms with Hillary, I believe). Lots of stories are surfacing, one says that
Seth was not seriously injured, but the DC police "outside staff" took over his care and reported him dead in the morning. Reportedly,
one of the higher-ranked police officers had ties to the DNC through his wife. Another big question is where is Seth's computer
(supposedly seized by the DC police, although that is not normal for a reported robbery). While it is still early to tell what
happened to Seth Rich, it doesn't smell good. Also see Kim Dotcom ref below.
In the bigger picture, Freedom Watch was apparently the organization that brought the Obama administration's surveillance of
the Trump administration personnel to Trump's attention. Freedom Watch negotiated an immunity agreement for Dennis Montgomery,
a CIA contract agent with much higher seniority than Edward Snowden, with the US government. Freedom Watch is a highly respected
operation and there's lots of information from this whistleblower if it ever surfaces.
Freedom Watch's whistle-blower info had been "blown-off" by most government agencies until House Intelligence Committee Chairman
Devin Nunes got a hold of it and reported it to Trump. Reportedly, the information shows that the Obama administration was spying
on 156 judges, including the Supreme Court, and congress, etc -Trump and many others. This information has apparently been in
the hands of James Comey for several years.
If this is true, James Comey has already lied to Congress in saying that Trump wasn't "wiretapped." In this regard, he
is no different than James Clapper and Brennan, who also denied spying to Congress, until Edward Snowden came out.
The whole Trump impeachment movement is based on zero evidence and is a cold coup to nullify the last election. It's just like
something you'd see in the banana republic CIA is trying over throw. The Deep State hate him because: 1) if he wants to do deals
with Russia instead of waging war and destroying the Russian Federation; 2) he's against a lot of the trade deals and already
undone the TPP; and 3) Trump is undermining the whole climate change /Paris Accords narrative.
Aside from that Trump is showering the Predator Class with unprecedented filthy lucre.
So Here's where I come down (as stated by Mike Whitney)
"Does this analysis make me a Donald Trump supporter?"
Never. The idea is ridiculous. Trump might be the worst US president of all time, in fact, he probably is. But that doesn't
mean there aren't other nefarious forces at work behind the smoke screen of democratic government. There are. In fact, this whole
flap suggests that there's an alternate power-structure that operates completely off the public's radar and has the elected-government
in its death-grip. This largely invisible group of elites controls the likes of Brennan, Clapper and Comey. And, apparently, they
have enough influence to challenge and maybe even remove an elected president from office. (We'll see.) And what's more surprising,
is that the Democrats have aligned themselves with these deep state puppet masters. They've cast their lot with the sinister stewards
of the national security state and hopped on the impeachment bandwagon. But is that a wise choice for the Dems?
Author Michael J. Glennon doesn't think so. Here's what he says in the May edition of Harper's Magazine:
"Those who would counter the illiberalism of Trump with the illiberalism of unfettered bureaucrats would do well to contemplate
the precedent their victory would set. "
Montgomery's info has been out for a while and had been sent to some members of CONgress and possibly the AG. Its buried so
deep, it would be recovered in china about now. NOTHING will ever reach the sheeple from the MSM on this.
Yes, I know it's confusing for everyone. ... Me too.
That is the way the Intelligence Community wants it because they can run any number of 'cover-ups', rescue operations (bail
out valuable assets, hide fucked up illegal behavior, damage enemies, plant and or destroy evidence, etc.) during a good raging
shit storm of bogus intel and accusations.
That's why the CIA wants to own/control all the media.
We are all paddling up stream. ... Only a scant few will have the time, energy and moxy to sift though all the bullshit and
the IC is counting on it to stay in control.
Trust me, all the bad information and false narratives are making my head hurt too. ....... Nothing pisses me off anymore than
going down some rabbit hole for a day or two only to find out it really is just where some rabbit lives.
The trouble is we have to do it or we will lose to the pirates and I think George Webb is trying hard to point out the consequences
of losing that battle.
This ain't a game or made for TV movie. ........ This is going to put some people in very REAL GRAVES. ........ Assuming the
body is found.
But yep, good work, Northern Flicker. .. Thank you, for your efforts.
Just because you can't hear explosions and gunfire doesn't mean you can blow this off as not a 'war' .... It is a war. It just
hasn't gone hot yet.
Keep compiling evidence and SPREAD the info and knowledge around all you can. ....... Your kids and neighbors asses depend
on it. .. No shit!
And, hey, if we can survive this you'll have a good scrapbook to show your grand kids. .. You were in the Spy vs. Spy vs. We
The People War of 2017. .. If not, you probably won't have grand kids anyway.
Live Hard, Just Blur My Mugshot A Little For Me In Your Picture Album, ... You'll Be So Glad You Did, Die Free
Riding your viewership post coat tails, DC. I wish this was a cute, witty, glib and popular retort.
But my anger, my fears, my gut turmoil for the future is exacerbated by my growing feelings of betrayal by the DS and all it's
machinations. Our Salesman's latest travel to Flipville was the final chapter for me. Perhaps just another planned chapter in
the enemy's playbook of division pitting one whatever after another whomever.
Saudi Arabia>Israel>the pope>Brussels>G7? For the children and their children's children to find peace in this time? So is
this the true "global warming" ?? Going hot ?
Your stock on ZH is rising,DC, IMO. Good posts, good mix. Agreed:
1) real people are about to die. (clarify For the idiot posters) -> "not over there stupid, right at your own murican soil
for a change". It is right outside your door. will it be the poor and weak with nothing left from the theft or will it be some
of many criminal DS members and traitors running this 100 year shitshow? Know your enemy. 2) will the deliverers of ultimate justice
be seen in history as villains or will they be remembered as martyrs to the founding principals of individual liberty? Agreed:
there will be graves on both sides, the only truth in every conflict. 3) what will be the tipping points the self-serving untouchables
(in their minds) are systematically and randomly exterminated like rats? Dying vets? Dying and homeless boomers? The next bail
out? Trigger happy mellinials who finally "get it", like "Dude, we are screwed for the next 40 years to the debt serfdom matrix".
4) does the 97 even remember what individual liberty is-is ??
I plead guilty of the whine and bitch, piss and moan, post videos and links to vent ad.nauseum, hide on ZH et.al., hoping someone
will do something. Fuck man, I have voted for 30 years against this colonial expansion / debt serfdom, home and abroad. A 100%
personal failure rate.
"Vocal" puking throughout man's history accomplishes little. I had some flicker of hope two years ago that the 99 people could
regain a voice. Now, I believe all that is left for liberty's redress is .338 = 666-1
Today is the personal re-start to finalize preparations placed on temporary hold after two years of praying that history will
NOT REPEAT. Your post was in part the tipper along with being force fed that Israel, the Vatican and Saudi were pinnacles of truth,
virtue and justice locked arm and "arms" with western powers to fight terror and bring freedoms to the world. My own final Orwellian
straw. I no longer give a shit about the news cycle even though I can easily separate the truth out of the chaff. Or CAN I ??
Voting, the truth, the American experiment ? I no longer think this matters if you just look at history and it's only clear message
left for us to individually re-discover. It IS time to finish my half completed plans for for the day that will come..... Flipville
becomes Tipville and 3% mobilize, collectively or individually again.
Damn it all. It always comes down to who will survive or perish. I thought for this little instant in time we had learned "civilization"
and the big picture of "the greater good- FOR ALL".....
Marie, if it shall be cake..... make mine a delicious chocolate with two scoops of iced cream. In about fifteen years or less,
with nothing left to lose, you and your family will serve your last insult. Plan on it. For those who care to consider..... your
individual plans are yours forever.
I just wanted to share and visit, thanks for listening.
Good night, and good luck.
"We now return you to our Regular Programming". (never has that common phrase been so deadly and true)
Guardian defends Hillary. Again. They also are afraid to open the comment section on this article.
Notable quotes:
"... A prominent ally of Donald Trump suggested on Sunday that the - - special counsel appointed to investigate alleged links between
the president's aides and - - Russia should instead focus on the murder last year of a young Democratic staffer, Seth Rich, which has
become the focus of conspiracy theorists . ..."
"... This week, the Russian embassy in the UK shared the conspiracy on Twitter, CNN reported , calling Rich a murdered "WikiLeaks
informer" and claiming that the British mainstream media was "so busy accusing Russian hackers to take notice". ..."
"... "He's been killed, and apparently nothing serious has been done to investigate his murder. So, I'd like to see how [former
FBI director Robert] Mueller is going to define what his assignment is, and if it's only narrowly Trump, the country will not learn
what it needs to learn about foreign involvement in American politics." ..."
"... The Rich family has sent Wheeler a cease-and-desist letter, threatening legal action if he continues to discuss the case, the
Washington Post reported . ..."
Trump confidante and husband of ambassadorial nominee repeats WikiLeaks theory denounced as 'fake news' by family of murdered DNC
staffer Sunday 21 May 2017, 16.48 EDT Last modified on Monday 22 May 2017
A prominent ally of Donald Trump suggested on Sunday that the - -
special counsel appointed to investigate alleged links between the president's aides and - -
Russia
should instead focus on the murder last year of a young Democratic staffer, Seth Rich, which has become
the focus of
conspiracy theorists .
In an appearance on Fox and Friends less than two days after his wife was - -
proposed as ambassador to the Holy See , Newt Gingrich – former speaker of the House, 2012 presidential candidate and a Trump
confidante – publicly endorsed the conspiracy theory that Rich was "assassinated" after giving Democratic National Committee emails
to WikiLeaks.
Rich, 27, was shot dead in the early hours of 10 July 2016, as he walked home in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington.
In August, the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, - -
insinuated that Rich had been a source. Police initially explored whether Rich's murder might be connected to robberies in the
area, according
to a local news report , and officials in the capital have publicly debunked other claims.
"This is a robbery that ended tragically," Kevin Donahue, Washington's deputy mayor for public safety,
told NBC News this week. "That's bad enough for our city, and I think it is irresponsible to conflate this into something that
doesn't connect to anything that the detectives have found. No WikiLeaks connection."
On Sunday, the Washington DC police public affairs office did not immediately respond to a request for further comment.
In January, American intelligence agencies concluded with "
high confidence " in a public
report that Russian military intelligence was responsible for hacking the DNC and obtaining and relaying private messages to WikiLeaks,
which made a series of embarrassing public disclosures. The goal, the agencies concluded, was to undermine the candidacy of Hillary
Clinton and boost Trump, as well as hurt Americans' trust in their own democracy.
This week, the Russian embassy in the UK
shared the conspiracy on Twitter,
CNN reported
, calling Rich a murdered "WikiLeaks informer" and claiming that the British mainstream media was "so busy accusing Russian hackers
to take notice".
The Rich family has repeatedly denied that there is any evidence behind the conspiracy theories and called on Fox News to retract
its coverage of their son's murder. Earlier this week, a spokesman for the family
said
in a statement that "anyone who continues to push this fake news story after it was so thoroughly debunked is proving to the
world they have a transparent political agenda or are a sociopath".
On Fox and Friends, Gingrich said: "We have this very strange story here of this young man who worked for the DNC who was apparently
assassinated at four in the morning having given WikiLeaks
something like 23,000 – I'm sorry, 53,000 – emails and 17,000 attachments.
"Nobody's investigating that, and what does that tell you about what was going on? Because it turns out it wasn't the Russians,
it was this young guy who, I suspect, who was disgusted by the corruption of the Democratic National Committee.
"He's been killed, and apparently nothing serious has been done to investigate his murder. So, I'd like to see how [former
FBI director Robert] Mueller is going to define what his assignment is, and if it's only narrowly Trump, the country will not learn
what it needs to learn about foreign involvement in American politics."
Last week, the private investigator and Fox News commentator Rod Wheeler claimed that evidence existed that Rich had been in contact
with WikiLeaks. Questioned by CNN, however, he said: "I only got that [information] from the reporter at Fox News" and added that
he did not have any evidence himself.
"Using the legacy of a murder victim in such an overtly political way is morally reprehensible," a Rich family spokesman told
CNN.
The Rich family has sent Wheeler a cease-and-desist letter, threatening legal action if he continues to discuss the case,
the
Washington Post reported .
"... Of course, if it's true that WikiLeaks' emails came from a DNC insider it would end the "Russian hacking" narrative that has been perpetuated by Democrats and the mainstream media for the past several months. Moreover, it would corroborate the one confirmation that Julian Assange has offered regarding his source, namely that it was "not a state actor." ..."
"... Meanwhile, the plot thickened a little more over the weekend when Kim Dotcom confirmed via Twitter that he was working with Seth Rich to get leaked emails to WikiLeaks. ..."
"... If there was no smoke there would be no fire. I have never, in my 20 years of working in D.C. Seen [sic] such a panicked reaction from anyone. ..."
"... This raises several questions. First, if Kim Dotcom knew that Seth Rich was, in fact, the WikiLeaks source, why is he just now coming forward with such information ? Second, while Seth Rich may explain the DNC leaks we still don't know who is responsible for the "Podesta Files" which we're certain will continue to be attributed to "Russian hackers." ..."
"... Which leads to the most important queistion of all: is this all just another fake news diversion, or is there more to the Seth Rich murder? ..."
Last week,
Fox News dropped a bombshell report officially confirming, via anonymous FBI sources, what many
had suspected for quite some time, that murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich was the WikiLeaks source for
leaks which proved that the DNC was intentionally undermining the campaign of Bernie Sanders. In
addition to exposing the corruption of the DNC, the leaks cost Debbie Wasserman Schultz her job as
Chairwoman.
Of course, if it's true that WikiLeaks' emails came from a DNC insider it would end the "Russian
hacking" narrative that has been perpetuated by Democrats and the mainstream media for the past several
months. Moreover, it would corroborate the one confirmation that Julian Assange has offered regarding
his source, namely that it was "not a state actor."
Meanwhile, the plot thickened a little more over the weekend when Kim Dotcom confirmed via
Twitter that he was working with Seth Rich to get leaked emails to WikiLeaks.
Which was followed up by the following posts on 4Chan's /pol/ subgroup that high-ranking current
and former Democratic Party officials are terrified of the Seth Rich murder investigation.
"Anons, I work in D.C.
I know for certain that the Seth Rich case has scared the shit out of certain high ranking current
and former Democratic Party officials.
It appears that certain DNC thugs were not thorough enough when it came time to cover their tracks.
Podesta saying he wanted to "make an example of the leaker" is a huge smoking gun."
The post went on to claim that a "smoking gun in this case is out of the hands of the conspirators"
which has resulted in near "open panic" in DC circles.
"The behavior is near open panic. To even mention this name in D.C. Circles [sic] will bring you
under automatic scrutiny. To even admit that you have knowledge of this story puts you in immediate
danger.
If there was no smoke there would be no fire. I have never, in my 20 years of working in D.C.
Seen [sic] such a panicked reaction from anyone.
I have strong reason to believe that the smoking gun in this case is out o [sic] the hands of
the conspirators, and will be discovered by anon. I know for certain that Podesta is deeply concerned.
He's been receiving anonymous calls and emails from people saying they know the truth. Same with
Hillary."
And here is the original tweet:
An Anon working in DC says that he's seeing people in a panic like never before about
#SethRich .
This raises several questions. First, if Kim Dotcom knew that Seth Rich was, in fact, the
WikiLeaks source, why is he just now coming forward with such information ? Second, while Seth Rich
may explain the DNC leaks we still don't know who is responsible for the "Podesta Files" which we're
certain will continue to be attributed to "Russian hackers."
Which leads to the most important queistion of all: is this all just another fake news diversion,
or is there more to the Seth Rich murder?
Nothing will happen. They got dirt on everyone, and everyone will be black mailed, strong armed
into not talking.Just theater, enjoy but remember its all for not.
Agreed. I read it long ago. Decided to do it again and couldn't. One can only take so much
evil and deception at a time. Mankind will not change and with that thought, you can easily see
howthe book of Daniel, Ezekiel, and Revelation tie in to what we are witnessing - Peace in the
middle east? I still have the book, and may read it again but I prefer to focus on good rather
than evil knowing full well what evil is capable of and the true war we fight.
Think about where Trump is and is going. Saudi Arabia, Israel, the Pope, NATO. Egyptian president
states Trump may be able to do the impossible. I know we have a lot of thought provoking discussions
of all things here and my suggestion is the "Fairy in the sky" types at least read those mentioned
books above and consider current events. Even if you don't believe in God, you must admit that
evil (define it as needed) exists and always has. If evil exists, why wouldn't God? And off to
the races!!!!
Not sure about that. Sessions has the contents of Comey's office and computers. Probably why
he was fired while in CA. The next few weeks will definitely be interesting.
"... Neoliberal Democrats seek to create the same tribablist/identity voting block on the left that the republicans have on the right. The is why people like sanjait get totally spastic when progressives criticize the party. ..."
"... Problem I have with the corporatist democrats is they're trading away the working class gains of the new deal in order to appease the centrist Republicans. Meanwhile the Centrist Republicans are breaking towards the fascist right wing of the party. ..."
"... Corporatism and financialization are the cornerstones of wealth consolidation and political capture on the one hand and reduced competition, wages, and innovation on the other hand. ..."
The current Democratic Party was handed two golden opportunities and blew both of them. Obama blew
the 2008 financial crisis. And Hillary Clinton blew the 2016 election.
If you have a tool and the tool it broken you try to fix it. One doesn't pretend there is nothing
wrong. The difference between neoliberal democrats and progressives is they differ on what's wrong.
Neoliberal Democrats seek to create the same tribablist/identity voting block on the left that
the republicans have on the right. The is why people like sanjait get totally spastic when progressives
criticize the party.
Progressives seek to create an aggressive party that represents the interests of working class
and petite bourgeoisie. That is why you see progressives get spastic when the corporate democrats
push appeasement policies.
Problem I have with the corporatist democrats is they're trading away the working class gains
of the new deal in order to appease the centrist Republicans. Meanwhile the Centrist Republicans
are breaking towards the fascist right wing of the party.
So not only are working class people losing their gains, but those gains are being traded away
for nothing.
My problem is that and more. We should have been headed in the opposite direction these last fifty
years.
Public daycare and universal pre-K would have been a good idea in the sixties.
Now they
are so long overdue that it is pathetic.
Corporatism and financialization are the cornerstones
of wealth consolidation and political capture on the one hand and reduced competition, wages,
and innovation on the other hand.
"... Instead, the millions of young voters that are rejecting Hillary's campaign this year are making a carefully reasoned, even reluctant calculation about the limits of the insider politics both she and her husband have represented. ..."
"... And to one degree or another, the modern Democratic Party, often including Hillary Clinton personally, has been on the wrong side of virtually all of these issues. ..."
"... Hillary not only voted for the Iraq War, but offered a succession of ridiculous excuses for her vote. Remember, this was one of the easiest calls ever. A child could see that the Bush administration's fairy tales about WMDs and Iraqi drones spraying poison over the capital (where were they going to launch from, Martha's Vineyard?) were just that, fairy tales. ..."
"... Yet Hillary voted for the invasion for the same reason many other mainstream Democrats did: They didn't want to be tagged as McGovernite peaceniks. The new Democratic Party refused to be seen as being too antiwar, even at the cost of supporting a wrong one. ..."
Why Young People Are Right About Hillary Clinton: Listening to the youth vote doesn't always
lead to disaster
By Matt Taibbi
March 25, 2016
... ... ...
Instead, the millions of young voters that are rejecting Hillary's campaign this year are
making a carefully reasoned, even reluctant calculation about the limits of the insider politics
both she and her husband have represented.
For young voters, the foundational issues of our age have been the Iraq invasion, the financial
crisis, free trade, mass incarceration, domestic surveillance, police brutality, debt and income
inequality, among others.
And to one degree or another, the modern Democratic Party, often including Hillary Clinton
personally, has been on the wrong side of virtually all of these issues.
Hillary not only voted for the Iraq War, but offered a succession of ridiculous excuses
for her vote. Remember, this was one of the easiest calls ever. A child could see that the Bush
administration's fairy tales about WMDs and Iraqi drones spraying poison over the capital (where
were they going to launch from, Martha's Vineyard?) were just that, fairy tales.
Yet Hillary voted for the invasion for the same reason many other mainstream Democrats
did: They didn't want to be tagged as McGovernite peaceniks. The new Democratic Party refused
to be seen as being too antiwar, even at the cost of supporting a wrong one.
It was a classic "we can't be too pure" moment. Hillary gambled that Democrats would understand
that she'd outraged conscience and common sense for the sake of the Democrats' electoral viability
going forward. As a mock-Hillary in a 2007 Saturday Night Live episode put it, "Democrats know
me . They know my support for the Iraq War has always been insincere."
This pattern, of modern Democrats bending so far back to preserve what they believe is their
claim on the middle that they end up plainly in the wrong, has continually repeated itself.
Take the mass incarceration phenomenon. This was pioneered in Mario Cuomo's New York and furthered
under Bill Clinton's presidency, which authorized more than $16 billion for new prisons and more
police in a crime bill.
As The New Jim Crow author Michelle Alexander noted, America when Bill Clinton left office
had the world's highest incarceration rate, with a prison admission rate for black drug inmates
that was 23 times 1983 levels. Hillary stumped for that crime bill, adding the Reaganesque observation
that inner-city criminals were "super-predators" who needed to be "brought to heel."
You can go on down the line of all these issues. Trade? From NAFTA to the TPP, Hillary and
her party cohorts have consistently supported these anti-union free trade agreements, until it
became politically inexpedient. Debt? Hillary infamously voted for regressive bankruptcy reform
just a few years after privately meeting with Elizabeth Warren and agreeing that such industry-driven
efforts to choke off debt relief needed to be stopped.
Then of course there is the matter of the great gobs of money Hillary has taken to give speeches
to Goldman Sachs and God knows whom else. Her answer about that - "That's what they offered" -
gets right to the heart of what young people find so repugnant about this brand of politics.
One can talk about having the strength to get things done, given the political reality of the
times. But one also can become too easily convinced of certain political realities, particularly
when they're paying you hundreds of thousands of dollars an hour.
Is Hillary really doing the most good that she can do, fighting for the best deal that's there
to get for ordinary people?
Or is she just doing something that satisfies her own definition of that, while taking tens
of millions of dollars from some of the world's biggest jerks?
I doubt even Hillary Clinton could answer that question. She has been playing the inside game
for so long, she seems to have become lost in it. She behaves like a person who often doesn't
know what the truth is, but instead merely reaches for what is the best answer in that moment,
not realizing the difference.
This is why her shifting explanations and flippant attitude about the email scandal are almost
more unnerving than the ostensible offense. She seems confident that just because her detractors
are politically motivated, as they always have been, that they must be wrong, as they often were.
But that's faulty thinking. My worry is that Democrats like Hillary have been saying, "The
Republicans are worse!" for so long that they've begun to believe it excuses everything. It makes
me nervous to see Hillary supporters like law professor Stephen Vladeck arguing in the New York
Times that the real problem wasn't anything Hillary did, but that the Espionage Act isn't "practical."
If you're willing to extend the "purity" argument to the Espionage Act, it's only a matter
of time before you get in real trouble. And even if it doesn't happen this summer, Democrats may
soon wish they'd picked the frumpy senator from Vermont who probably checks his restaurant bills
to make sure he hasn't been undercharged.
But in the age of Trump, winning is the only thing that matters, right? In that case, there's
plenty of evidence suggesting Sanders would perform better against a reality TV free-coverage
machine like Trump than would Hillary Clinton. This would largely be due to the passion and energy
of young voters.
Young people don't see the Sanders-Clinton race as a choice between idealism and incremental
progress. The choice they see is between an honest politician, and one who is so profoundly a
part of the problem that she can't even see it anymore.
They've seen in the last decades that politicians who promise they can deliver change while
also taking the money, mostly just end up taking the money.
And they're voting for Sanders because his idea of an entirely voter-funded electoral "revolution"
that bars corporate money is, no matter what its objective chances of success, the only practical
road left to break what they perceive to be an inexorable pattern of corruption. Young people aren't dreaming. They're thinking. And we should listen to them.
"new Democratic Party" is lined up with the neocons.
Bill put Strobe Talbot and Mrs Kagan in senior positions in 1993!
Hillary voted comfortably with Paul Wolfowitz ands her internal neocon.
While Obama used his peace prize speech to tell the world he would decide who should run sovereign
nations.
26000 bombs in 7 diverse countries in one year when the US is not in any declared war.
"new Democratic Party" is neocon foreign policy and $500B for the pentagon each year not counting
the bombing costs.
"new Democratic Party" also armed ISIS until they "went off the ranch" and broke the promise
they made to the US' spooks 'not to shoot at people US liked.'
"... Over the last thirty years the power of the Manufacturing and Infrastructure concerns has fallen
dramatically. So now we have a government dominated by Banking and Distribution, think Goldman Sacks
and Walmart. ..."
"... According to former CIA director Richard Helms, when Allen Dulles was tasked in 1946 to "draft
proposals for the shape and organization of what was to become the Central Intelligence Agency," he
recruited an advisory group of six men made up almost exclusively of Wall Street investment bankers
and lawyers. ..."
"... Dulles himself was an attorney at the prominent Wall Street law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell.
Two years later, Dulles became the chairman of a three-man committee which reviewed the young agency's
performance. ..."
"... So we see that from the beginning the CIA was an exclusive Wall Street club. Allen Dulles himself
became the first civilian Director of Central Intelligence in early 1953. ..."
"... The current Democratic Party was handed two golden opportunities and blew both of them. Obama
blew the 2008 financial crisis. And Hillary Clinton blew the 2016 election. ..."
"... Neoliberal Democrats seek to create the same tribablist/identity voting block on the left that
the republicans have on the right. The is why people like sanjait get totally spastic when progressives
criticize the party. ..."
Among the rich I think there were three groups based on where their wealth and interests laid.
Banking/Insurance industry.
Distribution/logistics.
Manufacturing and Infrastructure.
Over the last thirty years the power of the Manufacturing and Infrastructure concerns has
fallen dramatically. So now we have a government dominated by Banking and Distribution, think
Goldman Sacks and Walmart.
"Over the last thirty years the power of the Manufacturing and Infrastructure concerns has fallen
dramatically. So now we have a government dominated by Banking and Distribution, think Goldman
Sacks and Walmart."
This trend does not apply to Military-industrial complex (MIC). MIC probably should be listed
separately. Formally it is a part of manufacturing and infrastructure, but in reality it is closely
aligned with Banking and insurance.
CIA which is the cornerstone of the military industrial complex to a certain extent is an enforcement
arm for financial corporations.
According to former CIA director Richard Helms, when Allen Dulles was tasked in 1946
to "draft proposals for the shape and organization of what was to become the Central Intelligence
Agency," he recruited an advisory group of six men made up almost exclusively of Wall Street
investment bankers and lawyers.
Dulles himself was an attorney at the prominent Wall Street law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell.
Two years later, Dulles became the chairman of a three-man committee which reviewed the young
agency's performance.
The other two members of the committee were also New York lawyers. For nearly a year, the
committee met in the offices of J.H. Whitney, a Wall Street investment firm.
According to Peter Dale Scott, over the next twenty years, all seven deputy directors of
the agency were drawn from the Wall Street financial aristocracy; and six were listed in the
New York social register.
So we see that from the beginning the CIA was an exclusive Wall Street club. Allen Dulles
himself became the first civilian Director of Central Intelligence in early 1953.
The prevalent myth that the CIA exists to provide intelligence information to the president
was the promotional vehicle used to persuade President Harry Truman to sign the 1947 National
Security Act, the legislation which created the CIA.iv
But the rationale about serving the president was never more than a partial and very imperfect
truth...
The current Democratic Party was handed two golden opportunities and blew both of them. Obama
blew the 2008 financial crisis. And Hillary Clinton blew the 2016 election.
If you have a tool and the tool it broken you try to fix it. One doesn't pretend there is nothing
wrong.
The difference between neoliberal democrats and progressives is they differ on what's wrong.
Neoliberal Democrats seek to create the same tribablist/identity voting block on the left
that the republicans have on the right. The is why people like sanjait get totally spastic when
progressives criticize the party.
Progressives seek to create an aggressive party that represents the interests of working class
and petite bourgeoisie. That is why you see progressives get spastic when the corporate democrats
push appeasement policies.
"... Instead, the millions of young voters that are rejecting Hillary's campaign this year are making a carefully reasoned, even reluctant calculation about the limits of the insider politics both she and her husband have represented. ..."
"... And to one degree or another, the modern Democratic Party, often including Hillary Clinton personally, has been on the wrong side of virtually all of these issues. ..."
"... Hillary not only voted for the Iraq War, but offered a succession of ridiculous excuses for her vote. Remember, this was one of the easiest calls ever. A child could see that the Bush administration's fairy tales about WMDs and Iraqi drones spraying poison over the capital (where were they going to launch from, Martha's Vineyard?) were just that, fairy tales. ..."
"... Yet Hillary voted for the invasion for the same reason many other mainstream Democrats did: They didn't want to be tagged as McGovernite peaceniks. The new Democratic Party refused to be seen as being too antiwar, even at the cost of supporting a wrong one. ..."
Why Young People Are Right About Hillary Clinton: Listening to the youth vote doesn't always
lead to disaster
By Matt Taibbi
March 25, 2016
... ... ...
Instead, the millions of young voters that are rejecting Hillary's campaign this year are
making a carefully reasoned, even reluctant calculation about the limits of the insider politics
both she and her husband have represented.
For young voters, the foundational issues of our age have been the Iraq invasion, the financial
crisis, free trade, mass incarceration, domestic surveillance, police brutality, debt and income
inequality, among others.
And to one degree or another, the modern Democratic Party, often including Hillary Clinton
personally, has been on the wrong side of virtually all of these issues.
Hillary not only voted for the Iraq War, but offered a succession of ridiculous excuses
for her vote. Remember, this was one of the easiest calls ever. A child could see that the Bush
administration's fairy tales about WMDs and Iraqi drones spraying poison over the capital (where
were they going to launch from, Martha's Vineyard?) were just that, fairy tales.
Yet Hillary voted for the invasion for the same reason many other mainstream Democrats
did: They didn't want to be tagged as McGovernite peaceniks. The new Democratic Party refused
to be seen as being too antiwar, even at the cost of supporting a wrong one.
It was a classic "we can't be too pure" moment. Hillary gambled that Democrats would understand
that she'd outraged conscience and common sense for the sake of the Democrats' electoral viability
going forward. As a mock-Hillary in a 2007 Saturday Night Live episode put it, "Democrats know
me . They know my support for the Iraq War has always been insincere."
This pattern, of modern Democrats bending so far back to preserve what they believe is their
claim on the middle that they end up plainly in the wrong, has continually repeated itself.
Take the mass incarceration phenomenon. This was pioneered in Mario Cuomo's New York and furthered
under Bill Clinton's presidency, which authorized more than $16 billion for new prisons and more
police in a crime bill.
As The New Jim Crow author Michelle Alexander noted, America when Bill Clinton left office
had the world's highest incarceration rate, with a prison admission rate for black drug inmates
that was 23 times 1983 levels. Hillary stumped for that crime bill, adding the Reaganesque observation
that inner-city criminals were "super-predators" who needed to be "brought to heel."
You can go on down the line of all these issues. Trade? From NAFTA to the TPP, Hillary and
her party cohorts have consistently supported these anti-union free trade agreements, until it
became politically inexpedient. Debt? Hillary infamously voted for regressive bankruptcy reform
just a few years after privately meeting with Elizabeth Warren and agreeing that such industry-driven
efforts to choke off debt relief needed to be stopped.
Then of course there is the matter of the great gobs of money Hillary has taken to give speeches
to Goldman Sachs and God knows whom else. Her answer about that - "That's what they offered" -
gets right to the heart of what young people find so repugnant about this brand of politics.
One can talk about having the strength to get things done, given the political reality of the
times. But one also can become too easily convinced of certain political realities, particularly
when they're paying you hundreds of thousands of dollars an hour.
Is Hillary really doing the most good that she can do, fighting for the best deal that's there
to get for ordinary people?
Or is she just doing something that satisfies her own definition of that, while taking tens
of millions of dollars from some of the world's biggest jerks?
I doubt even Hillary Clinton could answer that question. She has been playing the inside game
for so long, she seems to have become lost in it. She behaves like a person who often doesn't
know what the truth is, but instead merely reaches for what is the best answer in that moment,
not realizing the difference.
This is why her shifting explanations and flippant attitude about the email scandal are almost
more unnerving than the ostensible offense. She seems confident that just because her detractors
are politically motivated, as they always have been, that they must be wrong, as they often were.
But that's faulty thinking. My worry is that Democrats like Hillary have been saying, "The
Republicans are worse!" for so long that they've begun to believe it excuses everything. It makes
me nervous to see Hillary supporters like law professor Stephen Vladeck arguing in the New York
Times that the real problem wasn't anything Hillary did, but that the Espionage Act isn't "practical."
If you're willing to extend the "purity" argument to the Espionage Act, it's only a matter
of time before you get in real trouble. And even if it doesn't happen this summer, Democrats may
soon wish they'd picked the frumpy senator from Vermont who probably checks his restaurant bills
to make sure he hasn't been undercharged.
But in the age of Trump, winning is the only thing that matters, right? In that case, there's
plenty of evidence suggesting Sanders would perform better against a reality TV free-coverage
machine like Trump than would Hillary Clinton. This would largely be due to the passion and energy
of young voters.
Young people don't see the Sanders-Clinton race as a choice between idealism and incremental
progress. The choice they see is between an honest politician, and one who is so profoundly a
part of the problem that she can't even see it anymore.
They've seen in the last decades that politicians who promise they can deliver change while
also taking the money, mostly just end up taking the money.
And they're voting for Sanders because his idea of an entirely voter-funded electoral "revolution"
that bars corporate money is, no matter what its objective chances of success, the only practical
road left to break what they perceive to be an inexorable pattern of corruption. Young people aren't dreaming. They're thinking. And we should listen to them.
"new Democratic Party" is lined up with the neocons.
Bill put Strobe Talbot and Mrs Kagan in senior positions in 1993!
Hillary voted comfortably with Paul Wolfowitz ands her internal neocon.
While Obama used his peace prize speech to tell the world he would decide who should run sovereign
nations.
26000 bombs in 7 diverse countries in one year when the US is not in any declared war.
"new Democratic Party" is neocon foreign policy and $500B for the pentagon each year not counting
the bombing costs.
"new Democratic Party" also armed ISIS until they "went off the ranch" and broke the promise
they made to the US' spooks 'not to shoot at people US liked.'
"... The exposure of this story takes the mask off the exponents of the Russian conspiracy theory. Their sanity is now in question,
as is their loyalty. ..."
For the past several months, Democrats have based their "Resist 45″ movement on unsubstantiated assertions that the Trump campaign
coordinated with Russian intelligence officials to undermine the 2016 Presidential Election thereby 'stealing' the White House from
Hillary Clinton. Day after day we've all suffered through one anonymously sourced, "shock" story after another from the New York
Times and/or The Washington Post with new allegations of the 'wrongdoing'.
But, new evidence surfacing in the Seth Rich murder investigation may just quash the "Russian hacking" conspiracy theory. According
to a new report from
Fox News , it was former DNC staffer Seth Rich who supplied 44,000 DNC emails to WikiLeaks and not some random Russian cyber
terrorist, as we've all been led to believe.
According to Fox News, though admittedly via yet another anonymous FBI source, Rich made contact with WikiLeaks through Gavin
MacFadyen, an American investigative reporter and director of WikiLeaks who was living in London at the time. According to Fox News
sources, federal law enforcement investigators found 44,053 emails and 17,761 attachments sent between DNC leaders from January 2015
to May 2016 that Rich shared with WikiLeaks before he was gunned down on July 10, 2016.
The Democratic National Committee staffer who was gunned down on July 10 on a Washington, D.C., street just steps from his
home had leaked thousands of internal emails to WikiLeaks, law enforcement sources told Fox News.
A federal investigator who reviewed an FBI forensic report detailing the contents of DNC staffer Seth Rich's computer generated
within 96 hours after his murder, said Rich made contact with WikiLeaks through Gavin MacFadyen, a now-deceased American investigative
reporter, documentary filmmaker, and director of WikiLeaks who was living in London at the time.
"I have seen and read the emails between Seth Rich and Wikileaks," the federal investigator told Fox News, confirming the MacFadyen
connection. He said the emails are in possession of the FBI, while the stalled case is in the hands of the Washington Police Department.
Then, on July 22, just 12 days after Rich was killed, WikiLeaks published internal DNC emails that appeared to show top party
officials conspiring to stop Bernie Sanders from becoming the party's presidential nominee. As we've noted before, the DNC's efforts
to block Sanders resulted in Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigning as DNC chairperson.
Expect the Comey-Russia hysteria to escalate as the Seth Rich matter ripens. The DNC is eyeing the 2018 midterm elections and
hoping that they can keep the focus off their problems (Hillary, Podesta, ad nauseam). How will they snatch defeat from the jaws
of victory yet again? CNN and MSNBC are preparing to levitate over the issues.
@Ivy Expect the Comey-Russia hysteria to escalate as the Seth Rich matter ripens. The DNC is eyeing the 2018 midterm elections
and hoping that they can keep the focus off their problems (Hillary, Podesta, ad nauseam). How will they snatch defeat from the
jaws of victory yet again? CNN and MSNBC are preparing to levitate over the issues.
Excellent point from Anonymous Conservative: Metro DC is probably wired for surveillance to a degree that would astonish most
people, and yet the official line is that "ain't nobody seen nuthin".
Three days after the Seth Rich murder Comey had the information (IF he didn't already know) gleaned from Rich's laptop that
he had been in correspondence with Wikileaks, yet went along with the canard that the DNC was hacked by the Russians till the
very end. Assange's confirmation that Russians had no connection to the LEAK was also ignored, because they wanted Assange painted
as a criminal.
His murder is very troubling. Nothing was taken so it seems he was targeted. Assassinations taking place in the US should be
of great concern to everyone. This shouldn't be allowed to go down the memory hole. Does the trail lead to Clinton or other domestic
spook groups?
Only scanned the article quickly, but I'm very confident an untold number of political decisions in America are made by political
violence and threats of violence, blackmail, bribery, and so on. There are good people in politics, even in my preternaturally
corrupt area, but they have to be tough as nails, and that can wear you out. We may be closer to Tinpot-istan in our political
culture than Norman Rockwell, but–Chrissake–where are the mainstream media in this Seth Rich case? I'm just a casual reader of
the story, but I'd like to know if this was a political assassination.
I suspect there's as much evidence in the Seth Rich matter as there is in The-Russians-Did-It theory. So let's have congress
drop all other business and "investigate" this Rich matter.
"According to a new report from Fox News, it was former DNC staffer Seth Rich who supplied 44,000 DNC emails to WikiLeaks and
not some random Russian cyber terrorist, as we've all been led to believe."
Does it occur to Durden that there may be SEPARATE WikiLeaks, one allegedly from Rich and one from another source?
@Corvinus "According to a new report from Fox News, it was former DNC staffer Seth Rich who supplied 44,000 DNC emails to
WikiLeaks and not some random Russian cyber terrorist, as we've all been led to believe."
Does it occur to Durden that there may be SEPARATE WikiLeaks, one allegedly from Rich and one from another source?
@SteveRogers42 Excellent point from Anonymous Conservative: Metro DC is probably wired for surveillance to a degree that would
astonish most people, and yet the official line is that "ain't nobody seen nuthin".
@Alfa158 The Wikileaks site shows two batches of leaked e-mails. One is the 44,053 from the DNC and the other 30,000 plus
from Hilary's e-mail server. Wikileaks doesn't say on their site specifically what the sources were. They did offer a reward for
information on the murder of Seth Rich, which implies, but does not state, that the DNC leaks came from Rich.
The Hillary e-mails could have been hacked by the Russians, any number of other intelligence sources, or even a skilled amateur.
Then on top of all that fog, other conflicting information is that the DNC lost control of the e-mails due to Podesta falling
for a phishing probe, even after his IT people warned him not to respond to it.
Yet another journalist claims he was the guy who forwarded the e-mails to Wikileaks and got them from a DNC staffer, but not Rich!
I think I'll go take a nap for about 5 years and you can wake me up after it is all sorted out.
@SteveRogers42 Excellent point from Anonymous Conservative: Metro DC is probably wired for surveillance to a degree that would
astonish most people, and yet the official line is that "ain't nobody seen nuthin".
@anon Is there a specific combination on DNA of Negroes that carries the "pathological liar" trait?
What is that DNA pattern?
Does it appear only on NEGRO DNA or has its presence been noted on non-Negro DNA?
A majority of Black callers to C Span declare, with gospel certainty, that "Trump is a liar, has been all his life."
Does that mean that Trump carries Negro DNA?
Or that Trump is a Negro?
Or that the code for lying can be present in non-Negroes?
Or that Negroes, being "pathological liars," lie about Trump being a liar?
Is that last statement disproved if it happens that Trump does, indeed, lie?
My but it does get complicated when blanket, prejudiced generalizations are slung about.
I'm not impressed. For quite some time there has been a credible witness to the fact of an insider leaked the DNC mails that
doesn't require going through anonymous FBI sources or climbing over a Rich family in denial:
"I know who leaked them. I've met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it's an insider. It's
a leak, not a hack; the two are different things" -wikileaks associate and former British foreign service officer Craig Murray
So why would 'tyler durden' toss all of this doubt inducing crap from the faux news channel into the stew of it? It's been
black & white, case closed for quite some time.
@Ronald Thomas West I'm not impressed. For quite some time there has been a credible witness to the fact of an insider leaked
the DNC mails that doesn't require going through anonymous FBI sources or climbing over a Rich family in denial:
"I know who leaked them. I've met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it's an insider. It's
a leak, not a hack; the two are different things" -wikileaks associate and former British foreign service officer Craig Murray
So why would 'tyler durden' toss all of this doubt inducing crap from the faux news channel into the stew of it? It's been
black & white, case closed for quite some time.
@Corvinus One can have reasonable doubt that Craig Murray "knows" who leaked them since he has self-interest and self-preservation
in mind.
Mr. Murray made this statement--"A little simple logic demolishes the CIA's claims. The CIA claim they "know the individuals"
involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign
hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power
to destabilise a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited,
or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks."
Except if the "Deep State" is playing for keeps and is hell-bent on removing Trump, then they are going to play it close to
the vest in certain matters and wait until they have the absolute goods to nail him to the cross. So it's not as "simple" as Mr.
Murray makes it out to be. Arrests and/or extraditions are most likely made when there is hard-core evidence, which is required
in this case given Trump status and popularity among his base. They have ONE bullet in their chamber and have to get the KILL
SHOT. The CIA has their attack dogs out en masses to smoke out the culprits. If it is revealed that in the two grand juries that
Trump's crew are joined at the hip with the Russians and/or engaged in shenanigans, then Republicans will have to think about
cutting their ties to Trump given the importance of the mid-term elections.
@Ronald Thomas West Clearly you're just way too smart for ordinary folk with common sense; kind of like the IQ 180 that believes
Jesus will return and straighten everything out. Meanwhile, I'll take Murray at his word.
JHC .. we do it/have been doing it (eg) meddling in foreign elections, wars, whacking the occasional candidate since the Spanish-American
War and say "its okay, it's in the national interest."
What's the point with the supposed Russia-US election bashing? Ie, it's okay and national interest legal for the US to meddle
and others not?
May 17, 2017 The Seth Rich Story Changes Once Again
Less than 24 hours after Private Investigator Rod Wheeler claimed that "investigation up to this point shows there was some
degree of email exchange between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks," the story has changed. Wheeler is now claiming that he had no additional
evidence to suggest that Seth Rich contacted WikiLeaks prior to his murder.
14.05.2017 International Cyber Attack: Roots Traced to US National Security Agency
Over 45,000 ransomware attacks have been tracked in large-scale attacks across Europe and Asia - particularly Russia and China
- as well as attacks in the US and South America. There are reports of infections in 99 countries. A string of ransomware attacks
appears to have started in the United Kingdom, Spain and the rest of Europe, before striking Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines
on May 12. According to Kaspersky Laboratory, Russia, Ukraine, India and Taiwan were hit hardest. Mikko Hypponen, chief research
officer at the Helsinki-based cybersecurity company F-Secure, called the attack "the biggest ransomware outbreak in history".
It is not known who exactly was behind it.
@Corvinus "Clearly you're just way too smart for ordinary folk with common sense...:
I'm merely offering my analysis from multiple sources.
"kind of like the IQ 180 that believes Jesus will return and straighten everything out."
Exactly. It is faith. One can question that belief, but you nor I actually know.
"Meanwhile, I'll take Murray at his word."
In order to maintain his narrative, absolutely. But you may be missing key things along the way. We'll see how it all plays
out. The two grand juries being convened on the Trump Administration will be telling.
@Agent76 May 17, 2017 The Seth Rich Story Changes Once Again
Less than 24 hours after Private Investigator Rod Wheeler claimed that "investigation up to this point shows there was some
degree of email exchange between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks," the story has changed. Wheeler is now claiming that he had no additional
evidence to suggest that Seth Rich contacted WikiLeaks prior to his murder.
@Ram Three days after the Seth Rich murder Comey had the information (IF he didn't already know) gleaned from Rich's laptop
that he had been in correspondence with Wikileaks, yet went along with the canard that the DNC was hacked by the Russians till
the very end. Assange's confirmation that Russians had no connection to the LEAK was also ignored, because they wanted Assange
painted as a criminal.
@Anonymous I feel the same way about the plane crashing into the Pentagon on 9/11
That must be literally the most surveillance heavy facility on the planet -- yet there is no footage of the crash/aftermath?
The whole system is crooked. Anything that incriminates the power structure simply disappears. And there doesn't seem to be
any mechanism to even look into it.
@Corvinus One can have reasonable doubt that Craig Murray "knows" who leaked them since he has self-interest and self-preservation
in mind.
Mr. Murray made this statement--"A little simple logic demolishes the CIA's claims. The CIA claim they "know the individuals"
involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign
hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power
to destabilise a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited,
or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks."
Except if the "Deep State" is playing for keeps and is hell-bent on removing Trump, then they are going to play it close to
the vest in certain matters and wait until they have the absolute goods to nail him to the cross. So it's not as "simple" as Mr.
Murray makes it out to be. Arrests and/or extraditions are most likely made when there is hard-core evidence, which is required
in this case given Trump status and popularity among his base. They have ONE bullet in their chamber and have to get the KILL
SHOT. The CIA has their attack dogs out en masses to smoke out the culprits. If it is revealed that in the two grand juries that
Trump's crew are joined at the hip with the Russians and/or engaged in shenanigans, then Republicans will have to think about
cutting their ties to Trump given the importance of the mid-term elections.
@anon Is there a specific combination on DNA of Negroes that carries the "pathological liar" trait?
What is that DNA pattern?
Does it appear only on NEGRO DNA or has its presence been noted on non-Negro DNA?
A majority of Black callers to C Span declare, with gospel certainty, that "Trump is a liar, has been all his life."
Does that mean that Trump carries Negro DNA?
Or that Trump is a Negro?
Or that the code for lying can be present in non-Negroes?
Or that Negroes, being "pathological liars," lie about Trump being a liar?
Is that last statement disproved if it happens that Trump does, indeed, lie?
My but it does get complicated when blanket, prejudiced generalizations are slung about.
@Anonymous I feel the same way about the plane crashing into the Pentagon on 9/11
That must be literally the most surveillance heavy facility on the planet -- yet there is no footage of the crash/aftermath?
The whole system is crooked. Anything that incriminates the power structure simply disappears. And there doesn't seem to be
any mechanism to even look into it.
@Alfa158 The Wikileaks site shows two batches of leaked e-mails. One is the 44,053 from the DNC and the other 30,000 plus
from Hilary's e-mail server. Wikileaks doesn't say on their site specifically what the sources were. They did offer a reward for
information on the murder of Seth Rich, which implies, but does not state, that the DNC leaks came from Rich.
The Hillary e-mails could have been hacked by the Russians, any number of other intelligence sources, or even a skilled amateur.
Then on top of all that fog, other conflicting information is that the DNC lost control of the e-mails due to Podesta falling
for a phishing probe, even after his IT people warned him not to respond to it.
Yet another journalist claims he was the guy who forwarded the e-mails to Wikileaks and got them from a DNC staffer, but not Rich!
I think I'll go take a nap for about 5 years and you can wake me up after it is all sorted out.
@Corvinus "The Wikileaks site shows two batches of leaked e-mails. One is the 44,053 from the DNC and the other 30,000 plus
from Hilary's e-mail server. Wikileaks doesn't say on their site specifically what the sources were. The Hillary e-mails could
have been hacked by the Russians, any number of other intelligence sources, or even a skilled amateur."
Exactly. So Zerohedge is being a White Knight here for Trump. It is possible that Rich could have supplied those documents,
but it is also possible that the Russians was involved. We don't know for sure.
Why doesn't Assange release at least some of the e-mails from Seth Rich to Wikileaks?
According to the standard version of the story, Rich did not email the pilfered DNC data to Wikileaks. Rather, he met in
DC with Craig Murray--a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a personal friend of Julian Assange--and gave him the information
on a flashdrive of some type. Murray then flew back to Britain and gave the drive to Assange in person.
@Don Bass ......We don't know for sure.....
Sure, we do. Wikileaks has stated emphatically and categorically the leaks - and they were leaks, not " hacks", were not sourced
from the Russians.
What also know - for sure - is that the "Russians hacked our elections" psy-op/misdirect was constructed (workshopped) by the
Podesta + David Brookes media matters "team" immediately after the HRC election failure.
@Don Bass ......We don't know for sure.....
Sure, we do. Wikileaks has stated emphatically and categorically the leaks - and they were leaks, not " hacks", were not sourced
from the Russians.
What also know - for sure - is that the "Russians hacked our elections" psy-op/misdirect was constructed (workshopped) by the
Podesta + David Brookes media matters "team" immediately after the HRC election failure.
Well, it must have been the Russians that hacked into the NY Times and published that damning article about Hil and Libya.
It was a rather complete exposé of incompetence and savagery. Note; the New York Times! And where did Trump live? Pretty conclusive;
Trump and the Russians victimizing poor Hil and the voice of liberals in one dastardly hack.
@Anonymous I feel the same way about the plane crashing into the Pentagon on 9/11
That must be literally the most surveillance heavy facility on the planet -- yet there is no footage of the crash/aftermath?
The whole system is crooked. Anything that incriminates the power structure simply disappears. And there doesn't seem to be
any mechanism to even look into it.
There's been so much smoke and mirrors on this, that it makes one want to throw his hands up
Before I even start, if anyone reporting on this does not mention Craig Murray, a well-known and respected associate of Julian
Assange involved with Wikileaks, and his claim back in December that he personally received the hand-off of the DNC emails from
insiders in DC, that person IS A HACK.
I followed it closely when he came out and was shocked and dismayed that barely anybody (nobody?) in the United States followed
up with him. They just ignored him. I guess because he couldn't be dismissed as a hack and what he said torpedoed the "Russians
did it" narrative, so just hope nobody heard him.
Craig Murray did not mention Seth Rich. What the American MSM's ignoring of him shows, though, is that *anything* that casts
doubt on the "Russians did it" narrative will be obfuscated, ignored, etc. Expect to be gaslit.
Anyway
One issue muddying the waters is that the two major "breakthroughs" come from "FOX": a local affiliate and Fox News.
I understand that there are problems with the local affiliate, but I gather, NOT the Fox News story Am I wrong?
If the Fox News reporting is correct, it's huge, and their's was the more substantive to begin with: law enforcement sources
said Seth Rich had been in contact with Gavin MacFadyen.
(if the local guy was bluffing in order to have fresh attention and get people to come forward, it was worth it)
Obviously, the answer to our impasse is: Interview Craig Murray
We have two questions:
a. Was Seth Rich involved in leaking to Wikileaks?
b. Who killed Seth Rich?
The answer to question "a" greatly changes the odds and focus for question "b". Of course, the DNC could also be the unluckiest
organization going in that the guy who destroyed them via leaking had the temerity to go get himself killed by some random thugs
who got away!
I see that Mike Whitney has just written about this, including Craig Murray, at Counterpunch:
@Dahlia There's been so much smoke and mirrors on this, that it makes one want to throw his hands up...
Before I even start, if anyone reporting on this does not mention Craig Murray, a well-known and respected associate of Julian
Assange involved with Wikileaks, and his claim back in December that he personally received the hand-off of the DNC emails from
insiders in DC, that person IS A HACK.
I followed it closely when he came out and was shocked and dismayed that barely anybody (nobody?) in the United States followed
up with him. They just ignored him. I guess because he couldn't be dismissed as a hack and what he said torpedoed the "Russians
did it" narrative, so just hope nobody heard him.
Craig Murray did not mention Seth Rich. What the American MSM's ignoring of him shows, though, is that *anything* that casts
doubt on the "Russians did it" narrative will be obfuscated, ignored, etc. Expect to be gaslit.
Anyway...
One issue muddying the waters is that the two major "breakthroughs" come from "FOX": a local affiliate and Fox News.
I understand that there are problems with the local affiliate, but I gather, NOT the Fox News story... Am I wrong?
If the Fox News reporting is correct, it's huge, and their's was the more substantive to begin with: law enforcement sources
said Seth Rich had been in contact with Gavin MacFadyen.
(if the local guy was bluffing in order to have fresh attention and get people to come forward, it was worth it)
Gavin MacFadyen seems to have had a relationship with Craig Murray, and both had/have a relationship with Julian Assange. Seth
Rich being in contact with Gavin MacFadyen greatly lends credibility to Craig Murray's account.
(Here, both are mentioned together in the book "Ghost Plane: The True Story Story of the CIA Torture Program"
https://books.google.com/books?id=NLzB7YXDHNUC&pg=PA311&lpg=PA311&dq=gavin+macfadyen+craig+murray+cia&source=bl&ots=KKy1_V2atM&sig=1CYGRZjnOxmcRIGk9RNx1iQhWcA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwigk-7br_3TAhXo7oMKHTOrCT0Q6AEIOzAE#v=onepage&q=gavin%20macfadyen%20craig%20murray%20cia&f=false)
Obviously, the answer to our impasse is: Interview Craig Murray
We have two questions:
a. Was Seth Rich involved in leaking to Wikileaks?
b. Who killed Seth Rich?
The answer to question "a" greatly changes the odds and focus for question "b". Of course, the DNC could also be the unluckiest
organization going in that the guy who destroyed them via leaking had the temerity to go get himself killed by some random thugs
who got away!
I see that Mike Whitney has just written about this, including Craig Murray, at Counterpunch:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/19/seth-rich-craig-murray-and-the-sinister-stewards-of-the-national-security-state/
In reference to the leak of the DNC emails, Murray noted that "Julian Assange took very close interest in the death of Seth
Rich, the Democratic staff member" who had worked for the DNC on voter databases and was shot and killed on July 10 near his
Washington, D.C., home.
Murray continued, "WikiLeaks offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to the capture of his killers. So, obviously
there are suspicions there about what's happening and things are somewhat murky. I'm not saying – don't get me wrong – I'm
not saying that he was the source of the [DNC] leaks. What I'm saying is that it's probably not an unfair indication to
draw that WikiLeaks believes that he may have been killed by someone who thought he was the source of the leaks whether correctly
or incorrectly. "
It may be worth noting that conspiracy theories have sprung up around other Democratic figures, but Julian Assange hasn't brought
them up. Just took a strong interest in this one.
Final comment in this string, so readers can check out Craig Murray's site. Maybe Ron Unz can get a hold of him?
Now both Julian Assange and I have stated definitively the leak does not come from Russia. Do we credibly have access? Yes,
very obviously. Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access to the source of the leak. The people saying it
is not Russia are those who do have access. After access, you consider truthfulness. Do Julian Assange and I have a reputation
for truthfulness? Well in 10 years not one of the tens of thousands of documents WikiLeaks has released has had its authenticity
successfully challenged. As for me, I have a reputation for inconvenient truth telling.
Can't say it enough: Discount anybody who doesn't reference Julian Assange or Craig Murray (and Gavin MacFadyen if the national
Fox News stands by its sources and I believe they do) when opining on Seth Rich or the Democratic emails.
I saw that Dave Weigel is planning on writing a piece on the Seth Rich conspiracy
The #1 thing fueling it is the Media ignoring Assange and his associates emphatically stating that it was insiders, not Russia,
involved with the Democratic leaks. These people received them, and long after the election when they have no possible motive,
still vehemently deny that it was Russia. Craig Murray spoke out in December. They have perfect credibility, and at this stage,
no motive that could be suspect. But they continue to be utterly, completely, ignored while the Russia circus runs on. So, a bona
fide Bernie supporter is murdered and Julian Assange took extreme interest How do people *not* question what is going on?
My spidey sense tells me that Seth Rich was a provider of intelligence to Julian Assange, but he really does not know who killed
him. I think Assange holds out some hope that it was a random one-off thug thing, but deep down, suspects it's not. The guilt
would be tremendous. But, he doesn't know. Strongly suspects. Tortured with guilt.
@Dahlia There's been so much smoke and mirrors on this, that it makes one want to throw his hands up...
Before I even start, if anyone reporting on this does not mention Craig Murray, a well-known and respected associate of Julian
Assange involved with Wikileaks, and his claim back in December that he personally received the hand-off of the DNC emails from
insiders in DC, that person IS A HACK.
I followed it closely when he came out and was shocked and dismayed that barely anybody (nobody?) in the United States followed
up with him. They just ignored him. I guess because he couldn't be dismissed as a hack and what he said torpedoed the "Russians
did it" narrative, so just hope nobody heard him.
Craig Murray did not mention Seth Rich. What the American MSM's ignoring of him shows, though, is that *anything* that casts
doubt on the "Russians did it" narrative will be obfuscated, ignored, etc. Expect to be gaslit.
Anyway...
One issue muddying the waters is that the two major "breakthroughs" come from "FOX": a local affiliate and Fox News.
I understand that there are problems with the local affiliate, but I gather, NOT the Fox News story... Am I wrong?
If the Fox News reporting is correct, it's huge, and their's was the more substantive to begin with: law enforcement sources
said Seth Rich had been in contact with Gavin MacFadyen.
(if the local guy was bluffing in order to have fresh attention and get people to come forward, it was worth it)
Gavin MacFadyen seems to have had a relationship with Craig Murray, and both had/have a relationship with Julian Assange. Seth
Rich being in contact with Gavin MacFadyen greatly lends credibility to Craig Murray's account.
(Here, both are mentioned together in the book "Ghost Plane: The True Story Story of the CIA Torture Program"
https://books.google.com/books?id=NLzB7YXDHNUC&pg=PA311&lpg=PA311&dq=gavin+macfadyen+craig+murray+cia&source=bl&ots=KKy1_V2atM&sig=1CYGRZjnOxmcRIGk9RNx1iQhWcA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwigk-7br_3TAhXo7oMKHTOrCT0Q6AEIOzAE#v=onepage&q=gavin%20macfadyen%20craig%20murray%20cia&f=false)
Obviously, the answer to our impasse is: Interview Craig Murray
We have two questions:
a. Was Seth Rich involved in leaking to Wikileaks?
b. Who killed Seth Rich?
The answer to question "a" greatly changes the odds and focus for question "b". Of course, the DNC could also be the unluckiest
organization going in that the guy who destroyed them via leaking had the temerity to go get himself killed by some random thugs
who got away!
I see that Mike Whitney has just written about this, including Craig Murray, at Counterpunch:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/19/seth-rich-craig-murray-and-the-sinister-stewards-of-the-national-security-state/
@Dahlia Final comment in this string, so readers can check out Craig Murray's site. Maybe Ron Unz can get a hold of him?
Now both Julian Assange and I have stated definitively the leak does not come from Russia. Do we credibly have access? Yes,
very obviously. Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access to the source of the leak. The people saying it
is not Russia are those who do have access. After access, you consider truthfulness. Do Julian Assange and I have a reputation
for truthfulness? Well in 10 years not one of the tens of thousands of documents WikiLeaks has released has had its authenticity
successfully challenged. As for me, I have a reputation for inconvenient truth telling.
Can't say it enough: Discount anybody who doesn't reference Julian Assange or Craig Murray (and Gavin MacFadyen if the national
Fox News stands by its sources and I believe they do) when opining on Seth Rich or the Democratic emails.
@Eagle Eye Seth Rich was quite young and perhaps not 100% wise to the ways of the world.
Is it conceivable that he passed the DNC emails to Comey's FBI FIRST as evidence of criminal wrongdoing, and THEN handed another
copy to Wikileaks as backup?
Perhaps Rich went to Wikileaks only after Comeys' FBI gave him the brush-off?
But I must say something ....Every recent article pertaining to Seth Rich, including Mike's , misses the MEAT of the entire
story.
The MEAT of the story is to be found in Seth Rich's JOB.
What did he do, Dahlia ?
He was a VOTER DATA DIRECTOR for the DNC....for gosh sakes!
If the story begins anywhere, it begins HERE.
Seth Rich's story begins when we recognize the high probability that Seth came across SUBSTANTIAL and REPEATED irregularities
in the VOTER DATA, tilting the outcomes in favor of Hillary.
This is the crux of the case.
It is also fair to assume that Seth Rich , given his role as "data director" , was able to COLLECT these voter data discrepancies,
and collate them into a fool proof evidentiary format.
Its the DATA which Seth found , that is the key... ...its the MEAT of the story.
But the DATA and the repeated systemic irregularities which he became aware of, could have been glitches in the system for
all he KNEW.
This is where we get to ......the POTATOES.
What are the potatoes?.....the potatoes are the EMAILS which show an INTENTIONALITY behind the DATA irregularities......and
expose them not just as "glitches" in the system,but as potentially deliberate and "treasonous" voter fraud.
A very serious case of multiple felonies by the DNC machine, and its party bosses, could be made if you have both the MEAT
(the data)and the POTATOES(the emails) of the case.
But you need BOTH, one without the other is not enough.
Givens Seth's JOB, the high probability he had the DATA in HAND, may well be why he was shot in the back at four in the morning
on July 10th, 2016.
If anyone wishes to solve this case..(or prosecute it)..they need to find the DATA CHIP....because
while the emails may show an "intentionality" to usurp the voters say in the DNC nomination , the DATA provides the PROOF.
May there be no doubt on this,.... everyone "involved" in these "dirty shenanigans" wants that data "exterminated" for all
time, .....and the entire story SHUT DOWN.
Seth Rich , given his role as "data director" , was able to COLLECT these voter data discrepancies, and collate them into a
fool proof evidentiary format.
This explanation - that Seth Rich had direct evidence of massive vote fraud - has always seemed most likely to me. The leaks are
secondary.
Again, he most likely went to the FBI and/or the U.S. media FIRST, but was betrayed by them leading to his murder. He ALSO
passed the data to Wikileaks.
So let's estimate the NUMBER of fraudulent votes controlled by the DNC. There are several categories:
(1) Illegal aliens registered to vote through La Raza, SEIU and similar DNC fronts.
(2) Other spurious voter registrations, e.g. dead voters, double voting (different addresses), completely fictitious voter
registrations concocted by complicit SEIU staff at registrars' offices.
(3) Zombie votes - technically correct voter registration, but the vote is actually cast by the SEIU, e.g. residents of nursing
homes, mental hospitals, military votes (which often mysteriously are not delivered to the military voter),
Given the period of time during which this has been operative, and the need to make a serious nation-wide impact, it seems
reasonable to estimate that the DNC controls about 3-7 million illegal votes nationwide .
The largest number would be in California. Although California overall is a blue state, there are conservative pockets and
some conservative candidates came close to the Democratic candidate in statewide and local races.
DC surgery resident on call the night of Seth Rich's death says Rich's gunshot wounds were non-fatal, access to him by the
doctors was blocked by DC police, and no code was called when he died.
DC surgery resident on call the night of Seth Rich's death says Rich's gunshot wounds were non-fatal, access to him by the
doctors was blocked by DC police, and no code was called when he died.
@JackOH I read the links. My understanding is that some cops will go rogue without instruction and on their own initiative
to jump the queue for advancement. There's not much deep-think to it. The political benefactor won't know any more than something
like "the problem was taken care of".
Seth Rich. Is there someone in the food chain who can apply pressure to find a credible suspect and, if possible, a motive?
Again, I'm just a casual reader, but the failure to get to the truth of the Seth Rich killing seems to empower a whole lot of
political mischief.
@JackOH SR42, your references are exactly what I was getting at in my comment #12 above.
I never took seriously the notion that American political decisions are made by violence and other criminal activities until
I got a very minor rough-up by a crooked cop for my smalltime local politicking. That cop later got a cushy government job under
the influence of a local Mr. Big whom I'd offended. Karma kicked in, and that cop's alcoholism and boorish behavior got him canned.
I never quit writing, but I was pretty damn scared for a while.
In all the categories of potential voter fraud you cited.
But I would imagine the vote "switching" from Bernie to Hillary, or the mysterious "disappearance" of a substantial percentage
of "Bernie votes" in key districts and perhaps certain states, too, is what caught Seth's eye.
But it could be all of it....and more too...for all we know....Without the data to look at..it's all just speculation.
DC surgery resident on call the night of Seth Rich's death says Rich's gunshot wounds were non-fatal, access to him by the
doctors was blocked by DC police, and no code was called when he died.
My own experience, which included a failed blackmail attempt against me, and, possibly, the failed solicitation of a bribe,
taught me something about American political process. I asked myself why in the hell are a few important local people getting
their knickers in a twist over a not very important guy who's doing no more than writing a lot and doing local radio a lot? The
only answer I came up with was they believed, falsely , I was staging a run for political office, that I was reasonably
persuasive and therefore a threat of some sort, and they wanted me pre-emptively in the bag. BTW-I did consider legal action against
some of these slobs, but effective legal process costs money I didn't have.
FWIW-I'm unhappy, too, about the hair-tearing speculation over the Seth Rich case. The only way I can think of to put much
of that speculation to rest is to find the killer and make the case against him.
I'd heard something echoing this a couple days ago, but found it so unbelievable. Then, Dave Weigel, et al., knowing for a
fact that statements from Julian Assange, Craig Murray, and the late Gavin MacFadyen are the reasons for interest in Seth Rich's
murder, completely write them out. They don't exist.
William Binney, arguably one of the best mathematicians ever to work at the National Security Agency, and former CIA officer
Ray McGovern, have argued that the emails must have come from a leak because a hack would be traceable by the NSA.
I'd forgotten this so many people including Scott Ritter of "Iraq has no WMD" fame have said similar.
But seriously, if you don't believe Assange or Murray who have firsthand knowledge, William Binney rests the case: leak not
hack.
Doesn't mean the murdered DNC operative was involved with leaks or that even if he was, that's why he was killed, but one can't
be closed-minded.
"... Hillary not only voted for the Iraq War, but offered a succession of ridiculous excuses for her vote. Remember, this was one of the easiest calls ever. A child could see that the Bush administration's fairy tales about WMDs and Iraqi drones spraying poison over the capital (where were they going to launch from, Martha's Vineyard?) were just that, fairy tales. ..."
"... Yet Hillary voted for the invasion for the same reason many other mainstream Democrats did: They didn't want to be tagged as McGovernite peaceniks. The new Democratic Party refused to be seen as being too antiwar, even at the cost of supporting a wrong one. ..."
"... But that's faulty thinking. My worry is that Democrats like Hillary have been saying, "The Republicans are worse!" for so long that they've begun to believe it excuses everything. It makes me nervous to see Hillary supporters like law professor Stephen Vladeck arguing in the New York Times that the real problem wasn't anything Hillary did, but that the Espionage Act isn't "practical." ..."
"... Young people don't see the Sanders-Clinton race as a choice between idealism and incremental progress. The choice they see is between an honest politician, and one who is so profoundly a part of the problem that she can't even see it anymore. ..."
"... "new Democratic Party" is lined up with the neocons. ..."
"... Bill put Strobe Talbot and Mrs Kagan in senior positions in 1993! Hillary voted comfortably with Paul Wolfowitz ands her internal neocon. While Obama used his peace prize speech to tell the world he would decide who should run sovereign nations. 26000 bombs in 7 diverse countries in one year when the US is not in any declared war. ..."
"... "new Democratic Party" is neocon foreign policy and $500B for the pentagon each year not counting the bombing costs. "new Democratic Party" also armed ISIS until they "went off the ranch" and broke the promise they made to the US' spooks 'not to shoot at people US liked.' ..."
Why Young People Are Right About Hillary Clinton
Listening to the youth vote doesn't always lead to disaster
By Matt Taibbi
March 25, 2016
... ... ...
.. the millions of young voters that are rejecting
Hillary's campaign this year are making a carefully reasoned,
even reluctant calculation about the limits of the insider
politics both she and her husband have represented.
For young voters, the foundational issues of our age have
been the Iraq invasion, the financial crisis, free trade,
mass incarceration, domestic surveillance, police brutality,
debt and income inequality, among others.
And to one degree or another, the modern Democratic Party,
often including Hillary Clinton personally, has been on the
wrong side of virtually all of these issues.
Hillary not only voted for the Iraq War, but offered a
succession of ridiculous excuses for her vote. Remember, this
was one of the easiest calls ever. A child could see that the
Bush administration's fairy tales about WMDs and Iraqi drones
spraying poison over the capital (where were they going to
launch from, Martha's Vineyard?) were just that, fairy tales.
Yet Hillary voted for the invasion for the same reason
many other mainstream Democrats did: They didn't want to be
tagged as McGovernite peaceniks. The new Democratic Party
refused to be seen as being too antiwar, even at the cost of
supporting a wrong one.
It was a classic "we can't be too pure" moment. Hillary
gambled that Democrats would understand that she'd outraged
conscience and common sense for the sake of the Democrats'
electoral viability going forward. As a mock-Hillary in a
2007 Saturday Night Live episode put it, "Democrats know me .
They know my support for the Iraq War has always been
insincere."
This pattern, of modern Democrats bending so far back to
preserve what they believe is their claim on the middle that
they end up plainly in the wrong, has continually repeated
itself.
Take the mass incarceration phenomenon. This was pioneered
in Mario Cuomo's New York and furthered under Bill Clinton's
presidency, which authorized more than $16 billion for new
prisons and more police in a crime bill.
As The New Jim Crow author Michelle Alexander noted,
America when Bill Clinton left office had the world's highest
incarceration rate, with a prison admission rate for black
drug inmates that was 23 times 1983 levels. Hillary stumped
for that crime bill, adding the Reaganesque observation that
inner-city criminals were "super-predators" who needed to be
"brought to heel."
You can go on down the line of all these issues. Trade?
From NAFTA to the TPP, Hillary and her party cohorts have
consistently supported these anti-union free trade
agreements, until it became politically inexpedient. Debt?
Hillary infamously voted for regressive bankruptcy reform
just a few years after privately meeting with Elizabeth
Warren and agreeing that such industry-driven efforts to
choke off debt relief needed to be stopped.
Then of course there is the matter of the great gobs of
money Hillary has taken to give speeches to Goldman Sachs and
God knows whom else. Her answer about that - "That's what
they offered" - gets right to the heart of what young people
find so repugnant about this brand of politics.
One can talk about having the strength to get things done,
given the political reality of the times. But one also can
become too easily convinced of certain political realities,
particularly when they're paying you hundreds of thousands of
dollars an hour.
Is Hillary really doing the most good that she can do,
fighting for the best deal that's there to get for ordinary
people?
Or is she just doing something that satisfies her own
definition of that, while taking tens of millions of dollars
from some of the world's biggest jerks?
I doubt even Hillary Clinton could answer that question.
She has been playing the inside game for so long, she seems
to have become lost in it. She behaves like a person who
often doesn't know what the truth is, but instead merely
reaches for what is the best answer in that moment, not
realizing the difference.
This is why her shifting explanations and flippant
attitude about the email scandal are almost more unnerving
than the ostensible offense. She seems confident that just
because her detractors are politically motivated, as they
always have been, that they must be wrong, as they often
were.
But that's faulty thinking. My worry is that Democrats
like Hillary have been saying, "The Republicans are worse!"
for so long that they've begun to believe it excuses
everything. It makes me nervous to see Hillary supporters
like law professor Stephen Vladeck arguing in the New York
Times that the real problem wasn't anything Hillary did, but
that the Espionage Act isn't "practical."
If you're willing to extend the "purity" argument to the
Espionage Act, it's only a matter of time before you get in
real trouble. And even if it doesn't happen this summer,
Democrats may soon wish they'd picked the frumpy senator from
Vermont who probably checks his restaurant bills to make sure
he hasn't been undercharged.
But in the age of Trump, winning is the only thing that
matters, right? In that case, there's plenty of evidence
suggesting Sanders would perform better against a reality TV
free-coverage machine like Trump than would Hillary Clinton.
This would largely be due to the passion and energy of young
voters.
Young people don't see the Sanders-Clinton race as a
choice between idealism and incremental progress. The choice
they see is between an honest politician, and one who is so
profoundly a part of the problem that she can't even see it
anymore.
They've seen in the last decades that politicians who
promise they can deliver change while also taking the money,
mostly just end up taking the money.
And they're voting for Sanders because his idea of an
entirely voter-funded electoral "revolution" that bars
corporate money is, no matter what its objective chances of
success, the only practical road left to break what they
perceive to be an inexorable pattern of corruption.
Young people aren't dreaming. They're thinking. And we
should listen to them.
"new Democratic Party" is lined up with the neocons.
Bill
put Strobe Talbot and Mrs Kagan in senior positions in 1993! Hillary voted comfortably with Paul Wolfowitz ands her
internal neocon. While Obama used his peace prize speech to tell the world
he would decide who should run sovereign nations.
26000 bombs in 7 diverse countries in one year when the US
is not in any declared war.
"new Democratic Party" is neocon foreign policy and $500B
for the pentagon each year not counting the bombing costs. "new Democratic Party" also armed ISIS until they "went
off the ranch" and broke the promise they made to the US'
spooks 'not to shoot at people US liked.'
"... The other story, however, is something our spooks don't want you to even know about. Fox News reported earlier today [Wednesday]
that the private investigator hired by the family of Seth Rich – but paid for by a third party – is now saying there's solid evidence
that Rich – a former DNC employee, embedded in their computer operations – was in contact with WikiLeaks. ..."
"... Rich was murdered in the wee hours of July 10, 2016. His wallet, his watch, and valuables were still on him, despite claims
it was a botched robbery. Days later, WikiLeaks published the DNC emails. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has offered a $20,000 reward
for information leading to the capture of his murderers. ..."
"... "An FBI forensic report of Rich's computer – generated within 96 hours after Rich's murder – showed he made contact with WikiLeaks
through Gavin MacFadyen, a now-deceased American investigative reporter, documentary filmmaker, and director of WikiLeaks who was living
in London at the time, the federal source told Fox News. "'I have seen and read the emails between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks,' the federal
investigator told Fox News, confirming the MacFadyen connection. He said the emails are in possession of the FBI, while the stalled
case is in the hands of the Washington Police Department." ..."
"... Speaking of WikiLeaks: a largely overlooked email from John Podesta's leaked account has him saying: "I am definitely for making
an example of a suspected leaker." It kind of makes you think, doesn't it? ..."
Two stories are now dominating the headlines: one is something the Establishment wants you to pay attention to, and the other
is something they want to bury. First off, to the former:
The Washington Beltway is in an uproar over the latest Deep State attempt to tar the President of the United States as a Russian
agent: they're
claiming Trump gave super-duper Top Secret information –provided, it turns out,
by the Israelis – to the Russians during a meeting with the Kremlin's Foreign Minister and their ambassador at the White House.
There are two problems with this story: if the anonymous former and currently serving "intelligence officials" cited by the
Washington Post were really concerned about the damage done to our "sources and methods," they would never have leaked this story
in the first place. Secondly, everyone in the room at the time, including National Security Advisor H. R. McMaster, denies it.
Far from proving Trump is either the Manchurian candidate and/or is playing fast and loose with our national security, it merely
shows – once again – that the "intelligence community" is out to depose him by any means necessary. Add to this Israel's amen corner,
which is now screeching that Trump "betrayed" Israel.
The other story, however, is something our spooks don't want you to even know about.
Fox News reported earlier today [Wednesday] that the private investigator hired by the family of Seth Rich – but paid for by
a third party – is now saying there's solid evidence that Rich – a former DNC employee, embedded in their computer operations – was
in contact with WikiLeaks.
Rich was murdered in the wee hours of July 10, 2016. His wallet, his watch, and valuables were still on him, despite claims
it was a botched robbery. Days later, WikiLeaks published the DNC emails. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has offered a $20,000
reward for information leading to the capture of his murderers.
Fox News is reporting that Rich's computer
shows "44,053 emails and 17,761 attachments between DNC leaders" passed between Rich and WikiLeaks. They cite not only
Rod Wheeler , a former Washington DC homicide
detective hired by the Rich family to solve the case, but also a "federal investigator" who corroborates Wheeler's claims:
"An FBI forensic report of Rich's computer – generated within 96 hours after Rich's murder – showed he made contact with WikiLeaks
through Gavin MacFadyen, a now-deceased American investigative reporter, documentary filmmaker, and director of WikiLeaks who was
living in London at the time, the federal source told Fox News.
"'I have seen and read the emails between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks,' the federal investigator told Fox News, confirming the MacFadyen
connection. He said the emails are in possession of the FBI, while the stalled case is in the hands of the Washington Police Department."
Speaking of WikiLeaks: a largely overlooked
email from John Podesta's leaked account has him saying: "I am definitely for making an example of a suspected leaker." It kind
of makes you think, doesn't it?
I've said from the beginning that 1) There is no convincing evidence that the Russians hacked the DNC, or fooled John Podesta
into giving out his email account password, and 2) It was most likely an inside job. While it may be an overstatement to say that
this latest story confirms it, it certainly calls the Russian conspiracy theory into serious question.
Yet both the House and the Senate have launched investigations designed to prove "collusion" between the Trump campaign and the
Kremlin – to say nothing of the FBI probe. Will the same attention be paid to the Rich-MacFayden correspondence?
Of course not.
The Rich family is denying that there's any evidence their son was in contact with WikiLeaks: but their official spokesman – yes,
they have one – is one Brad Bauman , a self-described
" crisis consultant " for the Democrats. Which
is very appropriate, since these new revelations do indeed constitute a crisis for the Democrats, who have based their entire post-election
strategy on a
flimsy
conspiracy theory that has been
debunked
by cyber-security experts (the ones who
aren't in the pay of the
DNC, that is)..
Wheeler says that a local police officer in Washington "looked me straight in the eye" and told him they had been ordered to "stand
down" on Rich's case. As for the "mainstream" media, they don't have to be told to stand down – they're doing it instinctively.
But no worries! Antiwar.com was founded to blast through the "mainstream" media wall of silence. That's our job, and we've
been doing it for over 20 years. But we can't continue to do it without your help. This Russia conspiracy theory is just plain bonkers,
and is clearly the creation of political opportunists and Deep State spooks who have a vested interest in pushing it.
Well, we have a vested interest in the truth. And so do you. That's why supporting Antiwar.com should be near the top of your
agenda right now: because a site like this has never been more necessary.
But it doesn't come free! We depend on you, our readers, to donate the funds we need to continue. So don't let the "mainstream"
media pull the wool over America's eyes – make your tax-deductible donation
today.
Postscript: By the way, the Fox News story on the Seth Rich-Wikileaks connection, by reporter Malia Zimmerman, went through
several interesting iterations since its original publication. See
here .
"... When Trump becomes president by running against the nation's neoliberal elite of both parties, it was a strong, undeniable signal that the neoliberal elite has a problem -- it lost the trust of the majority American people and is viewed now, especially Wall Street financial sharks, as an "occupying force". ..."
"... That means that we have the crisis of the elite governance or, as Marxists used to call it "a revolutionary situation" -- the situation in which the elite can't govern "as usual" and common people (let's say the bottom 80% of the USA population) do not want to live "as usual". Political Zugzwang. The anger is boiling and has became a material force in the most recent elections. ..."
"... The elites also ran American foreign policy, as they have throughout U.S. history. Over the past 25 years they got their country bogged down in persistent wars with hardly any stated purpose and in many instances no end in sight-Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya. Many elites want further U.S. military action in Ukraine, against Iran, and to thwart China's rise in Asia. Aside from the risk of growing geopolitical blowback against America, the price tag is immense, contributing to the country's ongoing economic woes. ..."
"... Thus did this economic turn of events reflect the financialization of the U.S. economy-more and more rewards for moving money around and taking a cut and fewer and fewer rewards for building a business and creating jobs. ..."
"... ...Now comes the counterrevolution. The elites figure that if they can just get rid of Trump, the country can return to what they consider normalcy -- the status quo ante, before the Trumpian challenge to their status as rulers of America. That's why there is so much talk about impeachment even in the absence of any evidence thus far of "high crimes and misdemeanors." That's why the firing of James Comey as FBI director raises the analogy of Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre." ..."
"... That's why the demonization of Russia has reached a fevered pitch, in hopes that even minor infractions on the part of the president can be raised to levels of menace and threat. ..."
"... There is no way out for America at this point. Steady as she goes could prove highly problematic. A push to remove him could prove worse. Perhaps a solution will present itself. But, even if it does, it will rectify, with great societal disquiet and animosity, merely the Trump crisis. The crisis of the elites will continue, all the more intractable and ominous. ..."
Trump is just a one acute symptom of the underling crisis of the neoliberal social system, that
we experience. So his removal will not solve the crisis.
And unless some kind of New Deal Capitalism is restored there is no alternative to the neoliberalism
on the horizon.
But the question is: Can the New Deal Capitalism with its "worker aristocracy" strata and the
role of organized labor as a weak but still countervailing force to corporate power be restored
? I think not.
With the level of financialization achieved, the water is under the bridge. The financial toothpaste
can't be squeezed back into the tube. That's what makes the current crisis more acute: none of
the parties has any viable solution to the crisis, not the will to attempt to implement some radical
changes.
When Trump becomes president by running against the nation's neoliberal elite of both parties,
it was a strong, undeniable signal that the neoliberal elite has a problem -- it lost the trust
of the majority American people and is viewed now, especially Wall Street financial sharks, as
an "occupying force".
That means that we have the crisis of the elite governance or, as Marxists used to call
it "a revolutionary situation" -- the situation in which the elite can't govern "as usual" and
common people (let's say the bottom 80% of the USA population) do not want to live "as usual".
Political Zugzwang. The anger is boiling and has became a material force in the most recent elections.
At least Republican elites resisted the emergence of Trump for as long as they could. Some
even attacked him vociferously. But, unlike in the Democratic Party, the Republican candidate
who most effectively captured the underlying sentiment of GOP voters ended up with the nomination.
The Republican elites had to give way. Why? Because Republican voters fundamentally favor vulgar,
ill-mannered, tawdry politicians? No, because the elite-generated society of America had become
so bad in their view that they turned to the man who most clamorously rebelled against it.
... ... ...
The elites also ran American foreign policy, as they have throughout U.S. history. Over
the past 25 years they got their country bogged down in persistent wars with hardly any stated
purpose and in many instances no end in sight-Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya. Many
elites want further U.S. military action in Ukraine, against Iran, and to thwart China's rise
in Asia. Aside from the risk of growing geopolitical blowback against America, the price tag
is immense, contributing to the country's ongoing economic woes.
... ... ...
Then there is the spectacle of the country's financial elites goosing liquidity massively
after the Great Recession to benefit themselves while slamming ordinary Americans with a resulting
decline in Main Street capitalism. The unprecedented low interest rates over many years, accompanied
by massive bond buying called "quantitative easing," proved a boon for Wall Street banks and
corporate America while working families lost income from their money market funds and savings
accounts. The result, says economic consultant David M. Smick, author of The Great Equalizer
, was "the greatest transfer of middle-class and elderly wealth to elite financial interests
in the history of mankind." Notice that these post-recession transactions were mostly financial
transactions, divorced from the traditional American passion for building things, innovating,
and taking risks-the kinds of activities that spur entrepreneurial zest, generate new enterprises,
and create jobs. Thus did this economic turn of events reflect the financialization of
the U.S. economy-more and more rewards for moving money around and taking a cut and fewer and
fewer rewards for building a business and creating jobs.
...Now comes the counterrevolution. The elites figure that if they can just get rid
of Trump, the country can return to what they consider normalcy -- the status quo ante, before
the Trumpian challenge to their status as rulers of America. That's why there is so much talk
about impeachment even in the absence of any evidence thus far of "high crimes and misdemeanors."
That's why the firing of James Comey as FBI director raises the analogy of Nixon's "Saturday
Night Massacre."
That's why the demonization of Russia has reached a fevered pitch, in hopes that even
minor infractions on the part of the president can be raised to levels of menace and threat.
... ... ...
There is no way out for America at this point. Steady as she goes could prove highly
problematic. A push to remove him could prove worse. Perhaps a solution will present itself.
But, even if it does, it will rectify, with great societal disquiet and animosity, merely the
Trump crisis. The crisis of the elites will continue, all the more intractable and ominous.
IMHO Trump betrayal of his voters under the pressure from DemoRats ("the dominant neoliberal
wing of Democratic Party", aka "Clinton's wing") makes the situation even worse. a real Gordian
knot. Or, in chess terminology, a Zugzwang.
He raised income taxes for the top 1.5% and dramatically lowered capital gain tax. As rich get
bulk of their income from capital gains and bonds he lowered taxes for rich. Is this so difficult
to understand ?
As for "Russian troll" label, that only demonstrates your level brainwashing and detachment
from reality. Clinical case of a politically correct neocon. People like you, as well as "Washington
swamp", underestimate how angry people outside, let's say, top 20% are -- angry enough to elect
Trump.
This boiling anger is now an important factor in the USA politics. That's why the US neocons
feels do insecure and resort to dirty tricks to depose Trump. They want the full, 100% political
power back.
Even the fact that Trump conceded the most important of his election promises is not enough
for them. Carthago delenda est -- Trump must go -- is the mentality. But if it comes to the impeachment,
"demorats" (aka neoliberal democrats) might see really interesting things, when it happens. It
might well be that this time neocons/neolibs might really feel people wrath. I might be wrong
as psychopaths are unable to experience emotions, only to fake them.
ZJ: So let's move to foreign policy. You were one of the few Democrats on the Hill who sort of
opposed the strikes on Syria, against the Syrian government by President Trump. You opposed them
on the substance, not just on the process arguments. But of course we know these conflicts, they
didn't start under President Trump, they are largely continuations of what happened under President
Obama. Do you feel for instance that Obama's drone program in Pakistan or the support, for instance,
the Saudi war in Yemen have also helped terrorists recruit and have also harmed U.S. interests?
RK: I'm opposed to the policy in Yemen where we're providing arms to Saudi Arabia, which is actually
aligned with Al Qaeda in a proxy war against Iran with the Houthis. Seventeenmillion Yemenis are
facing famines and many of the Yemenis equate the Saudi bombs with U.S. bombs. It's not helping create
more peace. It's creating more generations of hate. And the Saudis are aligned with Al Qaeda which
has taken responsibility for the underwear bomber and for attacks on synagogues in Chicago. So our
policy there is muddled and isn't actually helping contain terrorism. I think that I've articulated
a foreign policy that says the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, Libya was a mistake, the escalation
in Afghanistan was a mistake, that we really need to have more restrain in our foreign policy, not
do more harm and recognize John Quincy Adams. We shouldn't
go out to slay monsters
. We should give people who are seeking freedom our prayers, our voice, but we don't want tobe
engaged in interventions around the world which has actually led to the spread of terrorism and isn't
making us safer.
ZJ: With respect to what the Justice Democrats are talking about with building a new economy,
I'm curious, you've talked a lot about antitrust policy and competition policy. Some people would
say that would rub up against powerful industries. One of those in your own backyard is Silicon Valley.
Should we be applying this antitrust policy to an industry some people are now calling the
new Wall Street
?
RK: We should be applying the antitrust policy. I don't think Silicon Valley is Wall Street. But
I do think that there needs to be antitrust enforcement, especially on the Internet Service Providers.
Four Internet Service Providers - AT&T, Charter, Time Warner, Comcast - that are basically dividing
up the map is one of the reasons that consumers are paying more for internet access. And I think
there ought to be an antitrust division with the FCC and they ought to enforce the law regardless
of industry. Whether that's airlines, or technology, or banking I don't think anyone is exempt from
antitrust enforcement.
ZJ: How would you rate the past few presidents on antitrust policy and which president do you
think should be the model when it comes to antitrust enforcement?
RK: I think Harry Truman was very strong on antitrust, the Truman Commission looked after some
of the monopolistic behavior, before Truman became president, of monopolistic practices applying
to the Defense Department. Of course Theodore Roosevelt. I think antitrust enforcement needs to
be significantly strengthened.
Matt Stoller has
done excellent work on it, and it's an area of a concentration of economic wealth that has not been
addressed sufficiently inthe past few administrations.
ZJ: Speaking about howthe Justice Democratsseeks to transform the Democratic Party, we saw sort
of a debate when there was the DNC chair race about the role of big donors in the Democrats. Do you
believe, for instance, that the DNC should accept contributions from lobbyists? That was something
that was a rule under Barack Obama - that it would not accept them but that rule was lifted under
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
RK: I disagreed with the lifting of the rule. I believe that the DNC should not be accepting corporate
PAC money or lobbyist money. And I spoke out very strongly when the rule was lifted saying that was
a mistake.
ZJ: Another resolution that was debated at the DNC - and actually a
similar resolution was debated at the RNC, and both of them failed - was basically to say that
if you're a corporate lobbyist, you should not be allowed to be a voting member of the DNC. Do you
think that's an appropriate rule?
RK: I think that's a fair rule that we shouldn't be having corporate lobbyists as part ofDNC voting
members.
FBI agents say the bureau is alarmed over Director James Comey deciding not to suggest that the Justice Department prosecute Hillary
Clinton over her mishandling of classified information.
According to an interview transcript given to The Daily Caller, provided by an intermediary who spoke to two federal agents with
the bureau last Friday, agents are frustrated by Comey's leadership.
"This is a textbook case where a grand jury should have convened but was not. That is appalling," an FBI special agent who has
worked public corruption and criminal cases said of the decision. "We talk about it in the office and don't know how Comey can keep
going."
The agent was also surprised that the bureau did not bother to search Clinton's house during the investigation.
"We didn't search their house. We always search the house. The search should not just have been for private electronics, which
contained classified material, but even for printouts of such material," he said.
"There should have been a complete search of their residence," the agent pointed out. "That the FBI did not seize devices is unbelievable.
The FBI even seizes devices that have been set on fire."
Another special agent for the bureau that worked counter-terrorism and criminal cases said he is offended by Comey's saying: "we"
and "I've been an investigator."
After graduating from law school, Comey became a law clerk to a U.S. District Judge in Manhattan and later became an associate
in a law firm in the city. After becoming a U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, Comey's career moved through the
U.S. Attorney's Office until he became Deputy Attorney General during the George W. Bush administration.
After Bush left office, Comey entered the private sector and became general counsel and Senior Vice President for Lockheed Martin,
among other private sector posts. President Barack Obama appointed him to FBI director in 2013 replacing out going-director Robert
Mueller.
"Comey was never an investigator or special agent. The special agents are trained investigators and they are insulted that Comey
included them in 'collective we' statements in his testimony to imply that the SAs agreed that there was nothing there to prosecute,"
the second agent said. "All the trained investigators agree that there is a lot to prosecuted but he stood in the way."
He added, "The idea that [the Clinton/e-mail case] didn't go to a grand jury is ridiculous."
According to Washington D.C. attorney Joe DiGenova, more FBI agents will be talking about the problems at bureau and specifically
the handling of the Clinton case by Comey when Congress comes back into session and decides to force them to testify by subpoena.
DiGenova told WMAL radio's Drive at Five last week, "People are starting to talk. They're calling their former friends outside
the bureau asking for help. We were asked to day to provide legal representation to people inside the bureau and agreed to do so
and to former agents who want to come forward and talk. Comey thought this was going to go away."
He explained, "It's not. People inside the bureau are furious. They are embarrassed. They feel like they are being led by a hack
but more than that that they think he's a crook. They think he's fundamentally dishonest. They have no confidence in him. The bureau
inside right now is a mess."
He added, "The most important thing of all is that the agents have decided that they are going to talk."
In the political swamp that is Washington, and in the press swamp, motor boats began speeding
every which way in the wake of Trump's decision to fire FBI Director Comey.
People in the boats are holding up signs to explain the reason for the firing.
The first sign was: COMEY LIED. Comey lied the other day. He lied in testimony before Congress,
when he said Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton's long-time aide, had sent "hundreds and thousands" of
emails to her husband, Anthony Weiner, some of which contained classified information. The truth
was, the FBI says, contradicting Comey, a great many of those emails were merely "backed up" on Weiner's
laptop via "backup devices." Huh? Does that actually mean something? Weiner obtained those emails
out of the sky, delivered by a chariot, and not from Huma? Weiner's laptop was serving as a storage
device, a personal little cloud? Somebody not connected to the Hillary campaign was using the social-media's
porn star as a backup for classified data? Who would that be? Putin? Putin hacked the Hillary/DNC
emails, and sent them to both WikiLeaks and Anthony Weiner? "Hi Anthony. Vlad here. Keep these thousands
of emails for posterity."
The next motor boat running through the swamp featured a sign that said: COMEY SCREWED UP THE
HILLARY INVESTIGATION. This sign can be interpreted several ways, depending on who is in the boat.
One, Comey didn't press the investigation into Hillary's personal email server far enough last summer
and fall. He stalled it. He didn't ask for an indictment. That's why Trump fired him yesterday. Trump
didn't fire Comey right after he was elected president, when it would have been a simple bye bye.
No, Trump waited five months and then lowered the boom. Sure.
The other meaning of COMEY SCREWED UP THE HILLARY INVESTIGATION is: Comey improperly told the
world (last summer) that the FBI was investigating Hillary. His announcement influenced the election.
The FBI is supposed to keep absolutely quiet about ongoing investigations. Comey didn't. Then he
publicly closed the book on the investigation, opened it again, and closed it again. That's why Trump
just fired him. Again, Trump waited five months after the election and then got rid of Comey. And
of course, Trump was morally outraged that Comey exposed Hillary in the first place, when Comey should
have remained silent. Sure. That makes a lot of sense.
The next motor boat speeding across the swamp held up a big sign that said, TRUMP FIRED COMEY
TO STOP THE FBI FROM INVESTIGATING THE TRUMP-RUSSIA CONNECTION. You see, for five months, Trump happily
left Comey in place, knowing Comey was investigating him, Trump, and yesterday Trump had enough of
that, so he fired the FBI director. Right.
The next motor boat in the swamp held up a sign that said, THIS IS NIXON ALL OVER AGAIN, THIS
IS TRUMP'S WATERGATE. The sign refers to the last sign, but ups the ante. And there is another sign
that says, in the same vein, NOW WE CAN IMPEACH TRUMP. And another one that says, APPOINT AN INDEPENDENT
COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE THE TRUMP-RUSSIA CONNECTION.
I'm waiting for Bob Woodward of Watergate fame to step in and say, "It's all right, folks, I'm
on the case. I'll handle it. I was just eating lunch and sipping a fine wine in my underground parking
garage when a shadowy figure stepped out of the gloom and whispered, 'My throat is deep, and I'll
spoon-feed you secrets for the next year, but you'll have to dig up the facts. Everybody is involved
in the cover-up. Comey, Sessions, Pence, Bannon, Conway, Ivanka, Putin, Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Stalin."
So why did Trump fire Comey yesterday?
I don't know, but the short answer might be: Comey's boss, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, told
Trump to get rid of Comey. Sessions made the call.
Sessions now has a specific plan to make the FBI over in the image he prefers. Sessions wants
to shape the Bureau according to his agendas. Sessions has looked into the Bureau and he now knows
which people he wants to fire. He wants to get rid of the Obama crowd. He wants loyalists. He doesn't
want a Dept. of Justice that is going in one direction, while the FBI is going in another. Sessions
wants a predictable FBI. His own.
Joel Pollak, writing at Breitbart, has a simpler answer to the question, why fire Comey now?
Pollak writes :
"But why fire Comey now? The answer is simple. The day before, President Barack Obama's former
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper repeated, under oath, what he told NBC News' Chuck
Todd on Meet the Press on March 5 - that he had seen no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign
and the Russian government. That gave the Trump administration the breathing room to dismiss Comey
- which it simply did not have before."
In other words, now Trump can't be accused of firing Comey to stop "the truth" emerging about
a Trump-Russia collusion, because there isn't any collusion.
Theoretically, that might be the case-but the spin machine doesn't care about the truth or who
is right and who is wrong. The machine keeps running. Those motor boats keep moving across the swamp.
Signs come out. People yell and scream.
Chuck Schumer may soon compare Trump to Benedict Arnold.
For the past 65 years, the CIA has been infiltrating media and promoting many messages. In certain
cases, an op involves promoting CONFLICTING messages, because the intent is sowing discord, chaos,
and division. In this instance (Comey/Trump), it's a walk in the park (or a ride in the swamp). All
sorts of people on both sides already have steam coming out of their ears, without any nudging or
provocation.
"... More specifically, whether true or not, the Democrats are likely to use this move to claim that Comey was fired for digging too hard into Trump-Russia connections ..."
"... The official story is that attorney general Jeff Session and his deputy attorney general Rosenstein wanted Comey's head. And since the FBI does report to the Department of Justice, Sessions is within his rights to demand the firing of the head of the FBI and expect the President to respect his request. So if this proves to have been a reckless move, it will reflect Trump's poor judgment in selecting Sessions as his AG, who was a controversial pick from the outset. ..."
"... I support the firing of Comey, and would have supported it if done by Clinton, Obama, Sanders or Trump. His actions wrt "intent" in handling classified information, and his unilateral (in public at least) decision on leveling charges against Clinton (which was not his job) render him unfit for office. ..."
"... Both the Right and the Left are disinclined to believe in or care about any scandal involving Russia. And it was actually the Clinton partisans who demanded Comey's head in the first place–and we all know the Clinton history with independent prosecutors. So the Democrats who whine about this or call for an independent prosecutor just end up looking like the partisan hypocrites they are. ..."
"... What this does, after a few days, is get the Russian hacking investigation out of the news, so everyone can focus firmly on debating how many people need to lose their health care to satisfy the tax-cut gods. ..."
"... I'm already seeing Twitter Dems doubling down on the Russia stuff. The Russia hysteria is setting us up so that there will be absolutely no political incentive for future Presidents to be friendly with Russia. I wonder if they don't know (or just don't care) that they aren't going to be able to put this genie back in the bottle after Trump is gone. ..."
"... All it does is reinforce existing bias. Dems are even more convinced about Russian ties, Reps are even more concerned the wheels are off, TrumpNation is even more convinced there's an evil plot out to get their guy. And the media has a click frenzy to drive ad rates. ..."
"... being anti Russian is in the very DNA of the repubs. Would the repubs turn on Trump because Trump isn't fervently anti Russian enough? I very much think so .they have a good repub vice president that I am sure ALL of them much prefer .. ..."
"... Its important to remember the disdain the country has for Versailles in general. Trump became President despite universal support for Hillary and to a lesser extent Jeb on the shores of the Potomac.The Republican Id is dedicated to hating Democrats. Bill Clinton and Obama could play Weekend at Bernie's with Reagan corpse and kill Social Security, and Republicans would still hate them. ..."
"... Communists and other boogeymen of the past are secondary to this drive. The Versailles Republicans, a different breed, could never deliver Republican votes outside of Northern Virginia for one simple reason their base despises Democrats more than they might hate Stalin. They will never give credit to a Democrat. Remember the liberal whining about how Republicans never gave Obama credit for his right wing policy pushes. ..."
"... The other key point to the GOP voter relationship is Trump WON. He beat Jeb and his sheepdogs and then he beat Hillary (Hillary and the Dems lost). Trump is the their winner so to speak. As long as Trump is denounced by the usual suspects for bizarre reasons, Trump will maintain his hold. ..."
"... fbi sorta sat on gulen charter school investigation and it would certainly help emperor trompe and prince erdo relationship if Fethu found his old self on an express flight to Ankara considering the bean "kurd" thing recently added on the takeout menu ..."
"... People are fed up. Savings & Loan mess & Iran Contra & & & & yawn Wall Street destroys the economy & no one goes to jail, Medical Industrial Complex management bloodsuckers insure that sickness leads to penury ..."
"... I am no fan of Comey. I think his self-righteousness makes him a dangerous FBI Director and a loose cannon. However, people who think this is going to hurt Trump are likely wrong. If Trump knows there's nothing in the Russia story, but he continues to string out the Democrats with it, then they're the ones who are going to look foolish after having invested so much political capital in it. ..."
"... Since you can't prove a negative, the innuendo can continue ad nauseam. ..."
"... I suspect the Democrats are unaware they are indirectly insulting the Trump voters by the Russian influence story.. They are in effect saying Trump voters were played by the "evil" Russians into voting for Trump, despite the 1Billion spend by Clinton and her considerable support in the US media. I don't imagine the Trump voters like this message. ..."
"... If Trump indirectly destroys both the Democratic and Republican parties, he might rank as one of our more important Presidents, quite unintentionally. ..."
"... Why doesnt he fire the top 10 layers of CIA instead? They are wreaking havoc for real everywhere domestically and abroad. ..."
"... If this government ever became a tyranny, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology. ( ) ..."
Posted on May 9, 2017 by
Yves Smith Trump's sudden and unexpected firing of
FBI director James Comey is likely to damage Trump. The question is whether this move will simply serve as the basis for sowing further
doubts in the mainstream media against Trump, or will dent Trump's standing with Republicans.
Comey made an odd practice of making moves that were arguably procedurally improper in his handling of the Clinton e-mail investigation,
but some favored Clinton while others were damaging, given an impression of impartiality to the general public via getting both parties
riled with Comey at various points in time. And regardless of what one thinks of his political and legal judgment, Comey had a reputation
of being a straight shooter.
And more generally, the director of the FBI is perceived to be a role above the partisan fray. Firing him is fraught with danger;
it has the potential of turning into in a Nixonian Saturday Night Massacre, where the firing of special prosecutor Archibald Cox
led the press and public to see Nixon as desperate to stymie an investigation into Watergate charges. It was the archetypal "the
coverup is worse than the crime".
To minimize risk, Trump's would have needed to have engaged in a whispering campaign against Comey, or least have notified some
key figures in Congress that this was about to happen and give the rationale for the turfing out. And it appears he did do that to
at least a degree, in that (as you will see below), Lindsay Graham, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made a statement
supporting the firing. But given the surprised reaction in the press, it looks like any ground-sowing for this move was minimal.
Caution and preparation don't rank high as Trump Administration priorities.
More specifically, whether true or not, the Democrats are likely to use this move to claim that Comey was fired for digging
too hard into Trump-Russia connections .
We'll know more in the coming hours and days. The official story is that attorney general Jeff Session and his deputy attorney
general Rosenstein wanted Comey's head. And since the FBI does report to the Department of Justice, Sessions is within his rights
to demand the firing of the head of the FBI and expect the President to respect his request. So if this proves to have been a reckless
move, it will reflect Trump's poor judgment in selecting Sessions as his AG, who was a controversial pick from the outset.
In a letter to Mr. Comey, the president wrote, "It is essential that we find new leadership for the FBI that restores public
trust and confidence in its vital law enforcement mission."
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, a top member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, in a statement thanked Mr. Comey for his years
of service to the country but said that a change in leadership at the bureau might be the best possible course of action.
"Given the recent controversies surrounding the director, I believe a fresh start will serve the FBI and the nation well. I
encourage the President to select the most qualified professional available who will serve our nation's interests," said Mr. Graham,
a South Carolina Republican.
Comey, who has led an investigation into Russia's meddling during the 2016 election and any possible links to Trump aides and
associates, is only the second FBI chief to have been fired. In 1993, President Bill Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno dismissed
William Sessions.
Trump's decision means that he will get to nominate Comey's successor while the agency is deep into the Russia inquiry. The
move quickly intensified Democratic calls for a special prosecutor.
Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said in a statement that Trump "has catastrophically
compromised the FBI's ongoing investigation of his own White House's ties to Russia. Not since Watergate have our legal systems
been so threatened, and our faith in the independence and integrity of those systems so shaken."
Mr Comey's sudden dismissal shocked Republicans and Democrats. Brendan Boyle, a Democratic congressman, said the "stunning"
action "shows why we must have a special prosecutor like our nation did in Watergate".
The proof of the pudding is whether Trump and Sessions will be able to ride out demands for a special prosecutor. Given how much
noise and how little signal there has been, I would have though it was possible for Trump to tough this out. With the Democrats having
peripheral figures like Carter Page as their supposed smoking guns, all they had was innuendo, amplified by the Mighty Wurlitzer
of the media. But that may have gotten enough to Trump and his team to distort their judgment. Stay tuned.
Update 5/10, 12:15 AM . The Hill reports
Dems ask Justice Dept, FBI to 'preserve any and all files' on Comey firing / Despite much howling for blood in the comments section,
some readers there were able to provide what I was looking for, which is whether Congress had any basis for getting the info. Here
are the two key remarks:
I support the firing of Comey, and would have supported it if done by Clinton, Obama, Sanders or Trump. His actions wrt
"intent" in handling classified information, and his unilateral (in public at least) decision on leveling charges against Clinton
(which was not his job) render him unfit for office.
Anyone opposing this firing should note they share opinions w/ John McCain, which ought to give any non-neocon pause
Both the Right and the Left are disinclined to believe in or care about any scandal involving Russia. And it was actually
the Clinton partisans who demanded Comey's head in the first place–and we all know the Clinton history with independent prosecutors.
So the Democrats who whine about this or call for an independent prosecutor just end up looking like the partisan hypocrites they
are.
What this does, after a few days, is get the Russian hacking investigation out of the news, so everyone can focus firmly
on debating how many people need to lose their health care to satisfy the tax-cut gods.
Senate Minority Whip Richard Durbin (D-IL) made the biggest impression, going to the Senate floor about an hour after the
announcement to clearly outline the stakes.
"Any attempt to stop or undermine this FBI investigation would raise grave constitutional issues," he told colleagues.
Interestingly, Fed directors have a term of ten years and since Hoover, there has been only one to make it the full term. That
would be Mr. Mueller who went twelve years as director directly following 911.
FBI Director is one of those jobs where if you do a good job you should suffer burnout regardless of who you are. A 10 year
term is bizarre if you expect a quality job. I would expect resignation and early retirement if the job is being taken seriously.
Then you have to consider the quality of staff and team work arrangements at any given time and how much workload a FBI Director
or Cabinet Secretary has to deal with.
I'm already seeing Twitter Dems doubling down on the Russia stuff. The Russia hysteria is setting us up so that there will
be absolutely no political incentive for future Presidents to be friendly with Russia. I wonder if they don't know (or just don't
care) that they aren't going to be able to put this genie back in the bottle after Trump is gone.
Thanks I love it and they just don't care and hoping the lame stream corp. owned media will carry their propaganda. Demodogs
message is we didn't fail but those looser didn't vote for us the party of corp. Amerika. Double down
@Matt – I don't think the Twitter Dems can conceive of the notion that there is a genie or even a bottle in this situation.
They are so caught up in the Russia!, Russia! hysteria that there is no room in their thinking for any kind of rational thought
or any consideration of consequences.
You're more hopeful that I am. I think the more militaristic among them are so cavalier about conflict with Russia because
of the Hitler-level delusions many of them have about the military capacity of Russia.
"Just kick in the door, and the whole rotten structure will come down"
"We'll be greeted as liberators when we defeat the tyrant Putin!"
Just look at that SNL sketch that aired a few months ago. They think these people are frozen, ignorant peasants.
Personally I would be no good at power. My reading has led me to believe that you need a very strong stomach to endure what
you have to deal with, whether it be human gore, hypocrisy, or the dark side of any civilization. I don't have that stomach, and
if you take Comey's words at face value neither does he.
Nah, ask Obomber. Once you get past a little queasiness, getting "pretty good at killing folks" is a piece of cake. It's just
business as usual. Ask any Civil War or WW I general officer, or Bomber Harris, or Lemay or the young guy, farm boy from Iowa
who was a door gunner I knew on Vietnam. Just no problem killing gooks. His moral line was killing the water buffalo. "I know
how I'd feel if someone blew away my John Deere."
Re: The youg guy with the agricultural machinery sensibilities:
Although he was the manipulator of terrible power, I see him as a victim (in the scheme of things), not a member of the power-elite.
And the other military you mention, were they in the power-elite? Eisenhower should have been on your list, as he straddled the
divide.
I'm curious how this will be interpreted by people who get their news mostly via headlines. (I also wonder what proportion
of the voting population that is.)
The headlines I've seen so far, if they give a reason, just make reference to the Clinton email investigation. I sort of think
this will be interpreted by many mostly-headline news gatherers as meaning that Trump fired Comey because he did not, in fact,
lock her up. Indeed, even those who dig deeper may still believe that this is the real reason.
So, like so many things raged about in the media, I'm not sure this really hurts Trump amongst his voters. Probably helps,
really.
And for something completely different, Snowden is not a fan:
All it does is reinforce existing bias. Dems are even more convinced about Russian ties, Reps are even more concerned the
wheels are off, TrumpNation is even more convinced there's an evil plot out to get their guy. And the media has a click frenzy
to drive ad rates.
"Trump's sudden and unexpected firing of FBI director James Comey is likely to damage Trump."
How neutral or unconcerned with what the Establishment views as the requisite dogma regarding Russia is Trump? Articles about
Trump being unhappy about McMaster gives the impression that Trump still believe he (Trump) is the boss.
Yes, the dems have ridiculous notions about Russians as an excuse for Hillary. But being anti Russian is in the very DNA
of the repubs. Would the repubs turn on Trump because Trump isn't fervently anti Russian enough? I very much think so .they have
a good repub vice president that I am sure ALL of them much prefer ..
You're right, the red party is a virulently anti-red outfit. I can see the die hard GOPers turning on the Trumpster, but will
his base stand for it? The Trumpster does have a bit of a cult of personality going on in some circles.
Its important to remember the disdain the country has for Versailles in general. Trump became President despite universal
support for Hillary and to a lesser extent Jeb on the shores of the Potomac.The Republican Id is dedicated to hating Democrats.
Bill Clinton and Obama could play Weekend at Bernie's with Reagan corpse and kill Social Security, and Republicans would still
hate them.
Communists and other boogeymen of the past are secondary to this drive. The Versailles Republicans, a different breed,
could never deliver Republican votes outside of Northern Virginia for one simple reason their base despises Democrats more than
they might hate Stalin. They will never give credit to a Democrat. Remember the liberal whining about how Republicans never gave
Obama credit for his right wing policy pushes.
The other key point to the GOP voter relationship is Trump WON. He beat Jeb and his sheepdogs and then he beat Hillary
(Hillary and the Dems lost). Trump is the their winner so to speak. As long as Trump is denounced by the usual suspects for bizarre
reasons, Trump will maintain his hold.
They still have to have a case to make and there is none. Impeachment is just as much a fantasy as it was several months ago.
In fact they no longer even have the argument that Trump must be stifled and prevented from doing all his crazy promises since
they don't seem to be happening anyway.
Frankly I say good for Trump rather than letting Comey go all Janet Reno on him. If this country is going to be run by the
NYT and the WaPo and CNN then we are truly sunk. He had it right when he was attacking this bunch rather than kowtowing to them.
Although the Mighty Wurlitzer is going to take this firing and run with it, I wonder if anyone's really going to care outside
of folks that watch a ton of CNN and MSNBC. I think scalping him at this point in his administration is likely to generate more
protests and demonstrations than not scalping him.
Well don trumpioni may have stepped in it although, maybe this has less to do with russia perhaps fbi sorta sat on gulen
charter school investigation and it would certainly help emperor trompe and prince erdo relationship if Fethu found his old self
on an express flight to Ankara considering the bean "kurd" thing recently added on the takeout menu
Can easily imagine potus & his not ready for prime time players wanting to use the hoover building as a bludgeon against people
who dont fall in line the blob counterforce
comey the straight shooter methynx is a bit of a "legend" but even the most slick and corrupt have certain lines they wont
cross
Can easily imagine potus & his not ready for prime time players wanting to use the hoover building as a bludgeon against
people who dont fall in line the blob counterforce
The FBI would be the preferred outfit for this sort of thing due to their many decades of experience bludgeoning those who
don't fall in line.
"Will Trump's Firing of FBI Director James Comey Be His Saturday Night Massacre?'
It would be interesting to take a poll on what percentage of citizens know that "Saturday Night Massacre" is not a horror film.
I'd be willing to bet a beer that this kerfuffle will be confined to the Beltway media and Sunday talk shows and will fade
from the news cycle/Facebook feeds rather quickly.
People are tapped out mentally with political talk.
People are fed up. Savings & Loan mess & Iran Contra & & & & yawn Wall Street destroys the economy & no one goes to jail,
Medical Industrial Complex management bloodsuckers insure that sickness leads to penury
1973 was 28 years after 1945. 1973 was 44 years ago. The post WW2 psuedo consensus is looooooooong gone.
I thought we hated Comey cuz of what he did to HRC? Today we hate Trump cuz Comey was going after the Russians? Crap I hate
missing the 2 minute hate.
I am no fan of Comey. I think his self-righteousness makes him a dangerous FBI Director and a loose cannon. However, people
who think this is going to hurt Trump are likely wrong. If Trump knows there's nothing in the Russia story, but he continues to
string out the Democrats with it, then they're the ones who are going to look foolish after having invested so much political
capital in it. It may be the Russian story will be proven to be nonsense about October, 2018.
I suspect the Democrats are unaware they are indirectly insulting the Trump voters by the Russian influence story.. They
are in effect saying Trump voters were played by the "evil" Russians into voting for Trump, despite the 1Billion spend by Clinton
and her considerable support in the US media. I don't imagine the Trump voters like this message.
It is truly remarkable, the Russians spend about 10% of what the USA does on "Defense" and are able to influence a US electorate
that is largely unaware and unconcerned about world affairs.
I believe enough voters know that Clinton played fast and loose with the email server to avoid FOIA and the Clinton Foundation
pulled in a lot of money from foreign governments as payment in advance to President Hillary Clinton..
The harping on the "Russia influenced the election enough to elect Trump" will bite the Democrats as they avoid the jobs, medical
and economic issues that actually influenced the voters for Trump.
If Trump indirectly destroys both the Democratic and Republican parties, he might rank as one of our more important Presidents,
quite unintentionally.
I've taken to using doge speak in my comments on Yahoo articles and WaPo articles. I figure that's about as much intelligence
the publishers are investing into the articles and into the audience, that I therefore tune my intelligence accordingly.
If it has to do with the Russian electorial witch hunt stupidity, then yes, I think Comey ought to have been fired. For crying
out loud, enough already! Delicate matters are being attempted in the Middle East, and there is no sense in pursuing that craziness.
I don't understand why that shouldn't be a perfectly acceptable reason to change direction and start attending to real issues
with someone in the office who would support Trump's legitimate claim (and Putin's) that there was no there there.
I would imagine the CIA/Intel guys are way harder to get rid of. To quote the late, great Sen. Frank Church:
If this government ever became a tyranny, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity
that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way
to fight back because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately
it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology. ( )
Because people here are smart enough to be skeptical of hysterical MSM headlines with no real goods, you act as if you are
some sort of smart contrarian, when you are just echoing a Democratic party/media narrative?
You do not seem to recognize that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The idea that billionaire, who was already
famous in the US by virtue (among other things) of having a TV show that ran for 14 years and got billions of free media coverage
during his campaign, is somehow owned by Putin, is astonishing on its face. Trump had to have been the focus of extensive Republican
and Democratic party opposition research while he was campaigning.
And perhaps most important, the night he won, Trump clearly did not expect to win. His longstanding friend Howard Stern stated
a view similar to ours, that Trump ran because it would be good PR and the whole thing developed a life of its own. And before
you try saying politics doesn't work that way, the UK is now on a path to Brexit for the same reasons.
All the Dems and the media have come up with are some kinda-sorta connections to Russia. Trump as a very rich man who also
has assembled a large team of political types in short order, would have people who knew people in all corners of the world. "X
has done business with Y" is hardly proof o of influence, particularly with a guy like Trump, who is now famous for telling people
what they want to hear in a meeting and backstabbing them the next day.
We've been looking at this for months. The best they can come up with is:
1. Manafort, who worked for Trump for all of four months and was fired. Plus his Russia connections are mainly through Ukraine.
Podesta has strong if not stronger Russia ties, is a much more central play to Clinton and no one is making a stink about that.
And that's before you get to the Clinton involvement in a yuuge uranium sale to Russia, which even the New York Times confirmed
(but wrote such a weedy story that you have to read carefully to see that).
2. Carter Page, who was even more peripheral
3. Flynn, again not a central player, plus it appears his bigger sin involved Turkey
4. The conversation with the Russian ambassador, which contrary to the screeching has plenty of precedent (in fact, Nixon and
Reagan did far more serious meddling)
5. The various allegations re Trump real estate and bank loans. Trump did have a really seedy Russian involved in a NYC development.
One should be more worried that the guy was a crook than that he was Russian. Third tier, not even remotely in the oligarch class.
There are also vague allegations re money laundering. The is crap because first, every NYC real estate player has dirty money
in high end projects (see the big expose by the New York Times on the Time Warner Center, developed by the Related Companies,
owned by Steve Ross). But second, the party responsible for checking where the money came from, unless it was wheelbarrows of
cash, is the bank, not the real estate owner. Since the NYT expose there have been efforts to make developers/owners responsible
too, but those aren't germane to Trump since they aren't/weren't in effect.
So please do not provide no value added speculation. If you have something concrete, that would be interesting, but I've been
looking and I've seen nothing of any substance.
Very few condos there are occupied for more than a few days per year, and most of the residents I encountered during my tenure
there were not US citizens.
We were all very entertained when the Times broke the story.
Just FYI, Ross does not own the TWC outright, he only has a stake in the place albeit a sizable one since aquiring TIme Warner's
office/studio unit.
Trump a crook, but not any other oligarchs? The old saying goes something like behind every great fortune is a great crime.
They clean up the image with a few rewrites and something like public office or foundations. The Presidency is Trump's ca-ching.
And the pauses on the promises and the falling in line (bombs away!). He'll be right in the club.
Mr Comey also made some statements recently about Clinton emails and Mr Wiener, statements that seemed to be in need of significant
reinterpretation. That might also have been the cause.
Corporate Government messaging has fallen apart. The description of Anthony Weiner's laptop went from "explosive" to "careless
but not criminal" to "just several" Clinton e-mails on it.
Democrats are generally supported by Wall Street, GOP by military contractors; but, together they are one war party. The new
Saturday Night Massacre shows that with Donald Trump's triumph, the government has split apart into nationalist and globalist
factions. No doubt the James Comey firing buries the Russian interference investigation. However, with the wars in Syria and Afghanistan
re-surging; this episode shows that nothing the government says or the media reports is near the truth.
"... But the political dimension of the dismissal is not about the Clinton email affair at all. It is about the "Russia interfered with the election" nonsense Clinton invented as excuse for her self-inflicted loss of the vote. The whole anti-Trump/anti-Russia campaign run by neocons and "Resistance" democrats, is designed to block the foreign policy - detente with Russia - for which Trump was elected. The anti-Russia inquisition is dangerous groupthink . ..."
"... He could have been sacked early on while the media's attention was focused on Trump's choices to fill the various Cabinet posts. ..."
"... It's likely the world will witness the POTUS get his wings clipped. Mr. Trump has never been confronted with existential adversity, his wealth has always protected him from that prospect. He is now captive in a golden cage of political power and has neither the personal experience, resources nor the capacity to conduct governance. Be prepared to watch Trump's Götterdämmerung. Put a fork in, Trump is done. ..."
"... Curiously I've come to the opposite conclusion: Hillary Clinton is done. Mark my words. ..."
"... This sort of stuff barely registers with me any more, since the one fact we can all rest assured isn't fakey is that long before an apparatchik such as Comey gets anywhere near the top trough, they will have been 'vetted' to ensure that they aren't the type of person to ever place principle ahead of self interest. ..."
"... But The Demorats -> Schumer in tears , Warren in war paint, et al and Snowden! - all have selective memories and are exceptional hypocrites. ..."
"... President Clinton today dismissed William S. Sessions, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who had stubbornly rejected an Administration ultimatum to resign six months after a harsh internal ethics report on his conduct. ..."
"... Who said it will make such a difference who sits in the FBI? A new guy will just show up saying the same stuff Comey have said. Just look at the new leaders at CIA, NSA, same warmongering hysterical stuff as under Obama. ..."
"... Fox News reporter Catherine Herridge says this is one of the biggest headlines out of the hearing today with the FBI director, pointing out that the FBI had found an email was obtained by Russian hackers that indicated that former DOJ hack Loretta Lynch would do everything she could to protect Hillary from prosecution: (VIDEO) ..."
"... Of course Comey wouldn't reveal who sent the email and to whom it was sent. But it sounds like it was sent from someone who worked closely with Lynch, and sent to someone who was very worried about Clinton going down in flames, probably someone very close to Clinton. At the end of the segment, Herridge pointed out that Comey suggested he was boxed in by Lynch and here is what she's talking about:[..] ..."
"... Reminds me of a little passage I read somewhere about a dish served cold. ..."
"... Some wonder why a guy like Trump, who made his bones telling people mano a mano that they were fired on prime time TV, wouldn't have picked up a phone to advise Comey he was done. Comey learned of his dismissal while giving a speech in LA. Presidential historian Douglas Brinkley says that was done so the president's people could access Comey's documents in his office while he was safely out of town. ..."
"... The assault on the wealth of the working classes will continue unabated. Mr. Trump is here to represent the wealthy elites, and is doing a fine job at that. Welcome to the new age of feudalism. ..."
"... Comey also gave immunity to 5 of Hillary's closest aids, including Huma. This insulated Hillary as these people could not be pressured to testify against her. ..."
"... Not to mention, jackrabbit, Hillary was never sworn in during her Saturday interview with the FBI. ..."
"... Trump fires Comey due to his political meddling but ... Trump won't prosecute Clinton about her email server. ..."
"... Clinton's Benghazi was treasonous covering up for Islamic terrorist/email means espionage not electronic mail/Clinton Foundation is treason for hire by the Secretary of State (who ruled America during the Great Interregnum when there was no President, 2009-2117, except when John Kerry was Secretary of State but it was still actually Clinton running things because everyone knows the Secretary of State doesn't make foreign policy) fake scandals were kept alive by Comey to intervene in the US election. (Whether it was his eager doing or he was pressured is irrelevant. ..."
"... Regarding "impromptu meeting b/w Clinton and Lynch on the tarmac", Comey was giving cover "to" Lynch, IMO. "no reasonable prosecutor". He was protecting the deal Lynch had already made with Clintons. ..."
"... Did you by chance listen/watch his testimony last week? If not, I recommend it as must watch especially after his being fired. He added more detail to the email investigation and his thinking at the time. ..."
"... The BBC running a live on Comey's end-of-contract?! Color revo any? Lavrov in Washington, guns for the Kurds, the US going for al-Nusra's head scalp... ..."
"... so treasonable Obama's scumbucket FBI director Comey gets fired. wowie zowie. nevermind the perjury, the obstruction of justice, the accessory to Clinton's sedition... ..."
"... Does Russia interfere in U.S. politics more than Israel does? ..."
"... Yes, caught part of the hearings. Just proved to me that deal was in stone before any tarmac meeting took place. And I bet Comey might not have even known Lynch would expose them so stupidly, how dumb was that. Did a FBI person leaked the meeting to the press?? ..."
"... I've been surprised that Russia doesn't release "white papers" that show what the NED and IRI have done including in places like Russia, Ukraine, and Georgia. ..."
President Trump dismissed the Director of the FBI James Comey on recommendation of the Deputy Attorney General, who had served under
Obama, and the Attorney General. The dismissal and the recommendation memos can be read
here.
Comey is accused of usurping the Attorney General's
authority on several occasions. In July 2016 Comey decided and publicly announced the closing of the Clinton email-investigations
without a recommendation of prosecution. He publicly announced the reopening of the investigation in October only to close it again
a few days later.
At the first closing of the investigation Comey held a press conference and
said:
"our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."
That, by far, exceeded his competency, Since when can a police officer decide how "reasonable" a prosecutor may or may not be,
and make public announcements about that? Clinton's running of a private email server broke several laws. Anyone but she would have
been prosecuted at least for breaching secrecy and security regulations.
It is not the job of the police to decide about prosecutions. The police is an investigating agent of the public prosecutors office.
It can make recommendations about prosecutions but not decide about them. Recommendations are to be kept confidential until they
are decided upon by the relevant authority - the prosecutor. There are additional issues with Comey. His agents used
sting or rather entrapment to lure many hapless
idiots into committing "ISIS terror acts". A full two third of such acts in the U.S. would not have been though about without FBI
help. Comey himself had signed
off on Bush's warrantless wiretapping program.
The formal dismissal of Comey is, in my view, the right thing to do. It should have been done earlier.
But the political dimension of the dismissal is not about the Clinton email affair at all. It is about the "Russia interfered
with the election" nonsense Clinton invented as excuse for her self-inflicted loss of the vote. The whole anti-Trump/anti-Russia
campaign run by neocons and "Resistance" democrats, is designed to block the foreign policy - detente with Russia - for which Trump
was elected. The anti-Russia inquisition is
dangerous groupthink.
There is no evidence - none at all - that Russia "interfered" with the U.S. election. There is no evidence - none at all - that
Russia colluded with the Trump campaign. The Democratic Senator Dianna Feinstein, who sits on the Judiciary Committee as well as
the Select Committee on Intelligence, recently confirmed that publicly
(vid) immediately
after she
had again been briefed by the CIA:
Blitzer mentioned that Feinstein and other colleagues from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence had visited CIA headquarters
on Tuesday to be briefed on the investigation. He then asked Feinstein whether she had evidence, without disclosing
any classified information, that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign.
It would be interesting to know why James Comey was sacked now and not earlier before the "Russia interfered in the elections"
narrative had much chance to damage Trump's presidency. He could have been sacked early on while the media's attention was
focused on Trump's choices to fill the various Cabinet posts.
It's likely the world will witness the POTUS get his wings clipped. Mr. Trump has never been confronted with existential adversity,
his wealth has always protected him from that prospect. He is now captive in a golden cage of political power and has neither
the personal experience, resources nor the capacity to conduct governance. Be prepared to watch Trump's Götterdämmerung. Put a
fork in, Trump is done.
Had Madam Clinton won the election, this would not have been possible. The organisation she headed would have taken immediate
control of all available power bases and would not have created such opportunity for attack.
The next one will be "Operation Gaslight ". The storyline will be that Trump is unstable and needs to be removed by his cabinet.
Trumps many enemies will never stop. There is too much at stake.
All this appointments soap opera is just distraction for the masses. The next appointee will just like Comey, do as he/she is
told.
This sort of stuff barely registers with me any more, since the one fact we can all rest assured isn't fakey is that
long before an apparatchik such as Comey gets anywhere near the top trough, they will have been 'vetted' to ensure that they aren't
the type of person to ever place principle ahead of self interest.
If perchance there was any motive other than inspiring yet more vapid chatter, we can be equally certain that is not going
to rate a mention from any of the hack pols or their media enablers until long after this storm in a teacup has subsided.
Out of curiosity: does anyone know the very first time this was said about Trump? I'm sure we can all agree this much though:
don't hold your breath on it being the last time it's said about Trump..
Recall Trump was written off through the Primaries as he offed 16 candidates. In the election cycle down to the wire HRC had
a 90% chance. Newsweek published edition cover page Madame President. (Dewey anyone?) I dislike that the Trump presidency is a
family affair -- Jared Kushner will be the stick and fork; the second high profile firing that should have been done.
But The Demorats -> Schumer in tears , Warren in war paint, et al and Snowden! - all have selective memories and are exceptional
hypocrites.
Flashback: New York Times - July 19, 1993 -> President William J. Clinton fires FBI Director
WASHINGTON, July 19- President Clinton today dismissed William S. Sessions, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
who had stubbornly rejected an Administration ultimatum to resign six months after a harsh internal ethics report on his conduct.
Mr. Clinton said he would announce his nominee to replace Mr. Sessions on Tuesday. He was expected to pick Judge Louis J.
Freeh of Federal District Court in Manhattan; officials said Judge Freeh had impressed Mr. Clinton favorably on Friday at their
first meeting.
Mr. Clinton, explaining his reasons for removing Mr. Sessions, effective immediately, said, "We cannot have a leadership
vacuum at an agency as important to the United States as the F.B.I. It is time that this difficult chapter in the agency's
history is brought to a close." Defiant to the End
But in a parting news conference at F.B.I. headquarters after Mr. Clinton's announcement, a defiant Mr. Sessions -- his
right arm in a sling as a result of a weekend fall -- railed at what he called the unfairness of his removal, which comes nearly
six years into his 10-year term.
"Because of the scurrilous attacks on me and my wife of 42 years, it has been decided by others that I can no longer be
as forceful as I need to be in leading the F.B.I. and carrying out my responsibilities to the bureau and the nation," he said.
"It is because I believe in the principle of an independent F.B.I. that I have refused to voluntarily resign."
Mr. Clinton said that after reviewing Mr. Sessions's performance, Attorney General Janet Reno had advised him that Mr. Sessions
should go. "After a thorough review by the Attorney General of Mr. Sessions's leadership of the F.B.I., she has reported to
me in no uncertain terms that he can no longer effectively lead the bureau
Despite the President's severe tone, he seemed to regret having to force Mr. Sessions from his post. He said he had hoped
that the issue could be settled at the Justice Department without the necessity of using his authority to dismiss the Director,
who has a 10-year term but may be removed by the President at any time.
But Mr. Sessions's intransigence had festered into an awkward situation for Mr. Clinton.
A Republican stranded in a Democratic Administration, Mr. Sessions was appointed to head the F.B.I. by President Ronald
Reagan in 1987 amid the turmoil of the Iran-contra affair. Mr. Sessions arrived as a respected judge from San Antonio, but
after five and a half years in office, he leaves with his star fallen, his agency adrift and his support at the F.B.I. all
but drained away. Troubled Tenure."[.]
Who said it will make such a difference who sits in the FBI? A new guy will just show up saying the same stuff Comey have
said. Just look at the new leaders at CIA, NSA, same warmongering hysterical stuff as under Obama.
Trump has a bad temper and demonstrates erratic behavior, like Hillary. The handlers keep it covered up until they no longer
keep it covered up. They let it slip that Hillary frequently blew up and used the F word vigorously as she berated her underlings
(which are everyone including Clenis). Trump is, likewise, a genuine asshole. He's not faking that part.
If McCabe is next to go , as he should be , this could represent a significant swamp-draining accomplishment for Trump. Depending
on who replaces them , of course.
The Rosenstein letter provided considerable legitimacy to Trump's move , considering the bipartisan support Rosenstein achieved.
It wouldn't be a bad move for Trump to choose a replacement for Comey that comes with Rosenstein's strong endorsement. A Sessions
endorsement would be about one-half as valuable.
did, 'All this appointments soap opera is just distraction for the masses. ... '
well, amend that to are pushed as a distraction for the masses and i'll certainly agree. there are so many levels at "arms'
length" now that they're really just filling in the alibis for the 'historians' ... schlesinger types who'll connect all the dots
once the deeds are done and show us the tragi-comedy in five acts. the masses are undistracted. people know it's all pure bullshit.
that they're being played and sold down the river. it would be really great if we did something about it. just for the hell of
it.
Obama and Hillary, however, addressed us in whole sentences and presented clearly structured concepts and arguments. Trump spits
out 140-character tweets at us from the early hours of the morning.
I see a keen distinction there.
Posted by: ralphieboy | May 10, 2017 7:23:56 AM | 15
... forgetting, of course, that most politicians (and an only slightly smaller proportion of ordinary folks) start talking,
or writing, or dialing, before they've decided precisely what they intend to say.Trump, and probably Putin, thinks before he communicates.
And if the result isn't worth saying, he shuts up. Same as Putin.
Agree. McCabe should follow Comey out the door. Patience grasshopper, one-at-a- time. If I were Hillary, (thank G-d for small
mercies), after reading Rosenstein's Memo for the Attorney General, I 'd be lawyering up with my wet work gang.
This excerpt is a tell; confirming indeed there was some simmering mutiny within the FBI house. Judge Nap called it.
[..] As you and I have discussed, however, I cannot defend the Director's handling of the conclusion of the investigation of
Secretary Clinton's emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept nearly universal judgement that he was mistaken.
Almost everyone agrees that the Director made serious mistakes; it is one of the few issues that unites people of diverse perspectives.[.]
Fox News reporter Catherine Herridge says this is one of the biggest headlines out of the hearing today with the FBI director,
pointing out that the FBI had found an email was obtained by Russian hackers that indicated that former DOJ hack Loretta Lynch
would do everything she could to protect Hillary from prosecution: (VIDEO)
Of course Comey wouldn't reveal who sent the email and to whom it was sent. But it sounds like it was sent from someone
who worked closely with Lynch, and sent to someone who was very worried about Clinton going down in flames, probably someone
very close to Clinton.
At the end of the segment, Herridge pointed out that Comey suggested he was boxed in by Lynch and here is what she's talking
about:[..]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
in the district of criminals, (aka D.C.), we find not only a swamp, but a few deep cess-pools.
So Trump includes in his firing letter that he appreciates the fact that Comey told him personally on three separate occasions
that he was not the subject of investigation. What's that doing there?
Some wonder why a guy like Trump, who made his bones telling people mano a mano that they were fired on prime time TV,
wouldn't have picked up a phone to advise Comey he was done. Comey learned of his dismissal while giving a speech in LA. Presidential
historian Douglas Brinkley says that was done so the president's people could access Comey's documents in his office while he
was safely out of town.
The Senate investigation just got started. This business about six months of investigation failing to produce a shred of evidence
and therefore the whole matter should be dropped isn't going to fly. The same people who natter on about how we masses, like mushrooms
kept in the dark and nurtured with bullshit, should disregard all this bafflegab about impropriety also say we should accept their
conclusion that there's nothing to see here and that it's time to move on. That ain't happening.
Senator Al Franken, who's insipid alter-ego George Smiley on Saturday Night Live was the epitome of insecurity, has turned
out to be a formidable poser of very tough questions to anyone unfortunate to be summoned before the senate panel. These senate
guys don't fuck around and will not be stonewalled. We're in for some very interesting television.
Comey will land on his feet in some corporate gig, from whence he came. The only interesting aspect is whether or not his replacement
will restore any smidgen of credibility to the FBI by acting on a basis of law or if the political games will continue. My guess
would be that the plutocracy will see that their candidate is installed as FBI Director and at a minimum this person will remain
at least neutral to the plutocracy's rule, silence being consent. That would be the big big silence on the Clinton criminality
as it is intertwined with plutocratic rule. More of the same only more so as the FBI and co-conspirators keep the plot to assassinate
any public leaders dusted off in case another Martin Luther King, another Occupy movement or some such should arise.
DiD @ 7 said: "All this appointments soap opera is just distraction for the masses. The next appointee will just like Comey, do
as he/she is told."
Well said, an IMO, absolutely spot on.
I think there are people above the Law, history proves that. HRC AND Mr. Trump are part of that group. I fully expect that
nothing will happen to either. As DiD said, " A distraction for the masses( sheep)."
The assault on the wealth of the working classes will continue unabated. Mr. Trump is here to represent the wealthy elites,
and is doing a fine job at that. Welcome to the new age of feudalism.
The musical chairs show in Washington is meaningless. The Democrats hated Comey but now that he's fired they love him because
they can use it to attack Trump. It's all political theatre and should be regarded as such. As others have said, another chump
willing to take orders will replace Comey and will surely carry out the same bad policies at the FBI.
Trump was just in the Oval Office with that imperial criminal punk, Kissinger, ironically, Nixon's NSA and Trump blurted out that
he fired Comey because he wasn't doing a good job.
The pot calling the kettle black is an understatement.
I don't give a damn one way or another who Trumpster fires; what I do give a damn about is abuse of power and manipulation
of the truth and Trump is repeatedly guilty of both.
No such dictatorial power should ever again be vested in that position and in a person who is prone to exceed his competencies.
And that's exactly how I would describe Herr Drumpf, danke!
Here's a great example of integrity. Try it sometime!:
This has nothing to do with Comey incompetence or the man himself. This is only about Trump abusing power as he's been doing
since DAY ONE. He just took it to the next level...that's all!
- Wolf Blitzer was once employed by AIPAC.
- Comey simply stepped on too many (sensitive) toes, both Republican & Democratic. In that regard it was a matter of time that
he was fired. It would have happened as well if Hillary Clinton had been elected to become the new president.
- But I also fear that a new FBI director (as appointed by one Jeff Sessions) will be as rightwing as one Jeff Sessions or even
worse.
Great post, b, and likklemore, your comments are appreciated.
What is troubling to me with all of this is how politicized Obama's Cabinet/team became. It is becoming more and more obvious
his appointments were made to serve him NOT the country and the public is witnessing the fallout from such authoritarian style
of leadership.
Comey is both a victim and beneficiary of this politicization. His testimony last week was more forthcoming than in previous
hearings, but what spoke volumes was his reaction to the impromptu meeting b/w Clinton and Lynch on the tarmac in Arizona. He
suggested his concerns about Lynch being compromised regarding the Clinton email investigation were confirmed during that meeting
while stating it was the last straw so to speak.
This pattern of politicization was obviously meant to continue under Hillary's leadership by cementing a permanent political
class in DC who would serve the president rather than all of us outside of Washington. Some term this as the 'UniParty' - a majority
of R and D's working in tandem to re orient DC machinations into a global governing body.
The neo's - libs and cons - are giddy over resigning the U.S. Constitution and the rest of America's founding papers into the
trash heap of history. Their march toward globalization is hindered by those pesky documents. But what these globalists never
counted on was a Trump win and, more importantly, conservatives gaining power in 28 states, six states shy of holding a Constitutional
Convention.
Now that Hillary lost, Obama and team are pulling together an organizational structure to stave off wins in those six states
while also trying to peel away those few who turned red in 2016.
This is the new political battleground - conservatives fighting for a constitutional convention and neo's fighting to remain
relevant. With Comey being gone, and soon McCabe and et al, the FBI has a shot at shedding the politicization of the department
and returning to its investigative roots.
This is the reason for Robby Mook's 'terrified' comment when learning of Comey's firing. He and his globalist cohorts should
be concerned, but it's Hillary who really needs to be terrified.
Comey also gave immunity to 5 of Hillary's closest aids, including Huma. This insulated Hillary as these people could not
be pressured to testify against her.
Why is it such a big thing? Some people here seems to take talking points from neocon media. He was fired because Trump didnt
have confidence in him, simply as that.
Not sad to see Comey go. I didn't think he was doing a good job, albeit he was put in a position where he had to tread carefully.
I guess he did "ok" with that careful treading. Unsure of Trump's motivations to fire him but not that surprised. As others have
posited here, Clinton would have done the same. Comey was probably at least partially prepared and possibly has a sinecure lined
up as I type this.
IMO, this isn't the worst of Trump's alleged "offenses" by a long shot. It certainly does provide a distraction from all the
other sh*t swirling around Trump, like Kushner selling US citizenships to high priced Chinese gangsters, like Trump's various
cabinet picks arresting citizens for questioning them the "wrong way" or laughing at them, like Trump's decisions to ruin the
environment and give away public lands to his rich pals, like the travesty of TrumpDon'tCare AHCA (which could end up even worse
after the Senate gets done with it - No women on the Senate committee, just great).
Yes a nifty distraction while Trump and his plutocrat cronies rob us all blind. Duly noted the Democrats engage in their own
dog 'n pony sideshow distractions re russia, Russia RUSSIA hysteria. All to avoid having to, you know, DO something about their
own disaster of a corporate-bought-off "party" and avoid having to do one d*mn thing that benefits their traditional constituents,
as opposed to ensuring that their Plutocratic masters are happy.
Every analysis of any current US political events that says anything about Clinton losing the election is deranged or dishonest.
There are no exceptions.
Clinton's Benghazi was treasonous covering up for Islamic terrorist/email means espionage not electronic mail/Clinton Foundation
is treason for hire by the Secretary of State (who ruled America during the Great Interregnum when there was no President, 2009-2117,
except when John Kerry was Secretary of State but it was still actually Clinton running things because everyone knows the Secretary
of State doesn't make foreign policy) fake scandals were kept alive by Comey to intervene in the US election. (Whether it was
his eager doing or he was pressured is irrelevant.) The thing for Comey, and his natural human need to at least pretend to
be a genuine human being, is, the Russia hacks the election is exactly the same kind of fake scandal, something arcane with dark,
dark hints of treason! treason! Comey can't suddenly discover sanity when the BS is flying at Trump, after having vociferously
claimed those were really Clark bars for the years prior.
The OP doesn't quite have the nerve to explain clearly how the supposed loser has the clout to make Comey dish on Trump. Or
the effrontery to clearly avow Benghazi/email server/Clinton cash/pizzagate were all gospel. Nonetheless it is still Trumpery.
Regarding "impromptu meeting b/w Clinton and Lynch on the tarmac", Comey was giving cover "to" Lynch, IMO. "no reasonable
prosecutor". He was protecting the deal Lynch had already made with Clintons.
Just read about Comey history with Clintons. He has been giving them cover a long time.
sl - Yep, I concur. And I think he had to protect whatever deal was agreed to b/w Lynch, Obama and Clinton. I'm not even sure
I'd call it a deal, but rather an order. I'm sure if he didn't adhere there would have been some hefty consequences to pay.
Did you by chance listen/watch his testimony last week? If not, I recommend it as must watch especially after his being
fired. He added more detail to the email investigation and his thinking at the time.
SlapHappy | May 10, 2017 1:12:56 Add to the long list:
Seth Rich, sen. Paul Wellstone, JFK jr, princess Diana, Michael Hastings, mysterious deaths of 9/11 witnesses, Phillip Marshall
with family, Michael Connell, that policeman from the WTC 1993 bombing investigation, Clinton body count, that German press insider,
Gary Webb ...
The BBC running a live on Comey's end-of-contract?! Color revo any? Lavrov in Washington, guns for the Kurds, the US going
for al-Nusra's head scalp...
so treasonable Obama's scumbucket FBI director Comey gets fired. wowie zowie. nevermind the perjury, the obstruction of justice,
the accessory to Clinton's sedition...
there's probably a multi-million dollar book deal in the pipeline. - Trump DOES have some very "interesting" connections to
Russia and some shady Russian persons. But this is the result of his own "wheeling & dealing".
@ h. Yes, caught part of the hearings. Just proved to me that deal was in stone before any tarmac meeting took place. And
I bet Comey might not have even known Lynch would expose them so stupidly, how dumb was that. Did a FBI person leaked the meeting
to the press??
Yep, Rosenstein is a law man. I won't be the slightest bit surprised to learn Grand Jury indictments handed down sometime in
the coming months for Hillary's arrest. Mr. Comey served as an obstacle to the DOJ to prosecute. Now that Sessions/Rosenstein,
both law men, are heading the DOJ nothing will surprise me. Nothing.
Does Russia interfere in the elections and governing institutions of others as much as the US does?
I've been surprised that Russia doesn't release "white papers" that show what the NED and IRI have done including in places
like Russia, Ukraine, and Georgia.
It sounds like Hillary Clinton boxed Comey in – in more ways that just that the meeting Lynch had with Bill Clinton. If that new
email is any indication, she very likely coerced him directly, pushing him to play the 'no intent' defense for Clinton and her aides.
Notable quotes:
"... The first is Comey's unprofessional handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation, where he first decided not to prosecute her over the mishandling of classified information and then subsequently revealed to the public that the investigation had been reopened shortly before the election, possibly influencing the outcome. This is a serious matter, as Comey broke with precedent by going public with details of bureau investigations that normally are considered confidential. One might argue that it is certainly an odd assertion for the White House to be making, as the reopening of the investigation undoubtedly helped Trump, but it perhaps should be seen as an attempt to create some kind of bipartisan consensus about Comey having overreached by exposing bureau activities that might well have remained secret. ..."
"... As for the Russians, we are still waiting for the evidence demonstrating that Moscow intended to change the course of the U.S. election. Further investigation will likely not produce anything new, though it will undoubtedly result in considerable political spin to explain what we already know. It is unimaginable that Michael Flynn, for all his failings, agreed to work on behalf of Russian interests, while other names that have surfaced as being of interest in the case were hardly in a position to influence what the Trump administration might agree to do. There is no evidence of any Manchurian Candidate here. ..."
"... I am surprised that Dir. Comey didn't resign on his own terms after the election. The only other issue is it would have been less media convulsive and polite to allow him a graceful resignation and some departure time. ..."
The statements by the White House and Sessions cite two issues. The first is Comey's unprofessional handling of the Hillary Clinton
email investigation, where he first decided not to prosecute her over the mishandling of classified information and then subsequently
revealed to the public that the investigation had been reopened shortly before the election, possibly influencing the outcome. This
is a serious matter, as Comey broke with precedent by going public with details of bureau investigations that normally are considered
confidential. One might argue that it is certainly an odd assertion for the White House to be making, as the reopening of the investigation
undoubtedly helped Trump, but it perhaps should be seen as an attempt to create some kind of bipartisan consensus about Comey having
overreached by exposing bureau activities that might well have remained secret.
The second issue raised by both Sessions and the White House is Comey's inability to "effectively lead the Bureau" given what
has occurred since last summer. That is a legitimate concern. When the Clinton investigation was shelved, there was considerable
dissent in the bureau, with many among the rank-and-file believing that the egregious mishandling of classified information should
have some consequences even if Comey was correct that a prosecution would not produce a conviction.
And the handling of "Russiagate" also angered some experienced agents who believed that the reliance on electronic surveillance
and information derived from intelligence agencies was the wrong way to go. Some called for questioning the Trump-campaign suspects
who had surfaced in the initial phases of the investigation, a move that was vetoed by Comey and his team. It would be safe to say
that FBI morale plummeted as a result, with many junior and mid-level officers leaving their jobs to exploit their security clearances
in the lucrative government contractor business.
There has been considerable smoke about both the Clinton emails and the allegations of Russian interference in last year's election,
but I suspect that there is relatively little fire. As Comey asserted, the attempt to convict a former secretary of state on charges
of mishandling information without any ability to demonstrate intent would be a mistake and would ultimately fail. No additional
investigation will change that reality.
As for the Russians, we are still waiting for the evidence demonstrating that Moscow intended to change the course of the
U.S. election. Further investigation will likely not produce anything new, though it will undoubtedly result in considerable political
spin to explain what we already know. It is unimaginable that Michael Flynn, for all his failings, agreed to work on behalf of Russian
interests, while other names that have surfaced as being of interest in the case were hardly in a position to influence what the
Trump administration might agree to do. There is no evidence of any Manchurian Candidate here.
I believe that the simplest explanation for the firing of Comey is the most likely: Donald Trump doesn't like him much and doesn't
trust him at all. While it is convenient to believe that the FBI director operates independently from the politicians who run the
country, the reality is that he or she works for the attorney general, who in turn works for the president. That is the chain of
command, like it or not. Any U.S. president can insist on a national-security team that he is comfortable with, and if Trump is willing
to take the heat from Congress and the media over the issue he certainly is entitled to do what he must to have someone he can work
with at the FBI.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.
Brian, May 10, 2017 at 10:39 am
Jul 7, 2016 Justice Vs. "Just Us": Of Course the FBI Let Hillary off the Hook. The only thing that surprises me is that anyone
is surprised by this.
"Mr. Comey's appointment will be for an initial three-year term which, subject to re-election by shareholders, will expire
at the conclusion of the 2016 Annual General Meeting."
" . . . but there was a certain inevitability about it given the bureau's clear inability to navigate the troubled political
waters that developed early last summer and have continued ever since."
I am surprised that Dir. Comey didn't resign on his own terms after the election. The only other issue is it would have
been less media convulsive and polite to allow him a graceful resignation and some departure time.
But that he is gone, I think he was surprised only by the manner certainly not the inevitability.
Blind sided by the manner certainly not the course.
Mark Thomason, May 10, 2017 at 12:06 pm
True. But it is also true that NOBODY likes Comey much or trusts him at all. He has no defenders.
Trump has attackers. That is very different. They'd attack him for anything he does, they attack every day. This outrage is
only the latest, and will be repeated at every hint of opportunity.
Here they agree the guy needed to be fired and said themselves that Hillary was going to do it. But Trump did it, and that
is the problem.
Kurt Gayle, May 10, 2017 at 12:46 pm
Please consider the that the explanation for the Comey firing is simpler:
(1) The Deputy Attorney-General is the FBI Director's boss.
(2) Trump's nominee for the position of Deputy Attorney-General, Rod Rosenstein, although nominated on January 13th, was only
confirmed by the Senate on April 25th. Rosenstein took the oath of office the following day, Wednesday, April 26th, two weeks
ago today.
(3) Immediately upon assuming his duties as the Justice Department official directly responsible for the FBI, Mr. Rosenstein
determined that there were major problems concerning the FBI. Rosenstein reported his finding in a letter to his boss, Attorney-General
Sessions:
(4) "Over the past year the FBI's reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage, and it has affected the entire
Department of Justice. That is deeply troubling to many Department employees and veterans, legislators and citizens."
(5) "The director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General's authority on July 5, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the
case should be closed without prosecution. It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement. At most, the Director
should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors."
(6) "Compounding the error, the Director ignored another longstanding principle: we do not hold press conferences to release
derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation. Derogatory information sometimes is disclosed in
the course of criminal investigations and prosecutions, but we never release it gratuitously "
(7) "The goal of a federal criminal investigation is not to announce our thoughts at a press conference. The goal is to determine
whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a federal criminal prosecution, then allow a federal prosecutor who exercises
authority delegated by the Attorney General to make a prosecutorial decision, and then – if prosecution is warranted – let the
judge and jury determine the facts."
(8) "Concerning his letter to the Congress on October 28, 2016, the Director cast his decision as a choice between whether
he would 'speak' about the FBI's decision to investigate the newly-discovered email messages or 'conceal' it. 'Conceal' is a loaded
term that misstates the issue. When federal agents and prosecutors quietly open a criminal investigation, we are not concealing
anything; we are simply following the longstanding policy that we refrain from publicizing non-public information. In that context,
silence is not concealment."
(9) "My perspective on these issues is shared by former Attorneys General and Deputy Attorneys General from different eras
and both political parties."
(10) "I agree with the nearly unanimous opinions of former Department officials. The way the Director handled the conclusion
of the email investigation was wrong. As a result, the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a
Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them. Having refused to admit his errors, the
Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions."
With respect to Deputy Attorney-General Rosenstein's heading of the investigation into possible Russian interference in the
November election, the fact that Mr. Rosenstein would head the investigation (Attorney-General Sessions having recused himself)
was known to the Senate - and the Senate committee questioned him on his views on the matter - for a full week before the Senate
confirmed Mr. Rosenstein by a 94-6 vote.
MM, May 10, 2017 at 1:00 pm
I'm pleased to see this vociferous call by high-level Democratic officials for a U.S. Independent Counsel to investigate this
matter. It's a relief that these same officials are taking this stance from a position of principled consistency, as they were
the loudest in calling for independent investigations of the previous administration's questionable activities.
For example: NSA mass domestic surveillance, gun-running and associated false statements to Congress, IRS targeting of conservative
groups, and influence peddling in the State Department under Secretary Clinton, all of which the Justice Department at the time
was either directly involved in or responsible for burying any serious inquiries
Ellimist000, May 10, 2017 at 2:55 pm
MM,
"NSA mass domestic surveillance, gun-running and associated false statements to Congress, IRS targeting of conservative groups,
and influence peddling in the State Department under Secretary Clinton "
You're not wrong, but the reason nothing happened was that stuff of this nature has gone on from both sides since the Cold
War started (different names and techniques, of course). If you really wanted the Dems to suddenly see the light, under the 1st
black president no less, then I hope you are awaiting the GOP's ethics censure on Trump with great anticipation
Otto Zeit, May 10, 2017 at 4:02 pm
What baffles me is, why would the Democrats want the "Russiagate" inquiry to be left in the hands of a man who has already
shown himself to be blown by the winds of political partisanship?
MM, May 10, 2017 at 4:17 pm
Ellimist000,
I'd love to see any President censured by Congress, for anything, especially by his or her own party. But even that won't cause
the Hypocritical Old Party to see the light. The universal philosophy in a 2-party system like this one is to 1) never admit any
wrongdoing of one's own nor hold any objective ethical standard of behavior; and 2) declare the other party pure evil, all the
time.
"It Is What It Isn't: Fake News Comes of Age as Ideology Trumps Evidence"
Love it!
"All of his complaining is backed up, it goes nearly without saying, with
photographs. Yet he didn't get a picture of the stealth-invading Russian
battalions even though he knew the subject was hotly debated, and proof
would have made his name a household word. Well, he is a household word,
although it's not "Shaun Walker". But you know what I mean."
*Rimshot*
" the author persists with the simpleminded meme that Putin rigged the
American presidential election to prevent Hillary Clinton from winning So
what sabotaged the win Hillary Clinton thought she had in the bag was the
release of damaging information about her which was true and accurate. "
What won the election for Trump was the Democratic Treatment of the poor
white class, whose votes the Democrats took for granted. Clinton consultant,
James Carville, admitted that people vote based on the economy when Bill
Clinton won. But when Hillary lost, for Carville it suddenly became about
Russia, Russia, Russia, akin to Jan yelling Marcia, Marcia, Marcia on the
Brady Bunch. How does an analyst sink to the level of a school girl?
Because the Democrats ignored nearly all of the warning sings, struggled
internally, and needed someone to blame. Russia is an easy target for blame
in US politics. Accepting responsibility for the defeat would have meant a
purge of the Democratic elite from their party's leadership. When Scott
Walker won Wisconsin, the Democrats ignored it. Look at the map of Wisconsin
in Walker's Gubernatorial Victory in 2014, and compare that with Trump's
Presidential Victory in 2016. They're almost identical. The poorer whites
became, the more they voted for Trump.
The DNC has been ignoring the Rust Belt for decades. That's how Clintons
missed Obama's meteoric rise. And in this election, the poor whites have had
enough of voting for a party that mocks them, and fucks them economically.
They simply needed a leader that could get revenge for them on the DNC.
Enter Trump. Did he bullshit? Most certainly, but they did not care. The DNC
was focused on getting Virginia, Nevada, making inroads into a few other
states; holding their base was simply too plebeian.
And it was this shift that happened, rather than the leaks, rather than
Russia, rather than Comey, rather than anything else, that cost the
Democrats the Presidency. This simple shift of a voting block. That's why it
wasn't just Pennsylvania; it was Wisconsin and Michigan:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/
"The theme expresses itself in several ways - primitive vs. advanced,
tough vs. delicate, masculine vs. feminine, poor vs. rich, pure vs.
decadent, traditional vs. weird. All of it is code for rural vs. urban."
What held the rust belt states was cities like Chicago, and poor whites
turning out. That didn't happen in this election, because"
"Nothing that happens outside the city matters!" they say at their
cocktail parties, blissfully unaware of where their food is grown. Hey,
remember when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans? Kind of weird that a big
hurricane hundreds of miles across managed to snipe one specific city and
avoid everything else. To watch the news (or the multiple movies and TV
shows about it), you'd barely hear about how the storm utterly steamrolled
rural Mississippi, killing 238 people and doing an astounding $125 billion
in damage. But who cares about those people, right? What's newsworthy about
a bunch of toothless hillbillies crying over a flattened trailer? New
Orleans is culturally important. It matters. To those ignored, suffering
people, Donald Trump is a brick chucked through the window of the elites.
"Are you assholes listening now?"
On Cultural Integration:
"the racism of my youth was always one step removed. I never saw a family
member, friend, or classmate be mean to the actual black people we had in
town. We worked with them, played video games with them, waved to them when
they passed. What I did hear was several million comments about how if you
ever ventured into the city, winding up in the "wrong neighborhood" meant
you'd get dragged from your car, raped, and burned alive. Looking back, I
think the idea was that the local minorities were fine as long as they
acted exactly like us."
An Issue with Priorities:
"Blacks riot, Muslims set bombs, gays spread AIDS, Mexican cartels behead
children, atheists tear down Christmas trees. Meanwhile, those liberal Lena
Dunhams in their $5,000-a-month apartments sip wine and say, "But those
white Christians are the real problem!" Terror victims scream in the street
next to their own severed limbs, and the response from the elites is to cry
about how men should be allowed to use women's restrooms and how it's cruel
to keep chickens in cages The foundation upon which America was undeniably
built - family, faith, and hard work - had been deemed unfashionable and
small-minded. Those snooty elites up in their ivory tower laughed as they
kicked away that foundation, and then wrote 10,000-word thinkpieces blaming
the builders for the ensuing collapse."
Most importantly, on the economy:
"They're getting the shit kicked out of them. I know, I was there. Step
outside of the city, and the suicide rate among young people fucking
doubles. The recession pounded rural communities, but all the recovery went
to the cities. The rate of new businesses opening in rural areas has utterly
collapsed. See, rural jobs used to be based around one big local business -
a factory, a coal mine, etc. When it dies, the town dies. Where I grew up,
it was an oil refinery closing that did us in. I was raised in the
hollowed-out shell of what the town had once been. The roof of our high
school leaked when it rained. Cities can make up for the loss of
manufacturing jobs with service jobs - small towns cannot. That model
doesn't work below a certain population density."
On hopelessness:
"In a city, you can plausibly aspire to start a band, or become an actor,
or get a medical degree. You can actually have dreams. In a small town,
there may be no venues for performing arts aside from country music bars and
churches. There may only be two doctors in town - aspiring to that job means
waiting for one of them to retire or die. You open the classifieds and all
of the job listings will be for fast food or convenience stores. The
"downtown" is just the corpses of mom and pop stores left shattered in
Walmart's blast crater, the "suburbs" are trailer parks. There are parts of
these towns that look post-apocalyptic. I'm telling you, the hopelessness
eats you alive.
And if you dare complain, some liberal elite will pull out their iPad and
type up a rant about your racist white privilege. Already, someone has
replied to this with a comment saying, "You should try living in a ghetto as
a minority!" Exactly. To them, it seems like the plight of poor minorities
is only used as a club to bat away white cries for help. Meanwhile, the rate
of rural white suicides and overdoses skyrockets. Shit, at least politicians
act like they care about the inner cities."
This frustration was built up over decades. Not overnight. Not because of
an October Surprise. Not because of leaked emails, and certainly, not
because of Russia. And unless the DNC is able to grasp the basics, or the
RNC fucks up the economy, Republicans will keep on winning the presidency.
It's just that simple.
Take a look at the early footage on election night. The Democrats thought
they were going to win, even after the email release. Even after the
scandals, they thought they had the election in the bag. And that's because
you don't miss an entire electoral class overnight either. On a final note,
there's no such thing as White Privilege; it's a lie made up to take away
our Rights, just like certain cities took away the Rights of minorities. The
Rights against search and seizure is a Right, not a Privilege.
Thanks for the link to the David Wong article. I'd read it before
(possibly linked to at John Michael Greer's Archdruid Report blog) but
thoroughly enjoyed reading it again.
As we might expect from the speech's location on Roosevelt Island, Clinton explicitly claims FDR's
mantle. From the introductory portion of her remarks:
[CLINTON: It is wonderful[1]]To be here in this beautiful park dedicated to Franklin Roosevelt's[2]
enduring vision of America, the nation we want to be.
Moreover, she not only claims FDR's mantle, she claims Roosevelt's Four Freedoms (history;
text):
You know, President Roosevelt's Four Freedoms are a testament to our nation's unmatched aspirations
and a reminder of our unfinished work at home and abroad. His legacy lifted up a nation and inspired
presidents who followed.
And quoting directly from FDR's Four Freedom's speech:
CLINTON: President Roosevelt called on every American to do his or her part, and every American
answered. He said there's no mystery about what it takes to build a strong and prosperous America:
"Equality of opportunity Jobs for those who can work Security for those who need it The ending
of special privilege for the few (cheers, applause.) The preservation of civil liberties for all
(cheers, applause) a wider and constantly rising standard of living."
(Interestingly, Clinton's quotes are not the actual Freedoms; we'll get to that in a
moment.) After some buildup, she then goes on to structure her speech around four policy areas (which
I've to say is refreshing, although not refreshing enough, as we shall see). Here they are, organized
into a single list instead of being scattered through the speech:
CLINTON: If you'll give me the chance, I'll wage and win Four Fights for you.
The first is to make the economy work for everyday Americans, not just those at the top.
Now, the second fight[3] is to strengthen America's families, because when our families
are strong, America is strong.
So we have a third fight: to harness all of America's power, smarts, and values to maintain
our leadership for peace, security, and prosperity.
That's why we have to win the fourth fight – reforming our government and revitalizing
our democracy so that it works for everyday Americans.
Before l take a look at the talking points that Clinton places under these four heads, let me
quote Roosevelt's Four Freedoms, so we can compare and contrast them to Clinton's. The context is
different; Clinton's is a campaign speech, and Roosevelt is addressing Congress, as a re-elected
President, in his State of the Union speech, in 1941, before our entrance into World War II (hence
the references to "everywhere in the world," and "translated into world terms").
Here's FDR:
In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four
essential human freedoms.
The first is freedom of[4] speech and expression–everywhere in the world.
The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way–everywhere in the world.
The third is freedom from want–which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings
which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants-everywhere in the
world.
The fourth is freedom from fear–which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction
of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position
to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor–anywhere in the world.
Notice the extreme specificity and material basis of FDR's language: Freedom from want;
freedom from fear. You know, today, in your very own life, whether you are in want or in
fear. You don't have to ask anybody else, and it doesn't take some sort of credential plus a processing
fee to figure it out. Now contrast Clinton: "[M]ake the economy work for everyday Americans." What
the heck does that even mean? Certainly
nobody knows what "everyday Americans" means. This is focus-grouped bafflegab emitted by Democratic
consultants who are
slumming it on the Chinese bus instead of the Acela because optics. Could we be in fear or in
want after the economy "works"? Who knows? And if Clinton believes we won't be, why not say that?
With that, let me poke holes in some of the policies under Clinton's Four Four Well, Four Whatever-the-Heck-They-Are,
since FDR's "Freedom of" and "Freedom from" construct seems to have been disappeared from Clinton's
reversioning of FDR's material. I understand that the Clinton campaign, in a White House-style policy
shop operation,
will be rolling out more concrete material
in
the next 513 days, so I'll focus only on major gaps and contradictions. (The talking points won't
necessarily be in speech order, though the headines will be.)
"Make the economy work for everyday Americans, not just those at the top"
CLINTON: "I will rewrite the tax code so it rewards hard work and investments here at home, not
quick trades or stashing profits overseas. (Cheers, applause.)"
CLINTON: "We will unleash a new generation of entrepreneurs and small business owners by providing
tax relief, cutting red tape, and making it easier to get a small business loan."
First, I suppose it's OK to appropriate Republican rhetoric, Third Way fashion - "tax
relief," "red tape" - but it sure seems odd to do so after claiming Roosevelt's mantle. Second, we've
got entire industries (Uber; AirBnB) whose business model is to gain market share by breaking the
law, and I'd like to know what Clinton thinks about ignoring "red tape" entirely. And that's not
just a theoretical concern for small business, since the so-called "sharing economy" - Yves calls
it
the "shafting economy" - threatens them as well. (What does it mean for local restaurants and
Farmer's Markets that food plus a recipe can now be delivered
via an app?)
CLINTON: "To make the middle class mean something again, with rising incomes and broader horizons.
And to give the poor a chance to work their way into it."
First, note the shift from "everyday Americans" (whatever that means) to "middle class" (whatever
that means) and "the poor" (I think we know what that means). Because Clinton cannot
really define who her programs target, it's not possible to determine who will actually benefit from
them; hence, "mean something" is vacuous. People can project, of course, but 2008 should have taught
us the danger of doing that. Second, there are well-known policies that provide concrete material
benefits to wage workers, and which it would be easy for Clinton to support, if she in fact does
so. The first is raising the minimum wage, not to Obama's pissant $10.10, but to the $15 that so
many on the ground are pushing for. Silence. More radically, we have programs like the Basic Income
Guarantee or the Jobs Guarantee (or both). Programs like this would be of great benefit especially
to those who have been cast out from our permanently shrunken workforce, and will in all likelihood
never work again. These programs target millions, and so who benefits is easy to see. Silence.
CLINTON: "There are leaders of finance who want less short-term trading and more long-term investing."
There are leaders in finance who are walking the street but who should be in jail. It's hard
to see how "confidence" can be restored for "everyday Americans" until elite criminals no longer
have impunity. Of course, taking a stand like that would make life hard for Clinton with the Rubinite
faction of the Democratic Party, along with many Wall Street donors, and many contributors to the
Clinton Foundation, but corruption isn't my problem. It's Clinton's. So, again, silence.
"Strengthen America's families"
CLINTON: "I believe you should look forward to retirement with confidence, not anxiety."
First, note again how abstract Clinton's words are. Where FDR says "freedom from fear," Clinton
says "not anxiety." Where FDR says "freedom from want," Clinton (with Wall Street) says "confidence."
Second, and as usual, what do Clinton's words even mean? Let me revise them: "I believe
Social Security benefits should be raised, not lowered, and that benefits should be age-neutral.
It's unconscionable that the younger you are, the worse off you will be when you're old. I also believe
that Social Security benefits should begin at age 60, so more can retire from the workforce, and
more young people enter." This is not hard. It doesn't take a think tank to work out.
CLINTON: "[I believe] that you should have the peace of mind that your health care will be there
when you need it, without breaking the bank."
What does that mean? Well, we know what it means. It means tinkering round the edges
of ObamaCare, keeping the sucking mandibles of the health insurance companies firmly embedded in
the body politic, and
not bringing our health care system up to world standards.
CLINTON: "I believe you should have the right to earn paid sick days. (Cheers, applause.)"
"Reforming our government and revitalizing our democracy"
CLINTON: "We have to stop the endless flow of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our
elections, corrupting our political process, and drowning out the voices of our people. (Cheers,
applause.)"
CLINTON: "If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment to undo the Supreme Court's
decision in Citizens United. (Cheers, applause.)"
However, the shout-out to a specific policy advocated by Move to Amend might make one reflect
on the curious lack of specificity so prevalent elsewhere in the speech.
CLINTON: "I want to make it easier for every citizen to vote. That's why I've proposed universal,
automatic registration and expanded early voting. (Cheers, applause.)"
There's plenty to like in Clinton's speech at the talking point level. (For example, on immigration,
she does support "a path to citizenship," though curiously not an end to mass incarceration, or reforms
to policing.) But over-all, I think any grand vision disappears in a welter of bullet points, vague
language, and a resolute unwillingness to present policies that would visibly benefit all
Americans, instead being tailored to the narrow constituencies of the sliced up version of America
so beloved by the political class.
Here's a random factoid you can use to frame whatever policy options a candidate presents. I keep
track of #BlackLivesMatter shootings on my Twitter feed, and most of them come with pictures of the
scene. The pictures come from all across the country, as we might expect, and I have started looked
at the backgrounds: Invariably, there are signs of a second- or third-world level of infrastructural
decay and destruction: Cracked sidewalks, potholed roads, sagging powerlines, weed-choked lots, empty
storefronts, dreary utilitarian architecture just as soul-sucking as anything the Soviets could have
produced.
... ... ...
ekstase, June 14, 2015 at 3:57 pm
"To make the middle class mean something again, with rising incomes and broader horizons. And
to give the poor a chance to work their way into it."
Why are the middle class and the poor always invited to "have a chance"? Or to "work their
way into it"? It is supposed to be a fair system, not one in which some people have been crippled
by cheaters, and therefore need to work their way out of the unfair position they have been put
in. The logic seems off.
tongorad, June 14, 2015 at 4:06 pm
Why are the middle class and the poor always invited to "have a chance"? Or to "work their way
into it"?
"Have a chance:" The old "skin in the game" routine. Everyone deserves the chance to risk their
skin. Nice, eh? "Work their way into it:" Divide and conquer. The deserving poor and middle class
vs undeserving.
jrs, June 14, 2015 at 11:53 pm
one also has a chance to win the lottery if one plays it. Well one does not a good chance but
a chance.
Lexington, June 15, 2015 at 1:26 am
Why are the middle class and the poor always invited to "have a chance"? Or to "work their way
into it"? Because in America some win and some lose, but the losers deserved it because they lack
ability, persistence, a strong work ethic, or otherwise have some serious character flaw that
prevents them from succeeding. In American everyone who deserves success gets it. Or in the shorthand
of American political discourse, it's about equalizing "opportunity", not "outcome".
Hillary isn't promising that under her presidency everyone in America will have economic security
and some basic allotment of human dignity – that would have after all be defiling the altar of
"meritocracy" at which America's elite worships – but those who deserve it will.
As for the others, well America will always need fast food workers, convenience store clerks
and Walmart greeters. In any case those sorts of people have no right to aspire to a station in
life higher than the one for which one providence suited them.
craazyboy, June 14, 2015 at 4:49 pm
Might be interesting to compare it to Senator Obama speeches. Many parts seem hauntingly familiar,
but 8 years and 500 plus days does overly tax my memory. Then maybe compare it to a Reagan speech.
Maybe it's my long term memory kicking in.
But that may be more work than it's worth.
Oh geez. Today is gym day. The Fox News TV is there. I can smell the fumes bubbling up from
the swamp pit already. Hillary Clinton has embraced FDR and gone bungee cord jumping completely
off the far, far, left cliff. Gawd help us.
Bernie, don't let Hillary sit in your lap. Let's try and keep this believable.
OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL, June 14, 2015 at 6:45 pm
We have 1400 billionaires in this country (up from 700 when the "Crisis" began) and we can't
find one, NOT ONE, with a functioning moral compass who is willing to do the least little thing
for the actual *people* in this country by supporting a real alternative candidate to Fascist
War Monger 1 (Hilary) or Fascist War Monger 2 (Jeb).
Forget Grandpa Buffet and his homely homilies while he steals off with insider deals on Goldman
preferred, or BillG, who does some good things but then goes and leads the Better Than Cash Alliance
(an attempt to get everyone in the developing world to run up debts on a MasterCard). Mark, Elon,
Peter don't you have even one remaining moral bone left that will make you save us from these
charlatans?
David, June 14, 2015 at 6:49 pm
" hatchet-faced austerity enforcer.."
In the links this morning, you castigated someone for making sexist comments about Hillary.
You said,
"..it's dumb, because emphasizes the personal characteristics of candidates as opposed to their
political ones."
Other than that, I enjoyed the article.
Blue Guy Red State, June 15, 2015 at 4:24 pm
Bernie Sanders resonating with some very Tea Party friendly members of my extended family,
along with various traditional lefties like me (aging Boomer and former Independent who move right
to join Democratic Party in 1980s) and Millenial offspring. Summer family camping trip might get
interesting!
Sen. Sanders is making more sense to more people because we've tried trickle-down, tax-cutting
Reaganomics for 35 years, and it's been a disaster across the board unless you're filthy rich.
(And the filthy rich live on the same planet as the rest of us, breathe the same air and drink
the same water too.)
People are ready for REAL hope and REAL change; this will give Sen. Sanders a lot more traction
than the MSM and both GOP and Democratic bigwigs expect. Good.
Synoia, June 14, 2015 at 8:25 pm
S.S. Clinton, the beginning of a Titanic voyage.
I cannot perceive of anything concrete coming form a second Clinton presidency, except more
and more constituents thrown under the bus, the space already crowded with groups so discarded
by President Obama.
I'm for Bernie.
craazyman. June 14, 2015 at 8:48 pm
Now that Hillary is officially running for President, it's time to ask the tough questions.
The tough questions separate a vanity candidate who just want media attention from the hardened
policy field marshall who has to make the tough decisions in the face of strenuous opposition.
If Hillary is for real, she might get elected, so its not too early to think of the Top 10 Questions
for President H.R. Clinton at her first press conference.
... ... ...
Question #6: This is a multiple choice question!
How many hedge funds does it take to destroy society?
a) less than 100
b) just one
c) they can't take you anyway, you don't already know how to go
d) what kind of question is that?
Question #5: Are Republlcans completely crazy or do they just seem like it?
... ... ..
drum roll please . . . .
Is Bruce Jenner still a roll model for America's athletic youth and if not, why not?
^ ^ ^
Holy smokes those are tough questions for any body, much less a US president. but they need to
be clever if they're the President don't they!
Ed Walker, June 14, 2015 at 10:10 pm
Fun factoid. Sunday Paper has different headline than current article up on web. Here's the
headline from the paper:
Sounding Populist Themes, Clinton Pledges to Close Gap in Wealth.
And here's the headline from the web right now:
Hillary Clinton, in Roosevelt Island Speech, Pledges to Close Income Gap
"Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton said drug companies that would benefit
from a Pacific trade pact should sell their products to the U.S. government at a discount in her
strongest comments yet on an issue that has divided her party."
"Clinton's comments amount to an implicit rebuke of President Barack Obama's efforts to secure
the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and a nod toward liberal critics of the deal as she campaigns
to win the Democratic nomination for the November 2016 presidential election."
"I have held my peace because I thought it was important for the Congress to have a full debate
without thrusting presidential politics and candidates into it," she said at a campaign stop in
Burlington, Iowa. "But now I think the president and his team could have the chance to drive a
harder bargain."
"Clinton did not say whether she would support or reject the deal. But she criticized several
aspects of the agreement "
"Our drug companies, if they are going to get what they want, they should give more to America,"
Sanctuary, June 15, 2015 at 1:51 am
I was in Cuyahoga County in 2004 and I can tell you unequivocally, they (the Republicans) played
every dirty trick in the book and stole that election. They were calling people up and telling
them that Democrats vote the next day, Republicans vote on that day and/or calling people up and
"informing" them of the incorrect polling location to go to, closing down polling locations or
not starting them for several hours past the mandated time.
The 2000 morass I blame on Gore, since by no stretch of the imagination should that election
have even been close enough that a few million votes undercounted or prevented would have swung
the election. That he chose to buy into the Republican memes about Clinton, act guilty, and run
away from him, was his own bad judgment.
When you act guilty in the US, you ARE guilty. Doesn't matter if it's true or not. Say what
you want about the Clinton's, that is one lesson they always understood.
Jerry Denim, June 15, 2015 at 2:55 am
"There's plenty to like in Clinton's speech at the talking point level."
Seriously?
"We need more from Clinton - more from all candidates. Much, much more. "
Really?
I know Hillary once again is the front runner, the presumed nominee and the only Democratic
candidate for "serious" respectable grown-ups and as such must receive her share of the horse
race coverage. I also know the tone of this post was basically critical and skeptic.
That said, I find such an earnest micro-parsing of Clinton's utterly meaningless, consequence-free
campaign rhetoric by a respected, important and principled site such as this does Clinton an undeserved
service by lending her legitimacy at a time when she should be shouted down and shamed for being
the lying, compromised, money-grubbing, scruple-less corporate sock puppet that she is.
If the political elites learned anything from Obama (a.k.a. Bush 3.0) it's that you can lie
through your teeth on a daily basis and along with some help from our red vs. blue propaganda
machine media still convince gullible voters who identify with team blue's brand to continue to
support a team blue Prez, and vote for him/her even if he/she betrays regular Americans and kicks
them on a daily basis as long as he/she smiles and says he/she is committed to popular and happy
things on camera. Hillary can say whatever the hell she wants right now and it doesn't mean a
thing. She doesn't hold elected or appointed office.
She can make socialist, FDR type promises till the cows come home while still raking in billions
in corporate money, foreign money, and libertarian billionaire asshole money because they know
just like Obama she will break every populist campaign promise before she's even sworn in as President.
A President Hillary and her entourage would continue business as usual because they has a proven
track record of being pro-establishment, pro-Wall Street, Washington-consensus, Neo-con hawks.
Believing anything else is utter madness.
Save your analysis and commentary for a Socialist with a better track record like Bernie Sanders
or some other long-shot, third party candidate. Carefully parsing the words of a lying pol like
Clinton is about as sane and as useful as trying to divine meaning in a pile of dogshit and then
claiming you have a legal and binding contract with your bank. We don't need more from Clinton
we need less. Way less. We need her to shut up and go away, we know who and what she really is.
Since Clinton doesn't look like she plans on shutting up or going away anytime soon I think she
should either be – a.) Ignored, or (b.) Shouted down and shamed. Just like Obama I can't take
a single word she speaks seriously with her track record.
TedWa, June 15, 2015 at 7:45 pm
I just wish posters here would stop thinking about and posting about Bernie Sanders as if he's
a 3rd party candidate. I'm old enough to remember when progressive democrats like Bernie ran things.
He's more of a traditional democrat than Hillary can even dream about being. There is no throwing
the race to the Republicans by voting for and supporting Bernie – he's running as a democrat and
running as a challenger to neo-liberal Hillary and neo-liberal politics and only 1 of them can
make it to the final democratic nomination. Get it? Only one of them. This is not going to be
a 3rd party race! I know wrapping your head around Bernie as a democrat is hard for some of the
younger among us that don't remember a time when neo-liberalism didn't rule the roost, but that
is what he is and that is how he's running. There is no 3rd party candidate
Thank you for your time.
How does Hillary's level playing field rhetoric work in her own life? Let's look at how her
daughter has fared in her own struggles to live a middle class life.
Lord Butler of Brockwell, the Master of University College, said: "Her (Chelsea's) record at
Stanford shows that she is a very well-qualified and able student. The college is also pleased
to extend its link with the Clinton family."
In 2003, Clinton joined the consulting firm McKinsey & Company in New York City.
In the fall of 2006, she went to work for Avenue Capital Group, a global investment firm focusing
on distressed securities and private equity.
In 2010, she became Vice Chair of the Clinton Foundation.
In November 2011, NBC announced that they hired Clinton as a special correspondent, paying
her $600,000 per year. Clinton memorably interviewed the Geico Gecko in April 2013.
Since 2011, she has also taken a dominant role at the family's Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton
Foundation, and has had a seat on its board.
Just thought I'd add a link to Professor Harvey Kaye talking to Bill Moyers about FDR's Four
Freedoms.
http://billmoyers.com/episode/fighting-for-the-four-freedoms/
So inspiring. The opposite of HRC. I appreciated this article very much I don't see how anyone
who watched or read the HRC text and has a passing familiarity to the Four Freedoms speech can
see any relationship between the two whatsoever except at the most superficial level, meaning
HRC used the word "Four".
Hilary Clinton said on Tuesday she takes "personal responsibility" for her loss to
Donald Trump in the
2016 presidential race.
But the former Democratic nominee also blamed Russian interference in the US election and the
release just before the election of a
letter by the FBI director, James Comey , pertaining to the investigation into her emails, saying
such factors deprived her of an otherwise expected victory.
Run against Trump? Elizabeth Warren will certainly stand and fight Read more
"I take absolute personal responsibility," Clinton said of her November defeat during a sit-down
with CNN's Christiane Amanpour at an event titled Women for Women in New York. "I was the candidate,
I was the person who was on the ballot. I am very aware of the challenges, the problems, the shortfalls
that we had."
The former secretary of state nonetheless maintained she was on track to become the first female
president of the United States when a series of obstacles altered the trajectory of the race.
"It wasn't a perfect campaign. There is no such thing," she said. "But I was on the way to winning,
until a combination of Jim Comey's letter on 28 October and Russian WikiLeaks raised doubts in the
minds of people who were inclined to vote for me but got scared off."
Clinton was referring to the decision by Comey to disclose – 11 days before election day – that
the FBI was reviewing newly
discovered emails in relation to the investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server while
at the helm of the Department of State. Just days later, Comey concluded the emails were mostly personal
or duplicates of what the government had already examined prior to clearing Clinton of any criminal
charges.
"... It should not be a surprise. This unseemly and unnecessary cash-in fits a pattern of bad behavior involving the financial sector, one that spans Obama's entire presidency. ..."
"... Obama's Wall Street payday will confirm for many what they have long suspected: that the Democratic Party is managed by out-of-touch elites who do not understand or care about the concerns of ordinary Americans. It's hard to fault those who come to this conclusion.. ..."
"... I began this essay by saying that Obama's $400,000 oligarchic shill job was a bookend ..."
"... Before he was even elected, an executive from Citigroup (the corporate owner of Citibank) gave Obama a list of acceptable choices for who may serve on his cabinet. The list ended up matching Obama's actual cabinet picks once elected almost to a 't' ..."
"The rumors are true: Former President Barack Obama will receive $400,000 to speak at a health
care conference organized by the Wall Street firm Cantor Fitzgerald.
It should not be a surprise. This unseemly and unnecessary cash-in fits a pattern of bad
behavior involving the financial sector, one that spans Obama's entire presidency.
That governing failure convinced millions of his onetime supporters that the president and
his party were not, in fact, playing for their team, and helped pave the way for President Donald
Trump. Obama's Wall Street payday will confirm for many what they have long suspected: that
the Democratic Party is managed by out-of-touch elites who do not understand or care about the
concerns of ordinary Americans. It's hard to fault those who come to this conclusion..."
If Progressives Don't Wake Up To How Awful Obama Was, Their Movement Will Fail
...............
" I began this essay by saying that Obama's $400,000 oligarchic shill job was a bookend
.
I did that because, in what was easily the single most important and egregious WikiLeaks email
of 2016, we learned that Wall Street was calling the shots in the Obama administration before
the Obama administration even existed.
"... Meanwhile the center left spent their time and energy attacking the messengers - calling Sanders "unserious" - while mansplaining that their minimal reforms and tinkering was improving lives and people should be eternally grateful. ..."
"... No wonder so many voters don't trust the Democratic party. ..."
"Working-class Americans didn't necessarily understand the details of global trade deals, but
they saw elite Americans and people in China and other developing countries becoming rapidly wealthier
while their own incomes stagnated or declined. It should not be surprising that many of them agreed
with Trump and with the Democratic presidential primary contender Bernie Sanders that the game
was rigged."
Meanwhile the center left spent their time and energy attacking the messengers - calling Sanders
"unserious" - while mansplaining that their minimal reforms and tinkering was improving lives
and people should be eternally grateful.
No wonder so many voters don't trust the Democratic party.
No, their pro-business attitude is part of the problem. They've bought into conservative propaganda:
see Bill Clinton's welfare deform for instance.
Thomas Frank -
................
Another thing that is inexcusable from Democrats: surprise at
the economic disasters that have befallen the Midwestern
cities and states that they used to represent.
The wreckage that you see every day as you tour this part
of the country is the utterly predictable fruit of the
Democratic party's neoliberal turn. Every time our liberal
leaders signed off on some lousy trade deal, figuring that
working-class people had "nowhere else to go," they were
making what happened last November a little more likely.
Every time our liberal leaders deregulated banks and then
turned around and told working-class people that their
misfortunes were all attributable to their poor education,
that the only answer for them was a lot of student loans and
the right sort of college degree ... every time they did this
they made the disaster a little more inevitable.
Pretending to rediscover the exotic, newly red states of
the Midwest, in the manner of the New York Times, is not the
answer to this problem. Listening to the voices of the good
people of Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan is not really the
answer, either. Cursing those bad people for the stupid way
they voted is an even lousier idea.
What we need is for the Democratic party and its media
enablers to alter course. It's not enough to hear people's
voices and feel their pain; the party actually needs to
change. They need to understand that the enlightened Davos
ideology they have embraced over the years has done material
harm to millions of their own former constituents. The
Democrats need to offer something different next time. And
then they need to deliver.
Another thing that is inexcusable from Democrats: surprise at the economic
disasters that have befallen the midwestern cities and states that they used
to represent.
The wreckage that you see every day as you tour this part of the country
is the utterly predictable fruit of the Democratic party's neoliberal turn.
Every time our liberal leaders signed off on some lousy trade deal, figuring
that working-class people had "nowhere else to go," they were making what happened
last November a little more likely.
Would Trump supporters elect him again now? For some Trump voters
in Northampton County, Pennsylvania, their new president has already done more
than Obama – but others have had enough Every time our liberal leaders deregulated
banks and then turned around and told working-class people that their misfortunes
were all attributable to their poor education, that the only answer for them
was a lot of student loans and the right sort of college degree ... every time
they did this they made the disaster a little more inevitable.
Pretending to rediscover the exotic, newly red states of the Midwest,
in the manner of the New York Times , is not the answer to this problem.
Listening to the voices of the good people of Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan
is not really the answer, either. Cursing those bad people for the stupid way
they voted is an even lousier idea.
More obscene tax cuts for the rich, windfall deals for cronies, unparalleled
corruption, and utter and complete betrayal of the 99% (NO affordable healthcare,
war on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid), and a LOSS of decent jobs engineered
by perhaps the most demagogic liar and despot wannabe' in recent times,
and YOU have the stones to talk about a 'Davos mindset'?
Double-speak and distortion worthy of those you apparently serve.
Good luck. The Dems just don't want to get it and unless individual Dems
start acting on their own for the good of all of us, who in the past were
strictly loyal to the party, then they'll lose again. What BC did with NAFTA
and his total disregard for decimating entire regions of the country by
doing so, with nothing to replace those jobs with but a snotty attitude,
will haunt them until they wake up. Sadly, for us, this isn't likely as
they will think once again that people will vote for whoever they toss up
just because Trump is so "deplorable". No one wants 4 more years of Trump,
not even those who voted for him.
Frank is still trying to turn American blue collar workers into European
style class warfare socialists.
Many (if not most) of the traditional jobs are not comng back, and only
a few are in China.
AUTOMATION.
Neither party can do anything about that.
We'd better start thinking about a much bigger labor force than available
jobs
A Tax on every Robot sufficient to fund a modern Welfare State and a Universal
Basic Income is what some propose to address this development. A 20 hour
work week doing community service work helping ones fellow citizens in some
constructive way?
Remember that a lot of people voted for Trump or abstained from voting altogether
(thereby basically giving the vote to Trump, as it turns out) because we
refused to vote for Hillary. Wisconsin voted for Bernie in the primaries.
I firmly believe that it was an intense distrust of Mrs. Clinton, and not
overwhelming faith in the promises and abilities of Donald Trump, that made
our state show red on Election Day. If Bernie hadn't been cheated out of
the race by her bottle blondiness, I'm relatively certain that he probably
might have won in a race against Uncle Don.
"The wreckage that you see every day as you tour this part of the country
is the utterly predictable fruit of the Democratic party's neoliberal turn."
Yup! And the means doing away with public sector unions in their present
form, it means securing the borders, it means getting big banks and wall
street under control, it means dropping the left wingnut social policies
and getting the government out of peoples lives, not the other way 'round.
Ain't gonna happen.
The liberal/progressive leftist totalitarians are in charge of the party,
and unless they change their ways, as previously described, they are going
to wander in the wilderness for a very long time.
The Democratic Party has gradually become the party of the status quo and
business as usual instead of the progressive-- working people's party--
it use to be under Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy. Even Obamacare is a concept
originally conceived by the Republicans to force all Americans into the
arms of the private health insurance companies.
Instead of more trickle down economics, Democrats should be trying to
focus on creating a worker's paradise in order to re-energize the American
economy:
1. A 32 hour work week (overtime beyond 32 hours):
2. Up to six weeks of annual Federally mandated paid vacation
3. Reduction of individual income tax to just 1% for individuals that
make less than $60,000 a year
4. Employer payment of all Federal payroll taxes for all employees that
make less than $60,000 a year
5. A $1000 a year workers rebate from the Federal government if you work
full time or part time or employ full time or part time workers
6. Federal infrastructure program providing matching funds for cities
that want to build affordable urban-- rental housing-- for senior citizens
and the working class families and individuals, who don't own their own
home who make less than $60,000 a year.
7. Federal and employer financed medical savings accounts for all American
citizens
8. High tariffs (15% to 100%) on all imports coming in from nations that
are not free and democratic (China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.). Low
tariffs (1% to 10%) on imports from nations that are free and democratic.
How Democrats could have ever gone along with allowing a fascist state like
China to have full and free trading access to the American economy is almost
incomprehensible (and it also cost Americans more than 3 million jobs)!
Lets review the key points of Democratic politics as they now pronounce
it (through words and action)
1 - Save the planet - translation - regulate any and all forms of energy
to be too expensive then subsidize renewable energy. This means a few major
companies will win huge government contracts to put up windmills while,
power plant operators, miners, natural gas workers and countless supporting
industries go dark.
2 - Identity Politics - Translation - Vast swaths of America are understood
only in context of their race, gender (chosen or otherwise) or political
perspective. They will be administered according to an as yet unpublished
preference chart favoring some over others. Meaning that individuals don't
matter and needs don't matter. Only that you fit into some defined category
where political messaging will tell you why your oppressed and that only
democrats can free you.
3 - Free Trade Agreements - In short - how to off shore manufacturing
to cheap labor countries. That one is very simple.
4 - Sanctuary Cities - People who arrived into this country illegally
will be protected from deportation, even identifcation as illegal regardless
of the law. This reduces the cost of labor for less skilled workers and
drives up costs - which drive up taxes to provide services. In point of
fact California is in the process of creating a single payer healthcare
system that will provide free (only if your don't earn and income) healthcare
to anybody in California - no questions asked.
What is missing? Jobs. There are zero plans to bring back jobs. The coasties
don't care about manufacturing. They only buy the highest quality imports
with the right labels on them anyway. Their answer - why more government
"programs" designed to robe Peter to pay Paul. Job training for jobs that
don't exist where people live, and often disappeared years ago.
Meritocracy?
The best of the best of the best?
Not for the Smugatocratic World Rigging Nepotistic 'Davos' Elite!
(Busy "Late Night" Offices)
Seth Myer's Secretary
Seth! Call; "Line 1" You better take it
Seth Myers
Hello?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
Seth My Dear Boy I really need you to do me a solid
you remember my Granddaughter Brittany?
Seth Myers
Ummm .Not really .?
Who is this?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
No matter .You met her last year at Davos
Seth Myers
Ahhh .I didn't actually go to Davos last year?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
Well she just graduated from Emerson Gawd knows what they learn there?
AAAAAANYWAAAYS .
this whole "Clinton Kerfuffle" has kind of put us in a little bind
Seth Myers
Oh really?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
And Britt had her dear little heart set on interning with Hilly and Billy
Seth Myers
Oh....She did?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
Now, she'd really like to work on your show
Seth Myers
My show?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
Oh .She's a really good writer
Seth Myers
Writer .Wow .Why not just host?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
You think? Well, maybe?
K Thanks Gottah Run Love Yah' Bunches Britt will just be so thrilled!
See you at Davos .
Seth Myers
Wait I'm not go
Seth Myer's Secretary
Seth! Call; "Line 2" You better take it
Seth Myers
Hello?
Member of "Smugatocratic" Elite
Seth .My Dear Boy I really, really need you to do me a solid you remember
my Granddaughter...Gemma?
Speaking of "Davos Ideology", it would help if people like Al Gore and Leo
Dicaprio didn't fly there on private jets to lecture people back home about
their carbon footprint. Midwesterners notice stuff like that. "Incongruities",
I believe, would be Mr. Frank's chatterati term for it.
Blue collar workers understand the laws of supply and demand just as well
as Harvard trained economists. The Democratic party's embrace of open borders
and amnesty is the exact same position as the Chamber of Commerce. Nearly
15% of America is foreign born and many of those people are competing with
citizens for jobs. Business loves it for holding down wages and the DNC
loves it for the future reliable Democratic voters.. Tech, medicine, and
higher education noticed how this policy has squeezed blue collar wages
and are manipulating H1B and other visa programs to do the same thing to
their 100k+ professional workers. The DNC loves the visa programs as well
mostly because of their addiction to big tech and other Silicon Valley donors.
I think the DNC is trying to come up with a policy to do the least possible
to attract these blue collar voters and still keep their billionaire new
economy donors happy.
Example, "Every time our liberal leaders deregulated banks and then turned
around and told working-class people that their misfortunes were all attributable
to their poor education, that the only answer for them was a lot of student
loans and the right sort of college degree ... every time they did this
they made the disaster a little more inevitable." Aside from Bill, democrats
are the party that believes in regulation and have many times fought republicans
from destroying them. What's happening now is just a return of republican
priorities. Lower regulation on nearly all business to include the financial
industry and the same old trickle down theory that has only increase income
and wealth inequality. Additionally, it was the Reagan administration that
began making higher education more a business that required student loans
to attend.
Special interests are intertwined with the Dems as much as they are with
Repubs now, that's what's changed. The article speaks of the neoliberal
policies that are destroying the Democratic party (deregulation, pro-corporate/anti-worker
policies).
Yes, Republicans do those things and always have, but the point is that
the Dems now do them too. And they need to step away from neoliberal policies
like that if they want to be relevant again.
A major cause of the deindustrialization of the US Midwest is offshoring
jobs. That isn't the fault of the Democrats.
In fact, while Trump jabbers about "bringing the jobs back to the US,"
he and his daughter Ivanka continue to manufacture their clothing lines
in such as Bangladesh, China, and Mexico. "Made in the America" is yet another
of his slogans fed to the stupid.
But I guess that Trump is a hypocrite and liar is the fault of the Democrats
too.
The problem with the rhetoric of this article is that it slings the usual
labels -- "neoliberal" -- without a clue as to their meaning. But that's
the nature of right-wing propaganda.
Well, like it or not, the main point that the democrats have been hollywoodized
and cannot bring themselves to go somewhere that arugula is not sold, is
true. As for making clothing in China, who knows what clothing manufacturers
there are left in the USA and whether they can do what is needed. You don't
know that.
The deindustrialization of the US is the result of corporate policies.
And while Trump jabbers about bringing jobs back to America, he and his
daughter continue to manufacture their clothing lines in countries where
they can pay the least in wages for the most in production. Chinese manufacturing
of Ivanka's now-relabeled clothing line pays $60.00 for a 57-hour week.
Obviously the author of this article either doesn't know those facts,
therefore doesn't know what he's talking about, or he makes no mention of
it in order to dishonestly bash the Democrats, who are NOT doing manufacturing
in Bangladesh, China, and other third-world countries.
Thomas Frank reveals the rage middle-class Midwesterners feel towards Democrats
and entrenched politicians. Over the past decade, he voiced this warning,
but it fell on deaf ears. Only one major television commentator dared to
express similar warnings, Ed Schultz, formerly of MSNBC. Schultz was removed
from MSNBC and forced off MSM. Frank was a frequent guest and commentator
on his and other main television news shows. Since the election, the major
broadcast news no longer invites Frank. Democracy, journalism and political
expression are diminished.
"I have spent the last three weeks driving
around the deindustrialized midwest And what I
am here to say is that the midwest is not an
exotic place. It isn't a benighted region of
unknowable people and mysterious urges. It isn't
backward or hopelessly superstitious or hostile
to learning. It is solid, familiar, ordinary
America, and Democrats can have no excuse for
not seeing the wave of heartland rage that
swamped them last November" [Thomas Frank,
The Guardian
]. "The wreckage that you see
every day as you tour this part of the country
is the utterly predictable fruit of the
Democratic party's neoliberal turn. Every time
our liberal leaders signed off on some lousy
trade deal, figuring that working-class people
had "nowhere else to go," they were making what
happened last November a little more likely."
Moreover:
The way I see it, the critical test for
our system will come late next year. The
billionaire great-maker in the Oval Office
has already turned out to be an incompetent
buffoon, and his greatest failures are no
doubt yet to come. By November 2018, the
winds of change will be in full hurricane
shriek, and unless the Democratic Party's
incompetence is even more profound than it
appears to be, the D's will sweep to some
sort of mid-term triumph.
But when "the resistance" comes into
power in Washington, it will face this
question: this time around, will Democrats
serve the 80% of us that this modern economy
has left behind? Will they stand up to the
money power? Or will we be invited once
again to feast on inspiring speeches while
the tasteful gentlemen from JP Morgan
foreclose on the world?
The Democrat establishment has already given
its answer: That's why Clinton supporter and #MedicareForAll
hater Ossoff has $8 million dollars to appeal to
suburban Repubicans in Geogia 6, and Sanders
supporters in Kansas (Thompson) and Montana
(Quist) get zilch. Of course, the Democrat
establishment is profoundly incompetent, as
Shattered
proves, so they may well blow
2018, as well as 2016.
"The First 117 Days of Chuck Schumer" [
RealClearPolitics
].
A bill of particulars drawn up by a Republican,
but still very funny.
Realignment and Legitimacy
"'Fallen! Fallen Is Babylon The Great!'" [Rod
Dreher,
The American Conservative
]. Shout-outs to
Chris Arnade, Anne Coulter, and Ian Welsh. We
live in strange times.
Given the overall
low opinion of the electorate with regards to politicians in general and specifically
to each of our two major political parties, then there is little that any political
candidate can do to win elections, but there are limitless things that any establishment
political candidate can do to lose them. Donald Trump found the sweet spot in
that racket.
Democrats
are probably in a frantic search for some glib, authentic-sounding huckster
to play the role of a populist agent for change in the 2024 election...and
then immediately reverse course upon taking office to serve the interest
of the bankers, defense contractors, globalists, etc...in the mold of
Macron, Pena-Nieto, Obama and Trump.
One of the keys to success in
presidential politics these days is to be an outsider without much of
a track record in politics, so that the fraud is hard to detect.
The future lies with outsiders, who are authentic-sounding frauds.
"Democrats
are probably in a frantic search for some glib, authentic-sounding huckster
to play the role of a populist agent for change in the 2024 election..."
[Whatever happened to 2020? Look, I am all set for a liberal sounding
huckster in 2020. So, don't write me off just yet.]
"...The future lies with outsiders, who are authentic-sounding frauds."
[That would seem to be the natural course of evolution from where
we are today. I do believe in the more distant future, too distant for
me but not for my grandchildren, then populism may congeal at a point
from which it evolves towards greater democracy. However, there is a
lot for the wisdom of crowds to learn and unlearn before the train arrives
at that station.]
Democrats'
cupboard is bare. Time Kaine is the default, and the Obama/Clinton faction
will defend its control at all cost...and will have the same success
as Mondale, Dukakis and Kerry.
I understand that a key indicator is
an invitation to Bilderberg, which now publishes much of its list of
attendees. Clinton got invited in 1991, Blair in 1993, and Macron in
2014.
Maybe,
we will see. The Republican Party has done well enough working with
a bare cupboard for decades. Events drive the news cycle and the national
dialogue. Political parties just try to see how deep into the bottom
of the barrel that they can scrape and still get by with their triangulated
pandering and defamatory memes.
"Democrats
are probably in a frantic search for some glib, authentic-sounding huckster
to play the role of a populist agent for change in the 2024 election..."
Michelle Obama for 2020! Or Oprah Winfrey. I'll be astonished if Dem
"strategists" don't seriously push for one of these two "solutions".
Actually,
I would be for either one, but prefer Denzel Washington if given a choice.
Of course Morgan Freeman has more presidential experience. He has not
only play the role of POTUS, Morgan Freeman has played the role of God.
That's hard to beat. I'm easy enough. That still gives me no reason
to call anyone that sees it different a racist xenophobe without having
said one word to them first.
"... If the corrupt neoliberal centrist globalization loving job killing status quo democrats do not reform, Bernie supporters might jump ship and form their own party. We will see where you guys are then ..."
"Lies, damn lies and the deep state: Plenty of Americans see them all:
Poll"
By GARY LANGER...Apr 27, 2017...7:00 AM ET
"Nearly half of Americans think there's a "deep state" in this country,
just more than half think the mainstream media regularly report false stories
and six in 10 say the Trump administration regularly makes false claims.
Just another day in the world of alleged sneaky stuff.
Each of these claims has gained attention since the 2016 campaign and
the start of the Trump presidency, and this ABC News/Washington Post poll
finds that each has lots of takers.
Start with the "deep state," described here as "military, intelligence
and government officials who try to secretly manipulate government policy."
A plurality, 48 percent, think there is such a thing. Fewer, 35 percent,
call it a conspiracy theory, with the rest unsure."...
I am heartbroken too, but if you think the right wing has some sort of monopoly
on this, you're part of the problem, and not part of the solution. Hell,
the Dems rigged their own primary, lied about it, got caught, and then simply
shrugged it off as what everyone does. Elections are now meaningless, and
the Democrats couldn't care less. OK, but if that's their attitude, I'd
suggest they try rigging all those down-ballot races they've made a habit
of losing of late.
Anyone who dares to question the status quo neoliberal corporatist corrupt
policies should just shut up?
Clear evidence that the status quo has become so corrupt and beholden
to special interest money that they will try to silence dissent from even
their own ranks.
If the corrupt neoliberal centrist globalization loving job killing
status quo democrats do not reform, Bernie supporters might jump ship and
form their own party. We will see where you guys are then .
The internet is the only reason these people are relevant, in the real
world none of them has ever done anything to try and make the changes they
support. I doubt whether any of them has even voted.
the democrat party just got decimated - presidential, both houses of
congress, state, local everywhere. And you think this is an academic debate?
You must be a clueless academic OR IYI (intelligent yet idiot) as Taleb
calls you guys.
Shattered depicts a calamity of a campaign. While on the surface, Hillary
Clinton's team were far more unified and capable than their counterparts
in 2008 had been, behind the scenes there was utter discord. The senior
staff engaged in constant backstabbing and intrigue, jockeying for access
to the candidate and selectively keeping information from one another. Clinton
herself never made it exactly clear who had responsibility for what, meaning
that staff were in a constant competition to take control. Worse, Clinton
was so sealed off from her own campaign that many senior team members had
only met her briefly, and interacted with her only when she held conference
calls to berate them for their failures. Allen and Parnes call the situation
"an unholy mess, fraught with tangled lines of authority, petty jealousies,
distorted priorities, and no sense of general purpose," in which "no one
was in charge."
'For example, late in the Obama administration the board that is supposed to oversee the US
Postal Service had zero members out of the nine possible appointments. The reported reason is
that Senator Bernie Sanders put a hold on all possible appointees, as a show of solidarity with
postal workers. If it isn't obvious to you how Sanders preventing President Obama from appointing
new board members would influence the US Postal Service in the directions that Sanders would prefer,
given that President Trump could presumably appoint all nine members of the board, you are not
alone.'
'Shattered' Charts Hillary Clinton's Course Into the Iceberg
By MICHIKO KAKUTANI
Donald J. Trump's victory over Hillary Clinton in November came as a shock to the world. Polls,
news reports and everything the Clinton campaign was hearing in the final days pointed to her
becoming the first female president in American history.
In their compelling new book, "Shattered," the journalists Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes write
that Clinton's loss suddenly made sense of all the reporting they had been doing for a year and
a half - reporting that had turned up all sorts of "foreboding signs" that often seemed at odds,
in real time, with indications that Clinton was the favorite to win. Although the Clinton campaign
was widely covered, and many autopsies have been conducted in the last several months, the blow-by-blow
details in "Shattered" - and the observations made here by campaign and Democratic Party insiders
- are nothing less than devastating, sure to dismay not just her supporters but also everyone
who cares about the outcome and momentous consequences of the election.
In fact, the portrait of the Clinton campaign that emerges from these pages is that of a Titanic-like
disaster: an epic fail made up of a series of perverse and often avoidable missteps by an out-of-touch
candidate and her strife-ridden staff that turned "a winnable race" into "another iceberg-seeking
campaign ship."
It's the story of a wildly dysfunctional and "spirit-crushing" campaign that embraced a flawed
strategy (based on flawed data) and that failed, repeatedly, to correct course. A passive-aggressive
campaign that neglected to act on warning flares sent up by Democratic operatives on the ground
in crucial swing states, and that ignored the advice of the candidate's husband, former President
Bill Clinton, and other Democratic Party elders, who argued that the campaign needed to work harder
to persuade undecided and ambivalent voters (like working-class whites and millennials), instead
of focusing so insistently on turning out core supporters.
"Our failure to reach out to white voters, like literally from the New Hampshire primary on,
it never changed," one campaign official is quoted as saying.
There was a perfect storm of other factors, of course, that contributed to Clinton's loss,
including Russian meddling in the election to help elect Trump; the controversial decision by
the F.B.I. director, James Comey, to send a letter to Congress about Clinton's emails less than
two weeks before Election Day; and the global wave of populist discontent with the status quo
(signaled earlier in the year by the British "Brexit" vote) that helped fuel the rise of both
Trump and Bernie Sanders. In a recent interview, Clinton added that she believed "misogyny played
a role" in her loss.
The authors of "Shattered," however, write that even some of her close friends and advisers
think that Clinton "bears the blame for her defeat," arguing that her actions before the campaign
(setting up a private email server, becoming entangled in the Clinton Foundation, giving speeches
to Wall Street banks) "hamstrung her own chances so badly that she couldn't recover," ensuring
that she could not "cast herself as anything but a lifelong insider when so much of the country
had lost faith in its institutions."
Allen and Parnes are the authors of a 2014 book, "H R C," a largely sympathetic portrait of
Clinton's years as secretary of state, and this book reflects their access to longtime residents
of Clinton's circle. They interviewed more than a hundred sources on background - with the promise
that none of the material they gathered would appear before the election - and while it's clear
that some of these people are spinning blame retroactively, many are surprisingly candid about
the frustrations they experienced during the campaign.
"Shattered" underscores Clinton's difficulty in articulating a rationale for her campaign (other
than that she was not Donald Trump). And it suggests that a tendency to value loyalty over competence
resulted in a lumbering, bureaucratic operation in which staff members were reluctant to speak
truth to power, and competing tribes sowed "confusion, angst and infighting."
Despite years of post-mortems, the authors observe, Clinton's management style hadn't really
changed since her 2008 loss of the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama: Her team's convoluted
power structure "encouraged the denizens of Hillaryland to care more about their standing with
her, or their future job opportunities, than getting her elected." ...
you would rather rely on some "free lunch" fairy tale tools
like NGDP targeting because the simpler version, QE, has
worked so well that we have Trump in the white house.
"QE, has worked so well that we have Trump in the white
house."
That's good !. Sounds like a plausible explanation
what has happened to me. Obama was the key to Trump election.
Looks like Trump was just another Obama: a tabula rasa on
which a frustrated American public could project their
desires, but who in reality was just another sell-out.
Is this from some alternate reality where Obama was elected
to a third term? Can I go there too?
And the issue is not
being able to create reserves on the monetary side, but being
able to actually stimulate the economy by increased federal
spending on the fiscal side. At the ZLB, there's no demand,
so more money supply...ho, hum!
Tax cuts don't cut it because they send money to people
who will speculate with it instead of spending it to
stimulate production and get a financial multiplier going.
And this business of "run out" of money is some conflation
of GOP fantasy with the federal borrrowing 'limit' which may
have no force in law anyway. Obama didn't force the issue,
though I think he should have. In any case, it'll be
interesting to watch the GOP self-immolation over the
so-called 'debt limit'. The big question-to bring popcorn or
marshmallows?
Since losing the presidency to a Cheeto-hued reality TV
host, the Democratic party's leadership has made it clear
that it would rather keep losing than entertain even the
slightest whiff of New Deal style social democracy.
The Bernie Sanders wing might bring grassroots energy and
– if the polls are to be believed – popular ideas, but their
redistributive policies pose too much of a threat to the
party's big donors to ever be allowed on the agenda.
Official Dems Abandon Sanders Ally in Key Kansas Race, and
Dems Lose
By Bob Dreyfuss | April 11, 2017
UPDATE II: Politico notes, in reporting on the race that
the GOP won by single digits: "The DCCC did not spend a dime
in this race. Again: Trump won this district by 27 points."
Outside progressive groups did mobilize for Thompson, but the
official Democratic Party did squat. So, Mr. Tom "50 State
Strategy" Perez,
"It is a class party, and they act on that class's behalf
and they act in that class's interests and they serve that
class. And they have adopted all the tastes and manners and
ideology...
It's just that class is not the working class. It's not
the middle class. It's the professional class - affluent,
white-collar elites.
They can't see what they're doing. This is invisible to
them, because it's who they are."
............
Writer Thomas Frank shifts through the wreckage of the
Democratic Party in the Trump Era, and finds a group of
failed politicians unable to see the deep unpopularity of
their own policies, or a path beyond serving the narrow
interests of the elite professional class they've served
since the Clinton years - with a generation of disastrous
results.
They want to be the party of business, not the job class.
That's why Hillary spends her time giving speeches to Goldman
Sachs and Larry Summers gives talks to Mexican bankers and
investors not Mexican union workers or activists.
"The new ANES data only confirms what a plethora of studies
have told us since the start of the presidential campaign:
the race was about race. Klinkner himself grabbed headlines
last summer when he revealed that the best way to identify a
Trump supporter in the U.S. was to ask "just one simple
question: is Barack Obama a Muslim?" Because, he said, "if
they are white and the answer is yes, 89 percent of the time
that person will have a higher opinion of Trump than
Clinton." This is economic anxiety? Really?"
But wouldn't you guess that those same 89% of Trump voters
that say Obama is a Muslim would have also voted for almost
any Republican candidate (for any and every office, not just
POTUS) and would certainly never vote for any Democratic
candidate under any circumstances for any office whatsoever?
The margin of voters between Democratic and Republican
candidates in most (but not nearly all thanks to gerrymanders
and deep red states) elections is smaller than the remaining
11%. What percentage of Fox News regular viewers think that
Obama is a Muslim? Are there any deep blue states remaining?
why was democratic turnout so low with a randian troll as the
GOP nominee? Could it be that neglecting the marginalized by
kissing up to butthurt white people is not a winning
strategy...
Bernie Sanders's economic policies were not "kissing up to
butthurt white people."
Leftwing economic policies help
white and black and brown working people. Everyone. It's
weird for you to troll this way when you say that Sanders and
Warren are centrist sellouts.
You, JohnH and BINY are the most confused people here.
From the 1940s through the 1980s as the middle class grew,
we saw successful popular movements like the civil rights
movements, feminism, gay rights, peace movements,
environmental movements etc.
The legacies of those movements continue to this day as we
saw a black man elected President and re-elected despite the
racism of voters. We see gay marriage legalized and marijuana
legalized.
you can "loony left" me all you want sanjait, but my
guess is that the democratic party will have to choose
between working with the left or being undermined by it.
The Klinkner anecdote is meaningless.
This does not say that 89% of Trump voters believe Obama is a
Muslim; it says that 89% of (white) people who believe this
are Trump voters.
The article as a whole supports a point
that EMichael has been making here for months.
Had we run this operation
with no tip off to the Russians, all of those planes would
have been destroyed. That would be a smart military move.
Trump cannot pull off even the obvious.
As Krugman points out, taking out 65 "deadly" planes is
nothing. It would change nothing.
Doesn't change anything.
Trump has no long-term strategy. All of Obama's ex-advisers
cheered the bombing. Obama pushed back against the "deep
state" foreign policy establishment. Hillary would have
embraced it, probably leading to more war.
In my view - we should not have done this at all. But if one
is going to do a hawkish act, one should not be so incredibly
incompetent. That is what I said from the first moment. But
do misrepresent what I said. It is what you do 24/7.
What did this missile attack really accomplish? Krugman's
point is simple. Nothing in terms of the situation in Syria.
A reckless and incompetent reaction to an awful Sarin gas
attack. But Trump looked tough and his poll numbers will get
a boost. So it was all for political purposes at the end of
the day.
Not a smart way to run foreign policy. Unless one
is a jingoist.
But PGL is mad that the U.S. military gave the Russians a
heads up. Allowed the Syrian janitor to avoid being bombed.
His wife and children probably are grateful.
Would it
matter if the airport had been completely destroyed including
the janitor? Not at all.
That's what PGL doesn't get.
Bill Clinton did this sort of thing during the Lewinsky
scandal, bombing Iraq off an on again, accomplishing nothing
but distracting attention.
His sanctions however killed hundreds of thousands of
Iraqi children and wrecked Iraq. Albright said it was worth
it.
Now Iraq is an awesome country of sweetness and light,
kind of like Germany and Japan after World War II.
"... He didn't win the money race, but Donald Trump will be the next president of the U.S. In the primaries and general election, he defied conventional wisdom, besting better financed candidates by dominating the air waves for free. Trump also put to use his own cash, as well as the assets and infrastructure of his businesses, in unprecedented fashion. He donated $66 million of his own money, flew across the country in his private jet, and used his resorts to stage campaign events. ..."
"... At the same time, the billionaire was able to draw about $280 million from small donors giving $200 or less. ..."
"... Trump won the presidency despite having raised less than any major party presidential nominee since John McCain in 2008, the last to accept federal funds to pay for his general election contest. ..."
"... Clinton and her super-PACs raised a total of $1.2 billion, less than President Barack Obama raised in 2012. ..."
"... There still is a difference between the two parties, which was on philosophical rather than ideological grounds never a very stark contrast to begin with. ..."
"... The Constitution itself needs a bit more work. Campaign finance, reasonable Congressional term limits, gerrymandering, ranked (a.k.a., preferential or instant runoff) voting, and popular petition/referendum powers for the electorate to overturn SCOTUS decisions would in combination make our republic far more democratic than it is now. That would require a national solidarity movement to impose its will on the two party system, perhaps by not re=electing anyone until the work is done. ..."
[Your initial premise is well taken. Trump spent a lot of his own money and used a lot of his
own resources, but relied more on small donors than Hillary did.]
He didn't win the money race, but Donald Trump will be the next president of the U.S. In the
primaries and general election, he defied conventional wisdom, besting better financed candidates
by dominating the air waves for free. Trump also put to use his own cash, as well as the assets
and infrastructure of his businesses, in unprecedented fashion. He donated $66 million of his
own money, flew across the country in his private jet, and used his resorts to stage campaign
events.
At the same time, the billionaire was able to draw about $280 million from small donors
giving $200 or less.
Super-PACs, which can take contributions unlimited in size, were similarly
skewed toward his opponent, Hillary Clinton. Ultimately, Trump won the presidency despite having
raised less than any major party presidential nominee since John McCain in 2008, the last to accept
federal funds to pay for his general election contest.
Clinton and her super-PACs raised a total of $1.2 billion, less than President Barack Obama
raised in 2012. Her sophisticated fundraising operation included a small army of wealthy donors
who wrote seven-figure checks, hundreds of bundlers who raised $100,000 or more from their own
networks, and a small-dollar donor operation modeled on the one used by Obama in 2012. She spent
heavily on television advertising and her get-out-the-vote operation, but in the end, her fundraising
edge wasn't enough to overcome Trump's ability to dominate headlines and the airwaves...
[OTOH, elections do still matter. There still is a difference between the two parties, which was
on philosophical rather than ideological grounds never a very stark contrast to begin with.
Bankers and proto-industrialist to the North and slave-owners to the South was the original
demarcation of the split in triangulating the electorate. When slave-owners became an extinct
species then Republicans mostly ran the whole show for a while, but Democrats eventually acquired
enough business from immigrants and unions while reinventing the plantation economy in Jim Crow
to remain in the game. When the Republican Party gave those pesky progressives the boot then the
Democratic Party had a progressive moment itself during its pick up game generally known as the
New Deal, but then that passed on to identity politics, which was a lot cheaper product to sell
than better wages for labor.
Politics under the US Constitution has always been an uphill struggle. So, let's not quit while
we are losing. Primary elections need to get more attention and participation. The Tea Party has
really changed primaries for the Republican Party albeit a change of questionable merit. In VA
(my state) the Tea Party seems to have benefited the Democratic Party far more than Republicans,
but local results may vary.
The Constitution itself needs a bit more work. Campaign finance, reasonable Congressional term
limits, gerrymandering, ranked (a.k.a., preferential or instant runoff) voting, and popular petition/referendum
powers for the electorate to overturn SCOTUS decisions would in combination make our republic
far more democratic than it is now. That would require a national solidarity movement to impose
its will on the two party system, perhaps by not re=electing anyone until the work is done.]
"... Trump voters that I know well said the following: "The system is broken, and at least Trump is saying something about it. Whether he actually does anything about it is anyone's guess given his unpredictability, but at least he acknowledges what is so plainly obvious to so many. " ..."
"... Anyone but Hillary is something I can at least accept, since anyone with a brain in America realizes that the Clintons (and that's the entire family, for the ignoramuses out there) gave EVERYTHING to the banksters, period! ..."
"... And while I greatly appreciate this article, it is really so bloody obvious by 2016, that only the dumbest, most ignorant and mentally lazy among us cannot grasp the simple arithmetic of waaay over 100,000 factories and production facilities offshored, of all the imported foreign visa replacement workers (i.e., scabs), etc., etc., etc. Plus add to that the offshore creation of jobs by American companies and corporations, instead of inshore job creation! ..."
"... We only have ourselves to blame for the mess we are in because we continue to vote for people that support corporate interests over those of the people. Then again, that is how American was founded. Only land owners (read: rich white men) were able to participate in American democracy at is founding. Not much has changed now that money is speech. ..."
"... The Democratic candidate was the candidate selected by and for the 1%. So was the LAST Democratic candidate. The Democratic party is how the 1% makes sure the citizens cannot get their needs met peacefully. They are therefore the ones to blame. Not "us." Definitely not me. I voted for Bernie. Twice. ..."
"... Sure there's a few racists in the group (there almost always are) but by and large I think Trump voters pulled the lever in spite of his hysterical rantings on the topic, not because of them. ..."
"... You're missing the point of this article. Counties that had twice voted for Obama voted for Trump. If these counties are "single-issue" voters dedicated to abortion & gun rights, then why did they twice vote for Obama? ..."
"... I know a bunch of people who were Bernie supporters who voted for Trump. And they voted for Trump because at least he was change and he wasn't insulting them. Some of them have now gone all in on Trumpian conservatism because they are recoiling from the murderous hypocrisy of the corporate Democrats, so they're giving "the other side" a chance. It saddens me, but there's nothing I can do about it. I understand that standing the wilderness of the real left pushing for change is daunting. ..."
"... The Middle Eastern small business owner who went all-in for Trump and hugged me sympathetically for being a Bernie supporter had a point of view yet to be disproved. "Your guy is the better man. He would have given us better policies. But they were never going to let him win. Trump can win, and perhaps clear out the viper's nest so that someone decent can win in the future." ..."
"... Like it or not, the Democratic Party betrayed the left, betrayed the New Deal, and became a second pro-war, pro-Wall Street Party. ..."
"... I think that this is what identity politics is about. Had Clinton won, she would not have done much for the minorities. Maybe she would have called them superpredators again. Same with the constant Bernie Bashing. They desperately wanted to shut down Bernie Sanders because he called out, if only briefly, what a terrible candidate Clinton was. She would have suppressed the left aggressively. ..."
"... Even the phony baloney "Russians Are Coming" meme should be challenged by voters on the right and left. Putin is a more valuable ally than Merkel. He's a Russian nationalist. A populist. Globalists like Pelosi, Graham, Obama and McCain use dog whistles on their respective demographics to thwart Trump's efforts to make Americans first in fevered, corrupt swamps of DC and NY. ..."
"... I decided to judge Trump by his enemies left and right. Hollywood hates him, not because of his human rights record but because he killed TPP. Without international copyright protections hidden deep in that well, the studios are bankrupt. ..."
"... Meryl Streep is a huckster, a fraud, and a tool of the same people we all hate. ..."
"... This reminds me of the arguments Zionists use to deflect criticism about Israel's actions towards its neighbors – as in "That's just the sort of thing people who hate Jews would say. Why do you hate Jews? Oh, wait, you're Jewish? Well, obviously, then, you're a self-hating Jew". ..."
"... I'm neither Muslim nor Jewish (self-hating or otherwise), but back in the '60s and early '70s I was generally supportive of Israel. The idea that only Jews could criticize Israel without being accused of hating Jews bugged me, and then the meme of the "self-hating Jew" really made it obvious what the game was. Just another ad hom argument, dressed up in the respectable clothing of religious tolerance. ..."
"... And this idea that Trump voters need to justify their votes, while HRC voters (or Stein or Johnson voters?) don't, is pretty much the same. Don't mind those people, they're just hateful bigots until proven otherwise. Nothing to see here, move along. ..."
"... Admittedly, Not a Trump fan, I don't have television or listen to radio in the car. But every time I heard cries of racism and I could find/read actual transcripts rather than just believe 'reports' I was not alarmed, at least no more and probably less than Demo/Clinton policy for decades running. But then, just being against more immigration with 320 million people already here doesn't make one automatically a racist. ..."
"... Many people are simply sick & tired of the smug self righteousness of "Identity" politicians. Sick of their belief that the mere suggestion that one is sexist/racist will cause a knee jerk retreat from any debate. The Identity crowd has been playing this nasty little game for decades now & it has WORN THIN . ..."
"... Why did Hillary voters ignore her explicitly racist, corporatist, corrupt, war-mongering ways? Why did all the blood on her hands (from Libya, Honduras, Iraq etc) cause little or no offense to them? ..."
"... Perhaps because she was what many of them aspired to be: a member of the 1%, a shining success, a winner whose failures, lies, betrayals and foul deeds were easy to ignore if you had swallowed the vile, anti-human propaganda of neoliberalism. ..."
"... a similar argument could be made for those who voted democrat ignoring their racist actions all around the world murdering, dropping bombs, and economically exploiting black and brown people. ..."
"... This Bernie Bro voted for Trump out of sheer hatred for the "Listen Liberal" crowd of sanctimonious meritocrats and desire to see their playhouse pulled down. Not real nuanced, but glad I did it. ..."
"... replace corrupt tax farming / private medical insurance (with equitable tax based medicare?) ..."
In an earlier post, "Political Misfortune: Anatomy of Democratic Party Failure in Clinton's Campaign
2016" (parts
one and
two ) I looked why Clinton lost (summarized by two political cliches: "It's the economy, stupid"
and "change vs. more of the same", with Clinton representing "more of the same," as in "America is
already great"). I should write a post on how Trump won, but I'm not yet ready to tackle that yet
( exit polls here ).
My goal in this short post is far more modest: I want to introduce the idea that Trump voters took
their votes seriously, and that their motivations were - dare I say it - more nuanced and complex
than typical liberal narratives suggest (Jamelle Bouie's
"There's No Such Thing as a Good Trump Voter" is a classic of the genre[1]). To do this, I'll
look at things Trump voters actually said, using some material from Democracy Corps (
"Macomb County in the Age of Trump" )[2] on Obama voters who flipped to Trump, and more material
from Chris Arnade. Both sources can be said to be reasonably representative, given that Democracy
Corps used a focus group methodology[3], and Chris Arnade was been traveling through the flyover
states for two years, talking to people and taking photographs. I'm going to throw what Trump voters
said into three buckets: Concrete material benefits, inequity aversion, and volatility voting.[4]
Concrete Material Benefits
One concrete material benefit is no more war and a peace dividend.
Arnade :
I found a similar viewpoint in communities such as West Cleveland: Donna Weaver, 52, is a waitress,
and has spent her entire life in her community. "I was born and raised here. I am not happy. Middle
class is getting killed; we work for everything and get nothing. I hate both of the candidates,
but I would vote for Trump because the Iraq war was a disaster . Why we got to keep
invading countries. Time to take care of ourselves first ."
"Bring the jobs back, bring the jobs back to the States." "He's trying
to create jobs , trying to keep jobs in the United States." "I just like
the talk about bringing the jobs back." "To me, it's going to get us our jobs
back, he's going to boost our economy, boost their economic growth for families, to bring
our future generations up."
A third - and the most important - concrete material benefit is
Democracy Corps :
10. [Trump will fix health care. The cost of health care dominated the discussion in these
focus groups . They say Trump "promised within the first hundred days to get rid of Obamacare"
and fixing the health care system is one of their great hopes for his presidency. They speak of
the impossibly high costs and hope Trump will bring "affordable healthcare" which will "help [us]
raise our families and make us be prosperous."
The experience of Trump voters is our health care system is similar to the experiences of many
commenters here.
Democracy Corps :
"My insurance for the last three years went up, went up, went up. Started out for a family
of four, I was paying $117 a week out of my paycheck. Three years later I'm paying $152 a week
out of my paycheck. I don't even go to the doctor for one. I don't take medicine."
Such a deal. And here's a lovely Catch-22:
"They cut my insurance at work My doctor, because my back is bad, said, 'Well, cut your hours.
You can only work so many hours.' Now I have to work more hours, take more pain pills, to get
my insurance back, and now they're telling me I can't get it back for another year."
Inequity Aversion
Here's a description of "inequity aversion" from
the New Yorker , as shown in the famous experiment from Sarah Brosnan and Frans de Waal with
female capuchin monkeys:
[T]hey found that monkeys hate being disadvantaged. A monkey in isolation is happy to eat either
a grape or a slice of cucumber. But a monkey who sees that she's received a cucumber while her
partner has gotten a grape reacts with anger: she might hurl her cucumber from her cage. Some
primates, Brosnan and de Waal concluded, "dislike inequity." They hate getting the short end of
the stick. Psychologists have a technical term for this reaction: they call it "disadvantageous-inequity
aversion." This instinctual aversion to getting less than others has been found in chimpanzees
and dogs, and it occurs, of course, in people, in whom it seems to develop from a young age.
So who's getting the short end of the stick? One perceived inequity is immigration in the context
of scarcity[5].
Democracy Corps :
"Well I mean we're all talking about illegals, I made a straight up post that in America we
have hungry, we have veterans, we have mental illness, we have so many problems in our own
country that we at this point in time just can't be concerned with, I feel bad but our country's
in dire straits financially." "I mean we need to take care of home first . We need
to take care of the veterans, we need to take care of the elderly, we need to take care of the
mentally ill, we need to take care everyone instead of us worrying about other people in other
countries, we need to take care of our house first. Get our house in order then you
know what, you need this and this and then we'll help you."
A second perceived inequity is bailouts for bankers and not for the rest of us.
Democracy Corps :
[Obama] brought the country to a macro recovery by the end of his term, but not a single person
in these groups mentioned any economic improvements under his presidency, even after the president
closed the 2016 campaign in Detroit making the case for building on his economic progress. They
have strong feelings about him, but in the written comments only one mentioned anything about
the economy in positive impressions – specifically that he saved GM and Chrysler from bankruptcy
– and just five mentioned anything economic when elaborating their doubts. Some described him
as a steward for the status quo: "I think he just maintained. He didn't really do much for the
country. And he let a lot of jobs go." Some did recall the bailout of the banks even though the
crisis "affected millions or people," leading them to think he favored the elites – "the wealthy,"
"the richer people," "the big wigs," and "the lobbyists." They know he "didn't help the lower
class, he didn't help the middle class" people like them, they insisted over and over.
And:
Taking on the reckless banks told them who you are really for. Some said they were "really
irritated about the reckless banks" and "protecting consumers from Wall Street and reckless banks
was very important." They recalled that "we lost our home because of that" and "with the bailout
all the money went to the banks and it affected millions of people. And, then, a short time later,
the banks were back to these huge bonuses" and "there's never really punishment for them."
Trump voters may not vote the way I want them to, but after having spent the last five years
working in (and having grown up in) parts of the US few visit, they are not dumb. They are doing
whatever any other voter does: Trying to use their vote to better their particular situation (however
they define that) .. Frustrated with broken promises, they gave up on the knowable and went with
the unknowable. They chose Trump, because he comes with a very high distribution. A high volatility.
As any trader will tell you, if you are stuck lower, you want volatility, uncertainty. No matter
how it comes. Put another way. Your downside is flat, your upside isn't. Break the system.
The elites loathe volatility. Because, the upside is limited, but the downside isn't. In option
language, they are in the money.
People don't make reckless decisions because things are going well. They make them because
they have reached a breaking point. They are desperate enough to trying anything new. Especially
if it offers escape, or a glimmer of hope. Even false hope.
That might mean drugs. Politically that might mean breaking the system. Especially if you think
the system is not working for you. And viewed from much of the America the system doesn't work.
The factories are gone. Families are falling apart. Social networks are frayed.
Lori Ayers, 47, works in the gas station. She was blunt when I asked her about her life. "Clarington
is a shithole. Jobs all left. There is nothing here anymore. When Ormet Aluminum factory closed,
jobs all disappeared." She is also blunt about the pain in her life. "I have five kids and two
have addictions. There is nothing else for kids to do here but drugs. No jobs. No place to play."
She stopped and added: "I voted for Obama the first time, not the second. Now I am voting for
Trump. We just got to change things ."
"I felt like it was – it's time for a change, not just a suit to change, it's time for
everything to change . Status quo's not good enough anymore." "Just a lot of change, no
more politics as usual. Maybe something can be changed." "I was tired of politics as usual, and
I thought if we had somebody in there that wasn't a Clinton or wasn't a Bush that would shake
things up , which he obviously has, and maybe get rid of the people who are just milking
the office and not doing their job. I'm hoping that he's going to hold people more accountable
for the job that they're doing for us."
Conclusion
The
Democracy Corps pollsters conclude - and I should say I'm quite open to the idea that they were
trying to sell the Democrat Party on a strategy the party was ultimately not willing to adopt, as
shown (for example) by the Ellison defenestration - as follows:
Democrats don't have a white working class problem, as so many have suggested. They have a
working class problem that includes working people in their own base. We can learn an immense
amount from listening and talking to the white working class independent and Democratic Trump
voters, particularly those who previously supported Obama or failed to turnout in past presidential
contests.
Clearly, I agree with this conclusion. It's also clear that a Democratic Party that had come out
for #MedicareForAll, wasn't openly thirsting for war, and was willing to bring the finance sector
to heel would win a respectful hearing from these voters. (At this point, it's worth noting that
the Democrats, as a party, are even less popular than Trump and Pence . So I guess focusing like
a laser beam on gaslighting a war with Russia is working great.) Whether today's Democrat party is
capable of seizing this opportunity is at the very best an open question; the dominant liberal framing
of Trump voters as Others who are motivated solely by immutable and essentially personal failings
and frailties - racism; stupidity - would argue that the answer is no.
NOTES
[1] This is not so say that no Trump voter was motivated by racism (or sexism). However, that
is a second post I'm not ready to tackle, in part because I find the presumption that liberal Democrats
pushing that line are not racist (
"İ cried when they shot Medgar Evers"
) at the very least open to question, in part because the assumption seems to be that racism is an
immutably fixed personal essence (in essence, sinful), which ignores the role of liberal Democrats
in constructing the profoundly racist carceral state ("super-predators"). However,
this passage from a Democracy Corps focus group gives one hope:
But despite all that, Macomb has changed. Immigrants and religion were central to the deep
feelings about how America was changing, but black-white relations were just barely part of the
discussion. Detroit was once a flash point for the discussion of racial conflict, black political
leaders and government spending. Today, Detroit did not come up in conversation until we introduced
it and Macomb residents see a city "turning around for the good" and "on an upswing" and many
say they like to visit downtown. Even the majority African American city of Flint provokes only
sympathetic responses. They describe the area as "downscale" and "poor" and lament the water crisis
and the suffering it caused.
[3] "Democracy Corps conducted focus groups with white non-college educated (anything less than
a four-year college degree) men and women from Macomb County, Michigan on February 15 and 16, 2017
in partnership with the Roosevelt Institute. All of the participants were Trump voters who identified
as independents, Democratic-leaning independents, or Democrats and who voted for Obama in 2008, 2012
or both. Two groups were among women, one 40-65 and one 30-60 years old. Two groups were among men,
one 35-45 and one 40-60 years old."
Stephen King has an interview with a panel of fictional Trump voters . They sound quite
different from the voters of Macomb county, and I don't think the difference is entirely accounted
for by geography, much as I respect Stephen King, who has done great things for the state.
[4] A fourth possibility is that Trump voters were engaging in altruistic punishment, where people
"punish non-cooperators
even at cost to themselves ." (Personally shushing a cellphone user in the Quiet Car instead
of calling in the conductor is a trivial example.) Altruistic punishment would provide an account
for why Trump voters (supposedly) don't vote "in their own interests," but I couldn't find examples
in the sources I looked at.
[5] Democracy Corps puts legal immigration, illegal immigration, and refugees in the same bucket
as, to be fair, some voters seem to. I think they are three different use cases. In my personal view,
we need to accept refugees, particularly those from wars we ourselves started. For legal and illegal
immigration, the United States should put United States citizens first. I would love to emigrate
to Canada to work there and take advantage of its single payer system, or to any of a number of countries
where the cost of living is half our own. However, if I travel and overstay my visa, even as an "economic
refugee," I would expect to pay a fine and be forced to leave. I don't see why my case is any different
from any other illegal immigrant in this country. Canada does not have an open border. Nor need we
(except to the extent our goal is
beating down wages ,
especially in the working class, of course ).
Trump voters that I know well said the following: "The system is broken, and at least Trump
is saying something about it. Whether he actually does anything about it is anyone's guess given
his unpredictability, but at least he acknowledges what is so plainly obvious to so many. "
I am neither racist nor sexist, and do not appreciate being called that. My staff was 30% black,
over half female and everyone got along. Don't penalize or demonize me for trying to do the right
thing, and then expect me to vote for your platform.
Anyone but Hillary as she is the anti-Christ with corruption, debt, war and entrenched bureaucracies
bent on their own sick agendas. I know Trump is crazy, but less than alternatives.
Anyone but Hillary is something I can at least accept, since anyone with a brain in America
realizes that the Clintons (and that's the entire family, for the ignoramuses out there) gave
EVERYTHING to the banksters, period!
And while I greatly appreciate this article, it is really so bloody obvious by 2016, that
only the dumbest, most ignorant and mentally lazy among us cannot grasp the simple arithmetic
of waaay over 100,000 factories and production facilities offshored, of all the imported foreign
visa replacement workers (i.e., scabs), etc., etc., etc. Plus add to that the offshore creation
of jobs by American companies and corporations, instead of inshore job creation!
I hear your frustration, but why take that out on the democratic candidate? All of your gripes
should be directed at the 1%. The moneyed oligarchs, like the Koch brothers, that have used their
money to buy politicians and shape policy to suite their needs. They are ones that hire immigrants
with H1Bs, they are ones that dictate wages. They took away healthcare coverage and pensions.
They choose to close factories and open up in China and Mexico. Why did we vote for elected officials
for the last 40 years that passed legislation to allow this?
Again, why do people reward Republicans with the presidency, both houses of congress, and state
legislatures when the republicans, starting with Regan, busted unions and fought for deregulation,
free trade, and globalization. These things happen under Republicans and Democrats.
America is a capitalist society. Private business exists to make profits. Why an American $40
an hour for a job that can be done in China for $4? What can government do to stop that? Would
the people really vote for the policies needed to achieve that? Show me one politician office
that is willing to return to a Reagan era tax structure.
We only have ourselves to blame for the mess we are in because we continue to vote for
people that support corporate interests over those of the people. Then again, that is how American
was founded. Only land owners (read: rich white men) were able to participate in American democracy
at is founding. Not much has changed now that money is speech.
Squanto and twenty other Indians were kidnapped by Thomas Hunt and sold as slaves in Spain
in 1614. He somehow escaped and made his way to England and then back to New England. This is
how he learned English well enough to translate for the Pilgrims in 1620. The first documented
delivery of African slaves to the Massachusetts Bay Colony was in 1638, eight years after the
Colony's formation. [All my info above comes from 'New England Bound'.]
There had been slavery directed by Europeans in the Caribbean for a hundred years prior to
the European settlement of New England. Columbus's first words upon seeing the natives of Hispaniola
were: 'They will make fine slaves'.
The Democratic candidate was the candidate selected by and for the 1%. So was the LAST
Democratic candidate. The Democratic party is how the 1% makes sure the citizens cannot get their
needs met peacefully. They are therefore the ones to blame. Not "us." Definitely not me. I voted
for Bernie. Twice.
forwarded far and wide with prefix "For those interested in why actual people actually do things,
who aren't placated with comforting thoughts that all those who disagree with them are irredeemable
racist know-nothings."
"Democrats don't have a white working class problem, as so many have suggested. They have a
working class problem that includes working people in their own base."
Well put. Still haven't received anything other than a flummoxed look from any Clinton apologists
when I asked if *all* the 2012 Obama voters that went Trump are racists.
I see the U.S. political duopoly as a Juggernaut. The tea party, a grass-roots movement toward
the common man, was subsumed by the Kochs into an battering ram to destroy moderate Republicans
and those not hopelessly bought-off.
The Occupy Movement, which I credit with paving the way for Bernie, simply ran into the Democratic
Establishment Wall.
No to single-payer, yes to ACA. No to federal tuition assistance, yes to student loans. No
to deficit spending to improve the economy, yes to austerity. And, heaven forbid we tax the wealthy,
or run a socialist (gasp) for president. We came close to defeating that wall in 2016. We can't
stop now.
so much of flyover country is comprised of single-issue voters. Not all, of course, but I would
rank the prevalence of those issues as 1) abortion 2) gun rights. I believe #1 here dominated
the thinking of Trump voters. There was no chance in hell they were going to let Hillary Clinton
have a shot at nominating SC justices over the next 4 years.
Sure there's a few racists in the group (there almost always are) but by and large I think
Trump voters pulled the lever in spite of his hysterical rantings on the topic, not because of
them.
You're missing the point of this article. Counties that had twice voted for Obama voted
for Trump. If these counties are "single-issue" voters dedicated to abortion & gun rights, then
why did they twice vote for Obama?
without knowing the nuances of the counties in question, my hypothesis would be that turnout
was lower for Clinton-voting democrats as compared to Obama-voters in those counties while Republican
voters was the same or perhaps a bit higher. I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that single-issue
voters aren't voting for the Democratic candidate in any national election and I interpret your
point as to suggest that they switched their votes ( voted Obama in 2008 and 2012 but Trump in
2016).
I'm not saying this is the only reason, just that IMO it's a vastly under-appreciated one.
It's expressly about why Trump voters say they voted for Trump: your "single-issue" hobby horse
isn't in evidence.
You do, however, raise an interesting question: in these swing counties I'll try to find the
time to look at how much of the swing came from collapsing turn out rather than actual Obama to
Trump votes.
I personally know at least three people who voted Obama and then Trump and none are "single-issue",
all I would put in Lambert's/Arnade's "volatility voters" class.
But I'll grant that's not a meaningful polling set.
I know a bunch of people who were Bernie supporters who voted for Trump. And they voted
for Trump because at least he was change and he wasn't insulting them. Some of them have now gone
all in on Trumpian conservatism because they are recoiling from the murderous hypocrisy of the
corporate Democrats, so they're giving "the other side" a chance. It saddens me, but there's nothing
I can do about it. I understand that standing the wilderness of the real left pushing for change
is daunting.
The Middle Eastern small business owner who went all-in for Trump and hugged me sympathetically
for being a Bernie supporter had a point of view yet to be disproved. "Your guy is the better
man. He would have given us better policies. But they were never going to let him win. Trump can
win, and perhaps clear out the viper's nest so that someone decent can win in the future."
Lots of the people who sat out 2016 rather than vote for Clinton will probably continue to
sit out for Booker/Harris/Clinton (shudder) - whatever neoliberal gets coughed up. They aren't
going to become activists. They're too exhausted, disgusted or drugged.
It has nothing to do with complacency. Activists have been pushing for decades for better choices.
If we had had our way, Bernie Sanders would now be president, busily browbeating Chuck Schumer
into passing his free college bill, having already shoved Improved Medicare for All through the
Congress.
Lambert was very clear, and you don't seem to be disputing his evidence. The Democrats lost
their voters because they killed, jailed, starved and immiserated their voters. Democrats stole
their homes, pensions and jobs. Democrats said they were deplorable and showed they thought they
were disposable. Enough of their voters understood their self-interest well enough not to vote
for their oppressors, whether they came out for Trump or just stayed home. That is how Clinton
lost and Trump won.
Like it or not, the Democratic Party betrayed the left, betrayed the New Deal, and became
a second pro-war, pro-Wall Street Party.
Trump, despite being widely disliked at least was offering the economically devastated an opportunity
potentially to improve their lives. That was assuming that he kept his promises. Most people voted
for him out of despair knowing that even if he did not keep his promises, they would have lost
nothing since Clinton would not have either.
As for the wealthy Democrats? They wanted the bottom 90% to preserve their "upper class" and
"upper middle class privilege". That's what this is about. They want the people making less than
30,000 a year to vote the same way as big city Liberals making more than 130,000 a year.
I think that this is what identity politics is about. Had Clinton won, she would not have done
much for the minorities. Maybe she would have called them superpredators again. Same with the
constant Bernie Bashing. They desperately wanted to shut down Bernie Sanders because he called
out, if only briefly, what a terrible candidate Clinton was. She would have suppressed the left
aggressively.
Bernie Sanders's style of class politics - and his program of mild social-democratic redistribution
- did not gain much favor in New Canaan, Connecticut (where he won 27 percent of the vote)
or Northfield, Illinois (39 percent). For some suburban Democrats, Sanders's throttling in
these plush districts virtually disqualified him from office: "A guy who got 36 percent of
the Democrats in Fairfax County," an ebullient Michael Tomasky wrote after the Virginia primary,
"isn't going to be president."
Clinton was their candidate. By holding off Sanders's populist challenge - and declining
to concede fundamental ground on economic issues - the former secretary of state proved she
could be trusted to protect the vital interests of voters in Newton, Eden Prairie, and Falls
Church. They, more than any other group in America, were enthusiastically #WithHer.
To some extent, Clinton's appeal even carried over to wealthy red-state suburbs. In Forysth
County outside Atlanta, and Williamson County outside Nashville - the richest counties in Georgia
and Tennessee - Clinton lost big but improved significantly on Obama's performance in 2012.
But wealthy, educated suburbanites were never going to push the Democrats over the top all
by themselves. Despite Clinton's incremental gains, in the end, most rich white Republicans
remained rich white Republicans: hardly the sturdiest foundation for an anti-Trump majority.
The numbers show it.
As for the Liberals freaking out, they can be split into a few categories:
1. The ones who profited economically from the status quo, like the professional 10%ers. They
don't want someone who is going to rock the boat. The Fairfax County Jacobin article captures
them brilliantly. They hated Bernie Sanders.
2. The SJWs, intersectionalists, second generation feminists, and other identity politics groups.
They are not all wealthy, but unifying them is their identity politics ideology.
3. The hardcore Democratic partisans who "vote blue no matter who".
The Liberals want to pretend like it was racism or sexism or Russia that prevented their "chosen
one" from winning. In reality it was economics and the fact that people could see what Clinton
really was. For all the talk of the most progressive platform ever, Clinton was really the anti-thesis
of Bernie Sanders.
Did they really think their identity politics was going to fool anyone? We saw upper middle
class well off people lecturing less well off Bernie Sanders supporters this election to check
their "white privilege", even though the Sanders supporters were often poor and had their future
destroyed by the economic policies that neoliberal politicians like Hillary Clinton advocated
for.
I think it is because they don't want to appeal to working class people, because if they did,
they would have to serve them.
This election has been a real eye-opener as to who our allies and opponents are in this class
struggle. I think that in the coming years we will see a Liberal Left split of sorts. The best
possible outcome is a third party or even better the Democrats going the way of the Whigs.
The question is, how to build such a party? There is clearly the votes. Bernie showed that
and the left might even find some common ground with Trump voters. Keep in mind they are paleoconservatives
who are anti-war, want manufacturing and good benefits. By contrast the Clintons are pro war and
economically have more in common with the GOP Establishment than the Trump "economic despair base".
Excellent comment thank you, I agree the opportunity is there.. the question of how to mobilize
seems to be the problem. Trump is a total unknown, and who knows what the midterms will bring.
The fact the bernie got as many votes as he did as an old, socialist, by no means charismatic
jew gives a lot of hope for the future, as well as the demographic that voted for him (mostly
young).
These paradigm shifts are generational and take a lot of time, and for some reason that remains
unclear it still seems like Trump is necessary right now. Perhaps some internal political destruction
is needed before we can get a clear handle on the path forward.
This Trump voter liked and listened to Sanders early on. But as his profile and possibilities
rocketed, he abandoned his anti immigration platform.
Immigrants from anywhere - yes anywhere – in a zero sum economy don't benefit the working middle
class. It's not racist, but realistic. Someone had "the talk" with Bernie and his speeches became
more and more party line.
And his voters should have jumped to Trump, but for the hysteria from institutional DC insiders
in both parties. Trump is no knuckle dragging Cheney Goper.
He's fighting the bad guys on both fronts. With no help from natural allies too afraid to bolt
the herd and call out the enemies of the middle class.
Even the phony baloney "Russians Are Coming" meme should be challenged by voters on the right
and left. Putin is a more valuable ally than Merkel. He's a Russian nationalist. A populist. Globalists
like Pelosi, Graham, Obama and McCain use dog whistles on their respective demographics to thwart
Trump's efforts to make Americans first in fevered, corrupt swamps of DC and NY.
All Americans should be rallying around the first president to shake up the party identity.
Bernie had his chance and caved to party insiders. He is no hero.
I decided to judge Trump by his enemies left and right. Hollywood hates him, not because of
his human rights record but because he killed TPP. Without international copyright protections
hidden deep in that well, the studios are bankrupt.
Meryl Streep is a huckster, a fraud, and a tool of the same people we all hate.
This reminds me of the arguments Zionists use to deflect criticism about Israel's actions towards
its neighbors – as in "That's just the sort of thing people who hate Jews would say. Why do you
hate Jews? Oh, wait, you're Jewish? Well, obviously, then, you're a self-hating Jew".
The answer always is that the other side is all about the hate, even if they clearly don't
hate the people they're accused of hating, because what they're saying is "discursive", and, you
know, sooner or later it will be hate, because people just can't help themselves
I actually got called a self hating Jew when I identified myself of Jewish descent and backed
MintPress News in an argument that she was having with a Pro Israel person. It utterly killed
and undermined his position me doing that and he just turned on and attacked me.
I'm neither Muslim nor Jewish (self-hating or otherwise), but back in the '60s and early '70s
I was generally supportive of Israel. The idea that only Jews could criticize Israel without being
accused of hating Jews bugged me, and then the meme of the "self-hating Jew" really made it obvious
what the game was. Just another ad hom argument, dressed up in the respectable clothing
of religious tolerance.
And this idea that Trump voters need to justify their votes, while HRC voters (or Stein or
Johnson voters?) don't, is pretty much the same. Don't mind those people, they're just hateful
bigots until proven otherwise. Nothing to see here, move along.
Racism, racism, racism, sexism, sexism, sexism, transgenderism, transgenderism, transgenderism
- this commenter is the perfect example of the purely ignorant American today (assuming she/he/it
is an American) - everything robotically repeating the Identity Political meme, no thinking or
independent thought allowed.
Nope, you just don't want to ever address the plight of the American worker, now do ya????
Admittedly, Not a Trump fan, I don't have television or listen to radio in the car. But every
time I heard cries of racism and I could find/read actual transcripts rather than just believe
'reports' I was not alarmed, at least no more and probably less than Demo/Clinton policy for decades
running. But then, just being against more immigration with 320 million people already here doesn't
make one automatically a racist.
Trump's going to have to work real hard to out deport Obama who has by far the record in that
department.
Many people are simply sick & tired of the smug self righteousness of "Identity" politicians.
Sick of their belief that the mere suggestion that one is sexist/racist will cause a knee jerk
retreat from any debate.
The Identity crowd has been playing this nasty little game for decades now & it has WORN THIN .
One does not "call these ways of thinking" anything, especially not words that are so overused
as to have lost all meaning except as a kind of profane slur. Rather, one characterizes ways of
thinking in all their complexity and examines their origins and likely political outcomes and
affiliations, as Lambert has done. One describes them and tries to see if they are justified in
the context of the lives as lived by their thinkers; how they are adaptive, and how they are maladaptive-not
judging ex cathedra , based on utterly inadequate information, not to mention an almost
complete moral imbecility, whether they are "orthodox" or "heretical" according to the schema
of rainbow righteousness, and then categorizing them with what has now deteriorated into a grade-school
epithet, rather than the damned ideology it once connoted.
Yea I think many of them may not be justified though, but may be based on the world view of
the voters. In other words it may be what they believe is true even it isn't.
For example they might think they are all losing their job to immigrants and in a few cases
this might be true, but I don't think statistics bear this out as a major source of job loss compared
to say outsourcing. So if they think the reason the job market is so bad is because of immigrants
that's not necessarily racist per se but it may be inaccurate.
"So what should does call these ways of thinking if not racist and/or sexist?"
You should call them: "Nobody cares about racism and sexism, because banksters, insurance companies,
defense companies and other crony capitalists use tools like you to distract from their robbing
the public blind."
You are part of the problem, so I don't care about you. FU.
Whom should they have voted for to strike against bigotry? Hillary "bring black criminals to
heel"/against gay marriage until 2013/"the future is female" Clinton?
"Besides, shouldn't one ask these voters why Trump's racist dogwhistle pronouncements and explicitly
sexist actions caused little or no offense to them? Did I miss that somewhere?"
Why did Hillary voters ignore her explicitly racist, corporatist, corrupt, war-mongering ways?
Why did all the blood on her hands (from Libya, Honduras, Iraq etc) cause little or no offense
to them?
Perhaps because she was what many of them aspired to be: a member of the 1%, a shining success,
a winner whose failures, lies, betrayals and foul deeds were easy to ignore if you had swallowed
the vile, anti-human propaganda of neoliberalism.
I am not satisfied with this whole "white innocence" subtext
The subtext is there for you to impute. It seems like the only way you can be convinced that
it is not there is for the interviewees to be explicitly condemned as racist because they voted
for a racist. You and others who hold your stance overlook the fact that there were only two candidates,
not several, including Trump's non-racist twin, to vote for, and so you have to deal with truly
awful tradeoffs. Should I assume you are an imperialist because you voted for someone who helped
install a military regime in Honduras??
Would you consider yourself a "social justice warrior"? Your comment certainly reads as if
a "social justice warrior" could have written it.
Are you a Race Card Identyan? The Race Card has been played so often it is wearing out. In
fact, it has worn all the way out for many people. The intended targets of this guilt-inducement
gambit may no longer feel the guilt you seek to induce. And where there is no more guilt, there
will be no more obedience. And where does that leave you?
You sound like a typical Clinton-Brock Democrat. Today's Mainstream Democratic Party would
be a good fit for you. If you aren't already in it, you might consider joining it.
Politics has been fractal for the past 30-35 years. Same old input-output on an ever expanding
iterative footprint. It's old. It's tired. It'd not serving most voters. It's economically hurting
most voters. Bernie and Trump showed promise of breaking the fractal iteration and replacing it
with something new. Maybe better. That's what people voted for, imo.
Oh no no no no.. you do not get away with crap like "shouldn't one ask these
voters why Trump's racist dogwhistle pronouncements and explicitly sexist actions caused
little or no offense to them".
Show me one that said Trump's stuff wasn't offensive. And your phrasing is either
deliberately or just stupidly messed up. "[C]aused little or no offense to them". I'm a white
male, saying bad things about black females will get me near about ready throttle you but it
"caused little or no offense to" me because that would be insanely presumptuous on my
part. I have a heartache about how people are put upon due to race and or sex but that
oppression sure isn't something I can claim as mine.
>ignores the discursive nature of racist attitudes and beliefs and how easily they can
transmute into a self-justifying politics
Do these people have money? No. Do their kids have job prospects? No. I think that is
enough to legitimatize what they are saying, I don't care if their very next breath is "them
n-words get all the stuff". They are far from perfect, but it is just *so* funny how the most,
tell you to your face racist will then say "oh but Jim down at work is OK". They are just
people, plenty of warts. Get off your high horse, bet you have a number of warts of your own.
a similar argument could be made for those who voted democrat ignoring their racist actions
all around the world murdering, dropping bombs, and economically exploiting black and brown people.
This Bernie Bro voted for Trump out of sheer hatred for the "Listen Liberal" crowd of sanctimonious
meritocrats and desire to see their playhouse pulled down. Not real nuanced, but glad I did it.
Odd that you would attack the "Listen Liberal crowd," given that Thomus Frank was mostly critical
of the Democrats. I am not attacking, just want to learn more about your perspective.
I'm just guessing, but I think that casino implosion is referring to his distaste for the people
that Frank discusses in that book, not his distaste for people like Frank.
I don't know who/what casino implosion meant to address herm's comment to, but I will just
guess that by "Listen Liberal" crowd, heeshee meant the crowd about/against/to whom "Listen Liberal"
was written.
Turns out Trump Voters are Human.
Here, looking into the myths behind "Trump voters" might be constructive. The biggest myth is
that they are tust political troles. In the course of deconverting from Catholism to Atheism,
abserveed that many of our political beleifes are formed under the same structures as one's religous
beleifes. Thoughts about the "free market" are heald just as strongly as stronly as devotion to
Jesus.
Even those who deconvert from their religion, often bring their political belifes with them
into the Athiest community. Often without having them challanged.
And this is the point. One deconverts from a religion because it is challanged by science.
But political beleifes are rarly chalanged.
One exception was in 2007, when the economey colapsed. Many peoples convictions in the "free
market" were directly challanged by reality. And on the political stage they saw McCain talking
about freee markets as if nothing had happend. Conservatives were confused and looking for answers.
They thoght Obama had them.
But Obama also dubbled down on the free market narative. This was a huge mistake because part
of that narative is that all Liberals are socialists. And socialism is evil. So yay, Trump is
Obama's legacy.
Trump voters are human. This means they are far smarter than people give them credit, even
without a GED. They vote acording to the information and evidence they hae been presented with.
But we live in a world where that narative has been carfuly mananged and tended too. Democrats,
rather than chalanging that system, felt they could simply build their own and construct their
own naraive. Hence we get "Russia Russia Russia!" And this is not convicing to conservative votes
who already know the one "true" narrative,
I live in Macomb County. My precinct, my neighbors, voted for Trump. They hate NAFTA. They
hate free trade with China. They hate H1B visas. These are people to whom $100,000 plus a year
union factory job was nothing. We all knew people who had them. Those jobs built this county.
Period. So Clinton never stood a chance here.
They were willing to give Trump a chance. And what's one of the very first things he did? Appointed
a fast food CEO to head up the labor department. A real indicator that the plight of the working
class in America keeps him up at night.
The other option available to us was the fast coffee CEO as Labor Secretary. McJobs were more
or less baked into the Establishment lineup on "both" sides. It's almost as if the real decisions
were made long before the election and concealed from us, and elections are held to manufacture
the image of just consent to the proto-feudal system.
To Teleportnow:
And from this distance, even I could see that nothing, other than PR, was going to be done about
any of them by either R or D candidate. There I go again, flogging the same dead horse.
And what's one of the very first things he did? Appointed a fast food CEO to head up the
labor department. A real indicator that the plight of the working class in America keeps him
up at night.
We're fortunate that Puzder's nomination was withdrawn. It's a pity that the same didn't happen
to Pruitt's nomination (Trump supporters are just as vulnerable to pesticides, lead, mercury,
and other poisons as other people), or Mnuchin's nomination (many Trump supporters have been abused
by corrupt bankers or mortgage processors like Mnuchin and his recently divested OneWest Bank).
You are absolutely correct about Trump's lack of concern for the plight of the American working
class. Not that Obama or Clinton care much about them, either.
Obama's betrayals of his core voters were disguised in the smoke of financial collapse where
systemic effects were years in expressing themselves, brutal though they proved to be. They were
as smooth and subtle as the man who envisioned them.
Trump's betrayals are, like him, blunt, flagrant and outrageous.
That the Democrats have achieved even lower approval ratings(CBS) than the Donald (Gallup)
is the strongest legitimizing force in his thus far execrable presidency.
Unlke Reagan he might actually be a good actor :). Or he can give a speech like he feels working
class pain and hit all the right notes, but policy so far is horrible.
"And what's one of the very first things he did? Appointed a fast food CEO to head up the labor
department. A real indicator that the plight of the working class in America keeps him up at night."
Trump's appointments have been unfortunate, but remember every establishment bigwig had been
lining up to announce she would never serve in this administration, all of them too good and pure
for Trump. So what is he supposed to do if he couldn't even convince a couple of second rate rock
and roll bands to gyrate at his inauguration. Of course he appointed friends and friends-of-friends
and relatives. The establishment brought this on themselves. I couldn't care less as long as he
keeps torpedoing the dearest plans of the slave owners. And by the way the first thing he did
was he castrated TPP and that cannot be said enough times.
In other good news, Today the SIlicon Valley H1B exploiters got raided by ICE and about time.
You know what? Maybe the plight of his base really does keep him up at night
This is part of the collateral damage I knew I was risking when I voted for Trump in order
to make my vote against Clinton as effective as possible. And we have kept Clinton out of the
office for at least this time around.
If/when we are able to crush, smash and destroy the rolling Slow Coup against the 2016 Presidential
Election Outcome by the IC, the Wall Street Elite, and the Mainstream Democratic Party . . . .
then we will be free to try preventing Trump's damage, mitigating the Trump damage already achieved,
and begin growing culture-and-politics-based Economic Combat movements devoted to targeting the
purchasing and consumption choices of a hundred million people against certain Black Hat Industries
which support Trump to advance their own sinister agendas.
We could start doing that now, if we didn't have to spend energy on countering the Remove Trump
conspiracy first.
1. The Dem Party is in a tough position. Where do they go from here?
On the one hand, it'll be tough to wean from the big givers on Wall St and Silicon valley.
Cultivating the small givers and unions will take a lot of time and work.
Also the Dems seem to have little use for Bernie. They seem to wish that he would just go just
go away and leave the Party alone. Bernie, however, could be the Dem's savior.
I don't see the Dem Party choosing a feasible direction. Maybe it will take a few more years
for the Party to sort it out and find a point man.
2. I'm not surprised there is racism, misogyny, and chauvinism among many voters, including
Trumpeters. I suspect that in times of economic "stress" pointing fingers feels natural, even
desirable. Judging from the press, there's a lot of economic "stress" around.
The Bernies could begin by invading and conquering those regional and local Democratic Party
areas which seem least pro-Clinton. Those could be First Landing Beachheads. Once those were secured,
the Berniecrats could work on building strength within them, eliminating every Clintonite " Left-Behind"
type person remaining to try destroying the Berniecrats from within, and then working to break
out of their Secured Beachheads to conquer and decontaminate more Democratic Party territory.
I'm a life-long Democrat and I despise my party. But I'm not stupid. That Trump was a con man
was evident from the beginning but, like most voters, both candidates made me want to vomit. (James
Howard Kunstler called them "human hairballs." )
Unfortunately, all those Trump voters who are worried about jobs, the economy, health care,
etc., will soon discover that Trump doesn't give a fuck about them. He likes their adulation,
since it feeds his ego, but he and every one of his execrable appointments will just make their
lives worse.
Yes, you can't blame people who cast their vote in "hope" of something better.
In the case of Trump, their inevitable disappointment will be that much sadder & acute.
I want to know the extent to which the Faux Noise network is responsible for shaping the views
of Trump voters. It is by far the favored mainstream TV station for news in red-state America.
A steady diet of a certain skewed viewpoint for years upon years has to have a significant effect
on one's thought processes. I can't believe that millions of people spontaneously rose up and
decided to throw off the shackles of business as usual without some major groundwork being done
to get them all riled up. Years of being told that Hillary was corrupt, the devil incarnate etc
etc by right-wing talking heads has to be a factor.
Obama was demonized by Fox News too, yet the reason for the Trump win was that the Trump vote
(in numbers) was essentially the same as the Romney vote, but the Dem vote was down v. 2012, and
that was due to lower turnout, notably of people of color.
Lambert has also repeatedly pointed out that the swing state wins were due to Rust Belt counties
that went for Obama going for Trump. And it has been documented repeatedly that propensity to
vote for Trump correlated strongly with opioid related deaths in the area, regardless of the voter's
income level.
Economic insecurity is the driving factor. The more insecure people become the more tribal
their behavior. People want economic change more than anything else and if they see that the government
is doing something to provide them a better life then other social changes are possible..
A paralyzed Congress is great for the elite as the status quo is beneficial to them as they
have successfully rigged the system. People want to see legislative action.
Ryan stated " "Moving from an opposition party to a governing party comes with some growing
pains," The problem is that Republicans were never an opposition party, they were an obstructionist
party that only knew how to say "NO".
The establishment Democrats are setting themselves up to become the exact same obstructionists..
This will not help them in 2018. Now is the time to try to force votes on measures that are obviously
what the people want.even if they are sure to fail. Let the Republicans stay the obstructionists.
I am a bit disappointed to not see a reference to Jeremy Grantham's quarterly letter at GMO
regarding the narrarives that motivated people to vote for Trump. I have posted about this several
times before. His letter runs on pages 9-15 of this link:
The Road to Trumpsville: The Long, Long Mistreatment of the American Working Class
JG presents a lot of compelling information regarding the decline of labor vs. capital in compensation,
the exploding income of the top 0.1% vs. everyone else, income inequality and the breakdown of
social cohesion – both in words and charts. His Post Script summary is classic in my humble opinion,
especially this line about what the voters across Red state are desperately seeking from Washington:
"Save me, oh leaders, from the rich and powerful!" Personally I would edit that to "the rich
and powerfully corrupt".
Of course there are issues, and of course Hillary was a horrible candidate, but voting for
trump was an insane way to make a point. He will clearly do more to damage the lower and middle
classes than any president in the last 100 years. He will be able to fix NOTHING. More war (jobs?).
More tax breaks for the rich. Less money for anyone without money. A simple tried and true capitalist
asshole approach. He will not survive term 1, and then pence comes in lovely, not.
Please. He stopped Clinton, which at least slowed down TPP and the Russian War. Trump doesn't
even seem interested in killing Social Security. He yanked Ryan's health care "plan"; Hillary
said she was looking forward to working with Ryan. Trump's going to do horrible things, but so
far, his election is far better for American workers than if Clinton had been installed. If nothing
else, it slows down Washington's neoliberal horror show, and the pain of people in the midwest
was at least briefly covered in the corporate press, as opposed to being completely hidden under
Obama, which would have continued under Clinton. Voting for Trump was saner than voting for Clinton.
(I voted for neither. I also live in California.)
The only way we get Pence is if the Democrats and the CIA succeed in their coup. So let's all
try to get them to cut it out.
This post is absolutely correct and important. The financialization of the economy which has
led to inequality, skyrocketing debt, and early death in Mid-America must be addressed. Corporate
Media and the Democrats ignore it and are scapegoating Russia to continue getting their paybacks
from Wall Street. This post highlights the coming tragedy. Clearly Disruptive Capitalism destroys
governments and society. Under stress people revert to their tribal roots. By ignoring the base
causes; war, infinite growth on a finite planet and exploitation by the Elite, the West is being
ripped apart.
It's not just the West. The Global South, largely unseen and unreported on and very much at
the sharp end of extractive neo-colonialism, isn't in great shape either. Voters in Western Europe
express "legitimate concerns" about economic and climate migrants from Africa and the ME, but
often don't stop to think about the dire conditions and political strife that are driving that
migration flow.
Thousands of people are drowning every year in the Mediterranean and that's the visible tip
of the iceberg. It's just unimaginable what's currently happening.
So, Dems ran a terrible status quo candidate that had been a long time target of Faux News
in a "change" election. Most Trump voters in rural Kentucky told me they were voting against H
rather than for T. Oh, and abortion, guns, bathrooms.
Dems have ignored rural communities they didn't already hold for several election cycles. No
prominent national Democratic politician has ventured outside of the cities of Louisville and
Lexington if they visit Kentucky at all. Spend a little time in rural communities and you begin
to see how bleak the picture is for them – I asked everyone I could what they would do if they
were King of Kentucky with an unlimited budget. There were very few soloutions offered.
(IMO Kentucky is Ground Zero. A border state since the Civil War that used to be Democratic
– what better place for Dems to start to rebuild and appeal to Rural America?)
Dems also could have chosen to include and even woo independent voters. Instead, they took
a "who else are you gonna vote for" attitude and pivoted right. Yes, Vice President Sanders would
have been a pita but that would have been a significantly better result.
Still no house cleaning in the Democratic Party, Clintons and Wassermans and Brazilles still
circling. Grrr.
oof, sorry about the wonky link formatting. I tried to use the "link" button in the editor,
and got this weird result. I tried to edit twice, now can't edit.
A third - and the most important - concrete material benefit is Democracy Corps:
The object after "is" probably isn't suppose to be the polling source. It probably should read
something like
A third - and the most important - concrete material benefit is replace corrupt tax
farming / private medical insurance (with equitable tax based medicare?) Democracy Corps:
So what is going to happen when Trump voters realize at the end of four years that their choice
has not delivered for them? Unfortunately they will not be able to realize that he never intended
to deliver anything for them. However, the same problems or worse will remain. Lets project the
current situation out into the future with the understanding that there is no credible agent or
desire for real meaningful change and improvement from those presently in power. What I see does
not look good, and perhaps I will have the good fortune not to be around to see it.
"... Trump at least was offering the economically devastated Americans a slight chance to improve their standard of living and get better jobs. That assuming that he keep his promises, which, of course, is not given. But why one should not give him a benefit of doubt, if Hillary was all about the kicking the neoliberalism can down the road? ..."
"... Most people voted for Trump not because they liked him, but out of despair knowing that the Hillary will betray all her promises the next day after the elections like Obama did and will behave like a female clone of John McCain in foreign policy. ..."
"... In other words, by electing Trump most Americans lost nothing since Clinton would pursue the same pro top 1% policies, just with a larger doze of hypocrisy. ..."
"Terry McAuliffe Has A Very Clintonian Plan For Democrats
To Win Back Power"
'It's still the economy, stupid'
By Sam Stein...04/03/2017...07:05 pm ET
"Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe has a two-pronged strategy
for his fellow Democrats to regain power in the age of Trump:
Don't get distracted by the chaos and prioritize the states.
In an interview with The Huffington Post, McAuliffe called
on Democrats to simplify their message down to its most
fundamental, Clintonian core. For all the talk of Russian
connections, disorganization and dubious ethics, McAuliffe
argued, voters care most about the economy. Democrats would
be wise to explain how President Donald Trump is failing them
on that front.
"Don't chase the shiny objects," McAuliffe said, advising
those running for office. "The public is sick of people
picking partisan fights for the sake of fights. I don't pick
fights with Trump for the sake of picking arguments. I am one
of his most vocal critics because, as I've said, this man is
a one-man wrecking crew to my economy."..."
Economics, like PPACA idolaters, is a red [no change DNC]
herring.
In 2018, it will be reconstituting the US' Bill of
Rights and who pulled the redaction off the names the NKDV/NSA
picked up in the politically directed wire tapping (euphemism
for violating citizens privacy rights) to be used for
politics and attempting a coup.
Your Monday morning quarterbacking missed the key three
points about the Democratic Party. DemoRats:
1. Betrayed
the left
2. Betrayed the New Deal
3. Became a second pro-war, pro-Wall Street Party.
Trump at least was offering the economically
devastated Americans a slight chance to improve their
standard of living and get better jobs. That assuming that he
keep his promises, which, of course, is not given. But why
one should not give him a benefit of doubt, if Hillary was
all about the kicking the neoliberalism can down the road?
The only segment of population that would be better under
Hillary are retirees as they are out of job market anyway,
but this is not what the majority of population wants. They
want jobs.
Most people voted for Trump not because they liked
him, but out of despair knowing that the Hillary will betray
all her promises the next day after the elections like Obama
did and will behave like a female clone of John McCain in
foreign policy.
John McCain was rejected by voters, if I remember
correctly.
In other words, by electing Trump most Americans lost
nothing since Clinton would pursue the same pro top 1%
policies, just with a larger doze of hypocrisy.
Neoliberal, dominated by Clinton wing Democratic Party is
done, as they have nothing to offer to the voters. They are
history.
My impression is that cutting off Democratic
Party from the teat of the Wall Street is currently virtually impossible. You need a serious crisis
to shake off Clinton's neoliberal wing from Democratic Party. May be even another economic crisis
like 2008.
Also Democratic Party, Republican Party, the US Congress and the Federal Government are all just
different faces of the same entity -- the National Security State.
With the level of jingoism demonstrated recently by Democratic Party (which was the forte of Republicans
in the past), Clinton's Democrats and Republicans now are like Siamese twins, and to separate them
from each other is like trying to separate two sides of a dollar bill.
"... My impression is that cutting off Democratic Party from the teat of the Wall Street is currently virtually impossible. You need a serious crisis to shake off Clinton's neoliberal wing from Democratic Party. May be even another economic crisis like 2008. ..."
"... Also Democratic Party, Republican Party, the US Congress and the Federal Government are all just different faces of the same entity -- the National Security State. ..."
My impression is that cutting off Democratic Party from the
teat of the Wall Street is currently virtually impossible.
You need a serious crisis to shake off Clinton's neoliberal
wing from Democratic Party. May be even another economic
crisis like 2008.
Also Democratic Party, Republican Party, the US Congress
and the Federal Government are all just different faces of
the same entity -- the National Security State.
With the level of jingoism demonstrated recently by
Democratic Party (which was the forte of Republicans in the
past), Clinton's Democrats and Republicans now are like
Siamese twins, and to separate them from each other is like
trying to separate two sides of a dollar bill.
It is an easy thing to criticize neoliberalism now, when it
was already unmasked (especially the USA variant of it, aka
"casino capitalism")
A more difficult thing is to point to a viable
alternative.
anne said...
April, 2017
Do election outcomes matter?
So what have we discovered? While these patterns need to be investigated more thoroughly, the
data suggest no clear difference between Democratic and Republican presidents on 20 of the 30
outcomes:
Income inequality: top 1%'s share
Economic growth
Median wealth
Homeownership
Stock market
Unionization
Black-white income ratio
Female-male pay ratio
College graduates
Life expectancy
Homicides
Incarceration
Marriage
Out-of-wedlock births
Abortions
Religiosity
Immigration
Imports
Trust
Earth's average temperature
We do observe a partisan difference for 10 of the outcomes (the party achieving better
performance is listed in parentheses):
Stunningly, losing the white house to a carnival act has not yet seemed
to convince Democrats that the neoliberal restructuring of economy and
society (runaway financialization of everything is fine; transnational
capital flows do god's work; job retraining heals all wounds) will no longer
fly.
For highly qualified professionals in cities benefitting from
transnational capital flows and working in financial services, it flies very
well, and this group (broadly construed) 1) is not negligible in size 2)
votes 3) has become the core of the Democratic constituency and 4) staffs
Democratic administrations (local and national). So pushing the neoliberal
restructuring of society is a feature, not a bug.
If the American electorate is increasingly structured around three groups
(neoliberal/left/reactionaries; or in mock form Suits/Hippies/Rednecks),
then the neoliberal and left/ecologist group have to join rank to defeat
reactionary nationalists, but that is
equally true
for both groups.
As the neoliberal group is socially and electorally stronger (if not
necessarily numerically), it does not feel it is the one which has to make
the concessions (in practice, this translated into "Vote for Clinton or else
Trump" and I fear that 2018 and 2020 will be "Vote for this pro-corporate
Dem or else More Trump"; again a feature, not a bug).
T
03.28.17 at
4:27 pm
Corey-
Hiding in plain sight. Welcome back. And hat tip for the admission.
Being a man of ideas I think you particularly underestimated the effect
of personality on the election. The visceral disgust with HRC among many
working class people in the Midwest was just palpable. If Biden ran he would
have walked and we wouldn't be having this discussion. You should get out
more.
btw-is it a coincidence that the daughters of Trump and Clinton are
married to sons of incredibly wealthy convicted felons? I think the answer
is no and I think the question isn't trivial.
T
03.28.17 at
4:59 pm
As to the success of the Trump agenda, a lot of policy is going to be made
through regulation, not legislation. We're already seeing this with
environmental regulation. Antitrust will likely become even more permissive.
The private Obamacare insurance markets will get a push over the cliff. And
on and on. My guess is that inequality measures have already surpassed the
1928 peak having just fallen short in 2007 and will just get worse. The top
0.01% and above are making out like bandits with the stock market increase.
He was in over his head on day one. If you're not aware, real estate
development shops are tiny(and he's pretty much a branding operation now).
Many have less that 100 people. The architects, contractors, etc are all
outside. He's never run anything big. Hell, many government departments and
agencies have offices and divisions that are larger than his firm. That
doesn't mean he can't do a vast amount of damage which he will. We've only
seen hints of the mess he'll make of foreign affairs. And when the domestic
agenda isn't going well? There's always time for a war.
Finally, if his goal is to do well by himself, his family and his
friends, he might consider his presidency very successful indeed. You keep
measuring success by you're standards, not his.
bruce wilder
03.28.17 at 5:52 pm
phenomenal cat @ 12
Yep. It is a legitimacy crisis. It was always going to be a legitimacy
crisis. (I thought Clinton would win - I was wrong; but I think her
prospective election and the narratives attached to it also had the markings
of a legitimacy crisis.) Trump is in the hot seat and his clownishness maybe
flavors it a bit, but a legitimacy crisis was close to inevitable, even if
the outcome of the election in terms of who was elected, was chancier.
Trump's defects of character are not causing the legitimacy crisis - this
can be hard to see given how clownish he is and how relentlessly he is
attacked, but this recognition may turn out to be important to understand
what comes next, as events unfold.
politicalfootball @ 20
"A liberalism that fails to confront monsters enables them, as every
left-oriented critic of Barack Obama will tell you. That is, they'll tell
you that unless they are talking about Donald Trump, whose supporters, they
say, need to be understood and empathized with."
I have to say I have read that paragraph several times and I do not
understand what you are trying to say. Maybe it does seem plain to you, but
I cannot make sense of it. The first sentence seems plain enough a
declaration - no problem there. But, then, I have to connect the first
sentence to the second and I am at a loss. Left-wing critics of Obama will
not
tell you "a liberalism that fails to confront monsters enables
them" with regard to Trump? Huh? And, then that second sentence switches to
what left-wing critics of Obama would say about Trump's supporters (not
otherwise identified) and I am lost without navigational aids. Is Trump the
monster? The people who voted for Trump? The people who voted for Clinton?
(I voted for neither.)
Your explanation, offered @ 20:
What some of [left critics of Obama]
can't get a grip on is that this does nothing to justify Trump. Less than
nothing, because it's clear that on every axis where Obama was bad, Trump
will be worse, and Trump made it clear in advance that he would be worse.
How does anything justify Trump? would be my question (as a left critic
of Obama). Trump is not "just" in any common sense of the term. And, how are
differences between Obama and Trump relevant, here? (There is a leftish meme
that points to the fact that some key counties and states that voted for
Obama voted for Trump - are you trying to confront some particular analysis
associated with that meme? Just guessing here.)
P.S. Sanders was not a choice in the general election and was arguably
disabled, along with the Democratic Party as a whole, by Obama and Clinton.
That's a whole 'nother line of argument engaged in by "left critics of
Obama" but I cannot tell whether you are taking a particular view on that
line or not.
John Quiggin
03.29.17 at 12:49 am
"Both things are true: That Trump exists on a continuum with other
Republicans, and that he constitutes a break with the past in some key
respects"
I take it practically, not theoretically. Seven years ago I wrote here,
there and everywhere, that Obamacare should be passed, even without a public
option, because it will automatically drive the path to a single payer.
It will do this by first hobbling the GOP, by forcing them to choose
between tax cuts and universal care, a divide they cannot bridge. (I wrote
that we all demand that any tax-cut legislation the Republicans propose, be
linked to the spending cuts to cover it, in the SAME piece of legislation:
so the public can see their choice. Then, as now, the Republicans always try
the "dynamic scoring" excuse - the falsehood that tax cuts "pay for
themselves" by causing economic growth in in the future.)
Also, years ago I thought Trump could be the opportunist to insert
himself into the Republican crack-up. But I thought would lose this election
because the polls put Hillary ahead by 2-3%, and because the voters would
see through Trump's braggadocio, and be repelled by his dishonesty &
immorality.
Maybe Hillary did actually win, because the Russians hacked into the
voting booths too - who knows? Certainly, every Congressperson who goes into
a closed-door session with the intelligence community, comes back out,
looking like they've been hit by a bomb.
It may be better this way. If Hillary had won, the GOP would still be in
full blockade, still causing frustration in the voters, and still coming
back to take control in a future election. So let's have the poisons all
come out, now
The Wall Street Democrats have been dealt a substantial setback with
the ejection of Hillary
- and Sanders, an Independent, is now the voice
of the opposition party. Sanders is the most popular politician in the U.S.,
he gets 6 TV cameras on an hour's notice. This is fun! Meanwhile the GOP has
to deal with Trump, whose lack of ideology is allowing their internal divide
to grow wider. The Democrats, having almost no power, can sit back and enjoy
the spectacle (although not for much longer).
There are two problems for the Republicans, in Congress and in the White
House:
1. The aforementioned Congressional crack-up between the "moderates" and
the Freedom Caucus. Next, they have to get together to deal with the
automatic gov't shutdown in less than a month, unless they push up the debt
ceiling. And,
2. the Administration's split into the Wall Street crooks in the cabinet,
and the "economic nationalist" fantasies of Bannon and the bananans.
I think that the President whom Trump is most like, is Reagan: Trump has
a few crackpot ideas, otherwise no attention span, he just wants to be loved
in the spotlights. He needs caretakers to run the White House. But there is
no one of the expertise of a James Baker, to do it.
Much of the DC establishment back in 2016 complained that Obama hadn't been
tough enough on Assad and the Russians. That's where the "propaganda" about
Clinton wanting a war with Russia comes from. It was widespread. There was
much talk about the brutality of Aleppo (far more than about the brutality
we were supporting in Yemen). It will be interesting to see if Trump's
increase in civilian deaths in Mosul will lead to the same cries of war
crimes. This is an actual case where Trump really is doing something as bad
as Putin, but it's not qualitatively distinct from what Obama was doing,
just an increase.
Getting back to Russia, talk of no fly zones meant war in Syria, which
risked confrontation with Russia. And Michael Morell had just endorsed
Clinton a few days before he advocated killing Russians in Syria on the
Charlie Rose show–
http://www.youtube.com/embed/-Ivt2NmbyGg
JimV
03.29.17
at 5:40 pm
(
37
)
Anarassie: thanks for the reply. To clear up a possible misunderstanding, in
my first paragraph I gave my understanding of what I thought
politicalfootball was saying, not my personal opinion. I don't know for
sure, but probably some of my relatives and best friends voted for Trump.
That HRC wants to start a war with Russia is phony propaganda is my opinion:
a) I have seen no evidence of it that can't be more plausibly explained in
another way; and b) I don't think she is crazy.
For example, some have said that her proposal to negotiate a no-fly-zone
among the air-powers involved in the Syria conflict, to provide a corridor
for refugees and humanitarian aide, was aimed at starting a war with Russia.
I will of course accept that your own view is neither phony nor
propaganda to you, since you apparently believe in it. I believe it is
propaganda on the part of some (probably no one here), and phony because it
is not the truth. (How I wish there were reliable lie-detectors which all
candidates and pundits had to pass.)
Oh, and kudos to Lee Arnold for his analysis of the ACA issue. I hope he
is also prescient about getting all the poison out of our system in the next
four years.
I do not particularly want to (re-)litigate the election or the
politics of lesser evils in the comments of Crooked Timber.
Once we are emotionally committed to some narrative, it can be hard to
hear some of what other people are saying, on the terms of the people saying
it. I, personally, can say I do not understand what the disputes are that
are splitting the Republicans. I have no feel for them at all, but in my
ignorance, I pay attention to what CR has to say, to learn if I can. I do
have more confidence in my understanding of the major splits among
Democrats. I am not saying I have much sympathy for "any Democrat" politics
of the kind you espouse. I was a "more and better Democrats" kind of guy for
a long time, but you "any Democrat" types prevailed with predictable results
and you do not want to own any responsibility for the horrifying result.
Imho, of course. I do not propose to hash that out. "More and better" lost
and as far as I can tell Sanders is still coming up short; the Obama-Clinton
establishment holds fast, able to play a louder media Wurlitzer than I
thought they had, and the "any Dems" left in Congress do not look any more
effective now than they ever were. As for heaping tribal abuse on Trump
voters, I say, have at it, for whatever personal satisfaction it gives. I
cannot imagine why you think "left Obama critics" (like me) are somehow
inhibiting you or our lack of sufficient enthusiasm for pre-adolescent name
calling is a moral deficiency.
@26: "Trump's defects of character are not causing the legitimacy crisis -
this can be hard to see given how clownish he is and how relentlessly he is
attacked,"
People are certainly being really mean to Orange Julius Caesar
by criticizing things he does and says. But they can turn on a dime.
Remember how "presidential" Trump was after he managed to get through an
address to Congress without making fun of Arnold Schwarzenegger or biting
the head off a chicken?
"Clownish" makes him sound rather harmless. A pol can be "clownish" and
still be a decent man who is good at his job. Trump is an ignorant and
irresponsible grifter who is shamelessly profiteering off the presidency
while catering to the most vicious and destructive right-wing elements in
American culture. That may be "clownish" to you, but nobody else is
laughing.
"... We also discussed the private security company document, which was widely circulated in recent months among the media, members of Congress and Congressional staff even before the IC became aware of it. I emphasized that this document is not a U.S. Intelligence Community product and that I do not believe the leaks came from within the IC. The IC has not made any judgment that the information in this document is reliable, and we did not rely upon it in any way for our conclusions. However, part of our obligation is to ensure that policymakers are provided with the fullest possible picture of any matters that might affect national security. ..."
DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
WASHINGTON, DC 20511
January 11, 2017
DNI Clapper Statement on Conversation with President-elect Trump
This evening, I had the opportunity to speak with President-elect Donald Trump to discuss recent media reports about our briefing
last Friday. I expressed my profound dismay at the leaks that have been appearing in the press, and we both agreed that they are
extremely corrosive and damaging to our national security.
We also discussed the private security company document, which was widely circulated in recent months among the media, members
of Congress and Congressional staff even before the IC became aware of it. I emphasized that this document is not a U.S. Intelligence
Community product and that I do not believe the leaks came from within the IC. The IC has not made any judgment that the information
in this document is reliable, and we did not rely upon it in any way for our conclusions. However, part of our obligation is to ensure
that policymakers are provided with the fullest possible picture of any matters that might affect national security.
President-elect Trump again affirmed his appreciation for all the men and women serving in the Intelligence Community, and I assured
him that the IC stands ready to serve his Administration and the American people.
James R. Clapper, Director of National Intelligence
"... As head of Barack Obama's National Economic Council during 2009 and 2010 at the height of the foreclosure crisis, Larry Summers broke many promises to help homeowners while simultaneously dismissing Wall Street's criminality. ..."
"... Now, after the Obama administration has left power and Summers has no ability to influence anything, he finds himself "disturbed" that settlements for mortgage misconduct are full of lies. ..."
"... Of course, the Wall Street Democrats, AKA Democratic partisan hacks that infest this blog, spent years defending Obama for his lax treatment of criminal bankers. (And these same folks were also among the most avid advocates of 'trickle down monetary policy,' which involved the Fed's showering cheap money on its owners, the Wall Street banking cartel and their wealthy clientele, while raising the margin over prime rates to their credit card victims/customers.) ..."
Larry Summers is going rogue? (But only long after the horse has left the barn!)
"As head of Barack Obama's National Economic Council during 2009 and 2010 at the height of
the foreclosure crisis, Larry Summers broke many promises to help homeowners while simultaneously
dismissing Wall Street's criminality.
Now, after the Obama administration has left power and Summers
has no ability to influence anything, he finds himself "disturbed" that settlements for mortgage
misconduct are full of lies.
Those of us who screamed exactly this for years, when Summers might
have been able to do something about it, are less than amused."
Of course, the Wall Street Democrats, AKA Democratic partisan hacks that infest this blog,
spent years defending Obama for his lax treatment of criminal bankers. (And these same folks were
also among the most avid advocates of 'trickle down monetary policy,' which involved the Fed's
showering cheap money on its owners, the Wall Street banking cartel and their wealthy clientele,
while raising the margin over prime rates to their credit card victims/customers.)
"... By Michael Hudson, a research professor of Economics at University of Missouri, Kansas City, and a research associate at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. His latest book is KILLING THE HOST: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy ..."
"... Naked Capitalism ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... U.S. presidential elections no longer are much about policy. Like Obama before him, Trump campaigned as a rasa tabla ..."
"... There is a covert economic program, to be sure, and it is bipartisan. It is to make elections about just which celebrities will introduce neoliberal economic policies with the most convincing patter talk. That is the essence of rasa tabla ..."
Nobody yet can tell whether Donald Trump is an
agent of change with a specific policy in mind, or merely a catalyst heralding
an as yet undetermined turning point. His first month in the White House saw
him melting into the Republican mélange of corporate lobbyists. Having promised
to create jobs, his "America First" policy looks more like "Wall Street First."
His cabinet of billionaires promoting corporate tax cuts, deregulation and
dismantling Dodd-Frank bank reform repeats the Junk Economics promise that
giving more tax breaks to the richest One Percent may lead them to use their
windfall to invest in creating more jobs. What they usually do, of course, is
simply buy more property and assets already in place.
One of the first reactions to Trump's election victory was for stocks of the
most crooked financial institutions to soar, hoping for a deregulatory scythe
taken to the public sector. Navient, the Department of Education's knee-breaker
on student loan collections accused by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
(CFPB) of massive fraud and overcharging, rose from $13 to $18 now that it
seemed likely that the incoming Republicans would disable the CFPB and shine a
green light for financial fraud.
Foreclosure king Stephen Mnuchin of IndyMac/OneWest (and formerly of Goldman
Sachs for 17 years; later a George Soros partner) is now Treasury Secretary –
and Trump is pledged to abolish the CFPB, on the specious logic that letting
fraudsters manage pension savings and other investments will give consumers and
savers "broader choice," e.g., for the financial equivalent of junk food.
Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos hopes to privatize public education into
for-profit (and de-unionized) charter schools, breaking the teachers' unions.
This may position Trump to become the Transformational President that
neoliberals have been waiting for.
But not the neocons. His election rhetoric promised to reverse traditional
U.S. interventionist policy abroad. Making an anti-war left run around the
Democrats, he promised to stop backing ISIS/Al Nusra (President Obama's
"moderate" terrorists supplied with the arms and money that Hillary looted from
Libya), and to reverse the Obama-Clinton administration's New Cold War with
Russia. But the neocon coterie at the CIA and State Department are undercutting
his proposed rapprochement with Russia by forcing out General Flynn for
starters. It seems doubtful that Trump will clean them out.
Trump has called NATO obsolete, but insists that its members up their
spending to the stipulated 2% of GDP - producing a windfall worth tens of
billions of dollars for U.S. arms exporters. That is to be the price Europe
must pay if it wants to endorse Germany's and the Baltics' confrontation with
Russia.
Trump is sufficiently intuitive to proclaim the euro a disaster, and he
recommends that Greece leave it. He supports the rising nationalist parties in
Britain, France, Italy, Greece and the Netherlands, all of which urge
withdrawal from the eurozone – and reconciliation with Russia instead of
sanctions. In place of the ill-fated TPP and TTIP, Trump advocates
country-by-country trade deals favoring the United States. Toward this end, his
designated ambassador to the European Union, Ted Malloch, urges the EU's
breakup. The EU is refusing to accept him as ambassador.
Will Trump's Victory Break Up the Democratic Party?
At the time this volume is going to press, there is no way of knowing how
successful these international reversals will be. What is more clear is what
Trump's political impact will have at home. His victory – or more accurately,
Hillary's resounding loss and the
way
she lost – has encouraged
enormous pressure for a realignment of both parties. Regardless of what
President Trump may achieve vis-à-vis Europe, his actions as celebrity chaos
agent may break up U.S. politics across the political spectrum.
The Democratic Party has lost its ability to pose as the party of labor and
the middle class. Firmly controlled by Wall Street and California billionaires,
the Democratic National Committee (DNC) strategy of identity politics
encourages any identity
except
that of wage earners. The candidates
backed by the Donor Class have been Blue Dogs pledged to promote Wall Street
and neocons urging a New Cold War with Russia.
They preferred to lose with Hillary than to win behind Bernie Sanders. So
Trump's electoral victory is their legacy as well as Obama's. Instead of
Trump's victory dispelling that strategy, the Democrats are doubling down. It
is as if identity politics is all they have.
Trying to ride on Barack Obama's coattails didn't work. Promising "hope and
change," he won by posing as a transformational president, leading the
Democrats to control of the White House, Senate and Congress in 2008. Swept
into office by a national reaction against the George Bush's Oil War in Iraq
and the junk-mortgage crisis that left the economy debt-ridden, they had free
rein to pass whatever new laws they chose – even a Public Option in health care
if they had wanted, or make Wall Street banks absorb the losses from their bad
and often fraudulent loans.
But it turned out that Obama's role was to
prevent
the changes that
voters hoped to see, and indeed that the economy needed to recover: financial
reform, debt writedowns to bring junk mortgages in line with fair market
prices, and throwing crooked bankers in jail. Obama rescued the banks, not the
economy, and turned over the Justice Department and regulatory agencies to his
Wall Street campaign contributors. He did not even pull back from war in the
Near East, but extended it to Libya and Syria, blundering into the Ukrainian
coup as well.
Having dashed the hopes of his followers, Obama then praised his chosen
successor Hillary Clinton as his "Third Term." Enjoying this kiss of death,
Hillary promised to keep up Obama's policies.
The straw that pushed voters over the edge was when she asked voters,
"Aren't you better off today than you were eight years ago?" Who were they
going to believe: their eyes, or Hillary? National income statistics showed
that only the top 5 percent of the population were better off. All the growth
in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) during Obama's tenure went to them – the Donor
Class that had gained control of the Democratic Party leadership. Real incomes
have fallen for the remaining 95 percent, whose household budgets have been
further eroded by soaring charges for health insurance. (The Democratic
leadership in Congress fought tooth and nail to block Dennis Kucinich from
introducing his Single Payer proposal.)
No wonder most of the geographic United States voted for change – except for
where the top 5 percent, is concentrated: in New York (Wall Street) and
California (Silicon Valley and the military-industrial complex). Making fun of
the Obama Administration's slogan of "hope and change," Trump characterized
Hillary's policy of continuing the economy's shrinkage for the 95% as "no hope
and no change."
Identity Politics as Anti-Labor Politics
A new term was introduced to the English language: Identity Politics. Its
aim is for voters to think of themselves as separatist minorities – women,
LGBTQ, Blacks and Hispanics. The Democrats thought they could beat Trump by
organizing Women for Wall Street (and a New Cold War), LGBTQ for Wall Street
(and a New Cold War), and Blacks and Hispanics for Wall Street (and a New Cold
War). Each identity cohort was headed by a billionaire or hedge fund donor.
The identity that is conspicuously excluded is the working class. Identity
politics strips away thinking of one's interest in terms of having to work for
a living. It excludes voter protests against having their monthly paycheck
stripped to pay more for health insurance, housing and mortgage charges or
education, or better working conditions or consumer protection – not to speak
of protecting debtors.
Identity politics used to be about three major categories: workers and
unionization, anti-war protests and civil rights marches against racist Jim
Crow laws. These were the three objectives of the many nationwide
demonstrations. That ended when these movements got co-opted into the
Democratic Party. Their reappearance in Bernie Sanders' campaign in fact
threatens to tear the Democratic coalition apart. As soon as the primaries were
over (duly stacked against Sanders), his followers were made to feel unwelcome.
Hillary sought Republican support by denouncing Sanders as being as radical as
Putin's Republican leadership.
In contrast to Sanders' attempt to convince diverse groups that they had a
common denominator in needing jobs with decent pay – and, to achieve that, in
opposing Wall Street's replacing the government as central planner – the
Democrats depict every identity constituency as being victimized by every
other, setting themselves at each other's heels. Clinton strategist John
Podesta, for instance, encouraged Blacks to accuse Sanders supporters of
distracting attention from racism. Pushing a common economic interest between
whites, Blacks, Hispanics and LGBTQ always has been the neoliberals' nightmare.
No wonder they tried so hard to stop Bernie Sanders, and are maneuvering to
keep his supporters from gaining influence in their party.
When Trump was inaugurated on Friday, January 20, there was no pro-jobs or
anti-war demonstration. That presumably would have attracted pro-Trump
supporters in an ecumenical show of force. Instead, the Women's March on
Saturday led even the pro-Democrat
New York Times
to write a
front-page article reporting that white women were complaining that they did
not feel welcome in the demonstration. The message to anti-war advocates,
students and Bernie supporters was that their economic cause was a distraction.
The march was typically Democratic in that its ideology did not threaten the
Donor Class. As Yves Smith wrote on
Naked Capitalism
: "the track
record of non-issue-oriented marches, no matter how large scale, is poor, and
the status of this march as officially sanctioned (blanket media coverage when
other marches of hundreds of thousands of people have been minimized, police
not tricked out in their usual riot gear) also indicates that the officialdom
does not see it as a threat to the status quo."
[1]
Hillary's loss was not blamed on her neoliberal support for TPP or her
pro-war neocon stance, but on the revelations of the e-mails by her operative
Podesta discussing his dirty tricks against Bernie Sanders (claimed to be given
to Wikileaks by Russian hackers, not a domestic DNC leaker as Wikileaks
claimed) and the FBI investigation of her e-mail abuses at the State
Department. Backing her supporters' attempt to brazen it out, the Democratic
Party has doubled down on its identity politics, despite the fact that an
estimated 52 percent of white women voted for Trump. After all, women do work
for wages. And that also is what Blacks and Hispanics want – in addition to
banking that serves
their
needs, not those of Wall Street, and health
care that serves
their
needs, not those of the health-insurance and
pharmaceuticals monopolies.
Bernie did not choose to run on a third-party ticket. Evidently he feared
being accused of throwing the election to Trump. The question is now whether he
can remake the Democratic Party as a democratic socialist party, or create a
new party if the Donor Class retains its neoliberal control. It seems that he
will not make a break until he concludes that a Socialist Party can leave the
Democrats as far back in the dust as the Republicans left the Whigs after 1854.
He may have underestimated his chance in 2016.
Trump's Effect on U.S. Political Party Realignment
During Trump's rise to the 2016 Republican nomination it seemed that he was
more likely to break up the Republican Party. Its leading candidates and gurus
warned that his populist victory in the primaries would tear the party apart.
The polls in May and June showed him defeating Hillary Clinton easily (but
losing to Bernie Sanders). But Republican leaders worried that he would not
support what they believed in: namely, whatever corporate lobbyists put in
their hands to enact and privatize.
The May/June polls showed Trump and Clinton were the country's two most
unpopular presidential candidates. But whereas the Democrats maneuvered Bernie
out of the way, the Republican Clown Car was unable to do the same to Trump. In
the end they chose to win behind him, expecting to control him. As for the DNC,
its Wall Street donors preferred to lose with Hillary than to win with Bernie.
They wanted to keep control of their party and continue the bargain they had
made with the Republicans: The latter would move further and further to the
right, leaving room for Democratic neoliberals and neocons to follow them
closely, yet still pose as the "lesser evil." That "centrism" is the essence of
the Clintons' "triangulation" strategy. It actually has been going on for a
half-century. "As Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere quipped in the 1960s, when
he was accused by the US of running a one-party state, 'The United States is
also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance, they have two
of them'."
[2]
By 2017, voters had caught on to this two-step game. But Hillary's team paid
pollsters over $1 billion to tell her ("Mirror, mirror on the wall ") that she
was the most popular of all. It was hubris to imagine that she could convince
the 95 Percent of the people who were worse off under Obama to love her as much
as her East-West Coast donors did. It was politically unrealistic – and a
reflection of her cynicism – to imagine that raising enough money to buy
television ads would convince working-class Republicans to vote for her,
succumbing to a Stockholm Syndrome by thinking of themselves as part of the 5
Percent who had benefited from Obama's pro-Wall Street policies.
Hillary's election strategy was to make a right-wing run around Trump. While
characterizing the working class as white racist "deplorables," allegedly
intolerant of LBGTQ or assertive women, she resurrected the ghost of Joe
McCarthy and accused Trump of being "Putin's poodle" for proposing peace with
Russia. Among the most liberal Democrats, Paul Krugman still leads a biweekly
charge at
The New York Times
that President Trump is following
Moscow's orders. Saturday Night Live, Bill Maher and MSNBC produce weekly skits
that Trump and General Flynn are Russian puppets. A large proportion of
Democrats have bought into the fairy tale that Trump didn't really win the
election, but that Russian hackers manipulated the voting machines. No wonder
George Orwell's
1984
soared to the top of America's best-seller lists
in February 2017 as Donald Trump was taking his oath of office.
This propaganda paid off on February 13, when neocon public relations
succeeded in forcing the resignation of General Flynn, whom Trump had appointed
to clean out the neocons at the NSA and CIA His foreign policy initiative
based on rapprochement with Russia and hopes to create a common front against
ISIS/Al Nusra seemed to be collapsing.
Tabula Rasa Celebrity Politics
U.S. presidential elections no longer are much about policy. Like Obama
before him, Trump campaigned as a
rasa tabla
, a vehicle for everyone
to project their hopes and fancies. What has all but disappeared is the past
century's idea of politics as a struggle between labor and capital, democracy
vs. oligarchy.
Who would have expected even half a century ago that American politics would
become so post-modern that the idea of class conflict has all but disappeared.
Classical economic discourse has been drowned out by their junk economics.
There is a covert economic program, to be sure, and it is bipartisan. It
is to make elections about just which celebrities will introduce neoliberal
economic policies with the most convincing patter talk. That is the essence of
rasa tabla
politics.
Can the Democrats Lose Again in 2020?
Trump's November victory showed that voters found
him
to be the
Lesser Evil, but all that voters really could express was "throw out the bums"
and get a new set of lobbyists for the FIRE sector and corporate monopolists.
Both candidates represented Goldman Sachs and Wall Street. No wonder voter
turnout has continued to plunge.
Although the Democrats' Lesser Evil argument lost to the Republicans in
2016, the neoliberals in control of the DNC found the absence of a progressive
economic program to less threatening to their interests than the critique of
Wall Street and neocon interventionism coming from the Sanders camp. So the
Democrat will continue to pose as the Lesser Evil party not really in terms of
policy, but simply
ad hominum
. They will merely repeat Hillary's
campaign stance: They are
not
Trump. Their parades and street
demonstrations since his inauguration have not come out for any economic
policy.
On Friday, February 10, the party's Democratic Policy group held a retreat
for its members in Baltimore. Third Way "centrists" (Republicans running as
Democrats) dominated, with Hillary operatives in charge. The conclusion was
that no party policy was needed at all. "President Trump is a better
recruitment tool for us than a central campaign issue,' said Washington Rep.
Denny Heck, who is leading recruitment for the Democratic Congressional
Campaign Committee (DCCC)."
[3]
But what does their party leadership have to offer women, Blacks and
Hispanics in the way of employment, more affordable health care, housing or
education and better pay? Where are the New Deal pro-labor, pro-regulatory
roots of bygone days? The party leadership is unwilling to admit that Trump's
message about protecting jobs and opposing the TPP played a role in his
election. Hillary was suspected of supporting it as "the gold standard" of
trade deals, and Obama had made the Trans-Pacific Partnership the centerpiece
of his presidency – the free-trade TPP and TTIP that would have taken economic
regulatory policy out of the hands of government and given it to corporations.
Instead of accepting even Sanders' centrist-left stance, the Democrats'
strategy was to tar Trump as pro-Russian, insist that his aides had committed
impeachable offenses, and mount one parade after another. "Rep. Marcia Fudge of
Ohio told reporters she was wary of focusing solely on an "economic message"
aimed at voters whom Trump won over in 2016, because, in her view, Trump did
not win on an economic message. "What Donald Trump did was address them at a
very different level - an emotional level, a racial level, a fear level," she
said. "If all we talk about is the economic message, we're not going to win."
[4]
This stance led Sanders supporters to walk out of a meeting organized by the
"centrist" Third Way think tank on Wednesday, February 8.
By now this is an old story. Fifty years ago, socialists such as Michael
Harrington asked why union members and progressives still imagined that they
had to work through the Democratic Party. It has taken the rest of the country
half a century to see that Democrats are not the party of the working class,
unions, middle class, farmers or debtors. They are the party of Wall Street
privatizers, bank deregulators, neocons and the military-industrial complex.
Obama showed his hand – and that of his party – in his passionate attempt to
ram through the corporatist TPP treaty that would have enabled corporations to
sue governments for any costs imposed by public consumer protection,
environmental protection or other protection of the population against
financialized corporate monopolies.
Against this backdrop, Trump's promises and indeed his worldview seem
quixotic. The picture of America's future he has painted seems unattainable
within the foreseeable future. It is too late to bring manufacturing back to
the United States, because corporations already have shifted their supply nodes
abroad, and too much U.S. infrastructure has been dismantled.
There can't be a high-speed railroad, because it would take more than four
years to get the right-of-way and create a route without crossing gates or
sharp curves. In any case, the role of railroads and other transportation has
been to increase real estate prices along the routes. But in this case, real
estate would be torn down – and having a high-speed rail does not increase land
values.
The stock market has soared to new heights, anticipating lower taxes on
corporate profits and a deregulation of consumer, labor and environmental
protection. Trump may end up as America's Boris Yeltsin, protecting U.S.
oligarchs (not that Hillary would have been different, merely cloaked in a more
colorful identity rainbow). The U.S. economy is in for Shock Therapy. Voters
should look to Greece to get a taste of the future in this scenario.
Without a coherent response to neoliberalism, Trump's billionaire cabinet
may do to the United States what neoliberals in the Clinton administration did
to Russia after 1991: tear out all the checks and balances, and turn public
wealth over to insiders and oligarchs. So Trump's his best chance to be
transformative is simply to be America's Yeltsin for his party's oligarchic
backers, putting the class war back in business.
What a Truly Transformative President Would Do/Would Have Done
No administration can create a sound U.S. recovery without dealing with the
problem that caused the 2008 crisis in the first place: over-indebtedness. The
only one way to restore growth, raise living standards and make the economy
competitive again is a debt writedown. But that is not yet on the political
horizon. Obama's doublecross of his voters in 2009 prevented the needed policy
from occurring. Having missed this chance in the last financial crisis, a
progressive policy must await yet another crisis. But so far, no political
party is preparing a program to juxtapose to Republican-Democratic austerity
and scale-back of Social Security, Medicare and social spending programs in
general.
Also no longer on the horizon is a more progressive income tax, or a public
option for health care – or for banking, or consumer protection against
financial fraud, or for a $15-an-hour minimum wage, or for a revived protection
of labor's right to unionize, or environmental regulations.
It seems that only a new party can achieve these aims. At the time these
essays are going to press, Sanders has committed himself to working within the
Democratic Party. But that stance is based on his assumption that somehow he
can recruit enough activists to take over the party from Its Donor Class.
I suspect he will fail. In any case, it is easier to begin afresh than to
try to re-design a party (or any institution) dominated by resistance to
change, and whose idea of economic growth is a pastiche of tax cuts and
deregulation. Both U.S. parties are committed to this neoliberal program – and
seek to blame foreign enemies for the fact that its effect is to continue
squeezing living standards and bloating the financial sector.
If this slow but inexorable crash does lead to a political crisis, it looks
like the Republicans may succeed in convening a new Constitutional Convention
(many states already have approved this) to lock the United States into a
corporatist neoliberal world. Its slogan will be that of Margaret Thatcher:
TINA – There Is No Alternative.
And who is to disagree? As Trotsky said, fascism is the result of the
failure of the left to provide an alternative.
There are cliques of employees in all these govt agencies who have political and religious views just like the rest of the
world, except they have access to spy satellites, phone tapping, and every other spy tool just like Snowden tried to expose. Finally
after watching the evil satan worshipping liberals for all these years use these tool to further the NWO thru clintons and hussein,
the patriot Christian conservative side is finally leaking info they have access to to TRUMP and he is able to fight back a little.
THis is good versus evil, no doubt in my mind. Choose this day whom you will serve. Especially you crossroad demon from hell.
Trump victory was almost 30 years in the making, and I think all presidents starting from Carter
contributed to it.
Even if Hillary became president this time, that would be just one term postponement on
the inevitable outcome of neoliberal domination for the last 30 years.
I think anybody with dictatorial inclinations and promise to "drain the swamp" in Washington,
DC now has serious changes on victory in the US Presidential elections. So after Trump I, we
might see Trump II.
So it people find that Trump betrays his election promised they will turn to democratic
Party. They will turn father right, to some Trump II.
Due to economic instability and loss of jobs, people are ready to trade (fake) two party
"democracy" (which ensures the rule of financial oligarchy by forcing to select between two
equally unpalatable candidates) that we have for economic security, even if the latter means
the slide to the dictatorship.
That's very sad, but I think this is a valid observation. What we experience is a new variation
of the theme first played in 1930th, after the crash of 1928.
The story of working class and lower middle class turning to the far right for help after
financial oligarchy provoke a nationwide crisis and destroy their "way of life" and standards
of living is not new. In 1930th the US ruling class proved to be ready to accept the New Deal
as the alternative. In Germany it was not.
The Dems and The Repubs are
BOTH
austerity mongers. They both want to
starve the 99% and wage trillion dollar wars. The spoiler effect induced two
party system is what sustains the Deep State.
Of the now literally
hundreds of "fancy" voting methods all over the Internet, strategic hedge
simple score voting is the only one that specifically enables the common
voters to win elections against the two-party empowered Deep State. (All of
the many others treat elite interest involved elections as if they were
casual "hobby club" elections.)
Too bad we don't have simple score voting. Then we could give between 1
and 10 votes to many candidates. But no votes at all for Hillary the war
monger. We might place 8 votes for Bernie (since he is less bad than Hillary
(or more accurately, was previously though to be)), 10 write-in votes for
Jesse Ventura, and 10 write-in votes for Dennis Kucinich.
Strategic hedge simple score voting can be described in one simple
sentence: Strategically bid no vote at all for undesired candidates (ignore
them as though they did not exist), or strategically cast from one to ten
votes (or five to ten votes, for easier counting) for any number of
candidates you prefer (up to some reasonable limit of, say, twelve
candidates, so people don't hog voting booths), and then simply add all the
votes up.
We must also abolish Deep State subvertible election machines ("computer
voting"), and get back to had counted paper ballots, with results announced
at each polling station just prior to being sent up to larger tabulation
centers.
b. Excellent post. The same phenomenon is occurring throughout the Atlantic
Alliance. This indicates that all share something in common. It is the
neo-liberal economic philosophy of the Oligarchy who have purchased western
politicians, media, think tanks and education and are superseding democracy
with corporate supranational rule. Inequality and chaos are hardwired into
the current system.
It's interesting that the Salon piece (essentially the Sanders viewpoint)
was written in response to a Vanity Fair piece (the Clintonite viewpoint)
that ends with the claim that non-Party members share
. . . the belief that the real enemy, the true Evil Empire, isn't Putin's
Russia but the Deep State, the CIA/F.B.I./N.S.A. alphabet-soup
national-security matrix. But if the Deep State can rid us of the
blighted presidency of Donald Trump, all I can say is "Go, State, go."
So that's your Clinton Democrat / McCain Republican viewpoint - aka
"neoliberal-neoconservative fascism." Rather tellingly, the Salon piece does
not include the world "neoliberal" but just rehashes the stale PR-speak of
"liberals vs. conservatives" that dominates mass corporate media in the
United States. In reality, policy in Washington is made by politicians and
bureaucrats who adhere to neoliberal and neoconservative ideologies and who
are really servants of consolidated wealth - the American oligarch class -
and their conflicts merely reflect disagreements among the oligarchs; for
example do Warren Buffett and George Soros and the Koch Brothers see
eye-to-eye on all issues? No, they don't, so their sock puppets like Bush
and Clinton have their differences. However, the neocons and neolibs are
so close to one another as to be indistinguishable
to the average
American citizen:
The main similarity between the two is that they have both become known
as "technofacists", meaning melders of corporate, state and military
power into a few political elites that allow comprehensive control. The
left and the right have marched full circle and met one another.
As blues@5 notes above, fixing the electoral system (paper ballots,
ranked-choice voting, voting districts that are coherent regional sectors,
not octopus-like, maybe drawn along watershed boundaries, etc.) is a key
step in breaking their grip on power.
Another critical issue is using anti-trust to break up the media
conglomerates and destroy the centralized propaganda system that controls
U.S. corporate mass media, in which a handful of Wall Street-owned corporate
monsters dictate what kind of news stories are fed to the American public
via television, radio and print journalism.
These reforms seem highly unlikely, however, in the current political
environment.
What we probably have to look forward to is more likely continued
economic downturn and rising poverty. The deep state and establishment
politicians are not likely to give Trump anything, and will probably try to
push an economic collapse just to make Trump look bad - not that Trump's
policies have much to offer; infrastructure looks dead in the water and at
best will look like Iraqi Reconstruction 2.0 under GW Bush and Cheney. We'd
need an FDR-scale New Deal to turn that around and neither neocons nor
neolibs will ever go for that. Instead we'll likely get infighting and
factionalism, maybe a war between Trump and the Federal Reserve, etc.
Honestly given the rot in the federal government it seems the only hope
is for states to take matters into their own hands as much as possible and
set their own policies on rebuilding infrastructure and creating jobs but
the federal government and their oligarchic corporate overlords are pressing
down on that as well. One hell of a nasty situation for the American people
is what it is, and maybe massive Soviet-scale collapse, and a fundamental
change in government (as happened with Putin in Russia post-Boris Yeltsin)
followed by rebuilding from the ground up is the only way out of this mess.
For too long, I've pointed out that the detailed list of
grievances stated in the
Declaration of Independence
were currently
alive and being carried out by the executive of the US federal government;
and that if the Patriots of 1776 were correct to revolt from British
tyranny, then the US citizenry was just as right and proper to revolt
against Outlaw US Empire tyranny. I expounded that position through the
comments at CommonDreams.org until I was banned because they went against
that website's support for Obama then the Killer Queen HRC.
At the end of the previous thread, I wrote that society has only one tool
to control human behavior--culture--and I've long argued that human culture
in the great majority of its societies is dysfunctional and has been for
quite some time--in what's now the USA, from the founding of Jamestown
onward. My view is the culture has reached a level of dystopia well beyond
the ability of anyone to return it to a functional state and find myself
agreeing with Reg Morrison--
The Spirit in the Gene
--that humanity is
what's known as a plague species, a conclusion shared by some very powerful
minds,
https://regmorrison.edublogs.org/1999/07/20/plague-species-the-spirit-in-the-gene/
I don't particularly enjoy reaching such a conclusion given its meaning
for my progeny and the remainder of humanity. But unless we--humanity as a
whole--can regain control over ourselves through the imposition of a new,
stronger--perhaps seen as more ridged--culture capable of suborning vice and
desire to a satisfactory fitness for all, then we will reap the results of
having grossly overshot our ecological support systems and like other
species die-off as Morrison describes. How to accomplish such a radical
change in a very short time period given the levels of resistance to such
change is really the question of the moment. We know where the root of the
problem lies. But uprooting that weed that threatens the garden of humanity
presents the greatest challenge to humanity it will ever have to face.
The demodogs will not change any time soon if ever. They the party leaders
are only interest taking all the money the can from supporters small and
large giving to friends foundations and consultants.
It's funny that pseudo-Leftists like Dems, PS, Labour, SD and others don't
realize that what Kennedy once said still stands:
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution
inevitable.
Which is why it's no wonder many of those on the shitty end of the current
neo-liberal take-over are flocking to the few really leftist groups and to
the numerous and vast ultra-right parties/movements.
Which is also why trying to keep them out of power at all costs - as happens
in Europe, most notably in France - or trying to impeach/oust/coup/kill the
elected right-wing populist - as happens in the US right now - is a suicidal
move. If that sizable fraction of the population never gets anything, never
any part of power, not even a bone to gnaw, sooner or later, they'll just
get fed up, and when they'll have barely anything of value to lose, they
will go nuts. This, of course, would be even worse in the US than in EU,
considering that it's the part of society with the guns, the training to use
them, and more or less the will to use them if forced to.
But then, as another US president once said, the tree of liberty must be
refreshed in blood from time to time - his one famous quote who's
conspicuously absent from the Jefferson Memorial. And when I look closely, I
can't see any Western country where this "refreshment" isn't long overdue.
You're right, b. Dems will continue to bleed out. A good place to see this
will be the special election to replace in Georgia's 6th CD Rep. Tom Price,
who took the job to be Trump's Health and Human Services Secretary. Daily
Kos and ActBlue are shaking the can raising money for a young Dem staffer
named Jon Ossoff. Here's the Daily Kos
pitch
for Ossof:
But while Price might love him some Trump, his district doesn't feel the
same way. In fact, the 6th saw a remarkable shift on election night. Four
years ago, voters in this conservative but well-educated area supported
Mitt Romney by a wide 61-37 margin. In 2016, however, hostility toward
Trump gave the president just a 48-47 win-a stunning 23-point collapse.
That dramatic change in attitudes means this seat might just be in play.
The "Women's Strike" on International Women's Day was a dud. The Dems are
labeling what they're doing a "Resistance," as if they are fighting a
guerrilla war against Vichy. But what they're "fighting" for is really a
restoration of Vichy (Trump is more a caudillo) with young
corporate-friendly Dems like Ossoff.
Unfortunately, the Greens seem to be hobbled. They can't get
past the Democratic FEAR machine. And Jill Stein's recounts reeked of
collusion with Democrats.
That's why I switched from Greens to Pirate Party. Direct democracy has
appeal to anyone that doesn't want rule by a permanent monied class of
neolib cronys.
Actually I don't agree that the Left has lost. There's simply a lack of
ideas.
The extreme nationalist right goes in the US because geographically
isolated. In Europe it is time limited. In UK Brexit has won for the moment,
but it is falling apart, because it can't deliver economic success. (more to
see). In continental Europe, the extreme right are not gaining in the polls
(Wilders, Le Pen), rather stagnating.
Macron, in france, could have the right attitude, oriented to the young.
But it could turn bad.
The managed resistance serves corporate interests, just as the ruling party
does. Whichever party is in power. Billions of dollars in 1% money and
nearly all the media are behind keeping the 'resistance' and the party in
power the only two 'acceptable' vehicles for expressing yourself
politically.
But it's worse ... The universities are almost entirely populated by
identity politics and/or neoliberal 'left' professors, which of course
generates brain-fried future leaders and cadres of the two mainstream
parties. Such university environments also mean that alternative, real left
research and ideas are severely underfunded and legitimized.
But it's worse ... Even the left opposition to the two party system can't
bring itself to (or is too scared to) oppose open borders for economic
immigrants. Minimizing immigration had always been standard pro-worker
position prior to the rise of identity politics in the 1970s.
"Real wages sink but they continue to import cheep labor (real policy) under
the disguise of helping "refugees" (marketing policy) which are simply
economic migrants."
Sorry B, but this is outright bullshit. No country in EU-Europe needs to
import cheep labor from not-EU-countries. There are more then enough
EU-Europeans in search of better wages. The EU was extended exactly in order
to achieve this 'abundance' (o.k. not the only reason). The people you
denounce as "simply economic migrants" are not an imported good - they enter
the EU against all odds. And many, many are refguees coming from countries
ruined by western military interventions.
Well, if Zero Hedge is anything to go by, in a few years automation will
abolish the working class anyway. Then Bill Gates' depopulation scheme will
mop up the remnants.
"The ship was sinking---and
sinking fast. The captain told the passengers and crew, "We've got to get
the lifeboats in the water right away."
But the crew said, "First we have to end capitalist oppression of the
working class. Then we'll take care of the lifeboats."
Then the women said, "First we want equal pay for equal work. The
lifeboats can wait."
The racial minorities said, "First we need to end racial discrimination.
Then seating in the lifeboats will be allotted fairly."
The captain said, "These are all important issues, but they won't matter
a damn if we don't survive. We've got to lower the lifeboats right away!"
But the religionists said, "First we need to bring prayer back into the
classroom. This is more important than lifeboats."
Then the pro-life contingent said, "First we must outlaw abortion.
Fetuses have just as much right to be in those lifeboats as anyone else."
The right-to-choose contingent said, "First acknowledge our right to
abortion, then we'll help with the lifeboats."
The socialists said, "First we must redistribute the wealth. Once that's
done everyone will work equally hard at lowering the lifeboats."
The animal-rights activists said, "First we must end the use of animals
in medical experiments. We can't let this be subordinated to lowering the
lifeboats."
Finally the ship sank, and because none of the lifeboats had been
lowered, everyone drowned.
The last thought of more than one of them was, "I never dreamed that
solving humanity's problems would take so long---or that the ship would sink
so SUDDENLY."
― Daniel Quinn
On the question of the far right, only if
substantial sections of the political spectrum are shut out is there scope
for the extremists to come in and fill the gap. That is the danger to a
minor degree in England and to a greater degree in Continental Europe, as we
are told it was the danger in the Weimar republic. Some precedent, that.
I am not sure about the "populist" movements in Continental Europe but
the Brexit vote in England and the Trump movement in America do not, in
spite of the almost universal assertion to the contrary, represent a swing
to the right, let alone the far right. They represent a return to the
centre, a centre that has long been shut out in Western politics generally
and that is now tentatively re-asserting itself. It is only if that return
to the centre fails that we need fear the Neo-Nazis and the like coming in
to fill the gap.
Great post, b. Short and sweet and right on the money.
There's certainly a
looming trend. Western Australia's 8 year-old (Turnbull affiliated) Liberal
Govt was annihilated at the weekend.
On Saturday night the interim result was:
Labor 39, Liberal 11, Nats 4, unresolved 5.
(39 seats in a 59-seat parliament)
Malcolm Turnbull is pretending to be 'philosophical' about it...
the 'left' is a gang of 'middle-class' would-be jacobins, directing 'the
masses' while eating cake. there is no left, there is no right, there is a
top - the few - and a bottom - the many. as b points out the desperately
vocal few are left and/or right, they are on their own side of the top,
definitely not on the side of us many on the bottom. their policies create
more and more of us every day. they
are
our fathers and mothers in
that sense. we will dance on their graves.
b, please don't say 'pseudo
democrats' it sounds too jacobin, like the trots at wsws.org and their
constant 'pseudo left'. 'fake' will do for pseudo. and it's two fewer key
strokes - three in the same row. stick with the bottom against the top.
write what you want of course ... that's just a rant roiling my gut
gaining vent.
B in case you do not know (I doubt that) "true left" has been murdered long
time ago also in Europe where betrayal of working class interests by the
so-called mainstream workers parties/socialists, so-called communists and
trade unions in the West was fought on the streets in 1968 Paris and all
over the Europe and surprisingly it spilled out to eastern Europe in a form
of Prague revolt, Warsaw riots and mass strikes that swept across the
eastern block in anger of betrayal of workers interests by the ruling
socialist workers parties who turned into a calcified cliques and turned
against socialist workers movements and ideals of egalitarianism and
equality and started selling out to the Western oligarchs.
It was at that
time that under the guise of fake political detente first time massive
policies of outsourcing jobs from the western Europe to the Eastern Europe
commenced (starting with Hungary and Poland and later in Romania where the
Ceausescu's mafia turn away openly from Russian sphere of influence in
ideological, economic and political realm) in a ploy to provoke strikes in
the West and subsequently shutting down the factories (in fact transferring
the production to the eastern block in Europe and/or south America ruled
under dictatorships) if demanded by the oligarchs concessions of lowering
wages and decrease of benefits was not agreed upon by the Trade Unions.
In other words if Trade Unions did not completely capitulate they close
striking factories. Similar tactics have been use in the US under
environmental or productivity requirements pretension in 1960-tois and
1970-ties and later openly outsourcing for profits down south Mason-Dickson
line parallel and later to Mexico and Asia.
This unified betrayal of working class simultaneously by the West and the
East prompted proud vanguard of working class (leftists students of European
Universities and some of the trade unions) to respond to the exigent
circumstances, to respond to mortal threat to workers movements all over the
Europe in 1960-ties and 1970-ties.
These were unsung heroes of last true revolutionary leftist organizations
such as ETA, BR, RAF, AD, FLQ (in Canada) who took upon themselves a heroic,
revolutionary responsibility for defending vital interests of working
people, betrayed by mainstream leftists political parties, via a measured,
targeted and restrained self-defense campaign that aimed at threatening and
destruction of vital economic and financial interest of European oligarchy
including direct assaults on their personal safety and welfare, as a way to,
through a personal pain, humanize for them their abhorrent inhumane ways and
to make them suffer as working class comrades suffered under their inhuman
policies and acts including of violence, intimidation and murder.
This was the last stand of the true left against evil of spawning global
neoliberalism that in following decades swept the world with no opposition
to speak of left to fight it may be except for neo-Maoist guerrillas in
South America and Indian subcontinent. Even anti-imperial Palestinian FATAH
has been tamed while Islamic/religious movements have been supported to
control leftist tendencies within populations, a consequences of such a cold
decision of globalists we live with today.
This was the last stand of the true left in the Eastern and Western
Europe against betrayal of the Soviet Union elites, betrayal of the programs
and ideals of the international working class struggle they proliferated all
over the world.
It was utter betrayal by the descendants of soviet revolutionaries who
later transformed the hope for just, socialist egalitarian project into a
shallow propaganda façade of a mafia state conspiring with the West to rob
their own working people of the national treasure soviet/Eastern Block
working class worked hard to produce and preserve for future generations.
The betrayal culminated with a western orchestrated political collapse of
Soviet Union while the country was still on sound economic footing despite
of cold war military baggage, western embargoes and massive theft of the
corrupted party apparatchiks and cronies of Soviet ruling elite in last
decade before 1991, in way resembling massive US national treasure theft by
US banking mafia especially after 2008.
It is true that true left in US (decades before) and in Europe had to be
murdered since it was the last bastion of defenders of working class
interests against neoliberal globalist visions of a dystopia under umbrella
of US imperial neoconservative rule.
Now voters throughout the world have only two "no choice" choices between
full throttle globalist neoliberalism or globalist neoliberalism with
national flavor of corrupted Identity Politics of race or nationality, a
politics of division to prevent reinsurgency of the true leftist ideology of
simple self-defense or working class under assault that naturally brews
underneath the political reality of mass extermination and neoliberal
slavery.
The call to International Working Class: Proletariat or more
appropriately today "Precariat of the World Unite" has not been more
appropriate and needed since at least 1848 after collapse of another
globalization freed trade sham under umbrella of British empire.
We must unite, and not succumb to a mass manipulation and stay united in
solidarity among all ordinary working people who see through provocation and
manipulation of identity politics of phony left or phony right and see that
they do not have any interest in this fight set up in a way that ordinary
people can only lose while cruel inhumane neoliberalism will always win.
I contributed to a progressive blog for years until I was finally kicked off
for suggesting Bernie was herding progressives into Hillary's tent. I often
criticized Obama's foreign policy and the local partisan blogs--when they
weren't ignoring the perspective I represented--ridiculed me for being a
"conspiracy theorist" when I pushed back against the anti-Russian consensus.
I spent many years working with chronic homeless people in Montana in the
"progressive" utopia known as Missoula and when the Democrats that run this
town aren't actively making housing more unaffordable with their bonds for
parks and endless schemes to gentrify this town into being Boulder,
Colorado, they are making symbolic stands against guns and enabling Uber.
now I work with aging individuals and I am learning a lot about the cruel
complexity of Medicare and Medicaid. it's already really bad and, sadly, it
will only get worse--just in time for the American Boomer generation's
silver tsunami to hit entitlement programs.
I noticed a lot of British Proletariat have moved to the Costa del Sol
leaving plenty of job openings for the Polish and Roumanian Proletariat. Not
sure if this is a typical European trend.
It reminds me of the attitudes espoused by Ishmael:
"The ship was sinking---and sinking fast. The captain told the passengers
and crew, "We've got to get the lifeboats in the water right away."
But the crew said, "First we have to end capitalist oppression of the
working class. Then we'll take care of the lifeboats."
Then the women said, "First we want equal pay for equal work. The
lifeboats can wait."
The racial minorities said, "First we need to end racial discrimination.
Then seating in the lifeboats will be allotted fairly."
The captain said, "These are all important issues, but they won't matter
a damn if we don't survive. We've got to lower the lifeboats right away!"
But the religionists said, "First we need to bring prayer back into the
classroom. This is more important than lifeboats."
Then the pro-life contingent said, "First we must outlaw abortion.
Fetuses have just as much right to be in those lifeboats as anyone else."
The right-to-choose contingent said, "First acknowledge our right to
abortion, then we'll help with the lifeboats."
The socialists said, "First we must redistribute the wealth. Once that's
done everyone will work equally hard at lowering the lifeboats."
The animal-rights activists said, "First we must end the use of animals
in medical experiments. We can't let this be subordinated to lowering the
lifeboats."
Finally the ship sank, and because none of the lifeboats had been
lowered, everyone drowned.
The last thought of more than one of them was, "I never dreamed that
solving humanity's problems would take so long---or that the ship would sink
so SUDDENLY."
― Daniel Quinn
Life isn't gonna get better for those who are not born into a solidly upper
middle class family until nation states are downsized. amerika needs to be
carved up into 40 or 50 - units maybe even more particularly for the large
population seaboard 'states'. The one good thing about the brexit the
englander tory government is gonna deliver is that it is likely to cause
scots and maybe even ulster-people to leave the union.
I've lived in quite
a few nation states over the years and have found that a small population
state is far more responsive to the needs of its citizens than large ones -
even when a mob of carpet-bagging greedheads has jerry-mandered their way
into political power in a small state and an allegedly humanist political
entity is running the large state this holds true.
As far as I can discern there are two reasons for this or maybe 2 facets
of one reason. Firstly even the rightist greedheads cannot shit on any group
be it divided by race gender or sexual preference long term in a small
population state. The reason is that in smaller population units people tend
to know others better and obvious injustices always reach the ears and
consciences of rightist voters - even supporters of racist or sexist asshole
governments and it results in a backlash. Humanist pols in large entities
fall back on 'pragmatic' excuses about 'perception' at the drop of a hat -
no different in action than their 'enemy'.
The second reason is the other end of the first. Because of that degrees of
separation thing, when you live in a small population political unit, you
find you will always know someone who knows any political aspirant. Those
with a rep for being greedy, malicious or deceitful cannot hide behind press
spokespeople and bullshit for long - they cop the flick quickly.
I have long believed that this is the real motive for the corporatists to
support politicians' incessant centralising & empire building.
Claims about large population groups somehow being more efficient are
quickly shown to be false when put to the test of reality. In nature
biological systems, even those within large entities are localised and full
of seemingly inefficient redundancies because one thing evolution has taught
is that a system that has inbuilt alternative modes of survivability will
keep the entity alive much longer than some 'simple & straightforward'
system whose failure means the death or massive disability of the entity.
Corporations themselves tend to be labyrinthine full of small similarly
named but legally discrete modules because that is what works best, yet
corporations keep underwriting politicians who strive to make their 'entity'
bigger, more centralised and 'simpler' - why?
Well because political failure is a capitalist's best ally and of course
when a political entity is really large as amerika is, it is possible to
deceive all the people all the time. The average citizen is a stranger to
any/all of the members of the political elite and as such are entirely
dependent upon third party information vectors - the so-called mainstream
media who push out whatever deceit their masters instruct them to.
I make the point in this thread because too many people appear to believe
that it would be possible to reform the amerikan political system despite
the fact that helluva lot have already tried and failed long before they got
anywhere near the centre of power.
It just isn't possible because of the simple principle that anyone who is
capable of convincing large numbers of people who he/she has never had any
personal contact with, to support their 'character', ideas and political
objectives is by virtue of their success, unworthy of anyone's vote.
No person can convince that many strangers without resorting to some form
of gamesmanship and that makes them a bad choice. There is no way around
that reality yet most citizens adopt the usual cognitive dissonace every
election cycle and pay no heed to what should be blindingly self-evident.
Finally!...this is where all mericans eyes and ears has to be, i.e if they
still have them...non is so blind as those who refuse to see.Clean your own
backyards before commenting on or trying to clean others.
b's premise is that disenfranchised voters will go the polls for far right
interests under the promise of nationalistic interests and the policy that
springs from this. However, I do not believe that they will rue the day for
this choice from being squeezed out. The Nazi party ascension was a huge
success for bread and butter interests of the common kraut. Autobahn,
infrastructure, industry: this nationalism scared the allies enough to go to
war with Germany for asserting it's independence and own interests. Are we
Weimar Germany? No, no, no. Our military is already to the hilt and yet is
being halted in its advance by Russia, Iran, etc. You can't keep squeezing
the same lemon and expect more lemonade. The only option for Trump is to
invest in America again, period. Anything less or a further downward
trajectory will only incite the deplorables more and Trump would be gone
after four years, and maybe sooner to the clicking of boots marching on the
White House. Something truly unpredictable and unexpected might transpire at
that juncture.
You said:
/~~~~~~~~~~
As blues@5 notes above, fixing the electoral system (paper ballots,
ranked-choice voting, voting districts that are coherent regional sectors,
not octopus-like, maybe drawn along watershed boundaries, etc.) is a key
step in breaking their grip on power.
\~~~~~~~~~~
Actually, what the "election methods cognoscenti" call "ranked-choice
voting" always fails spectacularly. It is quite different than what they
call "score voting", which can actually work, if kept simple enough.
Like other people never heard of Preet Bharara. Appears he was called the
"Sheriff of Wall Street". Looked up his record and yes, he did not put any
banksters in jail. Lots of fines which were tax deductible I believe.
Strange Sheriff who has no jail. I would bet he joins a Wall Street legal
firm and gets paid six-to-seven figures to defend the banksters.
This is where Wall Street feared Sanders--Bernie appeared to insist the
Sheriff's he appointed actually have jails.
A safe bet: next wednesday ultra right-wing Geert Wilders will win the dutch
elections, after the diplomatic row with sultan-wanna-be Erdogan. And then
Marine Le Pen...
In the US, the Democrats and Republicans are two wings on the same bird.
Left wing, Right Wing
The US is a democratic theme park, where the levers and handles are not
attached to anything,
whose only purpose is to deceive the masses into thinking that
they make a "difference"
blues | Mar 13, 2017 12:31:00 AM |
Yep they can be relied upon to be corporate slaves for sure I cannot think
of a single example over the past 50 years of any amerikan pol who succeeded
at a national level, who wasn't a forked toungued corporate shill.
There are plenty of examples of pols whose history at a low level 'seemed
OK' - where their occasional examples of perfidy could be dismissed as just
having to toe the party line; "Once he's his own man/woman he will really
strut his/her stuff for the people" a certain Oblamblamblam comes to mind as
the most egregious recent example - when they get in power everyone gets to
see what whores they always were. Whores concealing their inner asshole to
get into real power. That type of duplicity is much more difficult to pull
off in smaller populations - it gets found out and the pol really struggles
to get past the bad reputation chiefly because a lot of voters can put a
face to the 'victim' which makes the evil palpable.
What I find really odd
is the way that even self described lefties who acknowledge the massive evil
committed by amerika still seek to evade and/or justify the evil.
It goes to show how brainwashed all amerikans are. I guess they think
everyone feels that way - when people who haven't been subjected to that
level of conditioning about their homeland actually don't hold that blind
'right or wrong determination. I like where I live now and everything else
being equal probably would go in to bat for my friends or family if this
country somehow got into a tussle. But I would back off and advocate for the
other side in a heartbeat if I felt the nation I lived in was doing wrong.
I was living in Australia when Gulf War 1 kicked off and up until that point
I doubt there was a more dedicatedly loyal Australian but the cynical
decision to suppoft GH Bush made by the Australian Labor Party just wouldn't
wash and without wanting to be accused of the current heinous crime de jour
ie virtue signalling, I like many others took a stance against my adopted
nation that cost me professionally & personally. This was no great
achievement by me, it was easy because I hadn't been indoctrinated into any
sort of exceptionalism.
Yet I see the effects of the cradle to the grave conditioning amerikans are
subjected to in the posts on virtually any subject made by amerikans.
That of itself makes the destruction of amerika essential, a prerequisite
that must be met if there is to be any real change in the amerikan political
structure.
@ Debsisdead who wrote about ".....how brainwashed amerikans are." and
"
What I find really odd is the way that even self described lefties who
acknowledge the massive evil committed by amerika still seek to evade and/or
justify the evil.
"
I live in the belly of the beast you want to destroy. What exactly is it
that I should do to effect your goal? I continue to struggle with knowing
that. I also disagree that it is amerika that must be destroyed but the
tools of those that control our world.......private finance.
I also want
to state to commenter karlof1 that her call for focus on "culture" is
exactly what I think I am attacking by wanting to end private finance. And I
had the pleasure of studying under an anthropologist for a year and very
much appreciate that perspective on our current social maladies. I think
that anthropological characterizations of our species are harder to
misrepresent than history....hence my reference to tenets of social
organization, etc.
We need some adults in the world to stand up to the bastardization of
language and communication.
Any form of social organization not based on any type of compulsion is
inherently socialistic. If we can agree to socialize the provision of water,
electricity, etc. why can't we do the same for finance?
Probably for the same reason we continue to prattle on about right/left
mythologies and ignore the top/bottom reality.
b, excellent analysis. Amerika is rotten to its core. There are no
cures..... just sit and watch on the sideline for these tugs NeoCon,
NeoLiberal, progressive etc.. Kill themselves and blames it on Putin.
I
hold two valid passports, neither better than the other. Hot frying pans,
hot boiling oil?
b said.."When LGBT claptrap, gluten free food, political correctness and
other such niceties beat out programs to serve the basic needs of the common
people nothing "left" is left. The priority on the left must always be the
well-being of the working people. All the other nice-to-have issues follow
from and after that."
Private finance... most countries have a reserve bank. Yours has the
fed.
Your country has made private money an ideology and tries to export this
ideology around the globe. The opposite extreme to collective communism.
Most countries have foreign policy and foreign ministers. When I looked up
the websites of Your presidential candidates, none had a foreign policy. In
place, all had war policy. Sanders had his titled war and peace.
Most countries have foreign ministers. Your country has a secretary of
state. I guess when you are a country that feels it has the god given right
to rule the world, no country is foreign, all are vassal states.
Your country needs to collapse, or be destroyed, to knock this ideology
out of the inhabitants, and then rebuilt as a normal country.
What the US is now, is just a natural progression of its foundations.
I think there's no left
left for the simple reason that it's role in the system, at least since the
end of ww2, became void after 91. No competing system, no need for niceties,
back to the 30's, plenty of unfinished business, 80 years of taxes to get
back. New Deal and European Social Model are obsolete. The armies of workers
offshored, what is left is a kind of lumpen, busy fingering their
smartphones. A highly educated lumpen, probably the highest educated
generation ever, but lumpen nonetheless, Indoctrinated by all media to
individualism, their atomization seems assured. I wonder if anyone under 30
reads MoA. Might be wrong but looks like most of us are over 60 considering
the muppet like kind of grumpyness that erupts so often.
There are drops in the ocean, in places were solidarity still has strong
roots.
Marinaleda
(sorry, the english wiki sucks, a machine translation from
the spanish wiki is certainly more informative) 0% unemployment, equal pay
to all residents, housing provided through self-building, the city council
provides plot, technical supervision, building materials, charges 15 euros
monthly rent. Collective economy based on farming, husbandry and industrial
transformation of it's products. I repeat, equal pay to all residents 1,128
euros for 35 hours a week. Just a drop in the ocean, but a worthy one.
Elsewhere true social-democracy can be found in Latin America. Nicaragua,
Venezuela, Equador, Bolivia, Uruguay pop up as examples that neoliberalism,
racism and neocolonialism can be defeated, on their terms, even if there are
setbacks like Brazil and Argentina. There one can find rivers of solidarity.
Telesur
english
keeps you up to date, with better coverage on Syria than CNN.
All those USAG's and IG's and NO one wants or has investigated where all
those Pentagon missing trillions went to?
Ditto for the MSM, who use all that print space pushing to let men dressed
as women use the little girl's bathroom. The USA project has failed, it's
Kaput, time to turn out the lights.
The 'Left' has been bought by the oligarchs, just like the media, the NGOs,
the 'human rights' organizations, etc. Tony Blair was perhaps the most
blatant example, especially with his 'third way', undefined by him to this
day. I guess it tried to merge bits from the right such as Nationalism and
bits from the left such as Socialism, but who knows!
I am German but not living in Germany. I am disgusted with my compatriots.
They seem to have bought the line that in order to atone for their parents
or grandparents' crimes they have to open the doors to the dregs of the
Earth and let themselves get plundered and their daughters raped without a
protest. Meanwhile, the German police continue to prosecute Germans for any
transgression, including speaking out about it.
So the left is good at pointing to its own flaws & decay but your simplistic
view of a "static" right that doesn't evolve and alway represent the "evil"
is laughable. Both the left and right have merged on most issue, it's a
system of croony capitalism with a big government and where "financial
capitalism" has destroyed industrial capitalism and innovations. Who would
invest to hire employees or innovate if it's more lucrative to sell private
bonds to a central bank or "buy back" the shares of the cies (to boost their
price with a loan in order to get a "productivity" bonus?
A long, long time ago both left/right were pretending to offer a solution
and improve the living standards, one faction with individual liberties, low
taxes and a sound money policy (gold & silver) while the left was fighting
against inequalities and proposing wealth redistribution with a big
government & taxes. Both the left & right started to be coopted in the
1960's
"Real wages sink but they continue to import cheep [sic: that should be
"cheap"] labor (real policy) under the disguise of helping "refugees"
(marketing policy) which are simply economic migrants. (Even parts of the
German "Die Linke" party are infected with such nonsense.)"
Kudos. It's
rare to see someone intelligent admit that an open borders immigration
policy is all about cheap labor, period. Bernie Sanders started to say that,
but after a couple of days of being screamed at for his 'racism' he of
course folded.
I note that by refusing to acknowledge that importing massive numbers of
workers we are pushing wages down, we are also responsible for the misery in
places like Yemen and Somalia etc. How can we expect people in these places
to stop having more children than they can afford, when our
Nobel-prizewinning whores keep screaming that more people are always better?
I mean, if we propagandize that eating arsenic is wonderful (or at lest not
an issue), and people somewhere else keep eating arsenic, we are to blame.
The characteristics which define Right-wingers are...
1. They are are obliged to believe their own bullshit in order to sell it to
the masses.
2. Bribery is an indispensable component of Modern Democracy.
3. Whenever one of their inane schemes backfires, it's ALWAYS somebody
else's fault, NEVER their own.
Malcolm & the Liberals will spend the next
6 months looking for scapegoats (with their fingers in their ears - another
R-W trait).
Democrats become neoliberal Republicans, letting actual Republicans get
elected. Rinse and repeat while blaming Russia for failure. That is the
center-right mantra of the elite Democrats and their NGO supporters (who are
well paid to represent the party line without deviation, if they deviate
they get cut off). Yet my Democrat friends howl that I'm a Trump supporter
because I wouldn't vote for Hillary.
The unfortunate truth is that outside
of protest votes there is no political force in America for dissenters to
turn to outside of what they can do on their own. The two-headed hydra of
the Demopublicans appears to be fighting against itself now but in reality
they still agree on most issues, to the detriment of all working people.
@35 Your version of "score voting" is clearly the best approach to "ranked
choice voting" as currently used. Also, using paper ballots that are counted
by optical scanning machines? That's just as subject to hacking as
electronic voting machines are, since nobody is going to back and hand-count
those paper ballots.
But really, under current finance rules, the
oligarchs tightly control the electoral process via their control of
corporate media and their ability to run puppet candidates against any
honest politicians who defy their agenda. Ultimately this is why politicians
gravitate towards the BS issues describe by b, i.e.
"When LGBT claptrap, gluten free food, political correctness and other
such niceties beat out programs to serve the basic needs of the common
people nothing "left" is left. The priority on the left must always be
the well-being of the working people. All the other nice-to-have issues
follow from and after that."
But addressing the well-being of the working people - wages, homes,
affordable healthcare for their parents and education for their children -
that impacts multinational corporate profits. This is why politicians steer
clear of such issues - they don't want to incur the anger of the oligarchs,
who can spend millions to get them removed from office. Journalists do the
exact same thing, wanting to keep their jobs in corporate media outfits
controlled by Wall Street oligarchs. This is highly similar to how the
oligarchs ran Russia during the Boris Yeltsin era.
There are clearly many similarites between the Russian billionaires of
that era and their various American counterparts today, from the Silicon
Valley billionaires to the oil & gas billionaires to the finance
billionaires; they could never have made all that money without the active
cooperation of politicians and bureaucrats who serve their interests in
Washington as well as in many state governments. This vast extraction of
wealth from the middle class, coupled with a desire to control the whole
world and move money freely across borders without restrictions, and to use
the military to invade and crush any countries who don't go with the
program, that's what the neocon-neolib agenda is all about.
When people like b start to make tremendous confusion between the Neoliberal
Democratic party and the Left, I fear things will go from bad to worse ...
Confusing Neolib and Left after all these years, b? There's no light at the
end of the tunnel, huh?
We've heard stupid people say that Hitler was Socialist ... after all the
NSDAP had the "S", hadn't it? But they are stupid people, right?
Now this?
Well-meaning populist politicians throughout history are either bought off
or assassinated.
Populist rhetoric is tolerated (and necessary for R vs. D political
theater to function).
The rhetoric is one thing. BUT if anyone actually DOES anything of value
for the common people, he will be maligned, castigated, shunned and soon
become enmeshed in a manufactured scandal.
@ nonsense factory | Mar 13, 2017 10:36:25 AM | 58
What the "election
methods cognoscenti" call "ranked-choice voting" is quite distinct from
"score voting" With the score voting method I described you could give from
(1) to (10) votes to up to (12) candidates. So you could give, for example,
(10) votes to Candidates (A), (B), and (C), and (8) votes to (D), (E), and
(F). But with ranked choice voting, you cannot do that, since you must
"rank" the candidates in an "ordinal" fashion. This could look like: (A) >
(B) > (C) >(D) > (E) > (F). And this forced "ranking" leads to astonishingly
complex dilemmas. So, score voting is definitely not a version of ranked
voting.
I did insist on "hand counted paper ballots" because ballot scanning
machines are absurdly complex, and can easily be hacked. Remember that the
Deep State will always completely control anything that becomes sufficiently
complex. The fine print on insurance policies is an example.
Take a look at the Italian Cooking Show ladies. They aren't fat. Their
immune system see gluten as an invader causing physical inflammation.
Personally if I eat gluten my lower gut blows up like an inflated bicycle
tire. Gluten intolerance is not a trend. Check out online videos titled
'wheat belly.'
The wheat we eat today has been genetically modified mainly to increase
crop yields.
Yep. There's a reason the Democratic Socialists of America has seen a huge
explosion in growth over the past year. The Democratic Party has no soul,
and the DSA, by far the most major democratic socialist group in the
country, is benefiting from Bernie Sanders constantly calling himself a
"democratic socialist." If Democrats don't take their cue from this and
other leftist groups, they're going to lose elections for decades to come.
We need policies that work for the people, not neoliberal giveaways to
corporations or conservative policies outright hostile to people who aren't
rich.
What do you call a Social-Democracy without social-democrats?
Although
many have called the "crisis of social-democracy" in previous years
(especially after the "crash" of 2007-8), so far it is James Corbett that
has given us the most extensive non-scholar research on
How The Left Stopped Worrying and Learned to Embrace War
This is disturbingly close to what a co-worker said to me, before knowing
my views about the matter, when US-backed forces were overthrowing Gaddafi
in Libya: "Go, rebels, go!" He said he "normally" wasn't pro-war. A lot of
ditzy liberals out there.
b states that the disenfranchised will rue the day they threw in their card
for the far-right. I am not sure that this reality will pan out here in the
states, though I am unsure what will ultimately transpire. My reasonING for
this goes back to the nazification of Germany and the great benefits to that
nationalist movement in general. Autobahn, infrastructure, industry: their
new deal was very beneficial for the common kraut in addressing their
concerns, though this nationalism scared the shit out of the global finance
cabal and hence war. I am not entirely versed as to the legitimacy of their
claim to Poland or the moral implications of that seizure, though the ethnic
cleanses in the Russian steppes were evil.
My point is that nationalism
could be one of the only forces that could bring down the global finance
elite. This propelled me to vote for Trump and to hold out hope for a while.
My thought is that we already have military spending covered and I don't see
how the trickle down of more military spending would impress the deplorables
too much. If Trump wants a 2.0, he will have to invest in another new deal.
And what choice does he have? Continually being blocked my Russia and Iran?
I am not convinced yet of his total idiocy, but if he continues along a
neoconservative route, there will be little doubt. I guess tyrannies are
stupid after all. Are Americans that stupid, too? We'll see.
Clueless Joe 16
I've started to like that JFK quote more and more these days, too. At the
time he did not mean it for the US but it truly applies here.
1945 - 2000 +. In Europe the 'Left' was overcome in principally 2 ways.
1)
Was the 'red scare of communism', i.e. against the USSR - old memes now home
again. Even though there were some quite strong Communist parties,
particularly in France. (Today, the ex-leader of the dead communist party,
R. Hue, has come out supporting Macron.) The 'liberals' (economic
liberalism) of course used any tool and propaganda to hand.
2) The expansion of W economies, 1950-1980 (about), that so to speak
'lifted all boats', and afforded for ex. cars, fridges, TVs, and at the
start, just the basics like a small flat and some electricity, and water
plus a flush toilet (or better services for small houses) plus universal
free education (to age 14-15) and some basic health / social care. Transport
flowered (fossil fuel use and railways) As opposed to living in a hut in a
filthy slum though rurals were always better off. The economy basically
boomed and jobs, even if ugly and badly paid, were available. This was all a
tremendous advance and it was credited to a 'liberal' economic model.
NOT-communist. (Though it had nothing to do with any political arrangement
per se. See Hobsbawm on the USSR.)
Later, Third-wayers (Bill Clinton, Tony Blair..) tried to 'snow' ppl who
would become 'poorer' with fakey Socialist-Dem party platforms, actually
favoring the 'rich' (Corps, Finance, MIC, Big Gov..), in an attempt to keep
ppl quiet. This 'third way' has now failed, ppl turn where they can, for now
it is voting for the 'alt-right' (Trump, Wilders, Le Pen..) along a sort of
nationalist line, which seems to contain germs of proto-fascim (as some
would say), but which is actually principally directed against the PTB.
I haven't yet read comments, but actually I don't agree with the title of
this piece, though the point about no left is certainly valid. I really
can't see folk just swinging far right because there is nowhere else to go,
since at least in this country, the US, we were burned so badly by the right
- the right took us into Iraq and we have not escaped the horrors there even
now. No way we're going back to that group of crazies just because another
group of crazies, and now apparently Trump as well, are marching to the same
bloody tune. We are being smothered by all of them.
I'm no prognosticator
- I can't see the future. All I can do is say this ongoing spilling of blood
is not what I voted for, and thank heavens I did not vote for Trump. I don't
blame those who did, thinking he might break the mold. In doing that, they
were not 'voting far right.' They were voting for what Trump said he would
do, act peacefully towards each country, take care of citizens' grievances.
He hasn't, and now we know. What happens next is anyone's guess but it won't
be more of the same, not in this country. Experience does matter, and when
we sort ourselves out and finish licking our wounds, us deplorables will
build on what has come before. And perhaps in other countries citizens
facing such non-choices and aware of what has happened here will trim their
sails accordingly.
The great tragedy of the collapse of the left is that there will be nobody
around to protect the minorities who live in the nations of the West. As a
nonwhite American, I see the polarization of politics around racial lines is
a catastrophe waiting to happen. The Democrats want to play the good cop,
using fear of to control their minority vote bank while doing sweet F A for
their communities that they profess to love so much. The Trumpian right has
now dropped all pretense and is openly embracing white supremacy, race
baiting for votes and stirring up all kinds of anti-foreigner sentiment on
top of the folksy old fashioned racism done by "good" GOPers. As disgusting
as the smug, patronizing prejudice of liberals is, the wild vitriolic hatred
found in parts of the white community is backed up with state force. Even
when faced with this reality, the Democratic party views discussions of
economic issues as pandering to the "deplorables"! Never mind the rampant
poverty and unemployment in black and latin ghettoes, talking about jobs is
racism! They will continue this political death spiral and we will pay the
price. There have been two shootings I know of where Indians (mistaken for
Muslims by rednecks hopped up on hate) and I'm sure we'll see plenty more.
God help Europe when their right wingers crack down on the Muslims. You
think the young are being radicalized now? You ain't seen nothing yet.
I don't blame those who did, thinking he might break the mold. In
doing that, they were not 'voting far right.' They were voting for what
Trump said he would do, act peacefully towards each country, take care of
citizens' grievances.
Yes, right on. And that extends to all the 'nationalist' voters. What
they - perhaps confusedly for some - are trying to effect is a timid step in
the present horrific political landscape, towards having a say, >> having
the space, and scope, of decision-making circumsribed, and made not only
smaller, but more rigidly, clearly defined - in this case down to nation
size where the ppl may hopefully garner some more power.
The labels 'right' and 'left' of course are nonsense, but we all use them
as 'tags' for e.g. Dems vs. Reps, and that's ok, as long as everyone
undertands the short-hand. Being 'nationalist', 'anti-globalist',
'localist', 'community oriented' (footnotes skipped) is not left or right,
it doesn't project to any point on the left-right polarity. Nor does it
relate to an authoritarian, controlling axis. vs. a libertarian one. But of
course these challengers are painted as Hitler 'nationalist' stooges and
putative vicious invaders, war mongers, conquerers, as is for ex. Putin.
And if anyone is interested, I chose the name "Perimetr" because that is the
way my friend Colonel Yarynich spelled it . . .
Also known as the "Deadhand" system, Perimetr is a semi-automated system
through which a retaliatory nuclear strike can be ordered by a decapitated
Russian National Command Authority. Perimetr came into being in the 1980s
and appears to still be functional. You can read a detailed analysis of it
in the book by Colonel Valery Yarynich, "C3: Nuclear Command, Control,
Cooperation" (if you can get your hands on a copy).
https://www.amazon.com/C3-Nuclear-Command-Control-Cooperation/dp/1932019081
Perimetr uses emergency communication rockets to issue launch orders to
any (surviving) Russian nuclear forces; such orders would automatically
trigger a launch of these forces without further human intervention. The
crew that mans the Perimetr launch control center requires several things to
happen before they launch: (1) an initial preliminary authorization from the
National Command Authority following the detection of an incoming attack,
(2) a complete loss of communication on all channels (various radio
frequencies, land lines, etc) with the National Command Authority, and (3) a
simultaneously set of positive signals from seismic, optical, and
radiological nuclear detonation detectors indicating that a nuclear attack
has occurred.
At that point, the crew is ordered to launch the ECRs. This "Deadhand"
launches the missiles even after those who gave the preliminary launch order
have been incinerated in a nuclear strike. Valery thought that Perimetr
added a measure of safety having the system, in that it would make it less
likely that the NCA would launch a "retaliatory" strike (Launch on Warning,
LOW) before nuclear detonations confirmed the strike was real (if the
warning was false, then the "retaliatory strike" would actually be a first
strike . . . hence Perimetr offers some certainty of retaliation for
choosing to "ride out" a perceived attack). I took less comfort that did
Valery, as I found it disconcerting that there was a non-human mechanism or
means to order a Russian nuclear attack.
@21
The aim of importing cheap labour is to allow continued expansion of capital
without depressing the rate of profit. Unless the labour force constantly
expands, any accumulation of capital tends to drive down the rate of profit
in two ways: 1) it raises the ratio of capital stock to national income, so
if the wage share remains the same, the rate of profit falls; 2)
Accumulation of capital faster than the growth of the labour force creates a
sellers market for labour and allows real wages to rise. For these two
reasons big business favours rapid immigration.
Are you illiterate?
"Perimeter" is graphically different of "Perimetr". In addition and mainly,
interested people can differentiate one from the other ideologically. So do
not worry, kid.
The thing is black people in USA are fed up. White people (including some
jews) are fed up. Black people have been marginalized and are no longer the
primary darlings of the Bleeding Heart Party. You must add as well that many
of them like Carson are quite conservative and wealthy, so they go
Republican. One cannot discount the very high sense of patriotism that many
Afro-Americans feel for the USA. They can smell the BS.
"White's", can be racially disparaged, mocked, used and abused and it O.K.
You can call a certain segment of the population; "White Trash", white
bitch, fucking cracker, honky, racist, etc, etc and they just have to take
it.
You can openly say that it's no longer their country, that they will no
longer be the majority, if you are an immigrant and have a short time in
USA, you are toasted and cheered while saying it. So soft genocide against
"whites" is ok.
This is wrong and it's true what B say's, there is nothing LEFT. I gave
Obama 8 and I'm still waiting for my change.
- Someone in a townhall meeting asked a Democratic representitive: "What do
the Democrats stand for". And the representitive replied with platitudes.
and the whole thing was captured on video.
the left in America is small and estranged, like an illegitimate child. the
blacks fucked up long ago when they aligned with the Democratic Party,
which, as we know, is just a gaggle of pro-war liberals. their reckoning is
on its way...like a bad asteroid.
i'd check out the relationship between the exponential growth
in the use of glyphosate, decimated microbial populations in the human gut
as a result of its use, and the sudden eruption of gluten intolerance.
that'd get any biochemist / epidemiologist fired in short order, or
demonized on publication. i'm sure that's why we haven't seen it.
@ Posted by: Willy2 | Mar 14, 2017 3:55:52 AM | 85
Thank you for the link.
Succint & concise. Tragicomedy(sic) ... :(
What was highlighted with cutting clarity is what the average Joe & Betty
six-pack, and not just Stateside, throughout the 'West' are primarily up in
arms about, IMV. And the Owned & Controlled, Corporate 'Mainstream'
Mega-Media will not touch it nor even acknowledge 'it' ... hopefully
the scales will fall
from enough peoples eyes to awaken from the
somnolance induced by all-encompassing '
digital valium
' ...
If locales can ever reach a critical mass re numbers ... maybe the
Tumbrels
will yet again roll to swing humanities 'pendulum' back the other way. If
they don't ...
There never has been a political party of the Left in America that held any
political power or even a balance of power at important state or federal
levels. Leaders of the emerging Left in America have been either jailed or
assassinated. Any other leaders of the people, not necessarily of the left,
have also met a similar fate. The American establishment has always been a
repressive clique of any populous movements. Other western nations, being
further from the central authority, developed at minimum Leftist political
opposition that at least held a balance of power enough to effect national
policies that were of benefit to the working classes as defined. In America
Leftist appeal of grievances was applied through the existing two party
system, mainly the Democrats with their unionized labour wing. This has all
fallen by the wayside. Enough said....
RE: Perimeter | Mar 13, 2017 10:14:10 PM | 83 "Perimeter" is graphically
different of "Perimetr". In addition and mainly, interested people can
differentiate one from the other ideologically. So do not worry, kid.
Well
let's see, would Circe be upset if someone started posting under "Circes"?
Would Outraged mind if someone started posting here as "Outrages"? How about
"Alberto" instead of "ALberto"??
Sorry, there are lots of other names available, so what is the point in
posting under one that is essentially identical to mine, except to confuse
those who might not be paying much attention?
@84, the racial-ethnic divides among populations pale in comparison to the
divisions between classes. The Reptilian Order must rake up the former
through media exploits lest the proles wise up to the latter.
Outraged @ 89
Thanks for the compliment on the other thread.
I also value what you write.
In certain conditions it is possible to attain meaningfull goals without
setting the tumbrells in motion. I linked to
Marinaleda
in a comment above. They din't decapitate the Duque del Infantado, they cut
a substantial part of his estate. It was possible for 3 reasons, a
charismatic leader, a strong sense of solidarity and a strong cultural
identity. It's a tiny scale but if one looks at current examples in a
multinational scale Chávez, Evo, Correa, Kirchner, Lula, were/are all
outstanding leaders in nations that have strong cultural identities and a
solidarity forged by resistance.
BRF @ 90
Exactly, jailed or assassinated. And when this was no longer feasible, when
human rights became a tool in the cold war, the discourse was deflected to
identitary policies and sex drugs and r&r
My views tend towards
pacifism these last many years and am totally opposed to capital punishment
for common criminal acts ... the death of even one innocent due to failures
of the system, injustice, or mere errors, is one life too many, IMV.
Have personally seen the dire consequences of psychopaths & sociopaths,
in Military, Intelligence, Government & Corporate environments, in positions
of leadership/authority. They select alike as near peers and congregate
fellow-travellers, arch-opportunists & sellswords as underlings,
enablers/facilitators.
Yet, long reflection on ... bitter ... experiences, have brought me to a
perceived unpalatable truth, that there likely must be, long overdue, a cull
of the 'Impune', via the tender mercies of such as madame guillotine, to
reset the balance, for their number and reach in primarily western first
world countries has become a vast cancer upon humanity.
If one can be reviled by the community and dealt with at Law for a simple
common murder, why can one who abuses the authority of the State, or
delegated thereof, order policies or acts that result in dozens, 100's or
thousands or more deaths of innocents, yet be impune, wholly and forever,
unassailable, unaccountable ?
When exactly was it that Presidents & Prime Ministers once again quietly
assumed the pseudo-Regnum like Majesty & Dictatorial Imperium of Caesars,
Emperors, Kings/Monarchs of history past ?
Had thought the last 'Sun King' was in France ~160 years ago ...
Technology has opened a Pandora's Box of expanding destructive forces &
potentialities at the behest of these psychopaths that, as Karlof1 somewhat
similarly fears, will have a singular end result, if left unchecked.
Do not believe a little pruning of wealth/capital will any longer suffice
... Iceland alone, started tentatively upon the right path, after the GFC.
My views tend towards
pacifism these last many years and am totally opposed to capital punishment
for common criminal acts ... the death of even one innocent due to failures
of the system, injustice, or mere errors, is one life too many, IMV.
Have personally seen the dire consequences of psychopaths & sociopaths,
in Military, Intelligence, Government & Corporate environments, in positions
of leadership/authority. They select alike as near peers and congregate
fellow-travellers, arch-opportunists & sellswords as underlings,
enablers/facilitators.
Yet, long reflection on ... bitter ... experiences, have brought me to a
perceived unpalatable truth, that there likely must be, long overdue, a cull
of the 'Impune', via the tender mercies of such as madame guillotine, to
reset the balance, for their number and reach in primarily western first
world countries has become a vast cancer upon humanity.
If one can be reviled by the community and dealt with at Law for a simple
common murder, why can one who abuses the authority of the State, or
delegated thereof, order policies or acts that result in dozens, 100's or
thousands or more deaths of innocents, yet be impune, wholly and forever,
unassailable, unaccountable ?
When exactly was it that Presidents & Prime Ministers once again quietly
assumed the pseudo-Regnum like Majesty & Dictatorial Imperium of Caesars,
Emperors, Kings/Monarchs of history past ?
Had thought the last 'Sun King' was in France ~160 years ago ...
Technology has opened a Pandora's Box of expanding destructive forces &
potentialities at the behest of these psychopaths that, as Karlof1 somewhat
similarly fears, will have a singular end result, if left unchecked.
Do not believe a little pruning of wealth/capital will any longer suffice
... Iceland alone, started tentatively upon the right path, after the GFC.
"When exactly was it that Presidents & Prime Ministers once
again quietly assumed the pseudo-Regnum like Majesty & Dictatorial Imperium
of Caesars, Emperors, Kings/Monarchs of history past?"
I don't believe the Divine Right of Monarchs was ever completely expunged
as it continued to operate in the shadows until it retuned to the surface at
WW2's end with Truman.
Don't know how much you agree with my assessment above @12, but one of
the smartest people I've ever known--the late Lynn Margulis, Carl Sagan's
first wife, the superior microbiologist who proved symbiosis within species
and agent of evolution to be fact--wrote the forward to the paperback
edition of Morrison's work I cited, agreeing with him.
It's easy to observe and analyze the situation then prescribe the remedy.
But said remedy must be applied by millions of currently very disparate
individuals having almost no solidarity or in agreement about said remedy,
or even knowing a remedy exists. I'd do more, but my responsibilities limit
me to my current activities--writing and exhorting those able to act.
The great irony of our dilemma is humans have overcome Nature in almost
every sphere, yet that triumph is precisely what threatens humanity and the
biota--a triumph driven by Nature itself. So, to overcome our overcoming of
Nature, we must again triumph at overcoming our Human Nature by limiting the
impact of Nature on our actions through the use of a very ancient
technology--culture, by making certain actions by humans taboo and their
violation punishable by death as the Polynesians practiced.
Yes, radical, controversial, requiring a great deal of prior knowledge to
comprehend the logic driving the remedy. Yet, as Spock would say, there it
is: Long life and prosperity lies down remedy's path; massive destruction,
pain and eventual oblivion if the status quo continues.
... it returned to the surface at WW2's end with Truman.
... we must again triumph at overcoming our Human Nature by limiting
the impact of Nature on our actions through the use of a very ancient
technology--culture,
by making certain actions by humans
(Leaders/Leadership) taboo and their violation punishable by death
as the Polynesians practiced.
... massive destruction, pain and eventual oblivion if the status quo
continues.
Concur.
Yet, would take that slightly further re amending formal application of
Law & Sentencing & Punishment.
A number of Navies apply Mandatory MAXIMUM punishments for any offense,
where found guilty, committed outside the parent nations 12 Mile limit, for
good reason re discipline under a Captain's authority ... the ship becomes
the nation and the crew the 'people' thereof and the ultimate survival of
all dependent upon such.
The
greater
the status, rank, education, authority, experience,
length of service of the '
Taboo Breaker,
' (
Leaders/Leadership
),
the less any mitigating circumstances can be considered, and the
proportionally higher the punishment, towards the maximum. Such should be
able to plead no excuse, ignorance or misunderstanding, or lack of
comprehension whatsoever, compared to a 'Constable/Trooper/Sailor/Airman'.
The pyramid of actual accountability & consequent punishment, must be
inverted
, by society.
If one looks carefully throughout humanities recorded history, across
cultures, down thru millennia, sooner or later the stone (
society
)
could be squeezed no further, and there was inevitably blowback and a,
culling.
Yet, since the inter-continent telegraph and the widespread ubiquitous
distribution of the mass 'Press', concurrent with the machinations of the
Bankers & War Profiteers behind the scenes since the late 1800's, IMV, the
ability to manipulate, divide & rule, society has become an artform, ever
accelerating in scope, scale & effectiveness, preventing the necessary
'cull' in the 'International Community' of the 'west'.
IMV, the old grey men may have misunderstood/underestimated the accident
of the 'net, hence desperation of such as ProPornOT etc, which provides
alternate independent voices re communication & re perceived reality ... it
may be enough, a small window of opportunity given the obvious accident of
'Trumps' ascension, to possibly enable a reckoning, there are a few
discordant shrill cries and desperate pleas arising amongst the 'narrative'
from the Globalists/Atlanticists (US/EU/UK/AUS/CAN), to believe & trust TPTB
... but only if there is a true, not faux,
accounting
.
Otherwise, yes, almost inevitably, your last. Faint hope ...
... it returned to the surface at WW2's end with Truman.
... we must again triumph at overcoming our Human Nature by limiting
the impact of Nature on our actions through the use of a very ancient
technology--culture,
by making certain actions by humans
(Leaders/Leadership) taboo and their violation punishable by death
as the Polynesians practiced.
... massive destruction, pain and eventual oblivion if the status quo
continues.
Concur.
Yet, would take that slightly further re amending formal application of
Law & Sentencing & Punishment.
A number of Navies apply Mandatory MAXIMUM punishments for any offense,
where found guilty, committed outside the parent nations 12 Mile limit, for
good reason re discipline under a Captain's authority ... the ship becomes
the nation and the crew the 'people' thereof and the ultimate survival of
all dependent upon such.
The
greater
the status, rank, education, authority, experience,
length of service of the '
Taboo Breaker,
' (
Leaders/Leadership
),
the less any mitigating circumstances can be considered, and the
proportionally higher the punishment, towards the maximum. Such should be
able to plead no excuse, ignorance or misunderstanding, or lack of
comprehension whatsoever, compared to a 'Constable/Trooper/Sailor/Airman'.
The pyramid of actual accountability & consequent punishment, must be
inverted
, by society.
If one looks carefully throughout humanities recorded history, across
cultures, down thru millennia, sooner or later the stone (
society
)
could be squeezed no further, and there was inevitably blowback and a,
culling.
Yet, since the inter-continent telegraph and the widespread ubiquitous
distribution of the mass 'Press', concurrent with the machinations of the
Bankers & War Profiteers behind the scenes since the late 1800's, IMV, the
ability to manipulate, divide & rule, society has become an artform, ever
accelerating in scope, scale & effectiveness, preventing the necessary
'cull' in the 'International Community' of the 'west'.
IMV, the old grey men may have misunderstood/underestimated the accident
of the 'net, hence desperation of such as ProPornOT etc, which provides
alternate independent voices re communication & re perceived reality ... it
may be enough, a small window of opportunity given the obvious accident of
'Trumps' ascension, to possibly enable a reckoning, there are a few
discordant shrill cries and desperate pleas arising amongst the 'narrative'
from the Globalists/Atlanticists (US/EU/UK/AUS/CAN), to believe & trust TPTB
... but only if there is a true, not faux,
accounting
.
Otherwise, yes, almost inevitably, your last. Faint hope ...
"... it may be enough, a small window of opportunity given
the obvious accident of 'Trumps' ascension, to possibly enable a
reckoning..."
Like using The Force to guide a missile into the exhaust shaft of the
Death Star. But that was just one victory amidst many losses prior to the
decapitation of the sole Evil Leader. I believe our task just as daunting
with our enemy best depicted as The Hydra. In both myths, Good triumphed. In
both tales, the multitude of innocents had no idea what was taking place or
why. I don't think we can prevail unless the multitudes know what's
happening and why. All too often they seem to differ little from my
Alzheimer's afflicted mom. But her fate is determined; it's just a matter of
time. Our fate's in the balance, with time being of the essence.
When "the left" endlessly debates which core issues or constituencies must be sacrificed for political
gain, as if economic justice for the poor and the working class could be separated from social
justice for women and people of color and the LGBT community and immigrants and people with disabilities,
it is no longer functioning as the left.
When LGBT claptrap, gluten free food, political correctness and other such niceties beat out programs
to serve the basic needs of the common people nothing "left" is left. The priority on the left must
always be the well-being of the working people. All the other nice-to-have issues follow from and
after that.
Many nominally social-democratic parties in Europe are on the same downward trajectory as the
Democrats in the U.S. for the very same reason. Their real policies are center right. Their marketing
policies hiding the real ones are to care for this or that minority interest or problem the majority
of the people has no reason to care about. Real wages sink but they continue to import cheep labor
(real policy) under the disguise of helping "refugees" (marketing policy) which are simply economic
migrants. (Even parts of the German "Die Linke" party are infected with such nonsense.)
The people with real economic problems, those who have reason to fear the future, have no one
in the traditional political spectrum that even pretends to care about them. Those are the voters
now streaming to the far right. (They will again get screwed. The far right has an economic agenda
that is totally hostile to them. But it at least promises to do something about their fears.) Where
else should they go?
The U.S. Democrats are currently applauding the former United States attorney in Manhattan, Preet
Bharara. The position is a political appointed one. Whoever is appointed serves "at the pleasure
of the President". It is completely normal that people in such positions get replaced when the presidency
changes from one party to the other. The justice department asked Bharara to "voluntary resign".
He rejected that, he was fired.
Oh what a brave man! Applause!
The dude served as United States attorney during the mortgage scams and financial crash. Wall
Street was part of his beat. How many of the involved banksters did he prosecute? Well, exactly zero.
What a hero! How many votes did the Democrats lose because they did not go after the criminals ruling
Wall Street?
Bharara is one reason the Democrats lost the election. Oh yes, he is part of a minority and that
makes him a favorite with the pseudo left Democrats. But he did nothing while millions got robbed.
How can one expect to get votes when one compliments such persons?
But the top reader comments to the New York Times
report on the issue
are full of voices who laud Bharara for his meaning- and useless "resistance"
to Trump.
Those are the "voices of the people" the political functionaries of the Democratic Party want
to read and hear. Likely the only ones. But those are the voices of people (if real at all and not
marketing sock-puppets) who are themselves a tiny, well pampered minority. Not the people one needs
to win elections.
Unless they change their political program (not just its marketing) and unless they go back to
consistently argue for the people in the lower third of the economic scale the Democrats in the U.S.
and the Social-Democrats in Europe will continue to lose voters. The far right will, for lack of
political alternative, be the party that picks up their votes.
I will take your word for it. We don't watch either CNN nor
Fox News at my house. Mostly we watch local (same news and
weather crew here appears on each the WWBT/WRLH local NBC/Fox
affiliates) news with some sampling of MSNBC and Sunday
morning ABC and CBS shows along with the daily half hour of
NBC network following the evening local. Cable news is sort
of an oxymoron given the prevailing editorial slants. The now
retired local TV news anchor Gene Cox laid the groundwork for
the best news team in central VA by setting a high bar at his
station. Gene laid it all out southern fried with satirical
humor and honesty unusual in TV news.
Maybe a post mortem would simply reveal that Democrats should
have had a coherent economic message and pursued a strategy
of standing up for working America for the past 8 years. For
example, having Pelosi demand votes on increasing the minimum
wage as often as Ryan demanded votes on killing Obamacare...
Any honest post mortem would have revealed that standing with
billionaires and the Wall Street banking cartel--and not
prosecuting a single Wall Street banker--is not a winning
strategy...
That Pelosi did not resign immediately following the 2016
election or, not having offered her resignation, that
Congressional Democrats did not demand it is an indication
that the party still has deep-rooted problems. (Pelosi may
not be the cause of those problems but given how badly
they've fared since 2010 she's clearly not the solution. She
has no business remaining as minority leader.) I'm fine with
Perez as DNC chair but Ellison should be minority leader.
David Frum, the excommunicated conservative wrote in 2010:
""The real leaders are on TV and radio"
Bernie Sanders is
the Dems TV leader.
Simple ideas repeated endlessly, easy to memorize slogans
Knows how to manipulate emotions
In the Twitter Age, this is how all successful politicians
must message
Simple
slogans repeated often isn't a new approach to politics. It
goes back well over a century. "Keep it simple and take
credit." Liberals haven't been very good at that in recent
decades. (In contrast, FDR was.) Most people aren't wonks nor
do they desire to become one. Messaging which presumes that
they are or do is not a recipe for success.
Sanders has not "destroyed" the old Democratic Party.
He is a better TV messenger and ambassador to the public
He plays the Paternalistic Grandfather who does not trigger
culture shock among white voters on TV
More like the cranky uncle, whom you had better listen to.
Bernie Sanders is currently the most popular politician in
the United States, by a long shot:
Sanders won New Hampshire, Colorado, Minnesota, Oklahoma,
Vermont, Kansas, Nebraska, Maine, Michigan, Idaho, Utah,
Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Rhode Island,
Indiana, West Virginia, Oregon, Montana, North Dakota.
*and
he was close in many states like losing Massachusetts 606k to
589k. And the entire second half of the primary the DNC was
repeating how Hillary had won mathematically over and over
even though people hadn't voted.
"Sanders has not "destroyed" the old Democratic Party"
No
he is not stupid. What he has done is moving the Overton
window - something that was long overdue. There is definitely
an opening to make ObamaCare the first step towards MediCare
for all (as it always was intended by by all but the
bluedogs). But as good as Sanders is at message and getting
the crowds going, he is going to need help with the
politicking to actually get it done.
I will take your word for it. We don't watch either CNN nor
Fox News at my house. Mostly we watch local (same news and
weather crew here appears on each the WWBT/WRLH local NBC/Fox
affiliates) news with some sampling of MSNBC and Sunday
morning ABC and CBS shows along with the daily half hour of
NBC network following the evening local. Cable news is sort
of an oxymoron given the prevailing editorial slants. The now
retired local TV news anchor Gene Cox laid the groundwork for
the best news team in central VA by setting a high bar at his
station. Gene laid it all out southern fried with satirical
humor and honesty unusual in TV news.
Apparently we have two jokes alternating to lead America: the
Republican jokes vs. the Democratic jokes.
Democrats are a
joke for rallying their elite around a candidate who had huge
negatives and for trying to block more popular candidates
from running.
Democrats are a joke for having to rig the primaries in
favor of a candidate who had already lost in 2008.
Democrats are a joke for refusing to sack a sclerotic,
corrupt, and inept congressional leadership that had lost
three straight elections.
Democrats are a joke for refusing to seize the issue that
had propelled two Democrats into office--it's the economy,
stupid!
Democrats are a joke for pigheadedly refusing to do a post
mortem of their failure and insisting on blaming Putin
instead!
But Democrats are right to expect that, when two jokes vie
for power, their turn as joke in power will eventually come.
JohnH -> mulp...
, -1
Maybe a post mortem would simply reveal that Democrats should
have had a coherent economic message and pursued a strategy
of standing up for working America for the past 8 years. For
example, having Pelosi demand votes on increasing the minimum
wage as often as Ryan demanded votes on killing Obamacare...
Any honest post mortem would have revealed that standing with
billionaires and the Wall Street banking cartel--and not
prosecuting a single Wall Street banker--is not a winning
strategy...
"... Why should anyone in the working or middle class believe that voting for a Democrat is in their interest given the way in which the Democratic Party has been co-opted by the neoliberal ideology that brought us the draconian social welfare and irresponsible financial deregulatory legislation of the 1990s that led to the Crash of 2008? ..."
"... Why would they rally around a candidate who had lost the 2008 primary and who could barely win in 2016 without the party's rigging the primaries in her favor? ..."
"... Why would their candidate refuse to offer any kind of coherent message around the issue that propelled her two Democratic predecessors into office--it's the economy, stupid? ..."
"... As Blackford says, "the main story is the incompetence of the Democrats." The only question is whether their incompetence is willful or not. ..."
"... Wall Street supplied the money. ..."
"... LOL! A centrist party that has been triangulating -- chasing oligarch tail -- for decades. The 2018 election is going to provide me some excellent schadenfreude. ..."
False symmetry may be a part
of the story, but the main story is the incompetence of the Democrats. There was a 20
percentage point shift away from Democrats in Michigan from 2008 to 2016, a14 pp shift in
Pennsylvania, a 24 pp shift in Iowa, a 15 pp shift in Ohio, and a 24 pp shift in Indiana.
Does anyone really believe these kinds of shifts from Obama to Trump and third party
candidates can be explained in terms of racism and bigotry or voters failing to understand
that they were voting against their own interests because of Republican flimflam?
The real question is: Why should those who shifted from Obama to Trump and third parties
have believed it would have been in their interest to vote for Hillary given her ties to
Wall Street and the way in which the Democrats abandoned home owners and bailed out Wall
Street during the crisis?
Why should anyone in the working or middle class believe that voting for a Democrat is
in their interest given the way in which the Democratic Party has been co-opted by the
neoliberal ideology that brought us the draconian social welfare and irresponsible
financial deregulatory legislation of the 1990s that led to the Crash of 2008?
Re: "Do you think Clinton is more Wall Street than Trump?"
It's not about what I think. It's about what the voters
think. For what it's worth, I think it is quite clear that
those voters who voted for Obama in 2008 and switched to
Trump in 2016 are grasping at straws, and they did that
because they saw no hope in voting for the Democratic Party.
As for: "Clinton staved off a crash in the 90s by high
taxes." I think you are a bit confused on this. Not only was
the deregulation signed into law by Clinton responsible for
the Crash in 2008, his appointment of Greenspan facilitated
the dotcom and telecom bubbles of the 1990s, the bursting of
which led to the 2001 recession:
http://www.rweconomics.com/htm/Ch_1.htm
The real question is why do "voters want the free lunch of
tax cuts"? The reason is that Democratic Party, starting with
the Clintons, bought into the neoliberal ideology championed
by the Democratic Leadership Council and have refused to
challenge the Republican's free lunch arguments and tell the
voters that government programs are essential to our
economic, social, and political wellbeing and that they have
to be payid for. I believe that I have explained this quit
well in:
http://www.rweconomics.com/Deficit.htm
You really have to wonder if Democrats are trying to lose.
Why else would the party's elite rally around a candidate
who had huge negatives and try to block anyone else from
running?
Why would they rally around a candidate who had lost the
2008 primary and who could barely win in 2016 without the
party's rigging the primaries in her favor?
Why would they refuse to sack an inept congressional
leadership that had lost three straight elections?
Why would their candidate refuse to offer any kind of
coherent message around the issue that propelled her two
Democratic predecessors into office--it's the economy,
stupid?
Why would the pigheadedly refuse to do a post mortem of
their failure and insist on blaming Putin instead?
As Blackford says, "the main story is the incompetence of
the Democrats." The only question is whether their
incompetence is willful or not.
"Other than a insignificant number of insane people, no one
voted fro Obama and then voted for Trump"
LOL!!! According
to EMichael, lots of Rust Belt voters must be
insane...exactly the kind of disdain and disparagement that
made them switch their vote in the first place.
EMichael, ever the partisan hack, still can't come to
terms with the fact that Obama and Hillary ignored the
concerns working class voters...the real reason they voted
for Trump.
Could EMichael's delusional denial be characterized as
insanity? Or just a partisan hack ineptly doing his job?
The reason I post all this BS is that as far as I can see,
the only hope for the country is for the DAs in the
Democratic Party to wake up and face reality.
I fear that if Democrats' do not wake up and they continue
down the same neoliberal path they have been traveling since
Carter--a path that led directly to Trump--even if we survive
Trump and Democrats do regain power again, the demigod that
follows the disaster that results is going to be even worse
than Trump:
http://www.rweconomics.com/LTLGAD.htm
"There is no fun in being in the middle, yet that is where
the ability to wield power and effectively governing resides:
in the middle. It's not pretty. it's not graceful. America
exists as it does today only because we have been able to
compromise for a long time. It's that ability to comprise
that has been lost in great volume."
You seem to be missing
my point: TRUMP IS PRESIDENT!
The things we are taking from the right DON'T WORK!
LOL!
A centrist party that has been triangulating -- chasing
oligarch tail -- for decades.
The 2018 election is going to
provide me some excellent schadenfreude.
Not exactly: "even if we survive Trump and Democrats do
regain power again, the demigod that follows the disaster
that results is going to be even worse than Trump."
If a
Democrat follows Trump, his/her job will be to normalize and
put a bipartisan imprimatur on what Trump did. That was
Obama's role on many issues, including torture, Guantanamo,
and NSA spying.
Getting along is exactly what Bill Clinton did and it led
to 2008. It's also what Pelosi and Obama did and it led to
the loss of congress. It's also what more-of-the-same Hillary
promised to do, and it led to Trump.(
http://www.rweconomics.com/blame.htm
)
Fat chance! "the only hope to avoid another disaster in the
future is for the Democrats to move the center back to a
point where it is possible avoid an even worse disaster."
The DNC is adamant about NOT learning any lessons from their
election debacle. But they are counting on Republicans to
screw up so that they can have their turn in power.
Still waiting for any evidence to appear that Russians interfered with the elections or colluded with Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... The FBI did wiretap Trump Tower to monitor Russian activity, but it had nothing to do with the 2016 Presidential election, it has been reported. ..."
"... The Dems who were all for collecting on everyone can't (non-hypocritically) complain about Trump having all that now. I mean, we can never know how far the extremist have penetrated into our government unless we trace where all that Saudi money terrorist influence goes. ..."
"... The surveillance state bites the politicians that created it in the ass. I love that. They are not happy, I love that too. ..."
"... It was already a farce when McCain went after Paul. Though it was, before that, a horror film, with the 'ways the intelligence community can get you.' ..."
"... It is a satire, wrapped in a parody, hidden in slapstick, on top of a farce, buried in a bro-mance between a man with a tower and another man riding a horse without a shirt (and the man isn't wearing a shirt either .) ..."
"... Revealing this is treason. ..."
"... People will die. ..."
"... I agree that everybody is surveilled all the time, especially in the Beltway, where probably there are multiple simultaneous operations run against . well, everybody. ..."
There's also
this showing evidence that Trump Tower was specifically monitored during the Obama administration, although the probe was targeting
Russian mafia and not Trump and was done well before he declared his candidacy.
The FBI did wiretap Trump Tower to monitor Russian activity, but it had nothing to do with the 2016 Presidential election,
it has been reported.
Between 2011 and 2013 the Bureau had a warrant to spy on a high-level criminal Russian money-laundering ring, which operated
in unit 63A of the iconic skyscraper - three floors below Mr Trump's penthouse.
Not exactly a confirmation of Trump's rather wild claims, but something. Still waiting for any evidence to appear that
Russians interfered with the elections or colluded with Trump.
Ok, so they were just after the Russian mafia, phew I feel better already. So they got the felons and they are all arrested?
What utter BS! Why is Semion Mogilevitch still at large in Hungary and no extradition process? What about Felix Sater and Steve
Wynn and on and on. Why are they incapable of prosecuting mafia mobsters and instead chasing politicians?
That said, it was what happening potentially to all citizens, not just Donald Trump. I dislike this intensely, but why should
Trump get special dispensation over other citizens? Would like to know the reason for that.
Like Watergate, it's really about the denial or the lying. "When did you know about the, er, collecting?" For how many
days have we ridiculed Trump for his alternative universe imagination?
> He can join the other 310 million of us who can be "incidentally collected".
Didn't your mother tell you that 310 million wrongs don't make a right? Neither party establishment cares about that
quaint concept, civil liberties. If Obama's flip flip on FISA reform in July 2008, giving the Telco's retroactive immunity for
Bush's warrantless surveillance, didn't convince you, then his 17-city paramilitary crackdown on Occupy should have.
Not to mention monitoring a politician opens up a whole new can of worms. I'm convinced Trump must pretty clean relatively
because the IC hasn't gotten rid of him yet and you know they have all of his communications.
I'm with Lambert on neither party caring. I knew all I needed to when Obama voted for FISA and the following years just reinforced
how corrupt the Dems were. There is an import point here though. I don't think Trump would have thought that all of the surveillance
would be applied to him personally. It was just about other people. It was probably a legitimate eye opener. Now Trump is at the
head of the surveillance apparatus. Instead of asking Wikileaks to release all of Clintons emails, he should just do it himself.
The Dems who were all for collecting on everyone can't (non-hypocritically) complain about Trump having all that now. I
mean, we can never know how far the extremist have penetrated into our government unless we trace where all that Saudi
money terrorist influence goes.
Not just incidental, in Congressional hearings, Comey flat out says that Trump and his team were investigated for Russian connections,
and that none were found. The question now is was the investigations properly secured or not. Something completely in the air.
But team Dem is still playing the "wire tap" canad.
It is a satire, wrapped in a parody, hidden in slapstick, on top of a farce, buried in a bro-mance between a man with a
tower and another man riding a horse without a shirt (and the man isn't wearing a shirt either .)
Ordinary Internet users, American and non-American alike, far outnumber legally targeted foreigners in the communications
intercepted by the National Security Agency from U.S. digital networks, according to a four-month investigation by The Washington
Post.
Nine of 10 account holders found in a large cache of intercepted conversations, which former NSA contractor Edward Snowden
provided in full to The Post, were not the intended surveillance targets but were caught in a net the agency had cast for somebody
else.
And what was the reaction of many Congresspersons
(including many Dems, and all of the GOP except maybe Rand Paul and Justin Amash)? Revealing this is treason. People will die.
And Trump's CIA Director, Mike Pompeo, has called for Snowden's execution.
Sorry allan – I got all excited at seeing a Nunes article in ZeroHedge and posted a comment – your article is better and it
makes for more coherent comment threads to keep them together – I should have looked before I leaped (posted).
Nunes: "I recently confirmed that, on numerous occasions, the Intelligence Community incidentally collected information about
U.S. citizens involved in the Trump transition.
Details about U.S. persons associated with the incoming administration-details with little or no apparent foreign intelligence
value-were widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting.
I have confirmed that additional names of Trump transition team members were unmasked.
To be clear, none of this surveillance was related to Russia or any investigation of Russian activities or of the Trump team."
==============================================
So the worm turns. The hypocrisy espoused by all sides is ..well, 11th dimensional.
fresno dan, this was a major topic of discussion during the committee hearing with Comey and Rogers on Monday. I listened to
the whole thing – all five hours and 18 minutes' worth – because I suspected that the corporate media would omit important details
or spin it beyond recognition. And so they did.
The bipartisan divide is being portrayed as Democrats wanting to get to the truth of Russian efforts to snuff out Democracy,
and Republicans wanting to "plug leaks" (see Lambert's RCP except above), with some reports suggesting the Rs are advocating stifling
free speech, prosecuting reporters for publishing classified information, and the like.
Republican committee members were indeed focused on the leaks, and there was talk about how to prevent them, but their concern
– at least as they expressed publicly on Monday – was specifically related to whether all those current and former officials,
senior officials, etc., quoted anonymously in the NYT and WaPo (the infamous "nine current and former officials, who were in senior
positions at multiple agencies") violated FISA provisions protecting information about U.S. persons collected incidentally in
surveillance of foreign actors.
Sure, they're playing their own game, and it could be a ruse to divert attention from the Trump campaign's alleged Russian
ties or simply to have ammo against the Ds. Even so, after listening to all their arguments, I believe they are on more solid
ground than all the Dem hysteria about Russian aggression and Trump camp treason.
I don't think I'll ever get Trey Gowdy's cringe-worthy performance during the Benghazi hearings out of my head, but he made
some pretty good points on Monday, one of which was that investigating Russian interference and possible ties between Trump advisers
and Russia is all well and good, but there may or may not have been any laws broken; whereas leaking classified information about
U.S. citizens collected incidentally under FISA is clearly a felony with up to 10 years. Comey confirmed that by saying that ALL
information collected under FISA is classified.
And then he repeatedly refused to say whether he thought any classified information had been leaked or existed at all (I counted
more than 100 "no comment" answers from Comey, who astonishingly managed to find 50 different ways to say it).
My beef isn't so much the leak of classified information, but the gross dereliction of duty – if not outright abuse of First
Amendment powers – by reporters who collaborate with intelligence agencies and then quote them anonymously, giving everyone cover
to say or write whatever they want with zero accountability.
In fact, there were some interesting comments in Monday's hearing about the possibility that some of what has been reported
was fabricated. Then, you might expect Comey to say something like that. For all his talk about not tolerating leaks from his
agency, blahblah, it was clear that he'll provide his own people with cover, if necessary. I think that's what Gowdy and a couple
other Republicans were getting at.
It goes without saying, but I'll add that the Dems were hardly even trying to disguise their real goal, which isn't protecting
the American People® from the evil Russkies, but taking down Trump.
Thanks for watching the whole thing – the nation owes you a debt of gratitude.
"My beef isn't so much the leak of classified information, but the gross dereliction of duty – if not outright abuse of First
Amendment powers – by reporters who collaborate with intelligence agencies and then quote them anonymously, giving everyone cover
to say or write whatever they want with zero accountability."
First, I a squillion percent agree with you. This is a big, bit deal because essentially the military/IC/neocons is trying
to wrest control of the civilian government – the idea that the CIA is some noble institution that wants the best for all Americans
is preposterous, yet accepted by the media, which proves how much propaganda we are fed. The sheep like following, the mandatory
use of the adjective "murderous thug" before the name of "Putin" just shows that most of the media has been bought off or has
lost all their critical thinking faculties.
But I also don't want to be a hypocrite so I will explain that I don't have too much of a problem with leaks. WHAT I do have
a problem with is the purposeful naivete or ignorance of the media that the CIA and/or facets of the Obama administration is trying
to thwart rapprochement with Russia. Administrations BEFORE they are sworn in talk to foreign governments – the sheer HYSTERIA,
the CRIME of talking to a Russian is beyond absurd. We are being indoctrinated to believe all Russia, all bad
There is a ton of information about Podesta and the Clintons dealing with Russia for money. If Flynn and whatshisname are just
grifting that is pedestrian stuff and everybody in Washington does it (I thing they call it "lobbying"). If there is REAL treason
something should have come out by now.
I began covering congressional hearings while I was still in j-school and sat though many like this during my years as a reporter
in D.C. Even though I haven't worked as a full-time journalist for many years, I still prefer original sources and am willing
to take the time to dig for them or, in this case, to sit through a hearing as though I were covering it as a member of the press
– especially when I don't even have to wash my hair or get dressed!
I didn't mean to imply that I have a problem with leaks. I certainly encouraged enough of them in my time, and I don't think
there's anything inherently wrong with publishing leaked material, even certain kinds of classified information. It depends.
There's the kind of "classified" information that is restricted expressly to keep the public from knowing something they have
a right to know, and there's information that's classified to protect individual privacy. The first kind should be leaked early
and often. The second kind, close to never (and off the top of my head I can't think of an instance when it would be OK).
Even though journalists aren't (and shouldn't be) held liable for publishing classified information given to them by a third
party, they need to be scrupulous in their decisions to do so. Is it in the public interest? Who or what might be harmed? Would
sitting on the information cause more harm than publicizing it? Does it violate someone's constitutional rights?
These questions can get tricky with someone like Flynn, who's clearly a public figure and thus mostly fair game. However, if
I had been reporting that story, I think I would have sat on it until I had more information, even at the risk of getting scooped
– unless, of course, I was in cahoots with the leakers and out to get him and his boss.
At that point, I am no longer an objective journalist committed to fair and accurate reporting, but a participant in a political
cause. Although newspapers throughout history have taken sides, and pure "fact-based" journalism is a myth, there's a big difference
between having an editorial slant and being an active participant in the story. Evidently, BezPo has decided that the latter is
not only acceptable, but advantageous.
Sorry, didn't mean to ramble on when I'm likely preaching to the converted. I feel very strongly about this issue, and it's
disconcerting to me, as a lifelong Democrat, that I agreed more with the Republicans in that hearing. At the same time, the D's
propaganda machine is pumping out so much toxic fog that it's shaking my faith in unfettered freedom of the press.
> I began covering congressional hearings while I was still in j-school and sat though many like this during my years as a
reporter in D.C. Even though I haven't worked as a full-time journalist for many years, I still prefer original sources and am
willing to take the time to dig for them
I agree that everybody is surveilled all the time, especially in the Beltway, where probably there are multiple simultaneous
operations run against . well, everybody.
It doesn't, er, bug me that 70-year-old Beltway neophyte Trump used sloppy language - "wiretap" - to describe this state of
affairs. (I don't expect any kind of language from Trump but sloppy.) All are, therefore one is. It does bug me that
the whole discussion gets dragged off into legal technicalities about what legal regimen is appropriate for which form of Fourth
Amendment-destruction (emptywheel does this a lot). The rules are insanely complicated, and it's fun to figure them out, rather
like taking the cover off the back of a Swiss watch and examining all the moving parts. But the assumption is that people follow
the rules, and especially that high-level people (like, say, Comey, or Clapper, or Morrel, or Obama) follow the complicated rules.
That assumes facts not in evidence.
Incidental collection was always a likely scenario.
We've also seen statements from people like GHCQ that clains they surveilled Trump at Obama's behest were "absurd," but those
are non-denial denials. I can't recall a denial denial. Am I missing something?
"... "There's been a real evolution," Philippe Renault-Guillemet, the retired head of a small manufacturing company, said as he handed out National Front leaflets in the market on a recent day. "A few years ago, they would insult us. It's changed ..."
"... With a month to go, the signs are mixed. Many voters, particularly affluent ones, at markets here and farther up the coast betray a traditional distaste for the far-right party. Yet others once repelled by a party with a heritage rooted in France's darkest political traditions - anti-Semitism, xenophobia and a penchant for the fist - are considering it. ..."
"... French politics are particularly volatile this election season. Traditional power centers - the governing Socialists and the center-right Republicans - are in turmoil. Ms. Le Pen's chief rival, Emmanuel Macron, is a youthful and untested politician running at the head of a new party. ..."
"... Those uncertainties - and a nagging sense that mainstream parties have failed to offer solutions to France's economic anemia - have left the National Front better positioned than at any time in its 45-year history. ..."
"... Frédéric Boccaletti, the party's leader in the Var, knows exactly what needs to be done. Last week, he and his fellow National Front activists gathered for an evening planning session in La Seyne-Sur-Mer, a working-class port town devastated by the closing of centuries-old naval shipyards nearly 20 years ago. Mr. Boccaletti, who is running for Parliament, keeps his headquarters here. ..."
"... It is not unlike the strategy that President Trump applied in the United States by campaigning in blue-collar, Democratic strongholds in rust-belt Ohio. No one thought he stood a chance there. Yet he won. ..."
"... "Now, we've got doctors, lawyers, the liberal professions with us," Mr. Boccaletti said. "Since the election of Marine" to the party's presidency in 2011, "it's all changed. ..."
"... The backlash against neoliberal globalization creates very strange alliances indeed. That was already visible during the last Presidential elections. When a considerable part of lower middle class professionals (including women) voted against Hillary. ..."
"... As Fred noted today (Why did so many white women vote for Donald Trump http://for.tn/2f51y7s ) there were many Trump supporters among white women with the college degree, for which Democrats identity politics prescribed voting for Hillary. ..."
"... I think this tendency might only became stronger in the next elections: neoliberal globalization is now viewed as something detrimental to the country future and current economic prosperity by many, usually not allied, segments of population. ..."
As French Election Nears, Le Pen Targets Voters Her Party Once Repelled
By ADAM NOSSITER
MARCH 19, 2017
SANARY-SUR-MER, France - The National Front's leafleteers are no longer spat upon. Its local
candidate's headquarters sit defiantly in a fraying Muslim neighborhood. And last week, Marine
Le Pen, the party's leader, packed thousands into a steamy meeting hall nearby for a pugnacious
speech mocking "the system" and vowing victory in this spring's French presidential election.
"There's been a real evolution," Philippe Renault-Guillemet, the retired head of a small
manufacturing company, said as he handed out National Front leaflets in the market on a recent
day. "A few years ago, they would insult us. It's changed."
It has long been accepted wisdom that Ms. Le Pen and her far-right party can make it through
the first round of the presidential voting on April 23, when she and four other candidates will
be on the ballot, but that she will never capture the majority needed to win in a runoff in May.
But a visit to this southeastern National Front stronghold suggests that Ms. Le Pen may be
succeeding in broadening her appeal to the point where a victory is more plausible, even if the
odds are still stacked against her.
With a month to go, the signs are mixed. Many voters, particularly affluent ones, at markets
here and farther up the coast betray a traditional distaste for the far-right party. Yet others
once repelled by a party with a heritage rooted in France's darkest political traditions - anti-Semitism,
xenophobia and a penchant for the fist - are considering it.
"I've said several times I would do it, but I've never had the courage," Christian Pignol,
a vendor of plants and vegetables at the Bandol market, said about voting for the National Front.
"This time may be the good one."
"It's the fear of the unknown," he continued, as several fellow vendors nodded. "People would
like to try it, but they are afraid. But maybe it's the solution. We've tried everything for 30,
40 years. We'd like to try it, but we're also afraid."
French politics are particularly volatile this election season. Traditional power centers
- the governing Socialists and the center-right Republicans - are in turmoil. Ms. Le Pen's chief
rival, Emmanuel Macron, is a youthful and untested politician running at the head of a new party.
Those uncertainties - and a nagging sense that mainstream parties have failed to offer
solutions to France's economic anemia - have left the National Front better positioned than at
any time in its 45-year history.
But if it is to win nationally, the party must do much better than even the 49 percent support
it won in this conservative Var department, home to three National Front mayors, in elections
in 2015. More critically, it must turn once-hostile areas of the country in Ms. Le Pen's favor
and attract new kinds of voters - professionals and the upper and middle classes. Political analysts
are skeptical.
Frédéric Boccaletti, the party's leader in the Var, knows exactly what needs to be done.
Last week, he and his fellow National Front activists gathered for an evening planning session
in La Seyne-Sur-Mer, a working-class port town devastated by the closing of centuries-old naval
shipyards nearly 20 years ago. Mr. Boccaletti, who is running for Parliament, keeps his headquarters
here.
"I'm telling you, you've got to go to the difficult neighborhoods - it's not what you think,"
Mr. Boccaletti told them, laughing slyly. "Our work has got to be in the areas that have resisted
us most" - meaning the coast's more affluent areas.
It is not unlike the strategy that President Trump applied in the United States by campaigning
in blue-collar, Democratic strongholds in rust-belt Ohio. No one thought he stood a chance there.
Yet he won.
"Now, we've got doctors, lawyers, the liberal professions with us," Mr. Boccaletti said.
"Since the election of Marine" to the party's presidency in 2011, "it's all changed."
The backlash against neoliberal globalization creates very strange alliances indeed. That
was already visible during the last Presidential elections. When a considerable part of lower
middle class professionals (including women) voted against Hillary.
As Fred noted today (Why did so many white women vote for Donald Trump
http://for.tn/2f51y7s ) there were many Trump
supporters among white women with the college degree, for which Democrats identity politics prescribed
voting for Hillary.
I think this tendency might only became stronger in the next elections: neoliberal globalization
is now viewed as something detrimental to the country future and current economic prosperity by
many, usually not allied, segments of population.
"... Clinton's time is passed. Her view of "common ground" is still based in the 20th century and the Third Way neoliberal politics she and her husband helped create. That era is over. ..."
"... Why won't she just go off and become a professor somewhere, like Dukakis did? ..."
"... Hillary like bill never feels guilt. Only ambition. They are monsters ..."
Hillary Clinton Says She's
'Ready to Come Out of the Woods' https://nyti.ms/2nCIzGS
NYT - AP - March 17
SCRANTON, Pa. - Hillary Clinton said Friday she's "ready to come out of the woods" and help
Americans find common ground.
Clinton's gradual return to the public spotlight following her presidential election loss continued
with a St. Patrick's Day speech in her late father's Pennsylvania hometown of Scranton.
"I'm like a lot of my friends right now, I have a hard time watching the news," Clinton told
an Irish women's group.
But she urged a divided country to work together to solve problems, recalling how, as first
lady, she met with female leaders working to bring peace to Northern Ireland.
"I do not believe that we can let political divides harden into personal divides. And we can't
just ignore, or turn a cold shoulder to someone because they disagree with us politically," she
said.
Friday night's speech was one of several she is to deliver in the coming months, including
a May 26 commencement address at her alma mater, Wellesley College in Massachusetts. The Democrat
also is working on a book of personal essays that will include some reflections on her loss to
Donald Trump.
Clinton, who was spotted taking a walk in the woods around her hometown of Chappaqua, New York,
two days after losing the election to Donald Trump, quipped she had wanted to stay in the woods,
"but you can only do so much of that."
She told the Society of Irish Women that it'll be up to citizens, not a deeply polarized Washington,
to bridge the political divide.
"I am ready to come out of the woods and to help shine a light on what is already happening
around kitchen tables, at dinners like this, to help draw strength that will enable everybody
to keep going," said Clinton. ...
(As you may recall HRC won the popular vote,
and also 472 counties which generate
64% of the US GDP.)
... Our observation: The less-than-500 counties that Hillary Clinton carried nationwide encompassed
a massive 64 percent of America's economic activity as measured by total output in 2015. By contrast,
the more-than-2,600 counties that Donald Trump won generated just 36 percent of the country's
output-just a little more than one-third of the nation's economic activity. ...
Clinton's time is passed. Her view of "common ground" is still based in the 20th century and
the Third Way neoliberal politics she and her husband helped create. That era is over.
Why won't she just go off and become a professor somewhere, like Dukakis did?
"... British and Dutch intelligence were apparently discreetly queried regarding possible derogatory intelligence on the Trump campaign's links to Russia and they responded by providing information detailing meetings in Europe. ..."
The campaign to link Trump to Russia also increased in
intensity, including statements by multiple former and
current intelligence agency heads regarding the reality of
the Russian threat and the danger of electing a president who
would ignore that reality. It culminated in ex-CIA Acting
Director Michael Morell's claim that Trump was "an unwitting
agent of the Russian Federation."
British and Dutch intelligence were apparently discreetly
queried regarding possible derogatory intelligence on the
Trump campaign's links to Russia and they responded by
providing information detailing meetings in Europe.
Hundreds of self-described GOP foreign policy "experts"
signed letters stating that they opposed Trump's candidacy
and the mainstream media was unrelentingly hostile.
Leading Republicans refused to endorse Trump and some,
like Senators John McCain, Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham,
cited his connections to Russia.
"Certainly there are some people in the Democratic Party
who want to maintain the status quo. They would rather go
down with the Titanic so long as they have first-class
seats." Bernie Sanders to NY Times Magazine's Charlie Homans
The New Party of No
How a president and a protest movement transformed the
Democrats.
By CHARLES HOMANS
I asked [Bernie Sanders] if he thought the Democratic
Party knew what it stood for. "You're asking a good question,
and I can't give you a definitive answer," he said.
"Certainly there are some people in the Democratic Party who
want to maintain the status quo. They would rather go down
with the Titanic so long as they have first-class seats." ...
Everyone loves Bernie Sanders. Except, it seems, the
Democratic party
A new poll found he is the most popular politician in
America. But instead of embracing his message, establishment
Democrats continue to resist him
By Trevor Timm - Guardian
If you look at the numbers, Bernie Sanders is the most
popular politician in America – and it's not even close. Yet
bizarrely, the Democratic party – out of power across the
country and increasingly irrelevant – still refuses to
embrace him and his message. It's increasingly clear they do
so at their own peril.
A new Fox News poll out this week shows Sanders has a +28
net favorability rating among the US population, dwarfing all
other elected politicians on both ends of the political
spectrum. And he's even more popular among the vaunted
"independents", where he is at a mind boggling +41.
This poll is not just an aberration. Look at this
Huffington Post chart that has tracked Sanders' favorability
rating over time, ever since he gained national prominence in
2015 when he started running for the Democratic nomination.
The more people got to know him, they more they liked him –
the exact opposite of what his critics said would happen when
he was running against Clinton.
One would think with numbers like that, Democratic
politicians would be falling all over themselves to be
associated with Sanders, especially considering the party as
a whole is more unpopular than the Republicans and even
Donald Trump right now. Yet instead of embracing his message,
the establishment wing of the party continues to resist him
at almost every turn, and they seem insistent that they don't
have to change their ways to gain back the support of huge
swaths of the country.
Politico ran a story just this week featuring Democratic
officials fretting over the fact that Sanders supporters may
upend their efforts to retake governorships in southern
states by insisting those candidates adopt Sanders' populist
policies – seemingly oblivious to the fact that Sanders plays
well in some of those states too.
Sanders' effect on Trump voters can be seen in a gripping
town hall this week that MSNBC's Chris Hayes hosted with him
in West Virginia – often referred to as "Trump country" –
where the crowd ended up giving him a rousing ovation after
he talked about healthcare being a right of all people and
that we are the only industrialized nation in the world who
doesn't provide healthcare as a right to all its people.
But hand wringing by Democratic officials over 2018
candidates is really just the latest example: the
establishment wing of the party aggressively ran another
opponent against Keith Ellison, Sanders' choice to run the
Democratic National Committee, seemingly with the primary
motivation to keep the party away from Sanders' influence.
They've steadfastly refused to take giant corporations
head on in the public sphere and wouldn't even return to an
Obama-era rule that banned lobbyist money from funding the
DNC that was rescinded last year. And despite the broad
popularity of the government guaranteeing health care for
everyone, they still have not made any push for a
Medicare-for-all plan that Sanders has long called for as a
rebuttal to Republicans' attempt to dismantle Obamacare.
Democrats seem more than happy to put all the blame of the
2016 election on a combination of Russia and James Comey and
have engaged in almost zero introspection on the root causes
of the larger reality: they are also out of power in not the
presidency, but both also houses of Congress, governorships
and state houses across the country as well.
As Politico reported on the Democrats' post-Trump strategy
in February, "Democratic aides say they will eventually shift
to a positive economic message that Rust Belt Democrats can
run on". However: "For now, aides say, the focus is on
slaying the giant and proving to the voters who sent Trump
into the White House why his policies will fail."
In other words, they're doubling down on the exact same
failing strategy that Clinton used in the final months of the
campaign. Sanders himself put it this wayin his usual blunt
style in an interview with New York magazine this week – when
asked about whether the Democrats can adapt to the political
reality, he said: "There are some people in the Democratic
Party who want to maintain the status quo. They would rather
go down with the Titanic so long as they have first-class
seats." ...
Krugman and Vox have been attacking Sanders regularly on
behalf of the establishment Democrats.
I thought it was
interesting that PGL and Sanjait said they don't agree with
Krugman's latest blog post, but they refuse to discuss
exactly why Krugman is wrong.
"This ties in with an important recent piece by Zack
Beauchamp on the striking degree to which left-wing economics
fails, in practice, to counter right-wing populism;
basically, Sandersism has failed everywhere it has been
tried. Why?
The answer, presumably, is that what we call populism is
really in large degree white identity politics, which can't
be addressed by promising universal benefits. Among other
things, these "populist" voters now live in a media bubble,
getting their news from sources that play to their
identity-politics desires, which means that even if you offer
them a better deal, they won't hear about it or believe it if
told. For sure many if not most of those who gained health
coverage thanks to Obamacare have no idea that's what
happened.
That said, taking the benefits away would probably get
their attention, and maybe even open their eyes to the extent
to which they are suffering to provide tax cuts to the rich.
In Europe, right-wing parties probably don't face the same
dilemma; they're preaching herrenvolk social democracy, a
welfare state but only for people who look like you. In
America, however, Trump_vs_deep_state is faux populism that appeals to
white identity but actually serves plutocrats. That
fundamental contradiction is now out in the open."
"Certainly there are some people in the Democratic Party who
want to maintain the status quo. They would rather go down
with the Titanic so long as they have first-class seats."
CIA and militarism loving Democrats are what is called Vichy left...
Notable quotes:
"... "Apparently, most Democrats are now defending the CIA [and bashing the US constitution] and trashing WikiLeaks (who have never had to retract a single story in all their years). The brainwashing is complete. Take a valium and watch your Rachel Maddow [read your poor pk]. I can no longer help you. You have become The Borg." ..."
"... There is a large amount of ground between being a Victoria Nuland neocon hawk going around picking unnecessary fights with Russia and engaging in aggression overt or covert against her or her allies ..."
"... I happen to support reasonable engagement with Russia on matters of mutual interest, and I think there are many of those. I do not support cheerleading when Russia commits aggression against neighbors, which it has, and then lies about it. There is a middle ground, but you and ilsm both seem to have let your brains fall out of your heads onto the sidewalk and then stepped on them hard regarding all this. ..."
"... US Deep state analogy to Stalin's machinations against his rivals seems reasonable. ..."
"Apparently, most Democrats are now defending the CIA [and bashing the US constitution] and
trashing WikiLeaks (who have never had to retract a single story in all their years). The brainwashing
is complete. Take a valium and watch your Rachel Maddow [read your poor pk]. I can no longer help
you. You have become The Borg."
I am going to make one more point, a substantive one. There is a large amount of ground between
being a Victoria Nuland neocon hawk going around picking unnecessary fights with Russia and engaging
in aggression overt or covert against her or her allies and simply rolling over to be a patsy
for the worst fort of RT propaganda and saying that there is no problem whatsoever with having
a president who is in deep financial hock to a murderous lying Russian president and who has made
inane and incomprehensible remarks about this, along with having staff and aides who lie to the
public about their dealings with people from Russia.
I happen to support reasonable engagement with Russia on matters of mutual interest, and I
think there are many of those. I do not support cheerleading when Russia commits aggression against
neighbors, which it has, and then lies about it. There is a middle ground, but you and ilsm both
seem to have let your brains fall out of your heads onto the sidewalk and then stepped on them
hard regarding all this.
If you find this offensive or intimidating, anne, sorry, but I am not going to apologize. Frankly,
I think you should apologize for the stupid and offensive things you have said on this subject,
about which I do not think you have the intimately personal knowledge that I have.
Reply Wednesday, March 08, 2017 at 12:36 AM
My dear interlocutor
As a once overt and future sleeper cell Stalinist
I'm perplexed by your artful use of Stalinist
In my experience that label was restricted to pinko circles notably
Trotskyists pinning the dirty tag on various shades of commie types
On the other side of the great divide of the early thirties
Buy you --
To you it seems synonymous with Orwellian demons of all stripes
a) In the 70s, a Dem congress began deregulating the financial system with the help of a Dem
president.
b) In the 80s, a Dem congress continued deregulation and cut taxes on the rich, increased taxes
on the not so rich, cut SS benefits and essential government programs, and abandoned the unions.
c) In the 90s, a Dem president reappointed Greenspan to the Fed, further deregulated and cut
essential programs, and signed draconian crime, welfare, and student loan bills into law.
d) In 07, the Dems took back the congress and did nothing to hold accountable those who had
led us into a war under false pretenses, turned us into a nation of torturers, and politicized
the Justice Department as the concentration of income rose until the economy blew up in the fall
of 08.
e) In 09 the Dems took complete control of the federal government and ignored students and
homeowners as they bailed out the banks, passed a Heritage Foundation healthcare plan championed
by the insurance and drug companies as incomes and wages plummeted.
The working and middle classes were decimated throughout this process, and, somehow, it's the
voters' fault we ended up with a throw the bums out Trump instead of a more of the same Hillary?
I don't think so!
"The obvious solution for rising healthcare costs is either a public option or extending
Medicare to younger and younger people, but Democrats, other than Sanders, refuse to offer
or defend these solutions."
Medicare for all was not offered because politically it was a non-starter. The public option
was offered and once the Republicans (and Democrats who might as well be Republicans) realized
what it meant (out-competing insurance companies) they opposed it.
people who try to equate these class traitors to all democrats are carrying their water.
[[House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) pledged at the time that the House bill would include a
public option.15 Indeed, a public option offered through a private insurance exchange was included
in all three versions of the bill passed by House committees in the summer of 2009 (House Ways
and Means and House Education and Labor on 17 July 2009; House Energy and Commerce on 31 July
2009), as well as in the bill passed by the full House of Representatives on 7 November 2009 (the
Affordable Health Care for America Act, HR 3962). A public option was also included in the bill
passed by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on 15 July 2009 (the Affordable
Health Choices Act, S 1679).
Senate Democrats were engaged in a highly contentious debate throughout the fall of 2009, and
the political life of the public option changed almost daily. The debate reached a critical impasse
in November 2009, when Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), who usually caucuses with the Democrats,
threatened to filibuster the Senate bill if it included a public option.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) made last-minute attempts to introduce
amendments to include a public option as the bill was about to be voted on by the Senate Finance
Committee. Those failed, and there was no public option in either the bill that emerged from that
committee or the bill that passed the full Senate on 24 December 2009]]
I agree. Medicare For All! Should have been the rallying cry from the start. The Democrats should
have challenged the Republicans to argue against the logic of it and laid them bare but they didn't.
If that was the starting point of any negotiations we might have a much better health insurance
system now. I guess I have to blame Obama for the lack of leadership on that one.
"The obvious solution for rising healthcare costs is either a public option or extending Medicare
to younger and younger people, but Democrats, other than Sanders, refuse to offer or defend these
solutions."
In either case, Congress has not allowed Medicare to negotiate costs completely and you believe
they my allow a Public Option to do so???
The point is that the public has never been given a choice. No one except Sanders has made this
sort of thing a campaign issue, and the Democrats rejected Sanders. As a result, we ended up with
a Republican congress and Trump.
This is just another example of how Big Data can fail. All polling is is
the use of Big Data – weighting factors are just another name for
algorithms. Unlike Cambridge Analytica which was going outside its data to
make projections, the pollsters insisted on using the wrong model to
determine human behavior – and that is just as bad. Instead of watching who
the polls said was in the lead, I was watching the error analyses. The model
of how people vote had changed, but polling companies just didn't notice (or
perhaps didn't want to notice). Certainly the elections of 2010, 2012, and
2014 should have alerted them to changing trends and model instability and
their error analyses should have been much higher than they were. But
putting data into a garbage compactor just gives you more garbage .
People assume that "Big Data" is science. It is not. They are
"models", like kid's Lego models, that reflect the consciousness of the
"Model's Creator" (This kid seriously likes battleships, or cosy little
houses!) Sort of like the way IQ tests reflect the culture, class and
race of its creator. (You usually do not get points for identifying a
bird by it's bird-song or differentiating edible plants from the
inedible, by taste/smell).
This proves that most Big Polling companies are run by Clintonistas,
just as Big Media is run by Clintonistas. Their polling numbers still
show that Trump is losing, to this day. They are truly exceptional
people. (In a weird and creepy way)
This also implies that Lambert possesses that very rare quality-
The Open Mind
, that can see through
powerful/dense/stinky bullshit, with x-ray vision.
It's amazing how much more complex a humanities approach is compared
to a stone cold set of unemotional variables. To wit: Trump won because
the "rural" component of the LA Times was exaggerated – so then what does
that say for the urban component who where almost as down-and-out. This
is logic karma. The humanities guy, using a tree of almost-psychic
analysis gets it right. Love it a lot. And there is some connection to
our favorite Mr. Professor, Mark Blyth when he describes these fed-up
electorates (those betrayed by neoliberalism) as "no-shows." Well, we
could go on and on. Truth becomes the fractal analysis of politics.
"The humanities guy, using a tree of almost-psychic analysis gets
it right".
I've got some bad news for you. Decision trees are part and parcel
of Machine Learning techniques.
And polling has nothing to do with Big Data per se – sample of a
few thousand is not Big Data in any way form or shape, it's just
statistics. And while statistics doesn't have any bias, statisticians
(and polsters) do (as do, for the matter, any and all humans).
Your comment reminds me of some data science jokes going around:
1. Data science is statistics done on a Mac.
2. A data scientist is a statistician living in San Francisco.
3. A data scientist is a person who knows more about statistics
than a computer scientist and knows more about computer science
than a statistitian.
(I'd give credit to whoever started these jokes if I could only
figure out who they were ..)
Statistics is a big part of Big Data – it cannot be done without
it. You'd probably be surprised to know that polling is a part of
data science. And you'd probably don't know that the first
documented use of Big Data was by Tycho Brache/Kepler ..
It is important to understand what Big Data/Data Science is since
it is here and it isn't going away. Curiosity Stream has an
excellent video, "The Human Faces of Big Data" that is well worth
the watch.
And as always, the worst thing a person can do is give up their
ability to think critically when presented with Big Data results,
which are not truths, but only patterns based on the data given.
GIGO still applies .
I need to correct my next to last sentence to read: .which
are not truths, but only patterns based on the data given AND
the algorithm used ..
Sometimes the data is good, but the algorithm is bad and vice
versa
I have to remind myself every time I see data modelling political and
cultural phenomenon that these particular models can or will work well
until they don't. They always operate within a political and cultural
paradigm and when that paradigm is broken or even just faltering the
methods (which are heavily biased by that paradigm) fall apart. I can't
say it is apophenia as the data/patterns
are
relevant within an
existing paradigm. Maybe it is apophenia in reverse. The culture
establishes an agreed upon framework thus informing the modeller and
skewing their modelling. So the culture creates the patterns on a largely
nonscientific basis and the modeller simply interprets them to predict
the culture's future behavior. It seems like an exercise in futility.
While the "horse race" data is interesting & kinda fun to dissect in
retrospect, I don't think it really captures the essence of what happened.
Boiled down to 2 factors:
1) Trump was the "bomb thrower" candidate. First he blew up the R's
establishment candidates in the primaries & then blew up the D's
hyper-establishment candidate in the general.
2) HRC was a terrible and, ultimately, incompetent candidate. Her
palpable sense of entitlement & arrogance was quite off-putting to a
significant portion of the electorate. That she won the popular vote but
still managed to lose the election says it all about her campaign strategy.
Trump's election was a giant middle finger to the "politics-as-usual"
crowd.
(Unfortunately Trump is really very "establishment" – he just ran a
non-traditional campaign. I'll be rather surprised if he makes beyond 2020)
I suspect there was a lot more neo-liberal working behind the sceine
that we might suspect. Polling companies are a lot like the acounting
firms for the banks – they are paid to overlook acounting issues. Those
that don't, do not get to keep their contracts. The polling firms were
paied not to measure the mood of the electorate, but to produce polls
that conformed to the narative. And the narative was that Clintion was
going to win by a landslide.
The polls were just another tool for manufacturing consent.
"... The constraint on punditry is that they are all a bunch of high school mean girls. They spend just as much time gossiping and trashing each other as teenagers. Anyone who doesn't parrot faux objectivity, which is little more than the D party line, can expect to be ostracized and not given opportunities for advancement. ..."
"... They all pretend they can divine absolutely everything from polls, enabling them to forego any real reporting in favor of some number crunching or referencing fivethirtyeight. Polls have so many problems in the first place, that to try and extrapolate to what the electorate is really saying is a fool's errand. Polls don't let people say that they would rather be boiled in oil than elect the wife of the guy that laid the groundwork for the GFC, or that they really hate both of them and as long as it looks like Clinton is going to win I might not bother to show up. They certainly don't have an option for: I see how this country works, I see how corrupt 95% of the elites are, I see how they have had success in their lives and pulled up the ladders of opportunity behind them, I see how they think they are peers with the titans of industry and are willing to forgive them of just about any misbehavior no matter how consequential and despite all that the titans think of them as the paid help. I see how willing they are to make life harder for the majority just to fellatiate their donors; leaving rhetoric and shame as the only tools to get compliance and votes. ..."
"... I think it has to do with the knowledge that she holds grudges and the level of inevitability she was able to command. Anyone who dared to go even an inch beyond the mean girl hive mind could be assured zero access in her Whitehouse and to have future opportunities for advancement disappear. ..."
"... It's just not that hard: the Democrats bent the rules and thwarted what people wanted in order to run Hillary because it was her turn, ignoring the negatives that were present before the inept campaign increased them. ..."
I went on two email rants tangential to this if anyone is interested, I enjoyed them.
On journalism:
The constraint on punditry is that they are all a bunch of high school mean girls. They
spend just as much time gossiping and trashing each other as teenagers. Anyone who doesn't parrot
faux objectivity, which is little more than the D party line, can expect to be ostracized and
not given opportunities for advancement.
They all pretend they can divine absolutely everything from polls, enabling them to forego
any real reporting in favor of some number crunching or referencing fivethirtyeight. Polls have
so many problems in the first place, that to try and extrapolate to what the electorate is really
saying is a fool's errand. Polls don't let people say that they would rather be boiled in oil
than elect the wife of the guy that laid the groundwork for the GFC, or that they really hate
both of them and as long as it looks like Clinton is going to win I might not bother to show up.
They certainly don't have an option for: I see how this country works, I see how corrupt 95% of
the elites are, I see how they have had success in their lives and pulled up the ladders of opportunity
behind them, I see how they think they are peers with the titans of industry and are willing to
forgive them of just about any misbehavior no matter how consequential and despite all that the
titans think of them as the paid help. I see how willing they are to make life harder for the
majority just to fellatiate their donors; leaving rhetoric and shame as the only tools to get
compliance and votes.
At the end of the day, polls are like horoscopes, a kernel of truth but you can see what you
want to see. Which is why we were subjected to copious think pieces about Bernie Bros and Racist
Trump voters that are little more than polling cross tabs woven into whatever narrative would
best help Clinton.
But why Clinton? It certainly isn't because there was a cozy relationship before this campaign.
Note this quote from
Politico :
But to this day she's surrounded herself with media conspiracy theorists who remain some
of her favorite confidants, urged wealthy allies to bankroll independent organizations tasked
with knee-capping reporters perceived as unfriendly, withdrawn into a gilded shell when attacked
and rolled her eyes at several generations of aides who suggested she reach out to journalists
rather than just disdaining them. Not even being nice to her in print has been a guarantor
of access; reporters likely to write positive stories have been screened as ruthlessly as perceived
enemies, dismissed as time-sucking sycophants or pretend-friends.
I think it has to do with the knowledge that she holds grudges and the level of inevitability
she was able to command. Anyone who dared to go even an inch beyond the mean girl hive mind could
be assured zero access in her Whitehouse and to have future opportunities for advancement disappear.
But it certainly isn't above her to play favorites and reword good coverage with access,
even to the point of
dictating adjectives to reporters .
The second email was to 538 because they put up a job listing, which I used as an opportunity
to get an email read by them.
Well, I don't have any experience editing or writing (except as a hobby) but I do have a very
extensive knowledge of current events, political trends, polling, voting methods, and heterodox
economics. Since it's doubtful you would consider me for a policy editor position I just thought
I would offer some constructive criticism.
1. Instead of using your models to display the odds of a candidate winning if the election
were held today, incorporate the polling error and historical trends to make a graph that starts
with lines for the past and ends with probability cones into the future. You may know that
polls are only for a snapshot in time, but the vast majority of the TV pundits who use this site
as a bible don't. Then they go and decide who gets coverage based on it. This is especially important
when you have a well known candidate vs lesser known ones. This is a key reason Sanders didn't
do as well and why we have a president Trump. They also couldn't emphasize enough how unelectable
he was despite the polls constantly saying otherwise which really was the one thing
that sank him . For some reason about
40% of
the country says they will vote even if they don't care about the outcome. I'm sure in reality
it is much less, even more so for a primary. However, one of the reason politics is so dysfunctional
right now is that no one in their right mind would run for congress or anything else when only
63/435 house districts had a margin under 15%. Any damage you do to the incumbency effect is a
huge plus.
2. Alternative voting. Since your site is all about data I can't for the life of me
understand why you haven't done a dive into alternative voting methods. It there is one thing
this election should have taught us it's that first past the post (FPTP) is a creation from hell
that needs to die. Then the only other option widely expressed is Instant Run Off (IRV), which
is just ever so slightly better than FPTP. Would it really be too much to ask to dive into
Score Voting ,
3-2-1 voting , Condorcet,
and Schultz? And maybe look at some of the
work being done to model
voter satisfaction with those systems.
3. Improving Polling. Clearly you have contacts at all the major polling firms I have
absolutely no clue why you haven't pressured them to gather better data. Since the elites in this
country absolutely refuse to be within a 5 mile radius of real people, they rely on polls to take
the temperature of the public. I'd say that hasn't been working so well. I have seen polls where
they find out your stance on ACA, give both side some of the opposing arguments, and then ask
again and manage to flip like 20% from each side. Any poll that is going to ask our suboptimally
informed electorate something about a hot button issue should give a reason or two for and against
before getting a response. Polls that are meant to determine a participant's preference on a range
of hot button issues really should be done with
quadratic voting .
Which brings me to horse race polls. Just to get a baseline about how dysfunctional FPTP is I
would have loved to see a poll in the middle of the Dem primary ask "regardless of who you plan
on voting for, who do you want to be the next president?" Primary season would also be a great
time to test out some of the alternative voting methods mentioned above, most of which would eliminate
the need for primaries entirely. But if we are stuck with FPTP I would love for the follow up
question to be "In one sentence why do you plan to vote for that person?" That would really be
invaluable data.
I could probably go on for another hour with things that I think you could do to personally
improve the miserable state this country is in and will continue to be in for the foreseeable
future, but I'll spare you. Thanks for reading this far if you did.
I'm glad you posted this! I wasn't familiar with quadratic voting and the link is quite interesting.
It seems to have some similarities with ranked preference voting. That said, I agree with Peter
Emerson that in any choice there should be at least 3 options to choose from, and those options
should come from the voting base.
Choosing from how much I agree or disagree with a single proposal is still a poor option–it
depends what the alternatives are if one disagrees, or at least some basics about the implementation
if one agrees.
Using the questions from the QV video as an example, in some questions the nature of the potential
alternatives might affect results more than others. (For example, "Do you want to repeal the ACA?"
How a person answers might vary considerably depending on the alternatives.)
It's just not that hard: the Democrats bent the rules and thwarted what people wanted in
order to run Hillary because it was her turn, ignoring the negatives that were present before
the inept campaign increased them.
I read that book a long time ago. What I remember (perhaps incorrectly) is that there are simple,
compound and complex failures. One error causes a simple failure, two a compound and three a complex.
Complex failures are usually catastrophic. The errors were 1) failure to learn 2) failure to anticipate
3) failure to adapt. Perhaps a bit overly structural, but it did stick in my mind for years.
> 1) failure to learn 2) failure to anticipate 3) failure to adapt.
Those are the types of failure, and those are reasonable enough buckets. But their analysis
of how multiple pathways to failure is to my mind far more supple - and you have to treat case
case separately.
While I generally agree with your analysis I think that your timeline is missing one key inflection
point, the ACA. During September and October some states began announcing pricing changes for
the coming year. That fed into the rolling narrative that the ACA was collapsing, or in a death
spiral, or otherwise in trouble right around the same time that radical opportunist
True Patriot(tm) Jim Comey was bringing up Weiners.
Others have argued (can't find the links right now sorry) that this was more meaningful than
the emails and my own informal poll of Trump voters is consistent with that. None of them mention
Bhengazi or the emails except as general background to her unsavoriness, meaning that the damage
was done long before October. But they do bring up the "collapsing state exchanges" and "unreasonable
price surges" as current problems.
I agree that the email furor could be masking the effect of an ObamaCare rate hike, but I have
never seen polling to this effect; if somebody has, please add! There are a lot of events happening
simultaneously, and then the press will pick one and make that the cause.
Bottom line, people in rural western Virginia (with which I am more familiar) might not have
even heard the term "neoliberal" [by the way, why do we use his portmanteau of two very positive
words to describe a loathsome philosophy? Why don't we just call it what it is, "neofeudalism"
or possibly more accurately, "archeofeudalism"], but these "deplorables" do know that their lives
suck more than they ever have due to their lives and livelihood being drained out of them by the
1% and the Accela Corridor Class, of which HRC was the examplar par excellence.
Just ignore all the polls, all the verbiage, all the analysis. Bottom line: Trump is the proverbial
"Ham Sandwich."
The original liberal revolution (circa 1776 and later) mobilized the power of the bourgeoisie,
money, and markets to correct the inadequacies of the remains of the feudal society based on agriculture
and land. The neoliberal revolution aims to mobilize the power of money and markets to correct
the inadequacies of the liberal society based on money and markets. Strategically, to put a price
on anything that's left without one, and eliminate the chances for Polanyi's "double movement".
You write: "all but the Daybreak poll got the popular vote outcome wrong. "
Ummh, your sentence exactly disagrees with your data. Almost all polls got the sign of the
popular vote total correct, with Clinton leading Trump by several points. The average (Huffington
Post does this) of a lot of polls was very close indeed to Trump's performance, with Trump having
fewer popular vote than Clinton by close to 3%.
I'm surprised in your narrative inflection points, you don't note Oct. 24 as a key date, the
day the administration announced that Obamacare premiums would increase by an average of 22%.
Though it didn't receive as much coverage from the horse-race media, it seems to me that if there
was one single event that tipped the race to Trump, it was that announcement.
I didn't follow the polling much in real-time, but my recollection from post-mortems is that
Trump received a number of bounces up at inflection events, but then his poll numbers subsided
back. But in the aftermath of Oct. 24 his numbers began to rise without subsiding later. The graphs
you posted are consistent with that, except that it's attributed to the Comey letter,, which received
a lot of media play, but probably was of lesser importance to voters, as opposed to its importance
as a Dembot excuse.
In Florida, Trump got 113,000 more votes than Hillary. However, election officials report that
130,000 voters refused to vote for either candidate and wrote in the names of various people and
cartoon characters. The usual "vote for the lesser of two evils" just isn't working any more.
Why not look at how Bill Clinton diverted the Democratic Party towards Wall Street and Oligarchs
and left behind huge swathes of traditional voters ? The story of the string-puller from Arkansas
and his connections, whether to get him a Rhodes Scholarship and multiple draft deferments, or
his visit to Russia in Dec 1969, or his governorship and its strange association with Rich Mountain
Aviation in Mena, AK.
This was where the Democratic Party turned away from its voter base and Blair copied this in
UK with New Labour, a Neo-Marxist front facilitating Financial Excess
You're asking why I didn't write another post. Basically, because I wanted to write about penguins,
and not peacocks. The focus is on the campaign, not on everything that's been wrong with the Democrat
Party since forever (though there'll be a bit more of that in the forthcoming post).
One of these days pundits are going to stop treating the election like some damn sporting event,
focusing on momentum and god knows what instead of where the candidates stand on the issues of
importance. When that happens, maybe we'll start electing candidates that are interested and capable
of solving problems instead of candidates merely striving to stroke their egos.
I commend you for your optimism, However, the two party (actually one party) duopoly will insist
on nominating neo-liberal candidates paid for by yuuge corporate bribes. May I suggest that you
look elsewhere if you want candidates capable of solving the people's problems rather than the
corporate ones.
The trouble with social science is that the subjects read about themselves and change behavior
based on what they read. This is the property that George Soros calls reflexive. Even physical
science at the quantum mechanical level has as a basic principle that the act of measuring something
changes it.
Yes, even George Soros can be right about a thing or two.
Interesting analysis. What would add considerably is if we had some way of also charting other
events, in particular election fraud events (including voter suppression, computer tabulator rigging,
etc.) and other election interference mechanisms such as media coverage / non-coverage / miscoverage.
Not to mention the primary problems. Or the issues having to do with "candidate selection"
in the first place.
Analysis of the election without examining the information made available to voters, and with
no hope of knowing how voters actually did vote (hint–we don't know this from official
election results), is dodgy to say the least.
At the minimum the glaring gaps in information (e.g. about actual vote tallies) should be acknowledged.
Did you read the title of the post? That often gives a good indiction of the subject matter
to be found therein. You want me to write another post. Perhaps one day.
The presence of actual election malfeasance for decades (and more–when have we ever had clean
elections under public scrutiny?) means that elegant analysis such as yours perversely perpetuates
the acceptance of phony election data. That's why some form of acknowledgement is needed somewhere
in the post. Not a different post or a different topic, just a mention that there are . . . issues.
I would love your approach if only it didn't contain the unspoken presumption of official election
results bearing any resemblance to actual votes cast! Maybe yes, maybe no, depending on the precinct
and specific election. We should not advocate people continuing to blindly accept official election
results regardless of whether the results were expected, unexpected, close, non-close, matching
polls, not matching polls. Analysis that does not acknowledge the absence of meaningful election
scrutiny inadvertently perpetuates the problem.
It's like doing financial analysis on an economy where all data is submitted by companies with
zero requirement for backup financial data. (Not to mention then carrying out "polls" of what
"financial analyses" we believe or prefer!) We would never accept that kind of "data" and subsequent
"analysis" in a financial context.
I see it as a contest for power between two jet setters. Both had Boeings. One was owned by
the candidate, bigger & black & red.
The other was some smaller, and nondescript blue.
I'd like to see the number of flights and where they went compared.
Concerning your inflection points, Lambert: I remember from a while back that Empty Wheel had
a chart that showed a major shift in sentiment toward Trump when new higher Obamacare costs were
announced for 2017. Sorry, but I don't know how to run down that link.
It's bad now, but it could be worse. Project Fear. OK, Trump is a lunatic but how does that
compare with the status quo? Let's give the lunatic a go. How bad can it get?
"... Until the Democrats reform their leadership and recommit to working people again, they will have no future as a party. ..."
"... Brad and Larry and Paul are a big part of the status quo for the liberal establishment, and the incredible failure of leadership they have achieved. ..."
"... Continuing to argue about it here, with the quick resort to personal attacks and name-calling, is irrelevant, because the Democratic party is dead. Seriously, how big of a loss can they take before the leadership gets tossed? It was not just the presidency. They have lost almost everything. ..."
"... Don't count the Democratic Party out yet. Politicians need to make a living. After the Civil War the Democratic Party had to scrape together what it could find that Republicans had tossed out with the garbage. ..."
"... So, the Democratic Party took to supporting immigrants and unions. Times have changed and the Democratic Party lost the unions to corporatism, but tried to make it up with racial politics. ..."
"... The Democratic Party made a big mistake abandoning the interests of ordinary working people, but that is what their corporate donors demanded. So, it is time for a makeover and if the next one does not take then they will be back at it again because politicians have to make a living. ..."
"... The Democratic party, much less so than the Republican party, is not homogenous. All the things you ascribe to them past or present don't apply to most of their current members or operatives. ..."
Until the Democrats reform their leadership and recommit to working people again, they will
have no future as a party.
Brad and Larry and Paul are a big part of the status quo for the liberal establishment,
and the incredible failure of leadership they have achieved.
Continuing to argue about it here, with the quick resort to personal attacks and name-calling,
is irrelevant, because the Democratic party is dead. Seriously, how big of a loss can they take
before the leadership gets tossed? It was not just the presidency. They have lost almost everything.
Don't count the Democratic Party out yet. Politicians need to make a living. After the Civil War
the Democratic Party had to scrape together what it could find that Republicans had tossed out
with the garbage.
So, the Democratic Party took to supporting immigrants and unions. Times have
changed and the Democratic Party lost the unions to corporatism, but tried to make it up with
racial politics.
That worked some, but the problem with identity politics is that eventually people
get their rights and freedoms and next thing you know they want jobs and college educations for
their children.
The Democratic Party made a big mistake abandoning the interests of ordinary working
people, but that is what their corporate donors demanded. So, it is time for a makeover and if
the next one does not take then they will be back at it again because politicians have to make
a living.
The Democratic party, much less so than the Republican party, is not homogenous. All the things
you ascribe to them past or present don't apply to most of their current members or operatives.
It is one of the pernicious aspects of an effectively two-party system that all progressives
have a strong motivation or even necessity to associate themselves with the "least bad" party.
By way of official narrative the Democrats definitely fit the bill, even though they contain a
lot of "co-opted" (if not corrupted) establishment baggage. That just happens with any major party
- elites and interest groups that nominally stay out of politics but factually participate and
not just a little are never resting.
In Germany, the 80's (perhaps late 70s?) saw an ascendancy of the Green party which was strongly
associated with environmentalism, and by implication resistance to then prevalent politics, social
mores, etc. They were successful as environmentalism and (I would say secondarily but that can
be debated) civil/individual liberties and gender/ethnic equality which they also featured big
time were themes that found wide appeal, and the time was ripe for them (e.g. environmental degradation
had become undeniable, and gender/ethnic discrimination had become recognized as a factor hindering
progress, aside from just fairness concerns).
A few decades later (and starting even a few years after the success) there was a noticeable
bifurcation in the Greens - it turned out they were not all on the same page regarding all social
issues. A number of Greens "defected" from the party and associated themselves with Red (Social
Democrats, equivalent of US Democrats) or Black (Christian Democrats, equivalent of US Republicans)
- showing that environmental or general (dimensions of) equal opportunity concerns are perhaps
orthogonal to stands on other more or less specific social issues (or if one wants to be more
cynical, that some people are careerist and not so much about principles - that exists but I would
prefer (with little proof) to think it doesn't explain the larger pattern).
This shows Trump and his highest campaign officials at the time complicit in pro-Russian spin
and from those in contact with Russia in the Trump campaign
"Trump Ally Drastically Changes Story About Altering GOP Platform On Ukraine"
By Allegra Kirkland....March 3, 2017....2:16 PM EDT
"In a significant reversal, a Trump campaign official on Thursday told CNN that he personally
advocated for softening the language on Ukraine in the GOP platform at the Republican National
Convention, and that he did so on behalf of the President.nnb877
CNN's Jim Acosta reported on air that J.D. Gordon, the Trump campaign's national security policy
representative at the RNC, told him that he made the change to include language that he claimed
"Donald Trump himself wanted and advocated for" at a March 2016 meeting at then-unfinished Trump
International Hotel in Washington, D.C.
Gordon claimed that Trump said he did not "want to go to World War III over Ukraine" during
that meeting, Acosta said.
Yet Gordon had told Business Insider in January that he "never left" the side table where he
sat monitoring the national security subcommittee meeting, where a GOP delegate's amendment calling
for the provision of "lethal defense weapons" to the Ukrainian army was tabled. At the time, Gordon
said "neither Mr. Trump nor [former campaign manager] Mr. [Paul] Manafort were involved in those
sort of details, as they've made clear."
Discussion of changes to the platform, which drew attention to the ties to a pro-Russia political
party in Ukraine that fueled Manafort's resignation as Trump's campaign chairman, resurfaced Thursday
in a USA Today story. The newspaper revealed that Gordon and Carter Page, another former Trump
adviser, met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak at the GOP convention.
Trump and his team have long insisted that his campaign had no contact with Russian officials
during the 2016 race, and that they were not behind softening the language on Ukraine in the Republican
Party platform."...
This is not an update re: "Trump's Pro-Russiaism".
This is an update of your complete lack of understanding of political situation.
There was a pretty cold and nasty calculation on Trump's part to split Russia-China alliance
which does threaten the USA global hegemony. Now those efforts are discredited and derailed. Looks
like the US neoliberal elite is slightly suicidal. But that's good: the sooner we get rid of neoliberalism,
the better.
Sill Dems hysteria (in association with some Repugs like war hawks John McCain and Lindsey
Graham) does strongly smells with neo-McCarthyism. McCain and Graham are probably playing this
dirty game out of pure enthusiasm: Trump does not threatens MIC from which both were elected.
He just gave them all the money they wanted. But for Dems this is en essential smoke screen to
hide their fiasco and blame evil Russians.
In other words citing Marx: "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce. "
This farce of making Russians a scapegoat for all troubles does make some short-term political
sense as it distracts from the fact the Dems were abandoned by its base. And it unites the nation
providing some political support for chickenhawks in US Congress for the next elections.
But in a long run the price might be a little bit too high. If Russian and China formalize
their alliance this is the official end for the US neoliberal empire. Britain will jump the sinking
ship first, because they do not have completely stupid elite.
BTW preventing Cino-Russian alliance is what British elite always tried to do (and was successful)
in the past -- but in their time the main danger for them was the alliance of Germany and Russia
-- two major continental powers.
Still short-termism is a feature of US politics, and we can do nothing against those forces
that fuel the current anti-Russian hysteria.
The evil rumors at the time of original McCarthyism hysteria were that this was at least partially
a smoke screen designed to hide smuggling of Nazi scientists and intelligence operatives into
the USA (McCarthy was from Wisconsin, the state in German immigrant majority from which famous
anti-WWI voice Robert M. La Follette was elected (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._La_Follette_Sr.))
So here there might well be also some hidden motives, because everybody, including even you
understands that "Trump is in the pocket of Russians" hypothesis is pure propaganda (BTW Hillary
did take bribes from Russian oligarchs, that's proven, but Caesar's wife must be above suspicion).
What we are witnessing is the truth coming out, too slowly for some of us, but it surely will
come out eventually despite the best efforts of Trump's WH, Gang, and his Republican lackies to
cover it up.
You probably would be better off sticking to posting music from YouTube then trying to understand
complex political events and posting political junk from US MSM in pretty prominent economic blog
(overtaking Fred)
Especially taking into account the fact that English is the only language you know and judging
from your posts you do not have degrees in either economics or political science (although some
people here with computer science background proved to be shrewd analysts of both economic and
political events; cm is one example).
Although trying to read British press will not hurt you, they do provide a better coverage
of US political events then the USA MSM. Even neoliberal Guardian. So if you can't fight your
urge to repost political junk please try to do it from British press.
As for your question: in 20 years we might know something about who played what hand in this
dirty poker, but even this is not given (JFK assassination is a classic example here; Gulf of
Tonkin incident is another)
"... and Haim Saban's opinion matters more than millions of BernieCrats because money. ..."
"... The Dems are set up pretty well for 2018. ..."
"... "We lost this election eight years ago," concludes Michael Slaby, the campaign's chief technology officer. "Our party became a national movement focused on general elections, and we lost touch with nonurban, noncoastal communities. There is a straight line between our failure to address the culture and systemic failures of Washington and this election result." ..."
"... The question of why-why the president and his team failed to activate the most powerful political weapon in their arsenal. ..."
"... Obama's army was eager to be put to work. Of the 550,000 people who responded to the survey, 86 percent said they wanted to help Obama pass legislation through grassroots support; 68 percent wanted to help elect state and local candidates who shared his vision. Most impressive of all, more than 50,000 said they personally wanted to run for elected office. ..."
"... But they never got that chance. In late December, Plouffe and a small group of senior staffers finally made the call, which was endorsed by Obama. The entire campaign machine, renamed Organizing for America, would be folded into the DNC, where it would operate as a fully controlled subsidiary of the Democratic Party. ..."
"... Republicans, on the other hand, wasted no time in building a grassroots machine of their own-one that proved capable of blocking Obama at almost every turn. Within weeks of his inauguration, conservative activists began calling for local "tea parties" to oppose the president's plan to help foreclosed homeowners. ..."
"... Your friend should share her script for success w/ the DNC leadership. ..."
Former Labor Secretary Tom Perez was elected chairman of the Democratic
National Committee Saturday, giving the party an establishment leader at a
moment when its grass roots wing is insurgent.
Mr. Perez defeated Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison and four other candidates
in a race that had few ideological divisions yet illuminated the same rifts
in the party that drove the acrimonious 2016 presidential primary between
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Mr. Perez fell one vote short of a majority on the first vote for
chairman, with Mr. Ellison 13 votes behind him. The four second-tier
candidates then dropped out of the race before the second ballot. On the
second ballot, Mr. Perez won 235 of 435 votes cast.
Somehow, I think most people knew that this was going to happen.
There's a good chance that Trump will end up being a 2 term president and
that 2018 will be a disaster for the Democratic Party on the scale of 2010,
2014, and 1994. Meanwhile, they will surely blame the voters and especially the
left, which is what they always do when they don't win.
I think that we should keep in mind that the US is a plutocracy and that at
this point, the Democrats aren't even pretending to be a "New Deal" party for
the people anymore. Perhaps its existence always was an outlet to contain and
co-opt the left. At least now, the message is naked: the left is expected to
blindly obey, but will never be given leadership positions.
In other words, the left is not welcome. I think that it is time for people
to leave.
The only question at this point is, how hard is it going to be to form a
third party? I don't see the Left as being able to reform the Democrats very
easily. It may be so corrupt as to be beyond reform.
At least 1993, although the ideal time would have been after the
Coup of 1963, but unfortunately too many were still clueless than.
(Had more than five people and Mort Sahl ever bothered to read the
Warren Commission Report - where Lee Oswald was "positively ID'd by a
waitress for the murder of Officer Tippit:
W.C.: So you went into the room and looked at the lineup, did you
recognize anyone.
Helen Louise Markham: No, sir.
And there you have it, gentlement, a positive ID! And the rest of
the so-called report was even worse . . . .)
(Patting self on back) That's when I left it. God, was it really
that long ago?
And responding to the earlier part of the string: no, it isn't easy
to form a "3rd" party; and yes, there already is one. Just might be
time to stop nit-picking about it and help. (In Oregon, there are
about 6, two of them right-wing.)
Kshama Sawant, who is a socialist not a Green, is hoping (I think
that's the exact word) to put together a Left coalition. I think the
Green Party could be sold on that – for one thing, we would be much
the largest portion. Certainly I could, as I'm pretty tired of
spinning my wheels.
Remember, according to Gallup, the Dems are now down to 25%
affiliation (Reps at 28 – the first time they've been higher, I think
because they won the election.) Independents are the plurality by a
wide margin. Something's going to give, and we should try to get ahead
of the parade. It could easily get really nasty.
The problem with third parties is the same with the math of this
ballot. If Perez was one vote shy the first time, that means he
only picked up 18 votes the second time. So all the other
candidates mostly split the opposition. I'm sure if the democratic
establishment felt the need, they would form a few front parties.
People, you are just going to have to wait for it to blow up and
after that, coalesce around one cause; Public banking and money as
a publicly supported utility.
It took a few hundred years to recognize government is a public
function and drop monarchy.
Beats me how anyone thinks "public banking" will change
anything. In a capitalist system, banks are banks. They chase
the highest return. That's not where the public interest (qua
people) lies and never will be. And "government is a public
function" so long as it serves its mandate: to make return on
capital investment function smoothly.
For those of use who never were in the Democratic Party, this choice
ensures that many of us will be looking for another party. The DNC just
gave us the same choice as the last election – Corrupt establishment or
Fascism. The distinction these days is not worth pondering.
What people are doing right now with Donald Trump's
GOP - forcing town halls, making a ruckus, holding everyone
accountable - has to be the model for progressive change in
American politics. Doing this stuff inside the system
isn't
going to wor
k. Forming a party around ideology or ideas
isn't going to wor
k. Wearing the system down
is all that
works.
Before this gets turned into another thing where the establishment
Democrats posture as the reasonable adults victimized by the assaults
of those left-wing baddies, let's just be very clear about what
happened here. It was the establishment wing that decided to recruit
and then stand up a candidate in order to fight an internal battle
against the left faction of the party. It was the establishment wing
that then dumped massive piles of opposition research on one of their
own party members. And it was the establishment wing that did all of
this in the shadow of Trump, sowing disunity in order to contest a
position whose leadership they insist does not really matter.
The establishment wing has made it very clear that they will do
anything and everything to hold down the left faction, even as they
rather hilariously ask the left faction to look above their
differences and unify in these trying times. They do not have any
intent of ceding anything - even small things they claim are mostly
irrelevant - to the left wing.
Reform may become possible only when the money spigot dries up.
At some point, the oligarchs may simply decide its not cost effective
to finance such losers. With no money, there are no rice bowls and so the
professional pols and their minions will either wither away or seek a new
funding
model which may make possible a different politics.
I think it will take well under a decade to see how this plays out.
What is the cheapest way for oligarchs to maintain power in a
pseudo-democracy?
If there is enough conflict among them, I suppose they'll continue
to put money into both parties. Otherwise, why not just let one of the
two slowly die? Electoral theatre is expensive.
The scary thing is that it's NOT expensive, compared to the size
of the economy. As long as there's enough at stake for large
companies and ultra-rich individuals, they can very easily buy two
or even several parties.
(This is not to disagree with your main point, which is that
they may let the Democrats die.)
But why bother with that extra bit, if it can instead be
spent on a second or third bolt-hole?
But I suspect you are correct because the citizenry will
revolt fairly quickly after the illusion completely dissolves.
It's worth something to put that off for as long as possible.
Yes it is when a very competitive Senate race is now $50M as
a starting price tag and to run a viable Presidential campaign
will likely be $1B as a floor in 2020.
There'd still be 'choice' since we plebs would continue
quixotically financing this/that with our cashless dollars
(while they filter, oh say .30 of each, for the privilege).
At least, perhaps, until we finally get our sh*t together and
genuinely revolt. How long will that take?
The farce willl go on. After all, while the actual popular
sovereignty expressed in voting might be minimal, and the
information environment itself largely a corporate
construction, its gives a concrete, personal, representation
of popular sovereignty, and in so doing – and whatever the
despondency of its voters and the emptiness of their choice –
legitimates or "mandates" whatever it is the government does,
and however corporate friendly it might be. And it may be –
with its Private Public Partnerships, and revolving door from
the corporate to public office (and back) – very corporate
friendly indeed.
If this is the case, then the "China Model" is not, as
some think, the ideal neoliberal political model. Explicitly
authoritarian rule is, from the start, problematic in terms
of popular sovereignty. If a corporate-friendly authoritarian
regime is to avoid this, it has but one option. It must
deliver economic growth that is both noticeable and
widespread, and so do what neoliberal theory claims, but
neoliberal practice isn't much, if at all, interested in
providing.
We may well be in the midst of making a choice here
At least the China model provided growth unreal living
standards from the desperate poverty that most Chinese
were living in a generation ago.
It is certainly not without flaws. Corruption,
inequality, and pollution are big problems.
That said,the US is following the corruption and
inequality pretty well. With the Republicans and other
corporations in control, they will surely make sure that
pollution follows.
Actually it will be worse. The Chinese model ensured
that China built up a manufacturing sector. It followed
the economic growth trajectory of Japan after WW2 and
later South Korea. The neoliberals won't do that.
By "revolt" what do you actually mean? Armed overthrow of
the existing power structure? Or political revolt, forming a
new party? Breaking the US up into smaller countries?
I'm having hard time imagining a radical restructuring of
power in the US. Nor does it strikes me as particularly
desirable, as my observation is that the new power structure
is often just as bad as the existing one. But now has to deal
with governing a fractured society.
Whatever would be required to create necessary change.
A series of actions emerging from a plan,
ever-intensifying until the system-as-it-is has no more
power.
Do you think hundreds of millions of people should
continue to let themselves be trashed? That sort of thing
never lets up but only increases over time.
This situation is not unlike spousal abuse. The most
dangerous time for the abused is when the she/he decides
to leave. And the after-effects usually land her/him in
poverty but also peace and self-respect.
Yep, in a duopoly it is necessary to own and control both
halves–even a perpetually losing one. That is cheap insurance against
nasty surprises. American political parties and politicians are cheap
as hell to buy in any event. Gazillionaire couch change can control
entire parties.
Oh, c'mon. The money spent to provide an illusion of democracy is
chump change compared to the billions they are reaping from having
bought the government. The plutocrats are not trying to effect change
really, they like it pretty much as it is now. The purpose of the two
parties is to distract us from what is really going on. The only
plutocratic interest in what they do is fueled by perverse curiosity
of what their new toy can do.
Anon, I hope you are right. Somewhat lost in the news was the vote NOT
to ban corporate donations to the DNC. To me, that is at least as telling
as Ellison's loss. The Clintons may be gone, but their stench remains.
I think we need to accept the strong likelihood that there will be a
corporatist-dominated Constitutional Convention by 2025. First on the
agenda: a constitutional amendment that requires a balanced federal budget.
The globalist elites will slam on that lever to destroy what remains of the
economic safety net. "Balanced budgets" are very popular with the deceived
public but such an amendment will end general prosperity in this nation
forever. Imagine what else they'll outlaw and ban and 1860 doesn't feel so
far away.
What surprises me is that Establishment Ds make no effort to defend
themselves from attacks from the Left. It's like they don't care: no
leftward movement on policy. They just call Bernie and the Brodudes
names. What Sanders did to Hillary is a proof of concept. The most
powerful Establishment D is mortally wounded by an attack from a no name
senator from Vermont. This can be used against any Establishment D. The
Brodudes initially may not have wanted to burn it down, but they now know
they can. So what are the Establishment Ds doing to defend themselves?
Closer and closer it comes as the Democrats have let state after state
come under one-party Republican rule while unjustifiably preening
themselves for their "moral rectitude" (while yet continuing to assist in
looting the joint for a small percentage of the take ). That party has
come to play their part in cementing the injustices and inequalities into
place. Witness Obama, not only sitting on his hands when action against
palpable injustice was needed, but actively collaborating in rigidifying
the rotten structure. The quintessential globalist, authoritarian,
war-loving Democrat, the only kind permissable,
vide
Perez.
There's a good chance that Trump will end up being a 2 term president
and that 2018 will be a disaster for the Democratic Party on the scale of
2010, 2014, and 1994. Meanwhile, they will surely blame the voters and
especially the left, which is what they always do when they don't win.
If Trump doesn't deliver the manufacturing jobs to the "undesirables"
like he promised, if he dismantles ACA and leaves poor and working class
"undesirables" to the wolf of some sort of privatization scheme health care
w/ vouchers or tax breaks, if backtracking on financial sector reform leads
to another economic meltdown, and if he and Bannon get another war, which
metastasizes into asymmetrical warfare all over Western Europe and the US,
then Trump's ability to get reelected is in serious jeopardy to say the
least, no matter how lame the democratic challenger is. Bush's meltdown gave
us a Black President for christs sake.
On the other hand, the down ticket races could continue to be the usual
disaster for the dems unless they do a major reshift in their campaign
strategies outside the blue states that includes strong populist economic
messaging and pushing a strong safety net w/ a public option for health care
(assuming the GOP wipes out ACA.)
There are a lot of "ifs" there that are looking like "wills" at the
moment. He is playing true to type and delegating policy to whomsoever
flatters him best whilst jetting off to Mar-a-Lago for a game of golf
with his business buddies. With the exception of killing TPP (maybe?) and
no immediate European conflicts with Russia, this is what I would have
expected from him and, more importantly, Pence. The true believers seem
to be getting their way, thus far.
That said, I wouldn't discount the power of his ability to deflect
blame for the consequences of his actions. For the most part, those who
voted for him truly believe that everything is someone else's fault, and
I don't see that changing any time soon.
This is true, but don't you think the standards are different?
At the moment nothing is either Parties fault, according to their
leadership, but the reactions of both Party's base has been far
different to date. Dems have been comparatively unsuccessful
blaming Muslims, leftists and Russians for their problems whereas
that is, and always has been, red meat for Republicans. Any stick
to beat someone with just doesn't work as well for the Democratic
Party. Claire McCaskill calls Bernie a communist and is vilified
for it at the time, so now she is whining because her seat is at
risk in '18? What did she expect when she knew, at the time, that
she was alienating half the Party by so doing?
Dems are losing because they have the misfortune of not having
more Republicans in their electoral base, however hard they have
tried to include them in their "Big Tent" leadership. Republicans
actively fear their base, and would never make such an egregious
political mistake.
I thought all of the candidates for the DNC Chair were really
bad. Even the ever so popular Keith Ellison. This guy once
advocated for an entire separate country to be formed comprising
of only African Americans. Just curious, how "tolerant" and
"inclusive" would the immigration policy be for that country if
it were ever created? What would the trade policies be in that
country? Would they let a white owned business like Wal-Mart
move into a black neighborhood and put the local black owned
businesses out of business? Keith Ellison is nothing more than a
hypocrite every time he criticizes Donald Trump's policies and
advocates for his impeachment.
The entire Democratic party is falling apart. They are trying
to get elected because of their race, sex, and/or religion.
Instead of trying to get elected based on the content of their
character and their message. I truly believe the main reason
Keith Ellison was even considered for the DNC Chair is because
he is black and a Muslim.
The party rigged the primary against Bernie because they felt
it was time that a woman became president instead of a man. Some
democrats even called Bernie a white supremacist.
"@realDonaldTrump: The race for DNC Chairman was, of
course, totally "rigged." Bernie's guy, like Bernie
himself, never had a chance. Clinton demanded Perez!" –
Twitter
LMFAO
How about that new Clinton video, sure looks like she
is going to run again in 2020 – please, Hilary, you go,
girl!
The corporatist "third way" democrats are hoping for Trump to implode
so that they can get back into the White House. They really don't think
that they need progressives since it is undoubted in their opinion that
Trump will certainly be fail on his promises and be unelectable in 2020
and they will be back in power. And they may be right but the dems still
will have lost most of the states and many localities. It will be more of
the Obama/Clinton wing at the top with all the "professional" hangers on
facing down a Republican congress until the system collapses.
That's clearly what the Perez/Nate Coln Dems are banking on.
Metro-suburban class alliance of multicultural service workers and their
secular Republican employers nonplussed by Bush-style Trump clusterfark.
Heard no "strong populist message" out of Perez's mouth in the DNC
debates. Anything the Dems do there will be to elect more Blue Dogs to
strengthen the conservative wing of the party and push the Sanders people
back to the margins. That's all they care about right now.
But it's a completely passive strategy that is at the mercy of the
Republicans. For "what if" President Bannon lays off the coke and, like
Obama, doesn't do stupid?
The only real hazard the Trumpistas face is the timing of the next
recession. And that will depend on part on the Fed. The rest is: don't
start a war, just leave ACA sit there.
The Fed, the Fed, it all comes down to the Fed in the next 4 years.
Has Bannon studied up on Jackson's Bank War?
I was just at a "Community Meeting" with Rep. Peter DeFazio – one of
the more progressive Dems. Huge turnout, again. Questions were more
challenging than the ones to Wyden. Amazingly old audience – where are
all the Bernie millennials?
Toward the end, I asked him (1) what he thought had happened to the
Democrats over the last 8 disastrous years; and (2) whether he saw motion
to fix the problem.
He responded with a passionate statement of progressive ideas, so I
guess that answers #1; but he didn't answer Pt. 2 at all, really, which
is a negative answer. He had actually been pretty critical of the party
in earlier answers, and we had just learned that Perez would be chairing
the DNC.
I was wearing a Green Party T-shirt, which I'm sure he recognizes.
Oddly, both the first and last questions were from local Greens: the
first, from the former city councillor who runs against him on a regular
basis; and the last from my wife, about the Boycott-Divestment-Sanctions
movement. Time was limited, and we lined up for the microphones.
The wars won't matter to people as long as the propaganda is good
enough (perhaps a helpful false flag incident as well) and as long as
there is no draft. It's all about whipping up the patriotism we'll see
if that still works.
The Democratic Party has always about "left containment." Their entire
existence isn't about winning at all. It's about allowing establishment
rule, which is why even when Democrats are elected the forward march into
corporate rule continues unabated.
Neither party is worth a bucket of warm spit – and both parties pay no
attention what so ever to the vast majority their members, or the vast
majority of the citizens. And neither party can be reformed. IMHO, the only
question is if any new party constituted would be infiltrated and undermined
from within before it could do anything.
This seems very much like a kneejerk reaction. Your assuming the economy
doesn't go into recession by then which increasingly seems less and less
likely as well as the GOP Congressional leadership or Trump showing much
skill in executing their legislative agenda. A lot easier being the guy who
chants out about how the guy in charge sucks and another entirely when they
suddenly become the person in charge.
Unless Trump starts to deliver on jobs and meaningful wage growth, there
will be inevitable backlash in 2018 at him and the GOP. It is going to be
increasing when the rank and file American realizes that the GOP House tax
plan goes for essentially a 20% VAT to be implemented on imported goods
while they get a whopping income tax cut of 1-2%. Average American is a rube
but eventually this will start to sink in as to just how short changed
they'll be if it largely passes wholesale.
What if they do tax cuts for the rich without Social Security /
Medicare cuts? What if they don't do much about Obamacare and don't lose
votes that way either? And if the recovery continues, the labour market
will tighten.
Yes, and what if they *do* continue to put on a big show against
"illegals" and allegedly unfriendly Muslim immigrants? And tinker just
enough with NAFTA to claim a symbolic "win" against Mexico? This could
be potent stuff.
If the Democrats haven't managed to come up with a candidate people
can really get behind, it will be even easier for incumbency to pull
Trump over the finish line again. Many Republicans who wouldn't vote
for Trump this time "because Hitler" will have observed by then that
the country survived Term I, and they'll get back in line, because
Republicans always come home. The Democrats seem to think that since
the election was close, all they need to do is run Obama V2 (Booker),
thereby re-juicing the lagged African American turnout and putting a D
back in the Oval Office. I think that ship has sailed now. If Trump
truly bombs, then sure anyone will beat him. But as of now I'm not
confident that he will simply fail and the numbers may only be more
difficult for the Ds in 2020.
I seriously doubt Trump will be a one term president. DNC elections
notwithstanding. If there's no "there" there in the, according to Trump,
utterly nonexistent Russia scandal, why hide from the press? Take the
questions. Call for an investigation himself. Nothing to hide? Quit hiding.
Given very recent history, this is no surprise. Unfortunate, and I expect to
see "resistance" activities nudged even more toward the same weary mainstream
DNC tropes.
This is just another big fuck you to the progressive wing of the party. It's
time to board the ship and start a mutiny. And if that doesn't work, sink the
ship and build a new one.
"This is just another big fuck you to the progressive wing of the party."
The message is undeniable: You're not welcome here. Thank you for your
votes, thank you for your money, shut up, no you do not get to pick the
candidate, Debbie and Donna did nothing wrong, no we are not getting rid of
superdelegates, no we are not refusing corporate money, no you cannot have
even a Clinton-endorsing kinda-progressive as Chair, no to free college,
'never ever' to universal health care, 'we're capitalists here', and Haim
Saban's opinion matters more than millions of BernieCrats because money.
In March 2008, Saban was among a group of major Jewish donors to
sign a letter to Democratic Party house leader Nancy Pelosi warning
her to "keep out of the Democratic presidential primaries."The donors,
who "were strong supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton
presidential campaign", "were incensed by a March 16 interview in
which Pelosi said that party 'superdelegates' should heed the will of
the majority in selecting a candidate."The letter to Pelosi stated the
donors "have been strong supporters of the DCCC" and implied,
according to The Jewish Telegraphic Agency, that Pelosi could lose
their financial support in important upcoming congressional elections.
Poor ol' Haim must be soooo pissed that Clinton lost again. Hahaha.
I wasn't planning on commenting for a while but ended up leaving a
comment here a few minutes ago and it disappeared into the ether.
Probably something to do with the one of the links I included. No big
deal.
I stopped being a Democrat a few years ago. And I have not donated for some
time. Yet I still receive constant requests for money to keep the consultants
in airline miles. Every so often I think that perhaps it might be time to "come
home" or at least that they aren't so bad anymore.
Then they go and do this.
At this point I see no reason to keep the ossified corpse of the
Clinton Machine
Democratic party going. It is clear that the last
thing they want to do is listen to actual voters to decide their direction. All
they have is the faint hope that Trump will be so godawful that everyone will
love them again.
But then that was Hillary Clinton's campaign strategy
If your state requires you to register as a Democrat in order to vote in
the Democratic primary, I recommend doing so. Then you can vote for
outsiders in the 2018 and 2020 primaries. If your state has an open primary
system, you don't have to taint yourself with official membership - just
request the appropriate primary ballot and vote.
This is my dilemma. In CT, you have to be R or D to vote in primary. I
left the D's after the CA primary b/c I was so disgusted. I'll see what
candidates are looking like when the time comes and make my decision
then.
I deregistered as a Democrat in CA today after 17 years (though I
was already pretty much out over the past few years, I let this be the
final straw opposite inertia). The CA "top two" system for general
elections only puts the top two vote-getters from any party during the
primary on the ballot, ostensibly switching the election to one
largely determined during the primary, by primary voters.
The California Democratic party allows those voters registered as
not specifying a political preference to vote in the Democratic
primary, so I might still end up voting among the various options,
especially if someone like Brand New Congress puts up a real candidate
here or there. During the 2016 primary, the D-party anti-Sanders
shenanigans were evident even in CA. In some areas, unaffiliated
voters who wanted a D-party ballot were misled or required to very
strictly repeat a specific phrase, or they were given ballots with no
effect on the D-party primary. I expect to have to be very careful to
request and obtain the correct ballot in advance. (Let's hope that the
slow takeover at lower levels within the state makes this less
necessary).
It's going to be a long, hard slog on the left, whether
occasionally peeking inside the tent or building something cohesive,
not co-opted and effective outside the tent (where it seems the
D-party has necessarily pushed many).
But whatever you do, make sure you know your state's election law in
advance, especially deadlines for registration changes, which may be
earlier than you expect.
"All they have is the faint hope that Trump will be so godawful that
everyone will love them again."
Well, that and Nancy "we know how to win elections" Pelosi promising the
Earth for votes to regain their majorities,
again,
only to then
take all of that off of the table and start the cycle over again.
I really don't know how many times one can go to that well; we have seen
this play before. Seems like an awful lot of people have caught on to the
tactic at this point. Were that not the case, HIllary would probably be
happily bombing Russia by now.
The Dems are set up pretty well for 2018. Both Trump and Hillary are
deeply unpopular and Hillary won't be a vote driver for the GOP in 2018
and Trump will be for the Dems. There are a bunch of important States
with Gov races and whatever happens the next 20 months Trump and the GOP
will own completely, they wont even have a recalcitrant legislative
branch to point the finger at.
I always figured whoever won in 2016 was set up to be a one term POTUS.
Best case scenario for Trump is that we tread water for the next 2-4
years and I don't think that will be enough get him a 2nd term although
it might be enough to staunch GOP losses in 2020. If he gets gets into a
messy hot war, fumbles a major natural disaster or sees an economic
downturn in 4 years we'll be talking about the impending death of GOP.
Those scenarios sound a little rosy considering the types of people
we are talking about. They can take a lot of pain as long as someone
else is feeling it more .and there is always someone else. If they
cannot find a demographic to blame they will invent one; see the
historic hatred for ObamaCare and the raucous town halls now defending
the ACA; they don't have to make sense.
Also, too, Dems are defending more incumbencies in '18 than are the
Reps., and the Republican Party has the machinery already in place to
reduce the voting public down to just those that are more likely to
vote for them. Just create a riot at a voting precinct, for example,
jail whomsoever you want and take their stuff as is now foreshadowed
in Arizona. They would love that stuff; "Beat those hippies!" And,
after the Democratic Primaries, the Democratic Party will be in no
position to take the high ground.
No, even if all that happens, I think the predicting the death of
the GOP is way premature.
His fans will vote for him, a lot of the the people who voted
for him as the lesser of two evils will be demotivated to vote or
will vote Dem as a check on him and this who voted for HRC as the
lesser of two evils will be motivated. At best his popularity right
now is about where GWB's was after he tried to privatize SS and
just before Katrina and the public's view on Iraq flipped for good.
I think 2018 will look a lot like 2006. Hate and spite will be on
the Dems side in 2018 and those are great motivators.
Trump may have deep support, but it isn't very broad. He didn't win
an 84 or even an 08 sized victory.
There is a reason the party in power does poorly in off year
elections and Trump is the least popular newly elected POTUS in
modern history.
It would be helpful to know, also, how many who normally vote
Republican abstained or went 3rd party rather than vote for
Trump. Maybe it wasn't that many (since Trump did get more votes
than Romney after all), but many of these people will be voting
for Trump in 2020 unless he completely tanks. It's never a good
idea to underestimate the party loyalty of GOP voters. Beating
Democrats is the Prime Directive.
I think the problem is that Republicans are much better at actually
winning elections. How many seats can the Democrats actually regain?
Keeping in mind that midterm voters skew older/Republican in any case.
"We lost this election eight years ago," concludes Michael Slaby, the
campaign's chief technology officer. "Our party became a national movement
focused on general elections, and we lost touch with nonurban, noncoastal
communities. There is a straight line between our failure to address the
culture and systemic failures of Washington and this election result."
The question of why-why the president and his team failed to activate
the most powerful political weapon in their arsenal.
Obama's army was eager to be put to work. Of the 550,000 people who
responded to the survey, 86 percent said they wanted to help Obama pass
legislation through grassroots support; 68 percent wanted to help elect state
and local candidates who shared his vision. Most impressive of all, more than
50,000 said they personally wanted to run for elected office.
But they never got that chance. In late December, Plouffe and a small
group of senior staffers finally made the call, which was endorsed by Obama.
The entire campaign machine, renamed Organizing for America, would be folded
into the DNC, where it would operate as a fully controlled subsidiary of the
Democratic Party.
Instead of calling on supporters to launch a voter registration drive or
build a network of small donors or back state and local candidates, OFA
deployed the campaign's vast email list to hawk coffee mugs and generate
thank-you notes to Democratic members of Congress who backed Obama's
initiatives.
Republicans, on the other hand, wasted no time in building a grassroots
machine of their own-one that proved capable of blocking Obama at almost every
turn. Within weeks of his inauguration, conservative activists began calling
for local "tea parties" to oppose the president's plan to help foreclosed
homeowners.
https://newrepublic.com/article/140245/obamas-lost-army-inside-fall-grassroots-machine
Thomas Frank: "The even larger problem is that there is a kind of chronic
complacency that has been rotting American liberalism for years, a hubris that
tells Democrats they need do nothing different, they need deliver nothing
really to anyone – except their friends on the Google jet and those nice people
at Goldman. The rest of us are treated as though we have nowhere else to go and
no role to play except to vote enthusiastically on the grounds that these
Democrats are the "last thing standing" between us and the end of the world. It
is a liberalism of the rich, it has failed the middle class, and now it has
failed on its own terms of electability."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/donald-trump-white-house-hillary-clinton-liberals
And so it goes, unless. The ruling class, the professional class D&R, the
upper 10%, those who make more than $150 thousand, win no matter who sits in
the Oval Office or controls all 3 branches, both look down on their respective
bases, the deplorables. Taking a page from the TParty to fight harder, tougher,
longer, louder and make Perez move left.
"The rest of us are treated as though we have nowhere else to go and no
role to play "
And so far, they're right. At least, very few are going there. A lot are
staying home, but that doesn't accomplish much.
Take heart. One of my friends is a long-time progressive Democrat. She ran
as a Clean Elections candidate and was elected to the Arizona legislature last
November. She has never held office before.
Agree, Big River Bandido. She should share with progressive
Democratic primary challengers to those sorry Democrats only. Not that
anyone at the DNC would ever listen anyway.
Kudos to your friend! I think progressives fighting for places in the
state legislatures has to be our first step, especially with the
census/redistricting looming
Where do you live? 2/3'rds of the states have Republican governors and
66-70 percent Republican state legislatures. They have already been
gerrymandered and are very likely to remain this way for AT LEAST a
generation.
I live in Ohio. Democrat state legislators can do absolutely nothing.
Not that this particularly bothers them. They collect their $60,000
salaries - not bad for a VERY part-time position– regardless.
I'm guessing that you failed to mention - in addition to salary -
per diem, plus payments into the state retirement system? I'm guessing
that $60,000 is only the top part of the iceberg; best to look under
the waterline to get the whole picture?
They had Howard Dean, and a script for 50 state success and tossed it.
Yeah, I guess they at least should hold Perez's feet to the fire to make
him go lefty populist on the ground, if he doesn't, toss him and fight
them.
Brand New Congress just got out their fundraising email in response to the
election:
The DNC just elected a chair who is pro-TPP, against single-payer,
against tuition-free state universities and has no desire to transform our
economy in meaningful ways. A chair who thinks the status quo is ok. It's a
clear indicator that they're confident in their agenda, a confidence
exemplified in the words of Nancy Pelosi who believes that Democrats "don't
want a new direction".
Elect a Brand New Congress that works for all Americans.
We're running 400+ candidates in a single campaign to rebuild our
country.
Add Your Name
Join us if you believe it's time to reset our democracy.
Email
Please enter a valid email.
Zip
Please enter a valid zip code.
80% of Americans agree: Congress is broken. Both major parties have
proven time and time again that they are either unwilling or unable to
deliver results for the American people. But we have an alternative. We are
recruiting and running more than 400 outstanding candidates in a single,
unified, national campaign for Congress in 2018. Together, they will pass an
aggressive and practical plan to significantly increase wages, remove the
influence of big money from our government, and protect the rights of all
Americans. Let's elect a Brand New Congress that will get the job done.
This list of sponsors DOESN'T:
Washington Post
Wall Street Journal
Wired
The Huffington Post
The Daily Beast
Slate
The Nation
The Frisky
Salon
Bustle
Boing Boing
Roll Call
Well I for one am relieved he's the new chair. I won't have to think there
might be hope and change in the corp. owned demodog party. I'll celebrate with
a glass of whine later.
Arizona Slim, Thanks for the good news in AZ. It was tried in my part of
Calli but dnc did everything they good to elect repug instead of a real
progressive.
In order for real representative government to appear on the American scene,
two things have to happen:
1. Corporations have to be declared non-persons.
2. Money is declared not equal to speech.
Why do we have the situation we have now?
Two decisions by the Supreme Court. Santa Clara vs Southern Pacific RR and
Buckley vs. Valeo. So, who is the real power in our Government? The Judicial.
Thank you so much for this post!! I saw a video on the 1886 case in high
school and was disgusted. In passing time I forgot the specifics and have
been trying to locate that decision since. I kept thinking it was in the
1920s/30s
I'd add No. 3: Ranked preference voting. (Majority wins or run-offs do
not cut it.)
In this case, if choosing among 4 candidates, and I rank all 4 of them, my
first choice gets 4 points, my second choice gets 3 points, etc. If I only
rank 2 of them, my first choice gets 2 points, my second choice gets 1
point. If I only rank 1 person, they get 1 point.
Try this out on anything where you've got 3 or more options, in a group
of any size. It's amazing how much better the group consensus will be
reflected in the results.
You can vote your genuine preference without concern for "spoilers" or
dividing the opposition.
Seriously though, I kind of like this little game we play here, where we
act surprised or shocked or something at the Democratic Party's complete
lack of integrity. Like there was ever any question that 'they' might do the
right thing. I honestly don't know about you guys, but I decided a
long
time ago that the Democrats and Republicans were just two tentacles of the
same vampire squid or whatever, so.. why the outrage and/or disdain? cause
it's diverting I suppose.
The Democratic Party will never let the Republican Party go down. Haven't
we figured that out yet?
The only way to get rid of the Republican Party is to get rid of the
Democratic Party.
"He is clearly an anti-Semite and anti-Israel individual," pronounced Saban
about the African-American Muslim congressman, adding: "Keith Ellison would be
a disaster for the relationship between the Jewish community and the Democratic
Party."
"I'm a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel," he told the New York Times
in 2004 about himself
he attacked the ACLU for opposing Bush/Cheney civil liberties assaults and
said: "On the issues of security and terrorism I am a total hawk."
We're not welcome anywhere it seems – and that has to be flippin'
ridiculous in a country of this size and diversity! Could there be a better
time for the Democratic Socialists to expand and come forth ? Cornel West at
the helm, to begin – perhaps persuading Bernie to join him.
From what I see already around the interwebs and comment sections, it
will be blamed on the lefty radicals who are fracturing the party by
resisting the borg. And Sanders. And Cornel West. Etc Etc
You know – it almost doesn't even matter. The Dems will get corporation
donations just in "case" they win. They really aren't terribly motivated.
It's like being a salesperson with no sales goals.
On another note – The Turks guy (Cent? can't remember his name) said that
it was time for a third party on his twitter account. Nina Turner "liked"
it. I found that a little hopeful.
The Democrats obviously can't wait for that constitutional convention by the
sadist wing of the Republican Party. The sooner it can no longer have any
loopholes that cause any interpretation outside of corporations rule, the
easier it will be for Democrats. No more worrying about doing good things for
those pesky people.
The United States already has third parties. There is no real need to start
another one. The Libertarian party is the radical antiauthoritarian center. The
Green Party ought to be adequate for progressive Democrats. There is also a
far-right christian theocrat Constitution Party.
I've voted forJill twice now (and contributed moderately). She seems
intelligent, well-spoken, progressive, passionate, everything we would
want a candidate to be and nothing. If there was EVER a year to have
broken through 5% sigh. So what's the problem?
The problem is that there's widespread election fraud. You could
see it in the Wisconsin and Michigan GE recounts and the Illinois
Democratic Party Recount. The reality is that we don't have any
trustworthy vote totals. Maybe Jill did a lot better (or maybe she
didn't), maybe Hillary actually beat Donald (or maybe she didn't),
maybe Bernie won the primary (okay, that one really isn't a maybe to
me since it's very clear that Hillary used tricks to move IA and NV
into her corner- which would have been fatal if she didn't, the CA,
NY, AZ, PR, and RI primary debacles, DNC collusion etc).
Here are two videos that really helped me understand that this
fraud is likely widespread:
Long video on the Illinois recount:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSNTauWPkTc&sns=em
–>The "good" part starts at minute 24. The underlying point becomes
clear really quickly if you want to just watch a small portion, but
the speaker who comes on around the hour mark is excellent.
Election Justice USA also had a great summary. There's a reason
many places in Europe still do manual, verifiable counting. Voting
security, even more than money in politics, is the biggest barrier to
having a legitimate Democracy. Unfortunately, that may be even more
difficult than money in politics, which at least could theoretically
be altered by Congress to cover the whole country at once.
What Carla said about the greens. Also, the Libertarians are basically
into neoliberalism. Theyre ok on social issues, but they aren't a real
answer either.
My hope is that the #Notmypresident millennials take the next steps from
Trump needs to be resisted and work for longer term gains and political
power by getting active in local politics/down ticket races and local
democratic party organizations to in effect bum rush the dems and make it
the party that it wants the country to be.
Love doesn't conquer all, Corporate lobbyists do. Organize for power, win
elections, work for change.
I think most people here are seeing what happened, but wrong about the
impact.
Head of DNC is not a good place to organize primary challenges, and that is
what is needed. DNC head is mostly just bag man for corporate money. Not that
much power but some visibility. Bernie guy gets in, and there are constant
questions about loyalty to the party and big tent and being fair to blue dogs.
And then questions of competence if not enough money is raised or not enough
elections won. No winning likely.
Losing suits us better. Establishment is against Progressives. Fine. The war
is on. Find primary challengers, and get them elected.
In my view, that has always been the only way forward.
Find primary challengers, even if they have no chance of winning. Even in
districts stacked against them turn money in politics into the wealthy's
biggest weakness. Make the ROI in elections too expensive to achieve.
I agree with you that losing this worthless race serves our long-term
interests better. This is war and clarity is always an advantage. Easier to
fight them from a clear outside position.
However, we have not the resources or the power base (within the Democrat
Party) to mount effective primary challenges. If that party is to be a
vehicle for change, we will have to take it away from them starting at the
lowest levels - local party offices - and gradually work our way up.
As we move up the chain, we purge all the deadwood.
At this point, perhaps progressives would have more luck joining the
Republican Party in hopes of "reform" or "changing the platform". They would
probably have more luck than with the Democrats. As for 2018 and 2020, the
congressional Republicans will have no incentive to defend congress or the
Presidency. They would rather have Democrats to blame things for than have to
deal with President Trump (whom they detest).
Einstein's definition of #Insanity immediately comes to mind.
We'll see what #BernieCrats, #DSA and others can do at the grassroots level.
Their (continued) #Resistance to the #corporatistDem structure is even more
important now.
That's just what Rep. DeFazio just said – even though he himself wins
by ridiculous margins in a "swing" district (the closest win for Hillary
inthe country, he said) by being a progressive's progressive.
I was a card-carrying member of DSA when it was DSOC! Long time ago. Time
to start paying dues again, even from the political wilderness in which I
find myself. Way past time, actually. The problem with waiting for the
Democrat Party to hit bottom is this: There is no bottom to this abyss.
As someone doing DSA organizing I'll say that we will be thrilled to
have you on board again. Interest is quite high among the Bernie youth,
so the seats are full but experience, generational diversity, and gas
money are in relatively short supply!
Perhaps from lack of organization on their part? After the election
my husband registered to join the DSA, and sent them money. Three
months later, no acknowledgement of any kind, not even a dumb
membership card. Not that the Democrats ever sent anything but
requests for cash, but we expected better.
It's OK. They let Ellison be play chairman. The Identities are pleased.
BTW: Perez was born in Buffalo, NY, and Wikipedia lists his nationality
as American. The WaPo headline is bullcrap, intended to distract readers
from the real issues, and promote the Clinton wing to Latin Americans, an
identity group that certainly would benefit more from the Sanders wing.
Bush's meltdown did give us a Black President - but after 8 years, not 4
years. During the election I too thought whichever candidate won was poised to
be a one-term President, but there's a big condition: there absolutely
must
be a compelling competing narrative, and a defined counter-platform. It doesn't
matter what calamity results from a Trump-led-monopoly-republican federal
government if they still dominate the narrative and the opposition is still
just "resisting" (or has an incoherent laundry list). It's overly-optimistic to
think the Rs will own bad outcomes, or that those in power ever necessarily do
(if that were so, neither Bush nor Obama would have been re-elected).
I'll hand it to the dems, I thought they'd string things out. I didn't think
they'd let it be this obvious, this quickly, that the counter force won't come
from the democrat party. None of us thought it would, but maybe we thought
they'd at least throw some dust in the air to try keep us guessing for a while.
The challenge for the Left remains organization and focus. The clarity
delivered by the democrat party is helpful. No need to debate reform, that's
been answered (at least for now). The democrat establishment has nothing to do
with the Left. It is not the opposition per say but might as well be (think of
it this way: an opponent would refute your work, try to tank or sabotage it;
the democrats invite you over to steal it, mess it up, fail, blame you, and
invite you over again, huffing that their own work is "essentially the same
anyway" but insisting that they be in charge).
It's time to own the Realignment. One part of that is making a clear break
from the democratic establishment in terms of agenda, priorities, solidarity,
identity. Not just a quibble among the like-minded; a divorce. We are only
serving its interests if we don't. Case in point, the linked article echoes the
common refrain that between Perez and Ellison "ideological differences are
few ". No, no, a thousand effing times no. That is wrong, and attempts to fit
in or make common cause with the dem establishment only validate the
self-serving Unity/Look Forward narrative whose purpose is obscure what's
really at issue and at stake.
And the corollary to cutting losses on the dem establishment is the second
part - building the realignment, which means finding and creating common cause
where it's been latent or non-existent. A compelling, competing narrative must
be a counterweight not just to Trump's blame-deflections, but to the drivel
spewing (at least as subtext) from the establishments of both parties. The key
is not to try make the Rs own the outcomes on their watch; it's to make the
Establishment own them, and to make Trump own that he
is
the
Establishment (or that he caters to it).
Everything else is secondary. Elections up and down the ballot (local, state
and federal) may force decisions on voting for a party, but which party
prevails is not important - it is incidental, relevant only if it serves the
cause, not vice versa. The Left needs to be clear on the realignment, stop
talking to and about parties, and take up common cause and concern where we can
find it. I have a feeling that the Left is less defined and determined than we
imagine, because we aren't really testing it yet. Illusions about the
democratic party are gone. And that's a good thing.
It doesn't matter what calamity results from a
Trump-led-monopoly-republican federal government if they still dominate
the narrative and the opposition is still just "resisting" (or has an
incoherent laundry list). It's overly-optimistic to think the Rs will own
bad outcomes, or that those in power ever necessarily do (if that were
so, neither Bush nor Obama would have been re-elected).
If Trump owns a narrative on a brick and mortar foundation of higher
unemployment in the battleground states, devastation of lives from another
financial meltdown (Bush had already stolen the second term prior to it),
devastation and death from a potential free market solution to health
care–"here's a voucher, go chose the best deal cause it's all about giving
you your freedom", and war that may end up being brought to the shores of
Western Europe and the United States killing a whole bunch more than 9/11,
it would be pretty difficult to come back and sell the medicine show elixir
a second time. Promising a whole lot and delivering less than zero, I don't
know if the "deplorables" will get fooled again by his fake populism when he
comes back for their votes in four years when they're still unemployed,
underemployed and in greater debt and or bankruptcy from increased medical
care costs. I'm not saying this as a affirmation of neoliberal democratic
people running for the presidency, but that a whole lot of nothing incumbent
running on a world of shit that he's created is vulnerable to a candidate
who may be a whole lot of nothing with less baggage.
And Trump would potentially be running on a bigger pile of poop that he's
added to the domestic and foreign fronts of Obama and Bush. O and B brought
us to the precipice of the cliff, but Trump incompetence GOP ideologue
arrogance can drive us off the cliff.
We may be pointing at different parts of a continuum - how bad things
are in four years relative to Trump promises, and why people believe
things are so bad. We are likely closest on how bad things could be - I
agree, the stuff Trump ran and won on is likely to be much, much worse -
but I think I'm less inclined to see that as handing him electoral defeat
in 2020. Of course it's always easier/better to be able to run on
something delivered. And less-than-zero can and by logic
should
tank a President. But the
why
is important - especially when the
electorate basically doesn't trust any of these clowns. No one really
expects anything from Washington, and is used to things getting worse. If
Trump can deflect and maintain his message - cast blame on various faces
of the establishment, the democrats, media, eventually even the
republicans - I don't think he's inevitably or even likely undone. I'm
not saying nothing will ever catch up with . just saying it's not
guaranteed. There are a lot of factors, but I think here's actually my
main thing: it depends less on "holding him to account" or pointing at
failures or making him own things, and more on advancing a coalition with
a compelling voice, coherent platform - and not about party. In the end,
pinning failures on Trump only succeeds if there's a concrete and
appealing answer to "compared to what." Trump just won against The
Establishment, and the classic establishment move is to point giddily at
failures and mis-steps, and say here's where you can donate, and thanks
for your vote. A successful opposition has to do better.
Is it too late to change my mind and support a Syrian no fly zone? I want
this country to fail. I want it to stop existing. I absolutely hate everything
about america. I want Both Clinton's and Obama's heads on a plate. If Bernie
doesn't announce he's creating a new party then I'll just be sitting around
thinking about the best way to undermine this shit hole of a country.
The Democratic Party no longer stands for anything at all (witness its
recent conversion to McCarthyism). Its actions are motivated by no purpose save
its leaders' self-enrichment.
A political party without a raison d'ˆtre is little more than a walking
corpse and there is nothing to be lost by leaving it.
Though sad about the outcome of the DNC chair race, I think PH is right, DNC
chair is probably just about raising the corporate $$. I'm sticking with the
Tip O'Neil strategy, "all politics is local."
I joined the D party in 2014, mostly because I thought I had to get involved
and help remove Scott W from the governor's mansion. What I saw was lethargic
and not very welcoming. Couldn't get anyone to train me on how to canvas. I
offered over and over to do data entry, web, social media.
In the summer of 2015, I got involved with a local issue and we WON. 8
people (no other Dems) and we stopped a bad deal the city was about to make. We
did petitions and spoke at council meetings. Wrote op eds, did radio
interviews, put up yard signs.
Through that I met an organizer from a progressive group and I told him that
I was thinking of running for local office. He introduced me to the bare facts
of how to run a campaign and put me in touch with another progressive group
that runs candidate training seminars. I went to one of those seminars. I was
listening to Bernie too:) His positive voice was a great inspiration. By the
end of 2015, I knew I would run for the county board. All our local races are
non-partisan and often uncontested. The incumbent would be running for her
third term.
The local election is held during the spring Presidential primary. I live in
Wisconsin. My area is completely red. The election I could best model from was
the 2012 and Rich Santoruim won my district. I had access to the VAN as well
and could see that Republicans dominated my district in this election. (It
voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012) I planned my campaign based completely on
meeting the voter at the door and listening. Turnout is usually pretty low,
30%. I figured 50 hrs at the doors would do it. Interestingly, almost every
person I talked with didn't even know who represented them on the county board.
It was surprisingly easy, the only stress was the heat of the Presidential
primary and how that would bring unpredictability to my race.
Happy news, I won. More Happy news, I got involved with recruiting and
helping people run for local office. We're at it right now. School board, city
council. This is where it begins and this is where the ball has been dropped in
Wisconsin. The Republican party has used the local offices very effectively to
build their bench. What the Dems didn't do was build the bench.
In Wisconsin, this is so easy because the vast majority of the local offices
are non-partisan. When someone asked me what party I was with, I would just
say, "this is a non-partisan race." That was the end of that part of the
conversation and we were on to something else. The other thing about the local
elections is that very few people actually run a campaign, so if you do, you
will win. Your name is the only name they will know.
I now have connected with other people in the state who are working on this
strategy. It is going to take a while, but we will build the bench and take
back the state. It isn't going to happen overnight.
I went to the first local Our Revolution meeting today. I was impressed. The
organizer had exactly the same thought – we are going to fill the county board
with progressives. Stuff is going to happen. We've got the people, that is what
we need locally, not $$.
If only the Democratic party could see, they need to train up and use their
people. Forget the big $$$.
This is an inspiring story. The "silver lining" in these times is that
people are taking their anger and disappointment and doing something about
it at an actionable, local level. I went to a local assemblyman's town hall
meeting yestesrday that had hundreds more attendees than were planned. The
natives are restless.
I, too, am in WI and running for city council. The only reason I'm
willing to do so is *because* the local offices are nonpartisan – I am quite
disillusioned with national politics and both parties. At least locally some
good can be done. DC is irredeemable.
I will likely be using the WI open primary to vote for whichever
candidate the DNC opposes, not that it will matter. If nothing else, I will
feel better.
Taking over the dem party, starting with local races, will be a very long
struggle. Generations. Particularly considering candidates trying for dem nom
will be attacked by corp dems tooth and nail.
The greens are very disorganized. So What? Take them over and organize them.
This is doable, and with somebody like Bernie leading the charge you could pull
in half the dem party plus indies and win elections in 2018 doesn't take that
much support to win elections in three way races, look at GB.
and then be viable for pres in 2018.
Bernie has to give up on dems if he wants to move the needle. Perez win
might just be that extra middle finger that gets him off the dime.
The forces of capital own both parties in a two party system. They will
never give up either of them. Socialists, Social Democrats, Democratic
Socialists, even progressive liberals and .must look elsewhere. Anything else
is fruitless.
St. Bernard had his chance. He blew it. Time to move on from him and MoveOn
and the like.
And so the DNC has learned nothing from the past election cycle and the
repudiation of neoliberalism here and abroad. Confirms my decision to leave the
party.
Observations from the western border of the Granite State:
I decided to attend a local democrat meeting because the candidate I
supported in the D primary for governor (Steve Marchand – he lost) was the
keynote speaker. When I received my copy of Indivisible, and saw that one of
the working groups for the night was focusing on "Fake News," I almost decided
to stay home.
But I didn't. Steve was great. He, counter to the message of "we must play
defense; we cannot offer positive alternatives," in Indivisible, repeatedly
told us that "we cannot beat something with nothing." He spoke extensively
about local organizing, and about appealing to all voters on the issues. He got
a very enthusiastic response from the 100 or so people who turned out for the
meeting. Our governor has a two year term, and while Steve said that he was not
running for anything at the moment, he's clearly laying the ground for a 2018
run. He's getting out in front of every local Dem group, and doing meet and
greets all over the state. Good for him.
We have a Berniecrat, Josh Adjutant, running for state party chair. He may
not win, but he too, is out meeting with groups all over the state and getting
his name out there. He narrowly lost a bid for state rep in a deeply republican
district to a Free Stater, who hasn't shown up for a single vote since being
elected. Last week the Free Stater resigned, and now there will be a special
election. Josh is running again. He's likely to win this time.
After hearing that Perez won the DNC chair, my knee jerk reaction was to say
the hell with it. However there are no viable third party options here, and the
people who voted for Perez all come from the state party.
What I noticed among our Dem group, was a real desire to work on issues and
develop a positive counter message.
So I'm going to get more involved and fight from within. I joined the "fake
news" group, pushed to focus on policy, and volunteered to chair the group
going forward.
Great report, Jen. That's encouraging. Thanks for what you are doing.
We can support good individual Democrats and office holders and good
primary candidates, but with absolutely illusions about sorry sorry party
and its resolute determination to continue hippie punching.
Makes me sick when they go on about Russians and conflict of interest and
ignore things that affect everyone's lives, and that's what they plan to do.
As I have been saying for years now, the
ONLY
purpose of the
Democratic Party today is to crush its own left wing. Denying this at this
point is a fool's errand.
Given this, how can any member of this same left ever justify another vote
for any candidate this Democratic Party sponsors? You do not overcome such
hostility by electing its representatives.
Does that mean you has to vote for people like Donald Trump? Unfortunately,
it does. If you don't, you are not playing at the same level they are, and they
will beat you until the cows come home. These are the people who do not cede
power. These are the people it must be taken from.
"What all people have to realize," said Stuart Appelbaum, a labor leader
from New York and Perez supporter who brought the chair process to its end
Saturday afternoon by calling for the results to be accepted by acclamation,
"is the real form of resistance is voting."
Apparently it was a 3-minute video but the transcript only took about 15 seconds to read. The
actual text is a void, there's nothing said of substance. Probably this is more about the timing
and venue of the release, which would indicate it's just a routine warning to her faction at the
DNC meeting tomorrow. No matter who wins tomorrow, the Clintons will still control all
institutional fundraising. Having one of their own installed (yet again) as chair would simply
make that job easier for them.
Nice to see Clinton hijacking #TheResistance branding, the vile Neera
Tanden having paved the way.
I may seem overly foily on Democrat co-opting, but let's remember that
the Democrats decapitated #BlackLivesMatter effortlessly. A couple of TFA
celebrity leaders - DeRay is now openly hawking product on his Twitter feed
- and boom, done. And that was a movement driven by cops whacking black
people with impunity; a good ceal of grassroots power, there. Which was not,
of course, addressed.
The Democrat establishment is perhaps too overly adapted - rather like
the the panda, which can digest the shoots of certain bamboos - to its
ecological niche of retain power within the Party. But at that, they are
superb. Two lines of defense against Ellison with Perez and (sp) Buttegeig.
That's cute, though perhaps not so cute as a panda.
"... In much the same way Blair's catastrophic prime ministerial terms as leader of the UK's mainstream 'Left' will be justifiably viewed unkindly through the lens of history, so too will corporate place man Obama's two abject 'Democratic' presidencies (although to be fair it was Billy boy who saw $ signs in his eyes and who really first started the rot proper for the Democrats.) ..."
"... Listen, Liberals ..."
"... Strangers in Their Own Land ..."
"... I live in a district shaped like a banana ..."
"... "If half of the Super Delegates had voted for the Sanders wing at the convention, wouldn't Sanders have been the Dem candidate?" ..."
Do we need any further proof that the Democratic Party is more interested in
reconciling with the corporate elite than with its populist base? Its core
party leadership is against populist ideas. Liberalism of the rich having
failed the middle and working classes, fails on its own terms of electability.
It helped create today's shockingly disillusioned and sullen public.
Did the Charlie Brown left really believe that this time that Lucy wouldn't
pull the football away and they wouldn't land on their kiesters? But the
Democratic Party always pulls the ball away. It's their nature.
"The crucial tasks for a committed left in the United States now are to
admit that no politically effective force exists and to begin trying to create
one. This is a long-term effort, and one that requires grounding in a vibrant
labor movement. Labor may be weak or in decline, but that means aiding in its
rebuilding is the most serious task for the American left. Pretending some
other option exists is worse than useless. There are no magical interventions,
shortcuts, or technical fixes. We need to reject the fantasy that some spark
will ignite the People to move as a mass. We must create a constituency for a
left program - and that cannot occur via MSNBC or blog posts or the New York
Times. It requires painstaking organization and building relationships with
people outside the Beltway and comfortable leftist groves. Finally, admitting
our absolute impotence can be politically liberating; acknowledging that as a
left we have no influence on who gets nominated or elected, or what they do in
office, should reduce the frenzied self-delusion that rivets attention to the
quadrennial, biennial, and now seemingly permanent horse races. It is long past
time for us to begin again to approach leftist critique and strategy by
determining what our social and governmental priorities should be and focusing
our attention on building the kind of popular movement capable of realizing
that vision." – Adolph Reed Jr., "Nothing Left, The long, slow surrender of
American liberals," Harper's Magazine, March 2014 issue
Don't waste any time pissing and moaning - organize!
It is time to revisit "Fighting Bob" LaFollette's Wisconsin tactics of the
early 1900s.
If the soul of the nation is to be saved, I believe that we must become its
soul.
"There never was a higher call to greater service than in this protracted
fight for social justice." – Robert M. La Follette Sr.
There is a liberal propaganda state of the 10%. It is dogmatic and thus
unfalsifiable.
Arguing with them is like arguing atheism to a fundamentalist. They cannot
hear arguments that violate the structure of their religion. They simply do not
parse.
I must say I really appreciated your analogy of neoliberalism and
religion.
To extend it, if I may, religions cannot exist and persist without faith
ie a conviction without the need for proof, or worse sometimes despite
overwhelming personal or widespread evidence to the contrary.
Most established religions, unsurprisingly are rigidly hierarchical,
controlling and equally require a self-serving, venal priesthood to act as
conduits to interpret and explain (away?) the finer points, gross injustices
and glaring contradictions thrown up by the current 'natural order' and
structures it demands and imposes on its potentially questioning or
waivering followers.
The 'religion's' arcane nature is maintained at all costs, and this is
facilitated by a deliberately impenetrable jargon (to a credulous, often
fearful laity whom mostly endure its harshest edicts), and all tied together
by an over arching fallacious narrative predicated on fear that demands
unconditional obedience and compliance or facing severe, lasting
consequences for apostacy.
In much the same way Blair's catastrophic prime ministerial terms as leader
of the UK's mainstream 'Left' will be justifiably viewed unkindly through the
lens of history, so too will corporate place man Obama's two abject
'Democratic' presidencies (although to be fair it was Billy boy who saw $ signs
in his eyes and who really first started the rot proper for the Democrats.)
Let's be realistic, really successful politicians are rarely shrinking
violets, and are mostly to a man or woman sociopathic narcissists, but it is
only in the modern age that these apparently credible, flag of convenience,
self-serving, ideologically bereft personalities not only have the power to
lead and dominate these long-established political parties during their
relatively brief tenure, it appears they now also have the power to profoundly
undermine or even possibly destroy them in the longer term.
Is it just a shame or coincidence that these once proud and powerful parties
of waning influence happen to traditionally represent the interests of working
people I wonder?
What a frustrating situation. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that the
corporate Democrats really do have a death wish. I agree with many comments
that it is incredibly destructive and stupid to double down on their losing
strategies instead of embracing the Sanders wing of the party. I partly agree
w/ Glenn Greenwald that electing Ellison would have been an easy way to welcome
in the Sanders wing, but unlike him, I'm not sure the Dem chair really is just
a symbolic position. It certainly is symbolic–and the corporate Dems have
chosen potent (and loathesome) symbols in Debbie W-S and Donna B. But I
disagree w/ Greenwald that it is only symbolic. I think the position does
matter in many ways. In any case, in this election which came to be seen by
Dems as a battle for control over the direction of the party, it is clear now
who runs the show and is determined to continue running the show: the corporate
shills of the Clinton/Obama Dems.
But I also see this as a failure of Ellison and the progressives. We have to
play hardball if we're going to win. Ellison had the endorsement of many Dem
stalwarts; he has a relatively strong record for a Democrat; emboldened with
party authority, I believe he could have done a lot; and yes, he would have had
great symbolic value. But he did not make a strong case for his leadership, as
far as I can tell. He didn't declare loudly and clearly why the Dems have been
losing and make a powerful case for why, now, the Dems need desperately to
change. Instead he was having dinner with Perez, cutting side deals, and making
a great effort to smile and please everyone. Haim Saban and the corporate Dems
came after him with hateful islamophobic slanders; Ellison stepped back, spoke
softly, praised Israel, and vowed to work closely with corporate Dems. And he
still lost. These conciliatory positions will not cut it. Unless and until
there's a vigorous position articulated within the party on the desperate need
for drastic changes, we'll lose.
One reason why this is so frustrating is that across the country, I believe
the landscape looks very promising for a progressive agenda–at least as
progressive, or more so, than what Sanders articulated. The energy is there,
and growing. But we still lack the organization. Where will it come from? Not
from the Greens, I'm afraid. As much as I agree with Stein and the Greens
positions on many issues, the Greens have over the decades proven that this is
not a party interested in building grassroots power. For that you need broad
and sustained efforts over time at the level of school boards and city
councils, building toward winning candidates to positions at the county level,
and mayors, and state representatives, and so on. You have to build a name for
yourself and prove through smaller campaigns what you stand for and that you
can win victories for your voters. And voters need to feel that it is their
party, our party. The Greens have not done any of this. It's not enough to just
have good ideas or be able to win a policy debate.
There's the Working Families Party, which has done some of this organizing
and has some victories. But it's still woefully short of what is necessary. But
I believe there's a lot of talent and potential on the left–and a growing and
restless energy now under Trump. We have to be strong and clear that this
corporate Dem program is unacceptable. We need to field local candidates on
issues people care about, from city banking and municipally owned power and IT,
to police violence, more community control in schools, and so on. Whether the
people carrying out these potentially popular programs are Dems, Greens,
Working FP or Socialists, matters less, it seems to me. But if people are
convinced that only a reinvigorated Dem Party will be able to do it, then there
needs to be a hostile takeover. The Clintonites & the Obama people, Haim Saban
and their ilk: they're not our friends and must be denounced and opposed. These
people are at best wishy-washy and mealy-mouthed when it comes to advocating
for us; they continue to compromise rightward and adopt unpopular conservative
agendas and to kick us in the teeth. Fuck them. We must articulate a positive,
winnable agenda around issues we care about.
See the comment above about local clubs. A good place to start.
Change is not going to come top down, even if that sounds like the
easiest way. Too much ego and money invested in the old ways.
Blue Dogs are confident Progressives cannot win in rural states. We must
prove them wrong.
Blue Dogs do not believe we can find credible primary challengers. They
think we are just a bunch of whining idealists. We must prove them wrong -
not on blogs - at the polls.
It is not only clubs. It's the party structure itself at the municipal
and county level, which is generally occupied by a combination of
well-meaning 10% liberals, eager corporate acolytes who see politics as a
path of personal advancement but find the Republican social positions
icky and whoever just shows up.
In many places it's mostly the latter. So, form your own club, yes,
and go to local party meetings, yes, but more than anything else, work.
Organize. Knock on your neighbor's door, listen to them and talk with
them. Then do that again, and again, and again. Recruit your friends and
colleagues to do the same. When the moment is right, get someone whose
values you really trust to run for office, and if there's resistance from
the existing party apparatus, well, run a contested primary. The people
who do that work - registering, persuading and turning out voters, can
take over the local structure of a party and win from the left.
And btw, if you're struggling to persuade others, don't give up. Get
your egalitarian club together, and instead of complaining about how
others don't get it, role play conversations with different types of
voters, put your beer down, and go back out on the doors.
"Blue Dogs are confident Progressives cannot win in rural states. We
must prove them wrong."
That's just been done, in Texas, of all places. Local organizing,
person to person contact, and no TV money led to success. The exact
opposite of HRC's campaign, of course.
American citizens are at the bottom of the bucket; shut up, stay poor, and
forget the "myth" of a middle class.
These are some very simple truths, which Usian's seem loathe to accept or
understand.
The evidence is clear with almost every comment offering nonsense solutions;
year after precious year; ad infinitum
If there is a solution; I have no idea what that would be. But knowing and
understanding the reality on the ground, gives a firm place to stand.
It's a place to start
There is no better sign of the contempt that the Democratic leadership has
for its constituents t
han the way Donna Edwards was treated in the primary for the open Senate seat
from Maryland.
Maryland being Maryland, whoever won the Democrat primary was going to win the
general.
The two leading candidates were Chris van Hollen, a slick fundraiser
high in Pelosi's train wreck House leadership,
and Donna Edwards, an African-American who was one of the most progressive
House members.
Almost the entire Dem power structure (and, of course, the WaPo) went after
Edwards guns blazing.
Oddly, Edwards critics were never accused of sexism or racism by Clinton
supporters. Weird.
The DNC is important, but only part of the story. The DSCC and DCCC have
been horror shows for years,
led by incompetent clowns, corporate fronts, or (in the case of Jon Tester, who
ran the DSCC this past cycle),
sock puppets for people like Schumer.
And yet it seems to be impossible to discuss this stuff rationally with many
Democrats.
Far easier for them to blame the party's woes on BernieBros.
Jeepers, you don't think some YOOJ, classy K Street "social networking
advocacy solutions" firm will now be tasked to slap together a grassroots,
Cumbaya warbling Democratic Socialist lemming forking oh, that's right been
there, dun did that? We can't mock Trump's craven churls, spoon-fed C & K
Street's große Lüge without turning the selfie-cam around on our geriatric
children's crusade, awaiting some canny carny barker messiah?
Ha! I lost a good friend because I told him in November 2015 that if it
comes down to Hillary Clinton v. Donald Trump, she will lose the state-by-state
contest while winning the popular vote, notwithstanding polls to the contrary.
I didn't let up on that obviously correct assessment through all of 2016, and
he finally told me my intellectual arguments rank down there with some of his
fundamentalist relatives. Another was still predicting a Hillary landslide
until 10:00 pm EST on Election Night. She is big on the "Stupid Trump Voters"
meme, while blaming "me" for the outcome. Everyone needs to face the truth. The
national Democrats only care about their membership in the Establishment, even
if they are relegated to "inconsequential" as they are overtaken by events due
to their abject fecklessness.
So be it. From 1974-2008 I voted for the Democrat as the "Left Wing of the
Possible," in Michael Harrington's phrase, and for at least 20 years too long.
Never again. As my brief colloquy here with a reader last night concluded, it's
time to rejoin DSA as an elder and raise even more hell with the "kids"!
I will continue to evaluate candidates on their merits, not their party
affiliation. I can't stop donating to the party organization, since I did
that years ago, but I can certainly tell it where to get off, whether in
phone calls or using its reply-paid envelopes. I realize what travels in
those may never be read by anyone but a data-entry clerk, if indeed they
bother to enter the data, which I've always doubted.
Well, I have to say that the volume of DNC et al. mail I receive has
fallen to a trickle since I spent the past year returning their pre-paid
donation envelopes with nasty comments. The pleading e-mails are gone as
well. So
someone
is entering data.
If a Hillary or Obama supporter has an open mind (yes, a few of them do
have open minds - a Hillary supporter in my family admitted to me that
Bernie would have been a better choice), these two articles can help them to
understand what's been happening.
Vatch: Let me try this again; first reply disappeared Beginning in
early 2016 I tried to convince my liberal friends with facts such as
those in your links, with no success whatsoever. Most of them stick to
the "Stupid Trump Voter" meme, even when confronted with the work of
Thomas Frank in
Listen, Liberals
and Ellie Russell Hochschild in
Strangers in Their Own Land
, which perfectly describes my many
cousins in Louisiana, not one of whom is stupid to my knowledge.
Different, yes, and for damn good reasons. Stupid, no. You can't be
stupid and survive on an offshore oil rig. My particular liberals go no
deeper than Rachel Maddow, whose Stanford-Oxford/Rhodes Scholar pedigree
is all the authority they need. It goes without saying that
Wellesley-Yale was/is just as authoritative, now and forevermore. Their
epistemic closure/confirmation bias is simply the opposite side of the
same coin the Tea Party or Alt-Right uses to explain markets or climate
change or liberal fascism. As the president would say, "Sad!"
Well, you tried. As Yves pointed out in her introduction, there are
aspects of cultish thought processes here.
Of course the Obots and Hillaristas aren't the only cult members.
Limbaugh's ditto-heads. some of the tea-partiers, and some of Trump's
more enthusiastic supporters also fit that mold. I don't like to say
this, but some of Bernie's supporters probably also qualify. Open
mindedness can require a lot of effort.
I became a more active commenter on PoliticalWire during the primary season
and was subject to considerable vitriol due to my lack of enthusiasm for HRC,
which only increased in amount after the election when I refused to vote for
her (going 3rd party instead). I hung on for a little while, trying to make my
points re where I thought the country needed to go, but have simply stopped
participating in the discussions as I realized that the system has to run its
course and I am not going to be able to change that. And slamming one's head
against a brick wall repeatedly does begin to hurt after a while. I think I'll
just use my vote to support those I policies I think are good, or at the very
least to block any candidates supported by the establishment. It isn't much,
but it is something.
I used was a regular reader of Kevin Drum for probably 10 years or so,
back to the CalPundit days. The commentariat there became really hostile to
any outside ideas as the primary wore on. The Closure is now complete,
although some of the the really hostile commenters have disappeared (their
David Brock paychecks stopped, I suppose) but still reality can't come into
play. Even Drum himself was changing weekly about the loss (It's BernieBros!
It's Comey! NO, it's the Russians! NO Wait, it's Comey)
Sad, he's done great work on lead and violent crime. I check in there
once in a while just to take the temperature of the Delusion of the
TenPercenters.
Self reflection still hasn't penetrated for any of the real reasons for
Trump
A Paul Street quote from his excellent piece in CounterPunch entitled,
'Liberal Hypocrisy, "Late-Shaming," and Russia-Blaming in the Age of Trump,'
should serve as an adequate riposte to the introspection and self-criticism
averse Mr Doe,
'Arrogant liberals' partisan hypocrisy, overlaid with heavy doses of
bourgeois identity politics and professional-class contempt for working class
whites, is no tiny part of how and why the Democrats have handed all three
branches of the federal government along with most state governments and the
white working class vote to the ever more radically reactionary,
white-nationalist Republican Party. Ordinary people can smell the rank
two-facedness of it all, believe it or not. They want nothing to do with snotty
know-it-all liberals who give dismal dollar Dems a pass on policies liberals
only seem capable of denouncing when they are enacted by nasty Republicans.
Contrary to my online rant, much of the liberal Democratic campus-town crowd
seems to feel if anything validated – yes, validated. of all things – by the
awfulness of Herr Trump. It exhibits no capacity for shame or self-criticism,
even in the wake of their politics having collapsed at the presidential,
Congressional, and state levels.'
"much of the liberal Democratic campus-town crowd seems to feel if
anything validated – yes, validated. of all things – by the awfulness of
Herr Trump."
I've noticed the same. My guess is that, imo, the Dem estab has spent
years teaching it's more left-ish base to accept losing – veal pen, 'f*cking
hippies', Dem estab suggest marching for a cause then fail to support cause,
march to show numbers and get nothing, elect Dem full control in 2008 and
lose single-payer, end of Iraq war, roll back Bush tax cuts, renegotiate
Nafta, etc. Lucy and the football. The left-ish part of the party has been
groomed over 30 years to accept losing its fights. When Trump wins it just
confirms "the way things are." No introspection required since it confirms
the trained outlook. imo.
This opinion masquerading as news appeared in The Sun:
Both Perez and his leading opponent, Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, had
rejected the left-versus-centrist narrative that developed around the race,
and close observers agreed it was overblown.
People often have an emotional commitment to their candidate. Upon losing,
all Hillary supporters will not go "oh well." Many will be upset.
Better to focus on issues going forward.
Also, if you want to build a majority party, probably best not to devote ALL
your energy to screaming what clueless assholes most ordinary Americans are.
Most ordinary Americans do not agree with commenters here. One reason Blue Dogs
are so willing to ignore you.
You can come up with lots of reasons. There are lots of reasons. But bottom
line is that you not only have to be right; you have to convince.
And no, collapse of the world will not convince. It may make you feel like
there is proof you were right, but that is a hollow victory.
We have to win elections. To do that, we need a generous and positive
message. And we need the votes of many Democrats that will not agree with you
on some things - perhaps many things.
It can be done. It will be difficult. But it can be done.
Most people with ridiculous political ideas are nice people. There are
positive appeals that will work over time.
It is amazing how many people are still incapable of acknowledging how bad a
candidate HRC was and how far they reach to come up with other reasons for her
loss. I grew up in Midwest and have many friends and family who voted for Trump
not because they liked him but because they found Clinton even more unappealing
and even less trustworthy.
They looked at how the Clintons made tens of millions of dollars, Bill
Clinton's decades of predatory behavior towards women, the hubris, lack of
responsibility and poor decision making related to the Email issues and HRC's
unwillingness to even minimally tend to her health and physically prepare for
the months of campaigning. Her candidacy was based on years of amassing money
and power and entitlement. Other than the potential to elect the first female
president, there was absolutely nothing about HRC that was inherently
appealing.
It was an extraordinary challenge to field a candidate even more unappealing
than Trump to millions of swing voters, but the Democrats managed to do it. The
Clintons are finished, over and have tarnished themselves for history. Anyone
who could even imagine a 2020 HRC candidacy is delusional.
Pretty much everything you claim drives people away from Clinton applies
just as well to Trump. Look at how Trump made millions of dollars: sticking
investors with losses, tax law arbitrage, and above all inheriting then
failing to keep up with major equity indexes. Look at his hubris, and
decades of predatory behavior towards women, e.g. behaviors related to the
pageant he finances. Look at his history of poor decision making in business
resulting in numerous bankruptcies. One thing is true, he did make deals
that were good for himself: even as business ventures collapsed and other
investors lost money, Trump personally usually had very limited losses. To
my mind that's exactly the wrong kind of behavior we want for a president
though.
I readily agree that HRC ran a flawed campaign with little to draw
undecided voters, but even so there's a deep Clinton hatred in this country
I've never understood. A large fraction of the population appears to view
both Bill and Hillary as the coming of the anti-christ, for no good reason.
That is, the Clintons seem to be pretty much garden-variety politicians with
all the usual skeletons in the closet, but nothing that seems to stand out
from the rest of the Washington ilk. If the hatred came from leftists
betrayal could explain it, but most Clinton-haters seem to be deeply
conservative. Maybe I was too young during the WJC years to understand the
source.
Gonna beat a belabored dead horse: "Superpredators" + "bring them to heel" +
a campaign devoted to the identity politics of undocumented migration and not
the plight of lower-class whites and African-Americans.
African-Americans have Facebook accounts and access to Youtube.
The 30,000-feet pundits glossed it and declared everything A-OK over but
that 1996 archive footage left a viscerally bitter taste at street level.
"it's remarkable to see how childish and self-destructive the posture of
the orthodox Dem backers is. It isn't just the vitriol, self-righteousness, and
authoritarianism, as if they have the authority to dictate rules and those who
fail to comply can and must be beaten into line.
Sounds kinda like a cult.
I've run into this. My response is a blank stare followed by a vocally flat
"oh" to whatever nonsense I'm hearing. I have the same response to very young
children who are trying to tell me something. Although, with little children I
try to smile and stay engaged.
adding:
per Jeff – "It seems that my friends, my friends' friends, and I are
exclusively to blame for the Trump Presidency and the Republican takeover of
government."
Hillary was wooing the suburban GOP voters, not the working class
industrial belt voters. Really, it's the suburban GOP voters' fault Trump
won. /s
I appreciate two posts on this subject, which given the presumed
insignificance and technocratic nature of the position (!), aroused a lot of
ire on both sides of the Demo divide. (Anyone interested in real ire can just
head over to LGM, where iirc four threads and about 2,000 comments have now
been devoted to this topic of "nothing to see here, let's move on").
What is left to say, I wonder? What's the way forward for progressives who
are genuinely interested in supporting possibly-radical new approaches to
addressing economic inequality?
It occurred to me while reading the comments on this and the previous post
that perhaps after all, it's not that ways forward are unknown to the legacy
party members, but that they're unacceptable, because they would genuinely
lessen the gap between rich-poor.
If so (and I'm starting to feel that this is the case), then working within
the party could be quite difficult, although the arguments against 3rd party
start-ups are compelling. There was a great quote from Bill Domhoff on this
subject upthread with a powerful argument for continuing to work within the
existing structures.
Apropos of Domhoff, I was thinking that one way might be to continue to work
within the party, but to distinguish the progressive wing clearly, perhaps with
a new name – I like Domhoff's Egalitarian Democratic Party, it sort of reminded
me of Minnesota's DFL (Democratic Farmer Labor) party. As others have noted on
both threads, this would need to be purely grass-roots, local-to-state level
work, and as Domhoff wisely notes, candidates need to be identified and
encouraged to run for, well, everything. They would need to caucus with the
Dems at the state level, but eventually could force Dems, if they gain
sufficient numbers, to shift their positions on economic issues, thereby
creating momentum.
These past few days, I've most enjoyed reading comments from people who are
getting involved at the local level – that's so heartening. And also, I've
watched a good number of Town Hall meetings – the crowds are also heartening,
even if I wouldn't always have chosen the issues individual constituents
addressed. This massive awakening and interest in political life across the
country – I want to believe something positive will come of it.
I kind of wonder if a "Working Democrats" title would have a shot at
catching on, coupled with a heavy focus on strong, universal economic
policies: Medicare for All, $15 minimum wage, some kind of student loan debt
forgiveness, Glass-Steagall reinstatement, a constitutional amendment
removing corporate personhood.
Hell, couldn't that seriously catch on in today's environment?
Not to be that guy, but the problem is the perception the Democratic
Party cares about those things and nostalgia.
The black guy with the Muslim sounding name became President while
promising higher taxes, fair trade, and universal healthcare (perception
matters) while running against a war crazy veteran and a war crazy
lunatic who claim so to have dodged bullets.
I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that the problem with such a
move is it would be too easily co-opted due in part to too many people
thinking the Democrats actually stand for these policies, despite the
fact that the majority of them and the party apparatus actively works
to undermine any movement in these directions?
Fair point if so. I think any such work via a faction within the
party, so to speak, would have to make itself clear to those who have
lost faith in the Democratic Party by taking active stances against
the establishment and exhibiting some level of hostility toward a good
faction of Democrats.
I would be all for a third party coalescence, but I'm sympathetic
toward the idea that third parties simply don't get traction in our
political system. So I lean a bit more toward an attempted hostile
takeover of the Democratic Party. On the other hand, party's die; it
may be that a third party route could work as a replacement for the
Democrats once they die from actively abusing and thus hemorrhaging
their base.
Alternatively, both approaches could work. A wing of the party
actively hostile toward the establishment could jump ship to a third
party if the Democrats were dying, joining forces to establish the
replacement party. Or the vice versa could happen; if a progressive
wing appeared to truly be winning and taking control of the Democrats,
a sympathetic third party movement could jump in for the final push to
clean house and reinvent the party from scratch.
I think it still comes back to the need for active movements and
organizing around clear policies and principles, then taking the
opportunity to gain nationwide traction whenever and however it
presents itself. Personally, I just wish I had a clearer idea of where
such efforts on my part would be best focused. (It's somewhat
complicated by being in Portland, Oregon and having some decent Dems
here, though there's still a lot of terrible ones and even the good
ones I'm still wary of.)
The Wall Street/establishment wing of the party has clearly learned nothing
from the debacle of the last election and is clearly unwilling to learn. Sadly
the same seems to be true for the "progressive" wing of the party – i.e.
WheresOurTeddy has it exactly right IMHO but the "left" still won't abandon the
dead hulk of FDR's party – which has rejected everything it formerly stood for
– if the calls for "unity" from Ellison and others are any indication.
I honestly don't see how things will truly get better, except with a lot
of people suffering or dying. It seems that we're in this desperate
last-gasp phase of trying to work a system that's supposed to be just, but
hasn't been for decades. My entire life.
On Friday I witnessed the NJ Pinelands Commission vote for a 15 mile
pipeline that should never have been approved. It's substantilaly for profit
and export. They voted while 800 people were screaming their opposition,
after five years of fierce opposition. Literally tallied the votes during
the screaming. This is the commission whose mission is to "preserve,
protect, and enhance the natural and cultural resources of the Pinelands
National Reserve." It was approved by a 9-5 vote. That's how far Governor
Christie and big money has gamed the system.
Billionaires get to throw hired hands in between us and them (like
politicians and police and receptionists and PR staff everyone's just "doing
their job!" we are "rude" if we fight them because they have nothing to do
with it!), we have to risk our bodies and time directly. We have to organize
masses of people with hardly any resources and a diminishing internet, they
write a check and get hired professionals with access to do their bidding as
they sit in their comfy third homes. They write the procedures and laws, we
get to yell and scream for ten minutes, then our voices tire and their
decisions get rammed through anyway.
Oh, and they had a public comment AFTER the vote, which was in the agenda
not as "vote" but "approve with conditions."
What about us in Michigan? We have been manipulated and mentally changed
from a strong union democratic state to a redneck, "wannabe backwards early
1900s southern state" that maintains a governor who knowingly fed thousands of
people lead tainted water. And he continues to do nothing about it. If we do
anything about it, the republican legislature will just gerrymander our
districts again to maintain their power. I live in a district shaped like a
banana, running east to west in the middle of the lower peninsula. 80% of the
district (US house seat) has always been strong democratic. But the district
was re shaped in the early nineties so that it was extended forty miles east to
encompass a county that was once known as the capital of the KKK in Michigan.
This swung the majority to republican. They are a minority, but with all the
money.
As I was saying to someone yesterday, when I say something like "I don't like
obamacare either", it is automatically assumed that I want trump & Paul Ryan to
hand out vouchers. Yet when I follow up by stating I want Medicare for all, I
am called a crazy Hillary loving liberal.
Well, you can always say scornfully that she never wanted anything as
good for people as Medicare for all. But it's tough being in a spot like
that. There is a relative of an inlaw whom I admire enormously because,
living in a conservative rural area she nevertheless firmly states her
progressive opinions, if necessary finishing up, "Anyway, that's what I
think," in a way that let's people know she has formed her opinion and will
not be changing it merely for fact-free hostile criticism. It takes amazing
steadfastness to go on doing that.
Here in upstate NY my (state assembly) district's shape was once
described as "Abe Lincoln riding on a vacuum cleaner." Like the one you
describe, it was carefully constructed to include a wealthy minority so as
to ensure that the "right" candidate always wins.
"Do what I want. That's unity." Wasn't that one of W's wise injunctions? Now
we hear it in motherly tones in HRC's video released on Friday. Is this
anything like her debate response to Bernie, "I get things done. That's
progress. (Therefore) I'm a progressive!"? Always need to look for what this
kind of word-salad leaves out.
A note as to the Establishment Dems: In the Dem primary race there were 800
or so "Super Delegates" and almost all of them were locked into HRC before the
primary race began. At the convention all but about 25 of them cast their votes
for HRC. (Sorry, I don't have exact numbers.)
Now, who are these 435 Dem Party luminaries who are tasked with electing the
DNC Chair? Am I right to assume that they are a carved-out chunk of the Super
Delegates of yore? If I am, then the Establishment Dems are in big trouble, and
they know it just from the numbers.
In other words, 200 of the 435 just voted for Sanders by proxy of Ellison.
That's half. If half of the Super Delegates had voted for the Sanders wing at
the convention, wouldn't Sanders have been the Dem candidate?
What we are seeing in the dulcet tones of HRC's "unity" video, together with
the power punch of the monied interests in the DNC, is the public face of a
party in panic, digging in with all of its claws. From this it seems that
Bernie is a bigger threat than many folks may realize.
I don't mean to be Pollyanna-ish here. It's anybody's guess as to what to do
with this state of affairs. But perhaps Bernie is on the right track with his
efforts to take over the Dem Party?
With that in mind, the real dividing-line is wealth vs. poverty, income
inequality, etc.,
"If half of the Super Delegates had voted for the Sanders wing at the
convention, wouldn't Sanders have been the Dem candidate?"
Uh, no because HRC got a clear majority of the
elected
delegates
and 3.5m more
votes
in the primary. But hey, don't let me disturb
your alternate reality, and enjoy the next four years --
True, if caucus states did vote (i.e. were democratic) HRC would
have won by even more. See e.g
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/wash-primary1/
.
I'm sure if the roles were reversed here you'd be screaming that
the corrupt DNC was ignoring the democratic vote in favor of an
undemocratic caucus.
But, as I said, enjoy the next four year. Maybe you really will
– Trump is the alternate reality candidate after all.
A democratic process within. Establish polling and voting by all members,
not some final 400 or super delegates.
The party writes, debates and endorses legislation, not lobbyists.
A serious cap on contributions. Complete immediate transparency on all money
matters.
Issue based platform long before leadership or candidates.
A way which leadership or candidates and office holders must adhere to the
party platform. Example if the party platform says expanded Single Payer (HR
676) for all then a vote for ACA would have been grounds for immediate removal
from the party for sitting Reps. Note that would have meant basically every
sitting prog would have received the boot. We would have all been better served
had we primaried all of our so-called own long ago (including Sanders and
Kucinich).
At the very least this should be established by a prog like wing within a
party. For we have no way in which to hold usurpers to account.. or keep the
eye sharply focused on issues. That's the lesson from '06 '08 '10. So many act
blue/blue America candidates lied and to this day they continue to be among the
least scrutinized.
I didn't see Sanders, Ellison etc. heading this way had they won. I don't
see it in any existing third party.
Testing. I tried posting a long comment and it didn't make it.
Short version–Sanders did everything people said Nader should have done and
Sanders was still treated like a pariah, so the self described pragmatists are
really the intolerant fanatics. There was more, but I don't feel like retyping
it, especially if I am having technical difficulties posting.
I agree that Sanders ran A primary campaign instead of third party, and
so answered a big establishment talking point.
Beyond that, I see the campaigns as vastly different. Nader campaigned at
the end of a long bubble. Bernie campaigned after the financial collapse and
after years of doing nothing to help ordinary people.
I think Bernie's campaign was more powerful, and gives more of a
springboard for future campaigns.
The part before the byline is reasonable and interesting. The DNC is acting
to preserve their own power, not to win elections. Classic "iron law of
oligarchy" stuff.
The part after the byline is less interesting. Why do we care what some
anonymous guy on facebook says? Of what interest is there in a facebook
argument between an activist and some rando? Is this more notable than a
thousand other political arguments on facebook that occur every day?
Dan Brooks has written about the practice of "eggmanning", as a sort of
counterpart to strawmanning– you can find people making basically any argument
on social media, no matter how specious.
http://combatblog.net/tom-hitchner-on-refuting-the-argument-no-one-is-making/
Elevating the voice of such a person just so you can dismantle their poorly
chosen words does not make for compelling reading.
Elitist Left – Whigs / Liberals / Neo-liberals / Democrats
Real Left – Labour (the US is not allowed this option)
You need a real left, liberals are not the real left.
Liberals have over-run the Labour party in the UK but progress is under-way
to get things back to the way they should be.
Universal suffrage came along and the workers wanted a party of the left
that represented them and wasn't full of elitist, left liberals.
The US has never allowed the common man and woman to have a party of
their own, they need one, a real left not a liberal, elitist left descended
from the Whigs.
This all makes me think the Democratic establishment are not honest actors.
They would rather meekly accept corporate money and play the part of the always
losing Washington Generals rather than come out swinging for progressive
values.
The DNC head is the chief fundraiser for the party.
DNC raises and distributes money
The DNC needs to be able to collect money from donors across
the spectrum
DNC does not control policy or issues.
Sanders supporters
who think this is about policy never bothered to learn about
how the party they tried to take over works.
"DNC does not control policy or issues. Sanders supporters
who think this is about policy never bothered to learn about
how the party they tried to take over works."
But who
controls the money controls a lot more. We are on the 2nd
round and it will be close. I'm for Ellison for reasons Max
Sawicky's excellent new blog articulated. If Perez pulls this
off - he has a lot of fence mending to do.
Oh Please.
The Local Sanders supporters are already engaged locally.
The whiners will complain about Ellison if he should win
The first time Ellison takes money from big donors they will
disown him.
They have no idea what it takes to fund a party operation.
Breitbart and the GOP are cheering the whiners on
The policy debates are won at groups that will form the
ultimate coalition for candidate support. Say your interest
is public schools. The group supporting your local school is
horrified that vouchers are taking away the money. The group
builds support for the anti voucher position. A union group
wants more job training opportunities. An energy group wants
solar metering. These groups have their own agenda separate
from the DNC and RNC and they bring together groups of like
minded individuals who socialize in addition to their
advocacy. When the election comes, they are positioned to
work for candidates that agree with their position. The
candidate can get some of them to volunteer for the campaign,
but their is a need for voter lists, support for
registration, etc.
The issue for Sanders supporters is they
rallied around a messianic leader without much local group
persistence. If those supporters want to help in the next
election, the would be advised to build advocacy support
within their social groups.
Max is not correct
In my phone banking last election, the most numerous
complaint I received was:
"Everything is going to the black and the gays".
The Catholics and Christian Right voted for antiabortion
SCOTUS justices
Our state, IN is trying to make it impossible for minors to
get abortions and doing their best to create conditions for a
black market
The people we need to persuade don't care about the DNC
For the most part, local activists don't care either as long
as whoever wins will successfully raise a lot of money and
provide the training and tools we need
You articulate your case indeed. And your list for the policy
agenda is well noted. I would love to see you and Max Sawicky
engage in a debate of these things. Like you - he is never
shy of stating his views.
In the olden says, his blog Max Speaks You Listen was
often cited by many left of center economists. He had to go
silent as he worked within the government but now he is free
of that restriction. I don't always agree with him but I do
admire his style.
Well, even without the FT telling us, it seems obvious that
Trump, a real estate developer who loves debt, is going to
want an easy money policy. So he will presumably stock the
Fed with cronies who want interest rates reduced back to zero
or even lower if possible, with no restrictions (like
reserves) on borrowing.
He probably won't be able to gain
actual control of the Fed until Yellen's term is over, and it
is certainly possible that by that time he will have been
removed from office (as we have discussed, this latter
possibility depends on Trump having alienated enough GOP
voters that the GOP establishment feels it can removed him
and install Pence without losing primary challenges).
I suspect that a combination of easy money and stagnant
wages is not something that can last long. But so far I have
been unable to find a historical example. Certainly in the
US, the 1970s do not fit (wages grew as well as inflation),
nor 1948 (inflation was 20% or more, but at the pinnacle of
union power wages also grew by at least as much. 1948 was an
inventory correction, like 2001 but if anything actually
milder). Maybe 1920 comes close, but I haven't examined wages
from that time.
Does anybody else know of an easy money/high
inflation/stagnant wage historical example?
There is an alternative view that aligns Trump with high
interest rent seeking gold bugs. I don't know which is true.
It may even be true that behind all of the bravado that Trump
actually knows how deep in over his head that he is with
regards to monetary policy. In that case he would protest a
lot to the contrary while unceremoniously seeking to preserve
the status quo at the Fed. Certainly your guess is as good as
mine and probably even better. OTOH, nothing is certain with
Trump.
At risk of being flamed by everybody else with an opinion on
this matter, I can see both sides of the issue:
You are
correct if Trump is not selling out to Russia.
You are also correct if (1) Trump *is* selling out to
Russia, *AND* (2) his voters were aware that he is selling
out to Russia, but voted for him with eyes wide open on that
issue.
In either of those two cases the Intelligence Community
leakers are trying to subvert the democratic will of the
people in elected Trump president.
You are wrong if: (1) Trump is selling out to Russia,
*AND* (2) his voters did not believe it when they voted for
him. In this case the Intelligence Community leakers, in my
opinion, are patriotic heroes.
Just because the Intellligence Community is not laying the
sources of its intelligence out in the open on the table does
not mean that the leakers are wrong. My suspicion is that
they are correct (see, e.g., Josh Marshall today. Google is
your friend.) The deeper problem is that I suspect Trump's
voters simply don't care, even if the Intelligence Community
is correct.
I did a mini max regret: More regret with Clinton sold out to
neoliberal profiteering war mongers who care only for
perpetual war, the max regret I see is unneeded nuclear war
over a few hundred thousand Estonians who hate Russia since
the Hanseatic league was suppressed by Ivan the Terrible.
Lesser regret with Trump sold out to Russia* that would only
bring China I against both US and Russia in about 50 years.
*Trump sold to Russia is Clintonista/Stalinist fantasia
sold by the yellow press.
I disagree. It is not enough that Trump voters were aware of
Trump selling out to Russia and didn't care; if there had
been conclusive proof of that before the election, other
people might have come out to vote against him.
Besides,
some of his voters might not care and some might.
In any case, whether the leakers are patriots or traitors
does not have to do with subverting "the will of the people".
At the most extreme, leaks could lead to, say, impeachment,
which is another way to express the will of the people. (Or
actually, the will of the plutocrats and their Republican and
Democratic running dogs, but that's another discussion).
It has always been time to stand for the Constitution and
against the deep state.
And you really think this was built
by democrats and Clinton? Since you are about my age, I'll
keep it brief and just say one word: COINTELPRO.
And it's not either or. There are plenty of bad actors,
some as dangerous as the spooks. E.g. a President that
believes we're in an existential war against Islam, and who
is likely pull every trigger available to him if some Muslim
stages an attack in the US. Frankly, if such a time comes
I'll feel safer thinking that Trump and the spooks at not
working too closely together.
New Deal democrat and couple of other Hillary enthusiasts
here used to sing quite a different song as for Hillary
bathroom email server ;-).
Russia bogeyman (or "ruse" as Trump aptly defined it) is
now used to swipe under the carpet the crisis of neoliberal
ideology and the collapse of Democratic Party which is still
dominated by Clinton wing of soft neoliberals). Chickhawks
like a couple of people here (for example, im1dc), are always
want to fight another war, but using some other ("less
valuable") peoples bodies as the target of enemy fire.
Democratic Party now is playing an old and very dirty
trick called "Catch the thief", when they are the thief.
Why we are not discussing the key issue: how the
redistribution of wealth up during the last two decades
destabilized the country both economically and politically?
Also it is unclear whether a simple, non-painful way out
exists, or this is just something like a pre-collapse stage
as happened with Brezhnev socialism in the USSR. The Damocles
sword of "peak/plato oil" hangs over neoliberal
globalization. That's an undeniable and a very important
factor. Another ten (or twenty) years of the "secular
stagnation", and then what? Can the current globalized
economy function with oil prices above $100 without severe
downsizing.
The economic plunder of other countries like the plunder
of xUSSR economic space (which helped to save and return to
growth the USA economics in 90th, providing half a billion
new customers and huge space for "dollarization") is no
longer possible as there are no any new USSR that can
disintegrate.
And "artificial disintegration" of the countries to open
them to neoliberal globalization (aka "controlled chaos")
like practiced in Libya and Syria proved to be quite costly
and have unforeseen side effects.
The forces that ensured Trump victory are forces that
understood at least on intuitive level that huge problems
with neoliberalism need something different that kicking the
can down the road, and that Hillary might well means the
subsequent economic collapse, or WWIII, or both.
Trump might not have a solution, but he was at least
courageous enough to ask uncomfortable questions.
Blackmailing Russia can probably be viewed as just an
attempt to avoid asking uncomfortable questions (Like who is
guilty and who should go to jail ;-) , and to distract the
attention from the real problems. As if the return us to the
good old Obama days of universal deceit (aka "change we can
believe in") , can solve the problems the country faces.
And when neoliberal presstitutes in MSM now blackmail
Trump and try to stage "purple" color revolution, this might
well be a sign of desperation, not strength.
They have no solution for the country problem, they just
want to kick the can down the road and enjoy their privileges
while the country burns.
As Galbright put it: "People of privilege will always risk
their complete destruction rather than surrender any material
part of their advantage." -- John Kenneth Galbraith
The fake liberals directed the intelligence
services to target the political opposition. Now the
opposition is in power the intelligence services could be
held to respond to their destruction of the US Bill of
Rights.
It is not just the fake liberal economics the democrats
will answer to in 2018.
In 15 months people like me will spend a lot of time
reminding the democrats of their ignoble treatment of the US
constitution because their neoliberal scam artist was
defeated.
Well, now I see very
clearly why I disagree with you so much.
This government is the apotheosis of neoliberalism. I'm
only sorry we didn't get the pure version with Mitt, instead
of this one stained with a cabal of White Christian jihadis.
"This government is the apotheosis of neoliberalism."
I respectfully disagree. Trump neoliberalism is a "bastard
neoliberalism" (or neoliberalism in a single county, in you
wish) as he rejects globalization and wars for the expansion
of the US led neoliberal empire.
wanglee
Pinto Currency
Feb 19, 2017 2:59 PM
Not only democrats rigged Primary to elect Clinton as presidential candidate last year even though
she has poor judgement (violating government cyber security policy) and is incompetent (her email
server was not secured) when she was the Secretary of State, and was revealed to be corrupt by
Bernie Sanders during the Primary, but also democrats encourage illegal immigration, discourage
work, and "conned" young voters with free college/food/housing/health care/Obama phone. Democratic
government employees/politicians also committed crimes to leak classified information which caused
former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn losing his job and undermined Trump's presendency.
However middle/working class used their common senses voting against Clinton last November.
Although I am not a republican and didn't vote in primary but I voted for Trump and those Republicans
who supported Trump in last November since I am not impressed with the "integrity" and "judgement"
of democrats, Anti-Trump protesters, Anti-Trump republicans, and those media who donated/endorsed
Clinton during presidential election and they'll work for globalists, the super rich, who moved
jobs/investment overseas for cheap labor/tax and demanded middle/working class to pay tax to support
welfare of illegal aliens and refugees who will become globalist's illegal voters and anti-Trump
protesters.
To prevent/detect voter fraud, "voter ID" and "no mailing ballots" must be enforced to reduce
possible voter frauds on a massive scale committed by democratic/republic/independent operatives.
All the sanctuary counties need to be recounted and voided respective county votes if needed since
the only county which was found to count one vote many times is the only "Sanctuary" county, Wayne
county, in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin during the recount last year. The integrity of
voting equipment and voting system need to be protected, tested and audited. There were no voting
equipment stuck to Trump. Yet, many voting equipment were found to switch votes to Clinton last
November.
"... ..."Multiple reports show that my former colleagues in the intelligence community have decided that they must leak or withhold classified information due to unsettling connections between President Trump and the Russian Government... ..."
"... The deep state is running scared! I never+ attribute to coincidence that which is the FBI trampling the bill of rights. It is coincidence the deep state (fbi, nsa, various CIA and DoD spooks) tapped Russia spies who talk to private citizens who have no opportunity at espionage. Then the innuendo is leaked to the Clinton media! ..."
"... Worse on Trump for calling them out for leaking rather than as a civil liberty trampling Gestapo. Ben Franklin was right, give the democrat run spooks the power to protect you and you lose liberty and protection! ..."
This is running now on FoxNews.com, total fabrication especially the last sentence but Trumpers believe this Fake News. I think
this is where ilsm gets his intell insights from, phoney former intell officers, they sound exactly like him - check it out for
yourself
"I'm a Democrat (and ex-CIA) but the spies plotting against Trump are out of control"
By Bryan Dean Wright...February 18, 2017...Foxnews.com
..."Multiple reports show that my former colleagues in the intelligence community have decided that they must leak or
withhold classified information due to unsettling connections between President Trump and the Russian Government...
Days ago, they delivered their verdict. According to one intelligence official, the president "will die in jail."..."
The deep state is running scared! I never+ attribute to coincidence that which is the FBI trampling the bill of rights. It
is coincidence the deep state (fbi, nsa, various CIA and DoD spooks) tapped Russia spies who talk to private citizens who have
no opportunity at espionage. Then the innuendo is leaked to the Clinton media!
Worse on Trump for calling them out for leaking rather than as a civil liberty trampling Gestapo. Ben Franklin was right,
give the democrat run spooks the power to protect you and you lose liberty and protection!
"... This point has been made before on Obamacare, but the tendency behind it, the tendency to muddle
and mask benefits, has become endemic to center-left politics. Either Democrats complicate their initiatives
enough to be inscrutable to anyone who doesn't love reading hours of explainers on public policy, or
else they don't take credit for the few simple policies they do enact. Let's run through a few examples.
..."
"... missed the point the big winner is FIRE. ACA should have been everyone in medicare, and have
medicare run Part B not FIRE. Obamcare is welfare for FIRE, who sabotage it with huge deductibles and
raging rises in premium.. ..."
As Democrats stare down eight years of policies being wiped out within months, it's worth looking
at why those policies did virtually nothing for their electoral success at any level. And, in
the interest of supporting a united front between liberals and socialists, let me start this off
with a rather long quote from Matt Christman of Chapo Trap House, on why Obamacare failed to gain
more popularity:
There are parts to it that are unambiguously good - like, Medicaid expansion is good, and why?
Because there's no f!@#ing strings attached. You don't have to go to a goddamned website and become
a f@!#ing hacker to try to figure out how to pick the right plan, they just tell you "you're covered
now." And that's it! That's all it ever should have been and that is why - [Jonathan Chait] is
bemoaning why it's a political failure? Because modern neoliberal, left-neoliberal policy is all
about making this shit invisible to people so that they don't know what they're getting out of
it.
And as Rick Perlstein has talked about a lot, that's one of the reasons that Democrats end
up f!@#$ing themselves over. The reason they held Congress for 40 years after enacting Social
Security is because Social Security was right in your f!@ing face. They could say to you, "you
didn't used to have money when you were old, now you do. Thank Democrats." And they f!@#ing did.
Now it's, "you didn't used to be able to log on to a website and negotiate between 15 different
providers to pick a platinum or gold or zinc plan and apply a f!@#$ing formula for a subsidy that's
gonna change depending on your income so you might end up having to retroactively owe money or
have a higher premium." Holy shit, thank you so much.
This point has been made before on Obamacare, but the tendency behind it, the tendency
to muddle and mask benefits, has become endemic to center-left politics. Either Democrats complicate
their initiatives enough to be inscrutable to anyone who doesn't love reading hours of explainers
on public policy, or else they don't take credit for the few simple policies they do enact. Let's
run through a few examples.
missed the point the big winner is FIRE. ACA should have been everyone in medicare, and have
medicare run Part B not FIRE. Obamcare is welfare for FIRE, who sabotage it with huge deductibles
and raging rises in premium..
"... We're hoping for judges' consciences, and loyalty to country over party, and common sense, to save us. ..."
"... "administration that is unconstrained by conscience and logic", we have had that continuously since 1980. ..."
"... You get worked up over a travel ban but not Obama's US bombing wedding parties. Or taking out 14 non combatants and losing n MV 22 to get a few smart phones. ..."
"... Do you have stock in both refugee referral companies and Lockheed? ..."
"... poor pk has grabbed the alt right's the concession over cognitive bias, false analogy and cherry picked faux facts. ..."
"... Does anyone take this guy seriously anymore? This is Chicken Little, Sky-Is-Falling nonsense from a PhD Nobelist? Certainly the guy has lost his marbles, and someone needs to put him in a padded room. At least be kind, and retire him. ..."
"... Electoral college exists until "they" gut/get rid of states rule on amendments in the US constitution. ..."
"... Why republicans should be focused on voter suppression, if Democrats are working relentlessly to move blue collar workers and lower middle class voters to far right ? ..."
"... 'dollar democracy' is deeper than that. ..."
"... Wrong. Progressive neoliberals helped give us Trump. Nobody forced Hillary to give speeches to Goldman Sachs or to give Bush a blank check for war. ..."
"... Blaming the few who didn't vote Hillary. What about the many who stayed home? You're an example of learned helplessness. Like the wife who won't leave her abusive husband. ..."
"... If Trump got 37% of votes of people with postgraduate degree that's tell you something about Democratic Party. That only can means that Democratic Party smells so badly that most people can not stand it, not matter what is the alternative. As in "you should burn in hell". ..."
"... It's kind of reversal of voting for "lesser evil" on which Bill Clinton counted when he betrayed the working class and lower middle class. Worked OK for a while but then it stopped working as he essentially pushed people into embraces of far right. ..."
"... I doubt that Trump is a political cycle outlier. He is a sign of the crisis of neoliberal political system, which pushes authoritarian figures as "Hail Mary Pass", when Hillarius politicans are proved to be un-electable. ..."
"... And despite his "bastard liberalism" he is the symbol of rejection of liberalism, especially outsourcing/offshoring and neoliberal globalization. Or more correctly his voters are. ..."
"... "America as we know it will soon be gone." Don't you think that much of it is already gone? We did not see ourselves as a nation of cowards years ago, but that's what we now appear to be. ..."
"... "We did not see ourselves as a nation of cowards years ago, but that's what we now appear to be." USAnians have been cowards for generations. The transition from corporatist dyarchy to one-party authoritarianism is and was inevitable. ..."
"... It seems we live in a system where two parties fight to a draw and then volatility in the system acts as a coin toss and we get new leadership. The people line up approximately half and half for the two. ..."
"... Where do you see a draw? The republicans control the house, the senate, the executive branch, the majority of state legislatures, the majority of state governorships, and will soon control the supreme court. ..."
"... The Republicans have embraced the idea that this is a battle, and that their 50% need to win and keep their heels on the neck of the other 50%. The Democrats seem more conflicted about this fight, partly because some of them have bought the neoliberal ideology of their opposition. ..."
"... "some of them have bought the neoliberal ideology of their opposition." i like the understatement. ..."
"The real question is how much support he has a year from now when most of his voters realize
that the majority of what he directly or implicitly promised them, turns out to be a lie."
I'm sure that people in Kansas were telling themselves this 7 years ago.
Yep - and they were right. The democrats lost the next midterm election. The midterm blowback
is that of both an energized opposition and of a lot of disappointed followers.
If the libruls think Obama's multinational collateral damage from senseless bombing by drone and
expensive aircraft is not worth protesting, then rallies and faux moral indignation against a
travel ban are incongruous to reason.
But we have an administration that is unconstrained by conscience and logic and a GOP majority
in both houses of Congress that shows scant willingness to stand against the administration on
anything.
The only remaining check between now and 2018 is the fear Congresspersons might have of losing
their seats, and the judiciary.
The former is very weak though, because rapid Trump supporters make up the majority of the
GOP voting base, so GOP congressmen are going to stay in line to avoid primary challenges. Their
party is almost completely captured by the wingnut wing.
Also, few at-risk GOP Senators are even up for re-election in 2018.
The latter is our only real hope, and even that is tenuous. Judges can be fickle and peculiar,
but most GOP judges were selected for their partisan loyalty. Most will go along with almost anything
the GOP wants, and as time passes, Trump is going to add more judges, and he will be damn sure
to pick ones that go along with anything he wants.
We're hoping for judges' consciences, and loyalty to country over party, and common sense,
to save us. But when the GOP picks judges they select against those traits.
"administration that is unconstrained by conscience and logic", we have had that continuously
since 1980.
You get worked up over a travel ban but not Obama's US bombing wedding parties. Or taking
out 14 non combatants and losing n MV 22 to get a few smart phones.
Do you have stock in both refugee referral companies and Lockheed?
Does anyone take this guy seriously anymore? This is Chicken Little, Sky-Is-Falling nonsense
from a PhD Nobelist? Certainly the guy has lost his marbles, and someone needs to put him in a
padded room. At least be kind, and retire him.
You certainly cannot expect Krugman to criticize the constitutional political system of dollar
democracy that gave us a choice between Trump and Hillary through first past the post elections
and party caucuses any more than you can expect him to criticize lifetime congressional seats
and a SCOTUS unanswerable to the people.
I believe even Krugman will criticize gerrymandering, which is a safe target since it is implemented
at the state rather than federal level.
The electoral college although problematic is not the best place to start. Campaign finance, gerrymandering,
legislative term limits, and an alternative to first past the post voting are all state to state
neutral, allowing a large and powerful electoral consensus to form without undue obstacles except
for elite authority itself.
These are all assessable solidarity issues. The fear of reversal for Roe V. Wade makes petition
and referendum to overturn SCOTUS decisions more difficult first time around, but not impossible
since Citizens United. Liberals on the fence only need consider the polling numbers comparing
those two SCOTUS decisions to see that petition and referendum to overturn SCOTUS would not threaten
Roe V. Wade, but rather end the threat to Roe V. Wade. OTOH, the electoral college is a state
by state issue and small states are not going to give it up. New York and California will need
to subdivide into a bunch of small states to ever change that.
The constitutional ratification procedure can be hijacked by a solidarity electoral movement
only so long as the solidarity is large and cohesive.
And, IMO, you are not seeing the forest for the trees. The republican party is laser focused on
voter suppression. And they will not waste a crisis or supreme court judge slot.
"A review of these documents shows that North Carolina GOP leaders launched a meticulous and
coordinated effort to deter black voters, who overwhelmingly vote for Democrats."
When the Supreme court becomes un-deadlocked Jim Crow will destroy opposition to Trump_vs_deep_state.
You are certainly correct in their intent and if the South less Virginia, which was purple enough
to go for Hillary in 2016, were the entire country then you would be correct in the impending
reality.
The reality is uncertain though because many of the Trump voters were racists and misogynists,
but then many of the Trump voters were just reacting to an opportunity to strike back at the corporatist
hegemony in control of the political establishment. The corporatist controlled dollar democracy
has dominated the conversation about the advantages of trade regardless of trade deficits for
over thirty years now. A rebellion is long overdue. The US Constitution provides sufficient political
tools to the electorate to stage a revolution using electoral means, but not by just choosing
between establishment political parties without providing an electoral agenda of its own along
with solidarity in imposing bipartisan anti-incumbency sanctions for failure to perform.
Great. While Trump tries to tear down democracy, the supposed representatives of "the people"
will keep talking about shit like how much they hate NAFTA.
"And, IMO, you are not seeing the forest for the trees. The republican party is laser focused
on voter suppression."
With all due respect, I do not believe that.
Why republicans should be focused on voter suppression, if Democrats are working relentlessly
to move blue collar workers and lower middle class voters to far right ?
Paul Krugman didn't give us Trump, the progressives who can't stand dems, demonized Hillary, either
didn't vote or voted for Trump gave us Trump. Idee fixe and big picture are not the same.
Blaming the few who didn't vote Hillary. What about the many who stayed home? You're an
example of learned helplessness. Like the wife who won't leave her abusive husband.
"Wrong. Progressive neoliberals helped give us Trump. Nobody forced Hillary to give speeches
to Goldman Sachs or to give Bush a blank check for war."
How many Goldman Sachs banksters does Trump have in his administration? I lost count.
The best predictor of a Trump vote was a tendency towards sexism and racism. And Trump voters
were generally well-off middle class whites, not the underclass who either stayed home or predominantly
voted for Clinton.
"The best predictor of a Trump vote was a tendency towards sexism and racism. And Trump
voters were generally well-off middle class whites, not the underclass who either stayed home
or predominantly voted for Clinton."
Trump won the uneducated vote. Many of those people ain't middle class.
"How many Goldman Sachs banksters does Trump have in his administration? I lost count."
Yeah they own both parties. Democrats need to be for the people, not corporations. You are
pretty naive for being leftwing. Probably you just get off on being argumentative.
"Trump won the uneducated vote. Many of those people ain't middle class." I see you are
pimping Trump's faux-populist mythology again. Clinton won the majority of votes of those earning
less the $50,000 and Trump won the majority of votes for those who earn more than $50,000.
has it ever occurred to you that older white voters can be middle/upper class without having a
college degree?
it's ironic that many of these same people oppose unions, social insurance (e.g. pensions),
and free education (GI bill) despite having benefited from these socialist programs.
FYIGM
If Trump got 37% of votes of people with postgraduate degree that's tell you something about
Democratic Party. That only can means that Democratic Party smells so badly that most people can
not stand it, not matter what is the alternative. As in "you should burn in hell".
It's kind of reversal of voting for "lesser evil" on which Bill Clinton counted
when he betrayed the working class and lower middle class. Worked OK for a while but then it stopped
working as he essentially pushed people into embraces of far right.
My wife says Liz Warren will run in 2020 and win. I am hoping that it will be someone off radar
now that gets elected as the youngest POTUS in history. We need a sea change with full millennial
backing.
You're wife's prediction for next president will keep DeVos.
"A taxpayer-funded voucher that paid the entire cost of educating a child (not just a partial
subsidy) would open a range of opportunities to all children. . . . Fully funded vouchers would
relieve parents from the terrible choice of leaving their kids in lousy schools or bankrupting
themselves to escape those schools.
the public-versus-private competition misses the central point. The problem is not vouchers;
the problem is parental choice. Under current voucher schemes, children who do not use the vouchers
are still assigned to public schools based on their zip codes. This means that in the overwhelming
majority of cases, a bureaucrat picks the child's school, not a parent. The only way for parents
to exercise any choice is to buy a different home-which is exactly how the bidding wars started.
Under a public school voucher program, parents, not bureaucrats, would have the power to pick
schools for their children-and to choose which schools would get their children's vouchers."
Remember which side of the debate is pro-choice and which side of the debate is pro teacher's
union.
I am not for either side. My wife's mother was a teacher as was her older sister. I am not sure
what she thinks of the teacher's union.
The pedagogical system is so oriented to a system of establishment indoctrination that the
average private school is just as bad as the average public school and even the worst public schools
are no worse than the worst private schools. Only the best private schools stand out along with
a few of the charter schools as better than their public school counterparts and even then not
by a great margin. The problem is the pedagogical approach itself. It is also a matter of who
taught the teachers? We have developed a system that aspires to mold us all into obedient followers
and it works very well. It is also self-replicating.
"Remember which side of the debate is pro-choice and which side of the debate is pro teacher's
union."
Who needs labor and civil rights when we have capitalist billionaires who will give us "school
choice vouchers", "right to work laws", and "deregulation"!
I doubt that Trump is a political cycle outlier. He is a sign of the crisis of neoliberal
political system, which pushes authoritarian figures as "Hail Mary Pass", when Hillarius politicans
are proved to be un-electable.
And despite his "bastard liberalism" he is the symbol of rejection of liberalism, especially
outsourcing/offshoring and neoliberal globalization. Or more correctly his voters are.
Trump said the Iraq war was a disaster. He bragged about being against the war before it started.
He used the Iraq war against Jeb Bush and Hillary as an example of the corrupt elite's incompetence.
This infuriates thoughtless partisans like Krugman to no end.
The appellate court ruled against Trump's Muslim band even more strongly than the lower court
judge.
"America as we know it will soon be gone." Don't you think that much of it is already gone?
We did not see ourselves as a nation of cowards years ago, but that's what we now appear to be.
"We did not see ourselves as a nation of cowards years ago, but that's what we now appear
to be." USAnians have been cowards for generations. The transition from corporatist dyarchy to
one-party authoritarianism is and was inevitable.
It seems we live in a system where two parties fight to a draw and then volatility in the
system acts as a coin toss and we get new leadership. The people line up approximately half and
half for the two.
I'm having a hard time understanding why if half support the new leadership established by
the operations of the system, that we should worry this a threat to the system itself.
For if that's what we think, it seems we have far bigger problems than simple disagreement
to worry about. It seems those among us who think that way should be planning as revolutionaries
to change this doomed system that except for luck has not yet careened over the edge into whatever.
Where do you see a draw? The republicans control the house, the senate, the executive branch,
the majority of state legislatures, the majority of state governorships, and will soon control
the supreme court.
The Republicans have embraced the idea that this is a battle, and that their 50% need to win
and keep their heels on the neck of the other 50%. The Democrats seem more conflicted about this
fight, partly because some of them have bought the neoliberal ideology of their opposition.
These are giddy times for the forces of reason and light.
A surge of resistance to a bumbling and unstable president
has sent millions of people into the streets, into the faces
of politicians, and into bookstores to make best sellers
again of authoritarian nightmare stories.
And all of that hasn't changed the fact that Democrats,
the opposition party, are more removed from power than at
almost any point in history. Republicans control everything
in Washington, two-thirds of state legislative chambers and
33 governor's mansions.
Every day brings some fresh affront to decency, some
assault on progress, some blow to the truth. The people who
run the White House can't spell, can't govern, can't get
through a news cycle without insulting an ally or defaming a
cherished institution. Republicans just shrug and move on, in
lock step with a leader who wants to set the country back a
century. From their view, things are going swimmingly.
Outraged about the ban on people from Muslim-majority
nations? So what. About half of the nation, and a majority of
Republicans, are in favor of it. Upset over the return of
Wall Street pirates to power? President Trump's supporters
aren't.
Democrats haven't been able to stop a single one of
Trump's gallery of ill-qualified, ethically challenged and
backward-thinking cabinet appointees. His pick for labor
secretary, Andrew Puzder, doesn't believe people should be
paid a living wage to stir a milkshake, and he hired an
undocumented immigrant to clean his house. He'll fit right
in.
Millions of reasonable people are appalled that a madman
is in charge of the country. But tell that to Mitch McConnell
when he cuts off the right of a fellow senator to speak. Or
tell it to Paul Ryan when he can't find his copy of the
Constitution he has sworn to uphold. These invertebrate
leaders don't care if Trump's residence is a house of lies.
They don't care that their president is a sexual predator, or
that his family is using the office to enrich themselves. All
they care about is the R stitched to his jersey.
When Adlai Stevenson was told that all thinking people
were with him in his race for president, he famously
responded: "That's not enough. I need a majority."
And so, too, do the Democrats. This week, the powerless
party went into their winter cave for an annual retreat -
three days of soul-searching and strategizing.
"This is our moment in history," the House minority
leader, Nancy Pelosi, told her fellow Ds. "This man in the
White House is incoherent, incompetent and dangerous. And we
have to protect children and other living things from him."
Feels good, right? Sorry. The Democrats shouldn't mistake
a sugar high for nutrition. They're still getting their butts
kicked. Being Not Trump gained them only a net of six seats
in the House in November's election, and will not be enough
to win a majority in 2018.
Reliance on identity politics and media-cushioned
affirmation, and a blind spot to the genuine pain of the
white working class, is precisely what produced a President
Trump. For the next year, Democrats should filter their
policy initiatives through the eyes of the person Trump
claims to speak for - the forgotten American.
Of course, Trump's phrase was lifted from somewhere else.
Franklin Roosevelt first rode to victory in 1932 by urging
fellow citizens to put faith in "the forgotten man at the
bottom of the economic pyramid."
Roosevelt actually did something for that overlooked
American - Social Security, minimum wage, building roads,
bridges and dams - and was rewarded with a majority coalition
that carried the United States to new heights. Therein lies
the way back to power for Democrats.
When Democrats lost the South - for multiple generations,
as it turned out - it put them in a deep hole, forcing them
to rely on a surge of young and Latino voters to turn the
demographic tide, or candidates with broad appeal beyond the
party strongholds on the coasts.
President Obama left office with soaring approval numbers
and a great legacy. But Democrats also lost 1,034 state and
federal offices in his time. Whites are still 70 percent of
the vote. If Democrats continue to hemorrhage voters among
the working class, they will never see the presidency, or
even expect to govern in one house, for a long time.
The way out is not that difficult. Yes, they should engage
in hand-to-hand combat in the capital. And certainly,
Democrats must turn to the courts when the rule of law is
broken. But they have to be for something, as well - a master
policy narrative, promoting things that help average
Americans. The old Broadway adage was how it will play in
Peoria. For Democrats, they should think of Joe Biden's
Scranton, Pa., every time they take to a podium.
The follow-up to Pelosi's statement is "No [kidding]. What
actions are you taking to protect said children and living
things?"
What's the plan for supporting Water Protectors and DAPL
protesters? What's the plan for shutting down the Senate
after McConnell and co exercise the nuclear option to force a
vote on Gorsuch? What's the plan for preventing a vote on
Gorsuch? How about CBP personnel who ignore court orders? Not
an unreasonable expectation that some will - what to do about
them? Expressions of outrage are easily ignored if there's no
follow-up action. Perpetrators' lives need to be made
difficult.
Hillary proposed around $1.8 trillion / 10 years in
total new spending programs as of early last year, then
added more throughout the campaign season.
We've talked about this a number of times before and
yet you insist on pretending that infrastructural spending
is the only spending because your whole backward ideology
is predicated on lying about what Hillary Clinton actually
proposed. Seek mental help and stop being such a
mendacious twat.
Reply Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 07:35 PM
Seems like Sanjait is the mendacious twat who gets really
angry when proven wrong. He can't argue the facts, like other
centrists, so they try to shout you down.
Clinton's bad economics - which is neoliberal economics -
is bad politics. If you google Hillary infrastructure
spending you get:
"That's why Hillary Clinton has announced a $275 billion,
five-year plan to rebuild our infrastructure-and put
Americans to work in the process"
Trump won the election partly on his promises to rebuild
the infrastructure bigly. The Senate Democrats have upped the
ante with a trillion dollar 10 year plan. That's twice as
much as Hillary's plan.
They know its good politics. The Post article says Trump
was thinking a trillion (via tax incentives and
private-public partnerships) but his friend is quoted as
saying more like $500 billion over ten years - Hillary sized.
Why wasn't Hillary's plan larger? Read Krugman's blog post
from yesterday.
Too much fiscal expansion causes the Fed to raise rates
and the dollar to appreciate. Did Hillary or her economics
surrogates ever explain this? No. Alan Blinder did say that
Hillary's fiscal plan wouldn't be large enough to cause the
Fed to alter it's rate hike path.
Krugman says fiscal deficits near full employment causes
interest rates to rise, like it's an economic law.
He's missing the middle factor, inflation. Fiscal deficits
cause inflation which cause the Fed to raise raise rates.
Oh yeah he left out the Fed also.
I repeated the story about Clinton dropping his middle
class spending bill in favor of deficit reduction but of
course the neoliberals ignore it.
"The master parable for this story is the 1990s, when the
Clinton administration came in with big plans for stimulus,
only to be slapped down by Alan Greenspan, who warned that
any increase in public spending would be offset by a
contractionary shift by the federal reserve. But once Clinton
made the walk to Canossa and embraced deficit reduction,
Greenspan's fed rewarded him with low rates, substituting
private investment in equal measure for the foregone public
spending. In the current contest, this means: Any increase in
federal borrowing will be offset one for one by a fall in
private investment - because the Fed will raise rates enough
to make it happen."
Sanjait wasn't even aware that the Fed has switched over
to the corridor system and will use IOER to help control
inflation as it raises rates. He assumed Dani Rodrik was a
woman.
And he presumes to go around and call people names about
technical issues that can be debated rationally with
reference to the facts?
"In 1992, Bill Clinton campaigned on the promise of a
short-term stimulus package. But soon after being elected, he
met privately with Alan Greenspan, chair of the Federal
Reserve Board, and soon accepted what became known as "the
financial markets strategy." It was a strategy of placating
financial markets. The stimulus package was sacrificed, taxes
were raised, spending was cut-all in a futile effort to keep
long-term interest rates from rising, and all of which helped
the Democrats lose their majority in the House. In fact, the
defeat of the stimulus package set off a sharp decline in
Clinton's public approval ratings from which his presidency
would never recover.
It is easy to forget that Clinton had other alternatives.
In 1993, Democrats in Congress were attempting to rein in the
Federal Reserve by making it more accountable and
transparent. Those efforts were led by the chair of the House
Banking Committee, the late Henry B. Gonzalez, who warned
that the Fed was creating a giant casino economy, a house of
cards, a "monstrous bubble." But such calls for regulation
and transparency fell on deaf ears in the Clinton White House
and Treasury.
The pattern was set early. The Federal Reserve became
increasingly independent of elected branches and more captive
of private financial interests. This was seen as "sound
economics" and necessary to keep inflation low. Yet the
Federal Reserve's autonomy left it a captive of a financial
constituency it could no longer control or regulate. Instead,
the Fed would rely on one very blunt policy instrument, its
authority to set short-term interest rates. As a result of
such an active monetary policy, the nation's fiscal policy
was constrained, public investment declined, critical
infrastructure needs were ignored. Moreover, the Fed's
stop-and-go interest-rate policy encouraged the growth of a
bubble economy in housing, credit, and currency markets.
Perhaps the biggest of these bubbles was the inflated U.S.
dollar, one of several troubling consequences of the Clinton
administration's free-trade policies. Although Clinton spoke
from the left on trade issues, he governed from the right and
ignored the need for any minimum floor on labor, human
rights, or environmental standards in trade agreements. After
pushing the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
through Congress on the strength of Republican votes, Clinton
paved the way for China's entry into the World Trade
Organization (WTO) only a few years after China's bloody
crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators at Tiananmen Square
in Beijing.
During Clinton's eight years in office, the U.S. current
account deficit, the broadest measure of trade
competitiveness, increased fivefold, from $84 billion to $415
billion. The trade deficit increased most dramatically at the
end of the Clinton years. In 1999, the U.S. merchandise trade
deficit surpassed $338 billion, a 53 percent increase from
$220 billion in 1998.
In early March 2000, Greenspan warned that the current
account deficit could only be financed by "ever-larger
portfolio and direct foreign investments in the United
States, an outcome that cannot continue without limit." The
needed capital inflows did continue for nearly eight Bush
years. But it was inevitable that the inflows would not be
sustained and the dollar would drop. Perhaps the singular
success of Bill Clinton was to hand the hot potato to another
president before the asset price bubble went bust."
"The downward spiral began with Clinton's 1993 abandonment of
his original threefold economic program--deficit reduction,
economic stimulus and government investment in the nation's
physical and human infrastructure. Facing opposition to the
last two, Clinton abandoned them and focused on deficit
reduction. This painted him into a corner that makes it near
impossible to achieve any programmatic progress in this
term--and so makes unlikely any hope of a second.
The 1993 story has been cast as the victory of the
"deficit hawks," sober economists intent on reducing the gap
between federal spending and tax revenues, over the purely
political advocates of spending on the investment programs.
But the common perception--that the "hawks" represented the
responsible economic community, as against the irresponsible
politicians--is not true.
Almost every one of the economists in the Clinton
Administration had earlier espoused economic policies where
stimulus took priority over deficit control. Rightly
frightened by the mounting deficits of the Reagan-Bush years,
however, by the 1990s they had abandoned their roots for
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's "responsible"
economics--where reduction of the deficit and fear of
inflation were the operative factors."
"Now, the irony is that Wall Street had never squawked when
the first George Bush was spending like gangbusters or when
Ronald Reagan was spending like mad. But the thought was that
a Democratic administration has to sort of prove its chops,
prove itself capable of being much more fiscally responsible
than its Republican predecessors because it's a Democratic
administration. Well, to us, to me, to those on my side of
the debate, that sounded absurd. I mean, yes, let's satisfy
the bond traders to some extent. Obviously, we have to get
the deficit down somewhat. But let's not sacrifice the
Clinton agenda.
....
Reich: The desire to do it all, to have the Clinton
priorities and yet satisfy Wall Street led to this
extraordinary effort to go line by line by line through the
budget and to try to extract enough. And then the question
was, "Well, how much is enough?" Do you bring the budget
deficit down from five percent of the gross domestic product
down to two and a half percent? Which is, basically, cutting
the deficit by half. That's what many of us said we're
perfectly fine to do.
Others, who were the deficit hawks, said, "No, no, no, no.
You actually have to reduce the absolute amount of the
deficit by half. That was your campaign promise, that's what
we need to do. That's the only way we're going to satisfy
Wall Street."
And in the background, Alan Greenspan, as head of the Fed,
was whispering in ears -- Lloyd Bentsen's ear, and I think
also the President's ear, "If you don't get this budget
deficit down, I am not going to cut short-term interest
rates. And if I don't cut short-term interest rates, by the
time you face the next election in 1996, this economy is not
going to be growing buoyantly, and you may not be
re-elected." That's called extortion."
It wasn't so long ago that American politicians lived in
fear of the bond market. During the Clinton administration,
James Carville famously said that "I used to think if there
was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the president or
the pope or a .400 baseball hitter. But now I want to come
back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody." That
phenomenon gave rise to the concept of the "bond market
vigilantes," which Krugman loves to employ.
But today, the bond market vigilantes are not much in
evidence. Or rather, they are in evidence, but they suddenly
seem unable to have much of an impact on US fiscal policy.
Bill Gross, of the ludicrously enormous bond fund PIMCO, is
running around screaming about the need for more borrowing
and more stimulus. But he has no effect, because it turns out
that while bond investors have powerful ways of constraining
US government borrowing, they have only indirect and weak
means of expanding it.
The United States has a large debt that is routinely
rolled over, and it generally runs a budget deficit (Clinton
interregnum aside). If bond investors start demanding higher
interest rates on government debts, this immediately raises
the cost of borrowing for the US government. This, in turn,
has knock-on effects throughout the economy, as interest
rates rise for everyone and economic activity is thereby
constrained. For these reasons, the US government has
powerful incentives to avoid doing things that cause the
interest rate on treasuries to rise.
Today, however, we find ourselves in the opposite
situation: what the bond market seems to want most of all is
for the US to borrow more money and stimulate the economy.
That's the best explanation for the incredibly low yield on
Treasury bonds, which is negative in real terms over some
time periods. And yet the US is not borrowing more; instead
both parties are demanding insane policies that will cause a
second recession, ostensibly based on fallacious notions
about the magical effects of budget cutting and a nonsensical
conception of the relationship between government and
household finances.
The problem here is that the power of the bond market is
asymmetrical. When the interest rate on Treasuries go up,
this immediately makes all of the government's activities
more expensive, and hence forces changes in fiscal planning.
But when the interest rate falls to near zero, this only
presents an opportunity for expanded borrowing, an
opportunity that can easily be thrown away if the political
system is too insane and dysfunctional to take advantage of
it.
Hence the bond vigilantes sit on the sidelines, impotent
and hopeless. Just like the rest of us.
"... Most of the major changes he mentions are clearly and explicitly the consequence of policy changes, mostly by Republicans, starting with Reagan: deregulation, lower taxes on the wealthy, a lack of antitrust enforcement, and the like. ..."
This is frankly rather disingenuous. Most of the major changes he mentions are clearly and explicitly
the consequence of policy changes, mostly by Republicans, starting with Reagan: deregulation,
lower taxes on the wealthy, a lack of antitrust enforcement, and the like.
libezkova -> DrDick... January 25, 2017 at 09:29 PM
Read through the link and it's not nearly that simple, especially when you consider the fact that
some trends, though plausibly or certainly reinforced through policy, aren't entirely or even
primarily caused by policy.
I did not say they were the *only* factors, but they are the primary causes. If you look at the
timelines and data trends it is pretty clear. Reagan broke the power of the Unions and started
deregulation (financialization is a consequence of this), which is the period when the big increases
began. Automation plays a secondary role in this. what has happened is that the few industries
which are most conducive to automation have remained here (like final assembly of automobiles),
while the many, more labor intensive industries (automobile components manufacturing) have been
offshored to low wage, not labor or environmental protections countries.
Both parties participated in the conversion of the USA into neoliberal society. So it was a bipartisan
move.
Clinton did a lot of dirty work in this direction and was later royally remunerated for his
betrayal of the former constituency of the Democratic Party and conversion it into "yet another
neoliberal party"
Obama actually continued Bush and Clinton work. He talked about 'change we can believe in'
while saving Wall street and real estate speculators from jail they fully deserved.
Very true. Republicans were in the vanguard and did most heavy lifting. That's undeniable.
But Clinton's negative effects were also related to the weakening the only countervailing force
remaining on the way of the neoliberalism -- trade unionism. So he played the role of "subversive
agent" in the Democratic Party. His betrayal of trade union political interests and his demoralizing
role should be underestimated.
"... Some of the "autopsy" articles (there are dozens) indicate the soul of the Democrats is right now being decided by a tug-of-war between the Brock camp and the Soros camp. ..."
"... What I found interesting is that Brockapalooza (great name!) was a gathering of the, ahem, neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party, and what they seem to have concluded is that they desperately need Bernie's supporters, a/k/a the democratic wing of the Democratic Party, and it's enthusiasm. ..."
"... Of course they want to co-opt it. That's what Obama did in 2008. But I think the Bernie wing has completely lost patience with any such strategy. ..."
"... But what is worse is the "neoliberalization" of Democratic Party under Clinton opened the door for far right renaissance. So neolib Dems created a rather dangerous situation. In a way, Bill Clinton is a godfather of Trump. ..."
It was a gathering of what Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) railed against during his presidential
campaign as "the establishment." The conference, organized by longtime Clinton family operative
David Brock, was dominated by Clintonfolk. Jon Cowan, president of the ardently centrist Third
Way think tank, was among the most prominent panelists, alongside Hillary Clinton confidante Maya
Harris, "Morning Joe" regular Harold Ford and even embattled Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel.
But the overwhelming analysis emanating from Brockapalooza was essentially a haute couture
Berniecrat gripe: The Democratic Party has been writing off way too much of the electorate by
assuming it doesn't need ― or can't win ― the votes of working-class people.
"I think there's a sense that some portion of the Democratic Party shares the blame for what
happened," New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman told reporters. "The Democrats acquiesced
in many ways to policies making people's lives worse."
He was referring obliquely to the legacy of former President Bill Clinton ― deregulating high
finance, gutting welfare, feeding mass incarceration ― which leaders of a party ostensibly devoted
to empowering the powerless have been reluctant to acknowledge.
"How many bankers went to jail?" Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), the sole senator to endorse Sanders
in the Democratic primary, asked the crowd on Saturday morning in reference to the 2008 financial
crisis. "None," he concluded.
There were real disagreements about the right course of action. But speaker after speaker said
the party's reliance on demographic trends had made it complacent on matters of economic justice.
This had cost Democrats not just the presidency, but governorships and hundreds of state legislature
seats across the country.
"The Democratic coalition lives in the economy, all right?" former Bill Clinton campaign manager
James Carville told reporters. "The idea that somehow it's only white working-class people that
live in an economy blacks, Hispanics, unmarried women, gay people ― they're like everybody else."
Some of the "autopsy" articles (there are dozens) indicate the soul of the Democrats is
right now being decided by a tug-of-war between the Brock camp and the Soros camp.
What I found interesting is that Brockapalooza (great name!) was a gathering of the, ahem,
neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party, and what they seem to have concluded is that they desperately
need Bernie's supporters, a/k/a the democratic wing of the Democratic Party, and it's enthusiasm.
Of course they want to co-opt it. That's what Obama did in 2008. But I think the Bernie
wing has completely lost patience with any such strategy.
"Of course they want to co-opt it. That's what Obama did in 2008. But I think the Bernie
wing has completely lost patience with any such strategy."
Very true. Cooptation is what they specialize at. Will not work this time, as in "too little
too late".
But what is worse is the "neoliberalization" of Democratic Party under Clinton opened the
door for far right renaissance. So neolib Dems created a rather dangerous situation. In a way,
Bill Clinton is a godfather of Trump.
Just the fact that the DNC donor club has acknowledged the problem and recognized that Bernie
was onto the solution is a really big deal. This may be the first time since the party split in
1968 that they have come to grips with working class economics rather than just relying on identity
politics and big funding. It's not like they should throw identity politics under the bus. They
just need to learn how to play to their entire constituency rather than assume one or both of
them has no other choice.
"... Of course they want to co-opt it. That's what Obama did in 2008. But I think the Bernie wing has completely lost patience with
any such strategy. ..."
It was a gathering of what Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) railed against during his presidential campaign as "the establishment."
The conference, organized by longtime Clinton family operative David Brock, was dominated by Clintonfolk. Jon Cowan, president
of the ardently centrist Third Way think tank, was among the most prominent panelists, alongside Hillary Clinton confidante Maya
Harris, "Morning Joe" regular Harold Ford and even embattled Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel.
But the overwhelming analysis emanating from Brockapalooza was essentially a haute couture Berniecrat gripe: The Democratic Party
has been writing off way too much of the electorate by assuming it doesn't need ― or can't win ― the votes of working-class people.
"I think there's a sense that some portion of the Democratic Party shares the blame for what happened," New York Attorney General
Eric Schneiderman told reporters. "The Democrats acquiesced in many ways to policies making people's lives worse."
He was referring obliquely to the legacy of former President Bill Clinton ― deregulating high finance, gutting welfare, feeding
mass incarceration ― which leaders of a party ostensibly devoted to empowering the powerless have been reluctant to acknowledge.
"How many bankers went to jail?" Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), the sole senator to endorse Sanders in the Democratic primary, asked
the crowd on Saturday morning in reference to the 2008 financial crisis. "None," he concluded.
There were real disagreements about the right course of action. But speaker after speaker said the party's reliance on demographic
trends had made it complacent on matters of economic justice. This had cost Democrats not just the presidency, but governorships
and hundreds of state legislature seats across the country.
"The Democratic coalition lives in the economy, all right?" former Bill Clinton campaign manager James Carville told reporters.
"The idea that somehow it's only white working-class people that live in an economy blacks, Hispanics, unmarried women, gay people
― they're like everybody else."
Some of the "autopsy" articles (there are dozens) indicate the soul of the Democrats is right now being decided by a tug-of-war
between the Brock camp and the Soros camp.
What I found interesting is that Brockapalooza (great name!) was a gathering of the, ahem, neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party,
and what they seem to have concluded is that they desperately need Bernie's supporters, a/k/a the democratic wing of the Democratic
Party, and it's enthusiasm.
Of course they want to co-opt it. That's what Obama did in 2008. But I think the Bernie wing has completely lost patience
with any such strategy.
Just the fact that the DNC donor club has acknowledged the problem and recognized that Bernie was onto the solution is a really
big deal. This may be the first time since the party split in 1968 that they have come to grips with working class economics rather
than just relying on identity politics and big funding. It's not like they should throw identity politics under the bus. They
just need to learn how to play to their entire constituency rather than assume one or both of them has no other choice.
"If the party doesn't understand these seven truths .a third party will emerge to fill the
void." That's what will happen, since the so-called "leaders" of the Democratic Party are not
going to admit all that stuff, no matter how true it is. They're not very smart.
Yes it's hard to believe any of this will happen as even now the Dems are circling the wagons
with "The Resistance." Also is Sanders even a Democrat? Didn't he go back to being an independent
after the convention?
And just a thought on "authoritarian." Our greatest progressive president–Roosevelt–was accused
by many at the time of being authoritarian with moves like packing the court. As pointed out yesterday
he even created internment camps for Japanese-Americans which would horrify progressives today.
It's unfortunate that one must have power–that thing which corrupts–in order to accomplish anything
in government so perhaps what ultimately matters is the character of the person wielding that
power. Given that it's now the Donald that may seem bleak–remains to be seen–but Reich's distinction
between the "good" populists and the the authoritarian ones is a bit artificial and simplistic.
The Repubs have something at stake–their money–in every election and recognize that getting,
or suppressing, votes is the key. Perhaps Lambert is right that what really matters is simply
getting more people to vote.
"Reich's distinction between the "good" populists and the the authoritarian ones is a bit artificial
and simplistic." That inputting it mildly. But FDR had a Socialist Party to his Left. And he was
elected four times in a row. It wasn't until Reagan that FDR's progressive programs and tax rates
began to be dismantled.
"Didn't he go back to being an independent after the convention?"
Yes he did (very quietly) and he really should start reminding people of that. He kept his
word and fulfilled his promises to help Clinton but that ended with the election.
And what does he get in return? Turncoat Dems making sure we all get to continue to pay more
money for prescription drugs right out of the gate. If the Dems are going to continue to thwart
the people's agenda as they did with his prescription drug amendment, he needs to take the kid
gloves off.
"Also is Sanders even a Democrat? Didn't he go back to being an independent after the convention?"
So what if he did? Far more important are his ideals, his values, and his vision. They are
right in line with the Democratic Party – of 1933, which is where today's corporate party needs
to return to get back in power and steer this country in a better direction.
If anyone has ever lived in DC, you realize that being well educated doesn't make you intelligent,
and being intelligent doesn't make you wise. That said, if in your life you've had success in
doing some particular thing, it's hard to change when it no longer works. Even Einstein, smart
guy that he was, was an example of that.
If the problems of the party go as deep as Reich says, it would be far more effective for the
dems to just fire everyone at the top of their organization and replace them with random people
they meet on the street.
Precisely; Donald Trump was – and is- the Third Party candidate. That's why the Republican
establishment tried to destroy him. His ability to break into the GOP through the back door belies
the media Imbroglio about his "inexperience".
But love him or hate him – or more prudently, reserve judgment for 4 years – he IS the Third Party
candidate. I don't understand why so many academics don't get that. Around 3-4 yrs ago David Brooks
warned that the landscape was ripe for a successful 3rd party prez, but he thought it would be
a Tech billionaire.
Which was faulty – Silicon Valley had the Democratic establishment already safely tucked away
in the Cloud.
Bernie was the other third party candidate. The difference is that the press could not get
a hold on Trump, was transfixed by Trump, his 'trumping'-by-tweeting, and the constant coverage
he was able to garner.
On the other hand, the press purposefully shunned and shut the door on Bernie, on his wax from
no-percent support to the groundswell in May and June. Remember the empty podium coverage waiting
on Trump, and the no coverage of Bernie's barn-burning speech in June. The press was supporting-at
any cost- Hillary and the main-line Dem. system. And it WAS rigged.
In Canada, they simply re-branded, to the NDP the New Democratic Party.
Personally I revile two party politics, and I think both parties ignore the new populism, and
the rejection of party politics, at their peril.
Perhaps the reason Occupy progressive populism, and the Democrats are foundering is their fundamental
tolerance– they simply can't hold their noses anymore to tow the party line at the obvious expense
of those who are still being left out and marginalized. The main stream democratic party aids
and abets at keeping the status quo going.
Bernie said it best at the hearing the other day: we are NOT a compassionate country.
Trump and Bernie were the third party candidates. Bernie was in many ways the preferable of
the two, but he was eliminated because he insisted on playing nice and not going for the jugular.
You are so right. Sad! Strange to read Reich now after having seen him interviewed at the end
of Adam Curtis's documentary The Century of the Self and making similar points. How is going to
solve the problem of moneyed elites? Sanders was the third party, the anti-establishment Dem.
And look what happened. Corey Booker may be 2020 nominee. Looking very bad for Dems.
Booker doesn't have a prayer. He's basically the Democratic version of the Republican general
the GOP jack booters get hot and heavy over periodically. The nominee in 2020 probably won't be
terrible if someone tolerable runs.
The 2008 and 2016 primaries were dominated by Hillary and Obama/Oprah's celebrity profiles.
Everyone else has to campaign and interact with people they can't pre-screen. The nostalgia voters
won't have a set candidate and will be two years along.
Back in 2008, I went to New Hampshire during the season, and I stood behind Holy Joe Lieberman
in a line at Dunkin' Donuts. This is what Booker will encounter on the trail: actual voters. When
he is asked about prescription drugs at every stop and has every local teachers union hounding
him, he will be dropped by even the media that loves losers such as the Dandy Senator from South
Carolina.
Clintonites can be made to service Trump administrations washrooms complete with trendy tip
hats and stools-
Look for this action from genuine American all for one, and one for all people who are clearly
set apart from the Trump hand maidens that wrought present-
Love f l o w s both pos and neg balanced centered action and can be felt in any creature emanating
an eagalitarian nature quite foreign to those referrred to as Clinton ite herein
The cherry shaman in all will point the way look for it!!!
4. The Party's moneyed establishment-big donors, major lobbyists, retired members of Congress
who have become bundlers and lobbyists-are part of the problem. Even though many consider themselves
"liberal" and don't recoil from an active government, their preferred remedies spare corporations
and the wealthiest from making any sacrifices.
The moneyed interests in the Party allowed the deregulation of Wall Street and then encouraged
the bailout of the Street. They're barely concerned about the growth of tax havens, inside trading,
increasing market power in major industries (pharmaceuticals, telecom, airlines, private health
insurers, food processors, finance, even high tech), and widening inequality.
================================================
"They're barely concerned about the growth of tax havens, inside trading, increasing market power
in major industries "
au contraire – I would say they are very, VERY concerned and that's the problem.
I used to believe "you can do well and you can do good"
I don't believe it any more.
I suspect a good number of other people don't believe it either
I think if the only thing Democrats take away from the election is "OMG an egotistical billionaire
with dreadful hair and tacky taste has just become president" then they all deserve to be shipped
to Somalia. (In fact, they do all deserve to be shipped to Somalia but that is not the point).
The fact that America and the redneck, ignorant deplorables can elect Trump and consider him
as a man of the people, a fighter for the common man, and someone who cares about America first
tells you just how detached and elite our elected class has become. It's like hiring John Wayne
Gacy to babysit your teenage sons because all the other sitters creep you out!
Democrats are not left-wing. They are, at best, centrist but mainly ego-centrist. Washington
has sold out to the rich and powerful, mainly Wall Street and the military-industrial complex.
The election of Trump was the desperate cry of America begging for anything other than bent, self-serving
officials like Hillary Clinton.
I don't think Trump is the answer but I don't think he will be as bad as we expect. I think
Obama discovered that the establishment was more powerful than his desire for change. Trump will
face the same forces, though I think it is possible that Trump will try to call their bluff.
But as for the Democratic Party? Fuck 'em. Disband the party, arrest the members, waterboard
them, and execute them all for treason. Then move on to the Republicans. When there are no politicians
left, start all over. Ah, I can dream, can't I?
So a suicide pact. Government of, by, and for the people means you play some meager role and
are thus a politician.
Maybe step away from the gleeful destruction of what political structure we have and step up to
be a solver instead. Oh, but one might have to test their cherished notions in the marketplace,
or face up if they fail.
What Reich really needs to be saying is that it is time to take back the reins and clean up the
party. We are unlikely to become a multiparty state and the internet surveillance system will
track down dissenters. The IWW used to break anti union towns by flooding the jails. Flood the
party and you can own it as the nurses union did for Bernie. Or carp on the internet.
So it depends on the framing whether the rallies yesterday go towards #6, a movement, not a
party.
Though explicitly embracing an intersectional stance and NOT explicitly Dem or Rep, and while
disavowing that it was more anti-Trump than pro rights, justice, health care, and equality, the
pussy hats belie that too much of this was aimed at Trump personally and not the Establishment
(Empire), whose policies D or R are literally killing us, whether on the battlefield or the home
front. And the speakers were weighted toward Establishment Ds.
We can dismiss the outpouring as not connected to an analysis of the underlying reasons for
Trump (and initiatives spearheaded by women are usually dismissed).
Or we can embrace it, build on it. I think a lot of unaffiliated voters were amongst the rank
and file, so NOT all about Clinton.
I disagree with that to an extent. I marched yesterday and it was clear to everybody that it
was way bigger than Trump. The fight is not against Trump, the fight is against everything the
Republican Party stands for and Trump is just their current hood ornament. The Women's March was
the People's March against all things Republican.
If Bernie represents the future of the party then its sad seeing him stump around him Schumer
who represents everything that is wrong with it. His best bet is to get away from the Democratic
party and run as an independent, but alas the campaign finance problem. By operating inside the
party, he'll be nothing more than Charlie Brown trying to kick the football. He'll be the Ron
Paul of the Democratic Party.
I don't think Bernie had a financing problem. The genius is that he did it truly grass-roots.
The problem was that the democratic party power structure screwed him, was tone deaf, and lost
to Trump, aided and abetted by the press.
I wonder. Chuck might be hanging around Bernie, not the other way around. Perhaps because he
smells a clue - politicians are supposed to be good at that. Or maybe he is Bernie's minder.
DNC Dems may try to marginalize Bernie, but 1.) he's a crafty old guy, 2.) he got a *lot* of
votes.
BTW, another article on "what is wrong with the Dems" that doesn't mention superdelegates.
Until that is abolished, it's all handwaving.
That is a good point. Looking at how the battle lines have been drawn on the dnc chair fight,
schumer looks like a swing vote who got behind bernie. It was after that when the obama wing of
the party resisted and pushed tom perez, who seems to be the biggest opponent of ellison. It really
looks like the clintons are vanquished and the obama wing is now the right wing of the dem party.
Exactly. A smarter Dem party would look at the strategy the Republicans used over the course
of 20 years to get where they are today. Abandoning the 50 state strategy was the stupidest thing
the Dems ever did, we can see exactly how well that worked by the numbers.
ALL of who believe in equality, civil rights, tolerance, good jobs, health care for all, quality
education for all, and an end to lobbyists and financial engineers running the country need to
start running for those seats. The only way we take things back is to start local.
Reich should win a Nobel Prize here - he's right up there with Krugman and Obama.
Shorter Reich: The confrontation of the Irresistable Force of populism with the Immovable Object
of donor control will result in the Oxymoron of "radical reform".
I've always been suspicious of Reich, but here I'll give him an "A" for tuning in his snow
filled crystal ball and delivering the "soul searching" critique of the Democratic Party many
of us have been waiting for and expecting. Pretty much hits the nail on the head, I'd say.
The caveat, of course, is that Reich is not the Commander in Chief of the Democratic party.
Towards the end, I think he alludes to that too.
After yesterday, the Democratic party is running to catch up with where their constituency
is headed. That March didn't stop at 1 pm Saturday. They'll attempt to get out in front, but Team
Bernie will be there ahead of them.
One more "populist" article by Robert Reich. I know he's a party hack and will return to the
fold once they tell him to sit down. He just provides a false air of "independence" to the bought
and sold Democraps. People like him who keep returning to the fold are the very reason that the
Dims are in trouble.
This is a time for historians to review and to revisit the ("Fighting Bob") LaFollette Wisconsin
tactics in the early 1900s which came after nearly a generation of political corruption. Progressivism
needs to integrate itself in some way into the current populism.
The Clinton wing* of the party needs to be wiped out. Bill ushered in the end of the 70 year
Democratic majorities, destroyed the party at the local level, and led to George W. Bush. When
the Clintonistas were sidelined, the Democrats won commanding majorities in both houses and the
White House in two elections and established a major gotv operation. Obama brings in Rahm Emmanuel
and kaboom. Clintonistas were tolerated and look what happened.
*Don't we really mean a few hundred voters connected to the Clinton Administration or campaigns
that only hold power over people who are largely voting because of the "D" next to a name?
To understand how utterly rotten the Democratic elite is,
and unwilling to learn from the past, recent and not so recent, look no further
than the tongue bath given at Betsy DeVos' confirmation hearing to Joe Lieberman,
who is literally a traitor to the party:
Were the moment not so fraught with high political drama, it might have felt like a college
reunion. Lieberman was returning to his old stomping grounds on Capitol Hill Tuesday afternoon
to offer what bipartisan cover he could for Betsy DeVos, Donald Trump's nominee for education
secretary.
"I've known Joe a long time," Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey, a Democrat, told me on Wednesday.
"He's a good guy. We served together."
in interviews, several members of the Democratic caucus spoke to their personal affection
for Lieberman. "I think Joe Lieberman is a good friend of mine, and I think everybody has the
right to say what they think," Virginia Sen. Mark Warner told me.
"Joe's a friend Joe has integrity," Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill said in an interview
in the Dirksen Senate Building on Wednesday.
Added Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, the progressive Democrat who took his seat in 2014:
"Lieberman's a great friend, even if we disagree on important issues. He remains a good friend,
despite our occasional disagreements."
The definition of friendship is stretched very thin when it covers over differences that spread
between say the likes of Lieberman and Sanders. Sanders lambasted Betsy DeVos as she deserved
to be; the woman lied to the Senate about her vice chairmanship of the Prince foundation-an organization
that has devoted million$ to the concept of 'converting' gays, lesbians and bisexuals. She is
obviously ashamed of her involvement (fairly recent as IRS documents show her listed in 2014)
and for political expediency wants to distance herself from that scene. Competent psychological
studies show that such so called conversion efforts always fail resulting in what has to be termed
cruelty and deep disillusionment.That Lieberman would rise to such duplicity shows a complete
lack of personal integrity. How someone with integrity could have such a 'friend' is to put the
word friendship into the realm of meaninglessness.
IdahoSpud, Carla, fresno dan, stukuls and David S are all right on the money!
Reich is a little better than Michael Moore (who yesterday told the demonstrators to put a
call to their Congressional and Senate reps right there with brushing their teeth every day),
but that's not saying much. I didn't even see the call for voter registration and against Jim
Crow election fraud in his essay, just "drawing more people into politics".
Face it, the Democratic Party is irremiably sick to the point that it needs to be put down
and a new party formed without the Clintonite DNA.
An almost philosophical question: is there a "Democratic Party" as an institution, separate
from the career ambitions of those who have just lost power and what to take it back? I rather
suspect not, because that would imply a set of values and beliefs and institutional interests
to which individuals would subscribe, and which, under certain circumstances, they might be prepared
to put ahead of their personal ambitions.But, at least from across the water, I don't get that
impression at all; rather it looks like a group of ambitious and unscrupulous hacks, manipulating
the politics of identity to provide themselves with a power base, but now finding that tactic
doesn't work any more. If that's so, then the "Democrats" of Reich's article are trapped in a
vicious circle: they are only interested in reclaiming personal power, so they have no ideology
or beliefs to offer a mass electorate, so they'll never regain power. The best they can hope for
is that Trump makes such a mess of things that a desperate nation turns to them for salvation.
I suppose anything is possible.
I say that you make a very good point about Democrats not being able to find an ideological
map; or rather more exactly: bleating loudly about following the map that the majority of voters
want and ask to be followed and then sidestepping constantly to follow another path inimical to
what is being proclaimed. Mr. Obama did that with his dance around the subject of universal health
care or single payer. We, in the center of the progressive wing, were led to believe he was for
it. Then he abandoned us to the expediency of the day by genuflecting low and high before the
priesthood of the Health Insurance carriers and pharmaceutical companies. The latter essentially
wrote The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which is tragically misnamed on both halves;
it neither protects patients nor allows the vast majority of subscribers to find affordable insurance
for themselves and/or their families.
But this is typical of so called centrists such as Obama and the Clintons; they artfully present
themselves as being on the right side of the map (protect the environment, keep Social Security
and Medicare in place, form an alliance with minorities to advocate for an expansion of rights
and liberties, to name some of the more visible tenets) and then betray their so called allies
on a regular basis. The self proclaimed Liberals (they can't be by the very definition of the
word) get away with it because the specter of a very much more seriously flawed ilk is very real;
it seems to be the sworn duty of the Republican party to regularly present the sad evil of a lessor
nature. This time around, strategic planning on the part of Trump and total organizational incompetency
on the part of Clinton caused her to throw out her chances. Essentially the Democratic party Centrists
had their 60 year train of bluffs derailed by a clownish charlatan who delights in performing
acts of cruelty and sadism in public.
6. The life of the Party-its enthusiasm, passion, youth, principles, and ideals-was elicited
by Bernie Sanders's campaign. This isn't to denigrate what Hillary Clinton accomplished-she
did, after all, win the popular vote in the presidential election by almost 3 million people.
There's the nub of a major problem; what Hillary Clinton did not accomplish was to win votes
that aligned with the map of each state in terms of the Electoral College.
The map of Michigan shows what I mean; if the reader were to click on the blue counties in
the SE portion of the state and find Washtenaw county one would see Clinton got 68% of the vote
there. In a county that has one of the largest Universities (49,000 students and employees) in
the country, a premier world class hospital system that has 26,000 employees (some overlap with
U of M) and two high schools that in a rarity of aristocratic schooling, sill offer classes in
the art of playing in a symphony orchestra-in such a county we find the heart of so called American
Liberalism. Blue county indeed, blue stocking would be more like it. And I'm ok with all that.
My point is that HRC appealed (Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein did too, the center of the Michigan
Green party is in Ann Arbor, the Washtenaw county seat ) in large part to the people whose demographics
are so clearly delineated in that county. By and large (broad brush here) better educated, situated
in larger urban centers that are the vibrant hubs of the surrounding areas and most of all, people
who are opinion leaders. So in Ann Arbor we have large dollops of college professors, medical
and legal professionals, successful business managers and thousands of college students and millennials
-many of whom followed the lead of the Democratic party into Hillary's camp after Bernie was forced
out by the duplicity of the party leadership. All of whom would have been very deeply engaged
in the political swirl of activity.
Wayne County, where Detroit is located, has some different demographics where the support of
people of Color would be the major force. Hillary's ability to gain support in the African American
community is beyond my comprehension but it does explain what happened in the vote in Detroit.
But the proclivity outside the Large urban centers (Genesee County, Flint, is much like Wayne
County demographically) is steep and we see Clinton lost here as elsewhere across the country.
Clinton lost out and the much ballyhooed Centrist Democrats lost because they did not speak to
the average working class person who lives in dreadful fear of one thing-losing a good paying
job and not having food, housing, clothing, transportation and medical care. Fear driven politics,
as Bernie Sanders pointed out a kajillion times, is not a pretty picture. People Living in a world
of fear is a good thing for Centrists like Clinton and Obama (Trump too) because it makes for
a host of malleable minds open to manipulation.
I disagree with your analysis. In Michigan, Hillary's margin of loss was smaller than the drop-off
in voting in Wayne county (which includes Detroit as well as other urban/suburban cities). What
we saw was closer to a withdrawal of consent by the population. The votes are there for the left
to win by large margins. But the voters must be asked for their votes through policies that provide
tangible benefits. They (we) were already fooled once at the state level and national by a smooth-talking
neoliberal Democrat that only offered more of the same once in office. The only thing that can
turn this around for the Democrats is a discussion of real benefits and proposals that can only
be delivered by government (e.g., single-payer healthcare). I am not sure this is possible in
the "blue" states, where the party apparatus is still strong. I think reform in the Democrat party
will have to start in the "red" states, where the parties have been decimated by neglect.
We know the neoliberal ideology tends to hollow out the middle class.
This is most pronounced in the US where they have embraced the neoliberal ideology the hardest
Let's work out why ..
Everyone has blindly followed Milton Freidman's neo-liberal ideology without thinking .
Trade Fundamentals.
For free trade and an internationally competitive workforce you need a low cost of living so
you can pay similar wages to your competitors.
Reference – The Corn Laws and Laissez-Faire
It's all about the cost of living.
The US has probably been the most successful in making its labour force internationally uncompetitive
with soaring costs of housing, healthcare and student loan repayments.
These all have to be covered by wages and US businesses are now squealing about the high minimum
wage.
US (and all Western) labour has been priced out of global labour markets by the high cost of
living.
What did Milton Freidman miss?
The cost of full price services actually has to be paid by businesses in wages.
Milton Freidman took costs off the wealthy and placed them on business.
The West then let massive housing booms roar away raising housing costs through mortgage payments
and rent, these costs have to covered by business in wages.
Student loan costs are rising and again these costs have to covered by business in wages.
2017 – Richest 8 people as wealthy as half of world's population
It is important not to tax the wealthy to provide subsidised housing, education and healthcare
that result in lower wage costs because?
I don't know, you tell me, is it to maintain ridiculous levels of inequality?
Why does the middle class disappear?
The high costs of living in the West necessitates high wages and everything gets off-shored
to maximise profits.
Low paying service sector jobs that cannot be off-shored and highly paid executive and technical
jobs are all that's left, the rest was off-shored, it's the way neo-liberalism works
The middle class disappears.
The populists rise and with a neoliberal left they turn right.
Protectionism, it's the only option, we've made such a mess of it all.
With the hollowed out neo-liberal Western economy the Government has to make up the difference
between low wages and the high cost of living (tax credits UK).
(The private sector option – Payday loans – only 2000% interest UK)
The high levels of unemployment, need high levels of benefits due to the high cost of living.
Government debt soars and you can't recoup it off the wealthy as it wouldn't be neo-liberal.
Trump may not have to worry about NAFTA as the Mexican's have discovered neo-liberalism.
They are removing the subsidies off petrol and foodstuffs, raising the cost of living and minimum
wage.
Mexico's days as a low wage economy are numbered.
If they then have a ridiculous housing boom to inflate housing costs like the West, the cost
of living and the minimum wage will soon be the same in Mexico as the West.
Would voter registration really do much to remedy the situation with the Electoral College?
Wouldn't it be necessary for liberals and progressives en masse to leave their safe spaces in
the blue islands and migrate to red or reddish outposts like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan?
Or is that too horrible to contemplate?
A few years back a libertarian group decided to target one state where they could move in great
numbers to eventually bring about a libertarian paradise. After considerable study and strategizing,
they settled on New Hampshire, a state with a small population already somewhat friendly to libertarian
ideas that could more easily be tipped to a libertarian agenda. The result, however, was underwhelming.
Reich is right, I believe, is saying the Democratic Party must unreservedly advance a very
bold agenda to become a movement. But where is the motivation? As noted, the Iron Law of Institutions
applies. The great majority of Dems with an iron grip on the party mechanisms are happy as clams
with their wonderful combination of virtue signaling and money raking. In fact, right now with
Trump in the White House and Republicans controlling Congress, these Dems are in pretty close
to the ideal situation. With minority status, they and their filthy corporate, financial and Big
Pharma donors can virtue signal all the more flamboyantly and rest completely assured that they'll
never actually have to implement anything. Perfect!
Meanwhile, the rest of us can fritter away our time believing that there is an "inside game"
in the party when, in fact, there is no such possibility.
Catullus 76?! I don't think so, Lambert. I know my Latin is extremely rusty, but I see nothing
there that could lead to that translation. As for what I do see, this is a family blog.
But now I really wish you could come up with the source of what you quoted.
Oy vey already . . . :-) worn down from the march?
Step up yer game Katharine, are you tired?
(that's a Catullus-like line, here's another . . .)
What heavy signs and roars exhausted you,
(and another . . .)
When, with that great sexist Queen, Madonna
You hurled curses that would make a whore flinch
haha ahhahahahahha ahahahahha. I have one more cupcake to eat today!
this is what I get Googling. It in fact is the 15th and 16th lines! no kidding . . . also it's
not at all a porno piece (not that he wasn't capable of that), but if you read the English translation
it's very very spiritual.
Carmen 76 (in Latin by Catullus) Listen to 76 in Latin
<>
Available in Latin, Brazilian Port., Chinese, Croatian, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish,
French, German, Hebrew, Hungarian, Italian, Rioplatense, Scanned, and Vercellese. Compare two
languages here. Listen to this text here.
Siqua recordanti benefacta priors voluptas
est homini, cum se cogitat esse pium,
nec sanctum violasse fidem, nec foedere nullo
divum ad fallendos numine abusum homines,
multa parata manent in longa aetate, Catulle,
ex hoc ingrato gaudia amore tibi.
Nam quaecumque homines bene cuiquam aut dicere possunt
aut facere, haec a te dictaque factaque sunt.
Omnia quae ingratae perierunt credita menti.
Quare iam te cur amplius excrucies?
Quin tu animo offirmas atque istinc te ipse reducis,
et dis invitis desinis esse miser?
Difficile est longum subito deponere amorem,
difficile est, verum hoc qualubet eficias:
una salus haec est, hoc est tibi pervincendum,
hoc facias, sive id non pote sive pote.
O di, si vestrum est misereri, aut si quibus umquam
extremam iam ipsa in morte tulistis opem,
me miserum aspicite et, si vitam puriter egi,
eripite hanc pestem perniciemque mihi,
quae mihi subrepens imos ut torpor in artus
expulit ex omni pectore laetitias.
Non iam illud quaero, contra me ut diligat illa,
aut, quod non potis est, esse pudica velit:
ipse valere opto et taetrum hunc deponere morbum.
O di, redite mi hoc pro pietate mea.
Many thank yous! My copy was apparently produced by one of those dratted editors who think
they know a better organization, and his 76 starts and ends, "Paedicabo ego vos et irrumabo,"
which the notes quaintly explain as "colloquial expressions of no particular force." You can see
why I was at sea!
Now I'm going to have to find a source with conventional order and annotate this book so I'm
not cast adrift again.
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674064300
FDR had to work to purge the Democratic party to change it from a half reactionary planters party
into a progressive party. The Sanders rump will have to do the same, the leadership needs to be
torn to shreds, neolibs and republicans in sheeps clothing like Tim Kaine need to be flushed down
massive toilets. Or the party is dead, like the British Labour party
From the link–perhaps why you haven't heard of it.
the purge failed, at great political cost to the president
Since I grew up around here I'm not sure when the South has ever been purged of conservatives.
Now days however they are more interested in being toadies to big business than in getting out
the fire hoses. It took other presidents to moderate the race problem.
Maybe a re-brand, led by Bernie, with a very simple few point platform, and then recruiting
candidates at local, county, state and national level to pledge to tow the line (Think Tea Party
or Occupy Wall Street becomes Occupy Elected Positions (for real small D democratic reform.)
I'm OK with America first- I'd love to occupy fewer nations in the Mideast, stop killing brown
folks, park the drone fleet, have health CARE (not insurance) for all where all pay in and all
can benefit, lower-carbon renewable energy, income tax reform, re-instating the draft as national
service, and converting the military back to a department of defense, amongst other bigger ideas.
I think 'we' have about 14 months to get it together and going.
And I think that's a message that absolutely resonantes. I can talk to old folks who've been
indoctrinated by fox news and younger people who just haven't read anything and so believe in
alt right foolishness, and we can all agree on basic principles. People need decent food, housing,
good education for their children, and jobs they can do with dignity.
What is the current democratic party offering to meet that criteria? If you're so poor you
can't afford to drop a penny in a crack in the sidewalk you'll be put on an (X)year wait list
for subsidized housing? If you're poor and can't find a job we can put you on the shadow welfare
system, disability. But if you find a job, you have to pay us back. You can have a pittance in
food stamps if you've got no bread. As for the jobs, that's a big middle finger, go take a 4.5
hour round trip bus ride to work in amazon warehouse, loser. I have friends who work in the social
services and as they report it, things are grim.
It's not a winning program, it's not an adequate program, it's basically a social safety net
tuned to be as painful and minimal as possible while still meeting some definitional criteria.
Most people would also like to stop destroying random countries for the profit of about 18
people.
Tearing the leadership to shreds appears to be the only solution, but is it even possible today,
given that FDR had a massive and immediate economic crisis to force the change?
When anyone casts about for "Progressive"(trademarked, Democratic party) Democrats, the same
few names come up: Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, who in their support of H Clinton and Obama's
policies look more establishment than progressive.
My concern is the only lesson the current crop of Democrats will learn from the shutting down
of the Clinton Foundation is that their "personal wealth opportunity window" is closing as their
power to deliver the goods to the elite is quite weakened.
One can visualize them doubling down to become even more neolib than before while giving Obama
like fiery speeches to their supporters.
The Democrats have no bench depth. They don't have a second team ready to play a different
game.
Today's dem party planter class still likes the sharecropper system of labor relations. It's
just been repacked as the gig economy or tracked relentlessly like amazon's warehouse workers.
Regardless of the issues and frailty of the Democratic party what keeps me up at night is realizing
that the very process of democracy is at great risk. The aggressive free press/media that would
need to fight for the truth has been whittled away over the years and fears their corporate masters.
Now we have a President and Press Secretary who call every fact that goes against their intentions
'fake news' and from what I can tell their supporters simply believe them. Years of a weak press
and unchallenged Fox News and talk radio have set the stage for this. The blatant lies about the
numbers in attendance for the inauguration told by Trump and his Press Secretary and the refusal
of the later to take any questions, sets the stage for a leader who will do and say anything and
dismiss any facts or contrary opinions as invalid and 'fake'. With a President enamored with Oligarchy
who has no concern for ethics or earned respect and Republicans having dominance in Congress (and
the usual love for power at any cost) how is actual democracy going to function. Are there actually
any remaining checks and balances?
Let me terrify you some more. Half of Clinton supporters (per YouGov poll, link on request)
believe that the Russians were responsible for ballot tampering in 2016, for which there's
no evidence at all. And all it took was a few months of propaganda. That epistemic closure on
the liberal side is as readily produced as it has been on the conservative side is what keeps
me up at night. Why, I'm so old I remember when "progressives" (whoever, in retrospect,
they were) called themselves "the reality-based community."
Our 'centrist' mainstream media has always happily lied in service of war and fear, but the
shift to fox news stylehysteria based on nothing, nothing at all, is shameful and might just kill
it. Or maybe not, maybe it's good for ratings
1) corp media credibilty at record lows.
2) republicans i've met don't like sanders, but often respect him and find him honest.
3) republicans defending wikileaks and calling intel agencies filthy liars.
All these things make the next war a MUCH harder sell!!!
There are a lot of young, charged up young lions and lionnesses ready to tear the democratic
party to shreds and build a peoples party. This big march is a demonstration that the country
doesn't want the explicit rule of oligarchy. It's up to us (cliche) to actually organize, actually
support real left candidates for public office, from the city council of the smallest town all
the way to the senate.
Megacorps need to be afraid, they need to put 100% of their money in the republican party,
because some ferocious democrats are going to grab whatever's left over in the dirty money jar
and spend it to chop their legs out.
Alt Golden Rule: money determines policy. Unless Citizens United is reversed and elections
become a public service as intended, there will be no substantial change for the public's benefit.
With Republicans in control of Congress, this constitutional crisis won't be resolved. Due to
human shortsighted folly, the Revolution belongs to Nature.
My in-laws live in south-western New York and north-western Pennsylvania, basically in the
same place that their Swedish and German ancestors settled in the mid-1800's. Our cousin still
farms the same acres that his family purchased in 1863. My brother-in-law works for the county,
mending roads in summer, snow-plowing through the nights of 'lake-effect' snow in winter. They
both voted for Trump.
When I talked to my brother-in-law, back last May, he told me he was making the same amount
of money his Dad (a union trucker) had made, just before his retirement. He and his county co-workers
have been squeezed for the last decade; 'austerity' has resulted in them doing more work with
fewer people. He now rides alone, without a 'wingman', during the long dark nights of plowing
on icy county roads. He has seen no help, no sympathy even, from the Democrats. He liked what
he had heard about Bernie Sanders, but, by his own admission, didn't know that much about him
(thank you CNN for bloviating about Trump, 24/7). He felt that Trump was listening.
Our cousin, the farmer, serves as an elected supervisor for his township. He, like many farmers,
is deeply conservative and a hereditary Republican. Last weekend, on our usual Sunday night phone
conversation, he expressed his horror that the county commissioners had paid $60,000 to hire a
lobbyist to represent their county (not a wealthy one) at the state capitol. His comment: isn't
this what we elect our state legislator to do? He then went on to talk about the big topic of
the day in the township, the spraying of township roads (all dirt) with saline solution to keep
the dust down in summer. Turns out the 'saline solution' is waste fracking fluid, water combined
with unknown chemicals. People living along the treated roads have been complaining that they
don't want this chemically-laced water sprayed on their doorsteps and our cousin agrees with them.
If they don't want it, don't do it.
I have always considered myself a Democrat; but I find myself in agreement on so many points
with my in-laws who voted for Trump. A society has to give more respect, monetary as well as moral,
to the workers who keep our roads repaired and free of snow; they perform a social good that keeps
our economy humming. You can't keep on squeezing them and then recoil in horror when they vote
for someone who says he feels their pain.
Our cousin is a family farmer, he conserves the land in the best possible way; he provides
local food; veggies, fruits, eggs and meat. He is concerned about soil and water, the basics of
life. He is trying to compete with corporate agri-businesses. He wants elected officials to do
their job and represent their constituents. He has seen no help from the Democrats but, frankly,
is not particularly sanguine about Trump.
And then, at dinner last week, with a group of friends, most of whom are mid-Western conservatives,
one of the women, usually quiet, started talking about the Ox-Fam report and how terrible it was
that only a few billionaires had as much money as the poorest half of the population. Another
friend, also conservative, countered with the usual, I suppose you want everyone to make $65,000
a year, but she was quickly silenced by the others who took the position that no one 'needs' compensation
of $18 million.
So, the fractures are appearing, the narrative of the 1% is horrifying even the free-market
conservatives. We're all getting tossed about in the big caldera formed by the disappearing legitimacy
of the governing classes. If we can ignore the old divisive labels of republican, democrat, liberal,
conservative, right, left, and begin to coalesce around a few major agreements; healthy communities
with resources for people to have adequate food, shelter, clothing and education and satisfying
work; clean air and water and productive soils that provide local food . we have the opportunity
to form a new political party. Or, maybe a couple of parties.
But, reform the Democratic party? From what I have seen of our local establishment Dems, they
are more concerned with holding on to their pitiful positions of power than they are with crafting
a Sanders-like platform. They can no more envision crossing lines and allying with disaffected
Republicans than they can see themselves shape-shifting.
Thanks for taking the time to post your really thoughtful comment.
I think in this American election, especially with the Democratic primary, a lot of progressive
voters (not just in the States) woke up to what was really going on. That the DNC was deeply corrupt
and that democracy is only a very thin facade.
Half the country, well closet to 2/3 on electoral basis , and thats what counts, voted for
someone like trump over clinton. The democrats and media is still in denial over WHY.
So nothing will change.
Whining like petchulant children.
Liberalism..too far..
The nation was not born without great pain, and what will emerge from its remnants over the
next century will resemble what we know no more than the infant U.S. in its day resembled the
British Empire. Those who sit and wait for reform of irrelevant institutions (let's start with
our "three branches") will still be waiting in ten years. Their ship has sailed, with or without
them. Whether for better or for worse remains a destiny to be found out for, and by, every individual.
Lambert nails it in the intro. Quite a few of us Bernie Bros, like me, happily voted for Trump.
It was worth every minute of his doubtless corrupt and incompetent reign to see the vile Clinton
machine go down like a flaming Zeppelin. From the ruins will emerge a new Democratic Party. once
the OWS kids are all out of grad school and ready to take charge of their new world.
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz standing next to Kamala Harris on the podium at yesterday's march
does not bode well for the future of the Clinton gutted and failing Democratic party. She didn't
get to speak but she had slithered her way on the stage. The Democratic party will have to be
pried out of their cold dead hands or abandoned.
For those well versed in political science, when does political theatre evolve into a genuine
political action-successful or not? In America, there is an atmosphere of unreality to most political
protest. A sense that everyone is playing their particular part in a scripted drama. The desire
for self preservation steers dissenters into embracing these scripted roles. Marching in "designated
protest areas" and feeling the satisfaction of being arrested for the "cause" have proven ineffectual
and can be seen as actually counterproductive, as the fake moral courage acquired by these actions
are often used as a cudgel to beat down those who see this type of effort as pointless. These
efforts only use display to challenge power, while leaving the underlying structure and ideology
intact.
A new manifesto must be written and circulated for the current age, allowing individuals to
subscribe to stated goals or not. Reich's 7 points elude to this idea of proclamation, but come
off instead as a hapless plea. Those trying to resist the status quo are hopelessly stuck in trying
to change the minds of the oppressors instead of rallying the oppressed to a new vision. Inequality
and loss of opportunity must be addressed and those in power must be held to proclaiming their
stand on the issue. Currently, they are allowed to lie or just not answer the question. This also
explains much about the current Russia mania. The failures of capitalism must be obfuscated and
alternatives quashed at all costs- period. For what does Russia stand for if not an alternative
to capitalism. The anti-socialism and anti-communism conditioning will enter overdrive.
Taking land and occupying it either directly or indirectly has always been the way to forge
human societies or pull them apart. In the larger sense, finding ways to take and hold ground
for use to a particular end is the foundation of power. Labor has been made passive in America.
Labor not exercising its right to strike and boycott is powerless in the face of owners overwhelming
use of force and violence. Compromise positions don't work as proven out by our current situation.
Fake opposition and desperately hanging onto utopian notions of a "fair and equal" capitalism,
only allow the status quo to remain so.
It seems capitalist evolution has a good chance in leading to a delusional authoritarian dystopia.
A world in which everything is turned into a commodity worthy of exchange for profit. The needs
of the time have so far outrun the political process that some drastic event seems the only way
of breaking the stalemate.
Democrats and protestors in pussy hats, dont realize that the half of country that voted for
Trump, hasnt begin to get aroused and angry yet. They are the half that pays for 90% of taxes,
and they also have guns, which the liberals dont.
Many Democrats disparaged poor Republican voters over the recent election cycle and you respond
by disparaging the Democratic base as predominantly poor? Do you think this is a good strategy?
The current dregs that make up the Democratic party are people who have neither ideals nor
courage. That's why Bernie looked so good compared to them, but when push came to shove, Bernie's
guts and idealism went AWOL. None of these people will ever be transformed or transform themselves
into something other than loathsome non-entities. The same is true of the Republican party, but
while it is much hated by the public, the same public keeps them in power because they appear
less loathsome than the Democrats. But any notion that the Republican establishment had a lock
on all those people who vote for them was torn to shreds by Trump, and to a lesser extent, by
his fellow non-establishment-sanctioned candidate Cruz.
The Democrats will not fix themselves. Possibly the remains of the party apparatus will be
taken over, Trump style, by some capable demagogue who can fire up the voters. We can hope that
whoever this may be it will be an improvement over our current prospects. A slim hope indeed,
but despair is lousy option too,
Oh, bullshit. As we've said over and over, Sanders did exactly what he promised he would do.
If you didn't read the packaging before buying the product, that's on you. And if you thought
you were getting a savior instead of the best alternative, that's on you too. I'm sick of the
whinging on this, not only because it's untrue, but because its disempowering.
I was pretty disappointed at the extent to which he campaigned for her, especially as Dnc leaks
emerged, but I'm over it. He's clearly critically needed now to push progressive agenda forward.
I do wish he would speak mor for single payer and less for Obamacare as reps struggle mightily
for a way to repeal the latter without angering the part of their base that has no alternative,
there may be a real opening for something better how about this compromise; the group with greatest
need is elderly under 65, maybe drop age to 55, get nose further under tent.
And non health corps should support, reduces health care costs to corps that do provide coverage,
plus covering sickest workers cuts overall costs of covering a work force so encourages corps
that don't to begin covering workers this last bit might mollify insurance a little, maybe give
extra tax break to corps that cover. Some cuts to corp taxes better than others
And a 50-year old will see a benefit that kicks in pretty soon, he'll like the change even though
it doesn't yet affect him. Trump demographics
How about a list of the top 100 opportunities for progressive candidates, whether the hopefully
vulnerable neolib opponent is dem or rep?
To my mind, Reich's #4 doesn't go far enough. If the Democrats want to get serious about radical
reform, they need to completely forswear the cultivation of "major donors," and rely on small
donations. Sanders' campaign showed it can be done; there is no reason it should not be a sine
qua non of running as a Democrat going forward.
I agree completely. Of course, that would make it harder for lizards like Brock to sun themselves
as shindigs for donors in Florida, but maybe Brock would consider taking one for the team.
Many good points but I would say #5 is the most important. Instead what I'm getting from major
media & many Dems is the same garbage they've been giving us all along. Be nice if they were actually
FOR something.
Trump or Hillary? Wrong question. Rather, we need to realize that in so far as it is the choice
the leaders propose, it is a trap, which now we cannot escape but from which we can take instruction
for the future. In the liberal culture in which we have all been educated-Republicans or Democrats–we
are used to looking for saviors from above. We attach ourselves to the powerful. We look upward
for emancipation, but radical change and democratization come from below. That's where the hardness
is, but that's what scares us. We are soft because we don't know our own strength, and as long
as we don't know it, we are subjects–not citizens.
We should see in both the Trump and the Sanders partisan defections from the mainstream parties
the glimmer of a potential-in fact, a necessity–of organizing a party of the people. We could
even call it Party of the Basket of Deplorables, for if we exclude the "messy masses" (the term
Marx and Engels used, to mock the contempt in which they were held by the arrogant elite), we
admit that democracy hasn't a prayer. They are "messed up," but are they to blame, who have ceased
to matter, or even exist, on the front of the class war that has been launched against democracy-that
is, against us all?
The color line must be erased. That is an imperative for unity. In America, racism is the endemic,
the recurring plague. It is the root of our political disunity. So that is the first task: educate
it out of existence. Engels, who shared his life with Mary Burns, Irish Republican radical, well
understood the racism against the Irish pervading the English working class. This was no mere
psychological disorder. It arose because the manufacturers of the Midlands imported Irish labor
as scabs to break strikes. Nevertheless he saw in the English working class the strength required
for a social revolution:
"England exhibits the noteworthy fact that the lower a class stands in society and the more
'uneducated' it is in the usual sense of the word, the closer is its relation to progress and
the greater is its future." – snip
How are British/Irish conflicts even remotely racist? I appreciate the mutual hostility,
but how could they even tell each other apart, other than relatively minor speech patterns and
social habits? That's hardly racism. Your larger point is well taken, but race and class issues
in the US are a bit more entrenched and complicated than your analogy might suggest. By design,
I think.
The "relatively minor speech patterns" would have entirely sufficed to make the distinction.
There are parts of the world where people from towns only a few miles apart can be distinguished
through fairly minor intonational differences. See also the history of the word "shibboleth."
Indeed, there's little direct antagonism between the English and the Irish today and hasn't
been for a long time. By contrast, the "racism" discourse in the US seems to persist because it
serves the political interests of certain groups. Most of the rest of the world has gone beyond
this way of thinking and I'm always surprised the US is so far behind.
The main street media has us in a vice grip where they say they can not properly cover more
than 2 parties. (!!??) This 2 party system is bursting at the seams where every election is a
tie or hairsbreadth away from a tie. As long as we keep electing the same people, the democrats
are going nowhere, and their neolib philosophy will hang on to the every end – because it pays.
They don't care that they're going to hell.
"The Party's moneyed establishment-big donors, major lobbyists, retired members of Congress
who have become bundlers and lobbyists-are part of the problem."
Well . . . the millions of eager members of the Klinton Koolaid Kult are also a problem. They
will never ever vote for a Sanders figure. Never ever. They will nourish their lust for vengeance
against the Sanders primary voters and workers for decades to come.
Just go read a blog findable under the words Riverdaughter The Confluence and read the comments
and you will see what I mean. Put your nose up real close to the screen so you can smelllll the
Klintonism.
In June, 1858, in one of the great speeches in the history of our country and our politics,
Lincoln declared, quoting the New Testament, and in the teeth of the undeniable and unresolvable
antagonism between pro and anti-slavery citizens, that "A house divided against itself cannot
stand."
Lincoln's hope was that this country would not "dissolve". But at the same time he foresaw
the inevitably of civil war as the only realistic albeit tragic way in which an America divided
on grounds as fundamental as slavery for some versus (political) freedom for all, could resolve
its "crisis" and "cease to be divided".
For Lincoln there was no other alternative. There are many times when inhabitants of the "house"
disagree. Such is to be expected and disagreements are normally resolved sooner or later. The
house endures. But there are those other (rare) times when "agitation has not only not ceased,
but has constantly augmented". A "crisis" is reached, and eventually the nation "will become all
one thing or all the other." Civil war cruelly declares a victor and a loser.
There was no way to compromise. The deepest narratives by which each side, pro-slavery and
pro-"freedom" (Lincoln's word), understood the meaning of the American Republic, the great Enlightenment-inspired
experiment in representative democratic government, and ultimately what it means to live in community,
organize ourselves politically, socially, economically, and what counts to being a human person,
were mutually exclusive. How do you "negotiate" away this conflict? How do you dialectically transcend
it? Either the laborer in our cotton fields and plantation households is a human person or not.
When the organization of society depends on how we answer explicitly in argument and slogan or
implicitly in our unquestioned assumptions, questions about the origins and purposes of life itself,
war could only appear to Lincoln as inevitable, even if he refused at this point (1858) to come
right out and say it.
A question for us to think about: When, since the time of Lincoln, slavery, and the Civil War,
has America been as fundamentally divided as it is now, today, 2017? When have the basic stories
that we tell ourselves and that we have assimilated into our habits of head and heart, been more
deeply and irreconcilably opposed? Where and what is the dialectical resolution between coastal
cosmopolitans chasing a "good life" understood as an ever expanding, protected, and affirmed "market"
for individual choice and self- inventing "lifestyles", and the flyover country provincials living
in communities devastated by the corrosive solvency of aggressive finance capital on the make,
weakened by disappearing communities, impotent traditions, mocked religion, broken families, and
constant anxiety about providing the daily bread? And when have the imaginations of those so opposed
been less able to conceive workable solutions that embrace both sides? Are there solutions that
are able to embrace both sides?
Can the institution of representative democracy, arguably a product of the Age of Reason with
its belief in "nature and nature's God" and the "inalienable natural rights" that can be discovered
by the enlightened human intellect, survive in post-Enlightenment post-modernism with its hermeneutics
of suspicion in which there are no admitted "facts", no unifying "truths", and "right" is a function
of "might", the Will to Power.
It's urgent Democrats stop squabbling and recognize seven
basic truths:
1. The Party is on life support. Democrats are in the
minority in both the House and Senate, with no end in sight.
Since the start of the Obama Administration they've lost
1,034 state and federal seats. They hold only governorships,
and face 32 state legislatures fully under GOP control. No
one speaks for the party as a whole. The Party's top leaders
are aging, and the back bench is thin.
The future is bleak unless the Party radically reforms
itself. If Republicans do well in the 2018 midterms, they'll
control Congress and the Supreme Court for years. If they
continue to hold most statehouses, they could entrench
themselves for a generation.
2. We are now in a populist era. The strongest and most
powerful force in American politics is a rejection of the
status quo, a repudiation of politics as usual, and a deep
and profound distrust of elites, including the current power
structure of America.
That force propelled Donald Trump into the White House. He
represents the authoritarian side of populism. Bernie
Sanders's primary campaign represented the progressive side.
The question hovering over America's future is which form
of populism will ultimately prevail. At some point,
hopefully, Trump voters will discover they've been
hoodwinked. Even in its purist form, authoritarian populism
doesn't work because it destroys democracy. Democrats must
offer the alternative.
3. The economy is not working for most Americans. The
economic data show lower unemployment and higher wages than
eight years ago, but the typical family is still poorer today
than it was in 2000, adjusted for inflation; median weekly
earning are no higher than in 2000; a large number of
working-age people-mostly men-have dropped out of the labor
force altogether; and job insecurity is endemic.
Inequality is wider and its consequences more savage in
America than in any other advanced nation.
4. The Party's moneyed establishment-big donors, major
lobbyists, retired members of Congress who have become
bundlers and lobbyists-are part of the problem. Even though
many consider themselves "liberal" and don't recoil from an
active government, their preferred remedies spare
corporations and the wealthiest from making any sacrifices.
The moneyed interests in the Party allowed the
deregulation of Wall Street and then encouraged the bailout
of the Street. They're barely concerned about the growth of
tax havens, inside trading, increasing market power in major
industries (pharmaceuticals, telecom, airlines, private
health insurers, food processors, finance, even high tech),
and widening inequality.
Meanwhile, they've allowed labor unions to shrink to near
irrelevance. Unionized workers used to be the ground troops
of the Democratic Party. In the 1950s, more than a third of
all private-sector workers were unionized; today, fewer than
7 percent are.
5. It's not enough for Democrats to be "against Trump,"
and defend the status quo. Democrats have to fight like hell
against regressive policies Trump wants to put in place, but
Democrats also need to fight for a bold vision of what the
nation must achieve-like expanding Social Security, and
financing the expansion by raising the cap on income subject
to Social Security taxes; Medicare for all; and world-class
free public education for all.
And Democrats must diligently seek to establish
countervailing power-stronger trade unions, community banks,
more incentives for employee ownership and small businesses,
and electoral reforms that get big money out of politics and
expand the right to vote.
6. The life of the Party-its enthusiasm, passion, youth,
principles, and ideals-was elicited by Bernie Sanders's
campaign. This isn't to denigrate what Hillary Clinton
accomplished-she did, after all, win the popular vote in the
presidential election by almost 3 million people. It's only
to recognize what all of us witnessed: the huge outpouring of
excitement that Bernie's campaign inspired, especially from
the young. This is the future of the Democratic Party.
7. The Party must change from being a giant fundraising
machine to a movement.It needs to unite the poor, working
class, and middle class, black and white-who haven't had a
raise in 30 years, and who feel angry, powerless, and
disenfranchised.
Cruising all my lefty bookmarked sites, this is the only one
(Reich's bog) that comes even close to saying the Democratic
Party is risking permanent irrelevance unless sufficient
grass roots anger topples the leadership wholesale and
rebuilds from the bottom.
That's what happened to the Republican party. Trump toppled
the establishment by tapping into people's anger about the
"carnage." Now we'll see what he actually does. I don't think
think even he knows what he'll do.
Meanwhile establishment
Democrats deny that there is any carnage.
Brexit and Trump only happened b/c of a weird uptick in
racism and sexism. B/c of social media.
Listen and you can hear the sneering "elite" liberal left narrative about how
the big dumb white working class is about to get screwed over by the incoming
multi-millionaire- and billionaire-laden Trump administration it voted into
office. Once those poor saps in the white working class wake up to their
moronic mistake, the narrative suggests, they'll come running back to their
supposed friends the Democrats.
Trump Didn't Really Win Over Working
Class America: Clinton Lost it
It's true, of course, that Trump is going to betray white working class
people who voted for him in the hope that he would be a populist champion of
their interests – a hope he mendaciously cultivated. But there are three basic
and related problems with the scornful liberal-left storyline. The first
difficulty is that the notion of a big white proletarian "rustbelt rebellion"
for Trump has been badly oversold. "The real story of the 2016 election," the
left political scientist
Anthony DiMaggio notes
, "is not that Trump won over working class America,
so much as Clinton and the Democrats lost it The decline of Democratic voters
among the working class in 2016 (compared to 2012) was far larger than the
increase in Republican voters during those two elections" If the Democrats had
run Bernie Sanders or someone else with "a meaningful history of seeking to
help the working class," DiMaggio observes, they might well have won.
Populism-Manipulation is a Bipartisan Affair
Second, betraying working class voters (of all colors, by the way) in
service to concentrated wealth and power (the "One Percent" in post-Occupy Wall
Street parlance) is what presidents and other top elected officials from
both
of the reigning capitalist U.S. political parties do. What did the
white and the broader (multiracial) working class experience when the
neoliberal corporate Democrats Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama
held the White House? Abject disloyalty towards egalitarian-sounding campaign
rhetoric and a resumption of (big) business (rule) as usual. An ever-increasing
upward distribution of income, wealth, and power into fewer hands.
It's an old story. In his 1999 book on Bill and Hillary Clinton,
No One Left to Lie To
, the still left Christopher Hitchens
usefully described "the essence of American politics, when distilled," as "the
manipulation of populism by elitism. That elite is most successful," Hitchens
added, "which can claim the heartiest allegiance of the fickle crowd; can
present itself as most 'in touch' with popular concerns; can anticipate the
tides and pulses of public opinion; can, in short, be the least apparently
'elitist.' It is no great distance from Huey Long's robust cry of 'Every man a
king' to the insipid 'inclusiveness' of [Bill Clinton's slogan] 'Putting People
First,' but the smarter elite managers have learned in the interlude that
solid, measurable pledges have to be distinguished by a reserve' tag that
earmarks them for the bankrollers and backers."
True, the Republicans don't manipulate populism in the same way as the
Democrats. The dismal, dollar-drenched Dems don the outwardly liberal and
diverse, many-colored cloak of slick, Hollywood- , Silicon Valley-, Ivy
League-and Upper West Side-approved bicoastal multiculturalism. The radically
regressive and reactionary Republicans connect their manipulation more to
white "heartland" nationalism, sexism, hyper-masculinism, nativism, evangelism,
family values, and (to be honest) racism.
But in both versions, that of the Democrats and that of the Republicans,
Goldman Sachs (and Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America et al.) always
prevails. The "bankrollers and bankers"
atop
the Deep State
continue to reign. The nation's unelected deep
state dictatorship of money (UDSDoM, UDoM for short) continues to call the
shots. That was certainly true under the
arch-neoliberal
Barack Obama
, whose relentless service to the nation's economic
ruling class has been amply documented by numerous journalists, authors (the
present
writer included
) and academics.
Obama ascended to the White House with record-setting Wall Street
contributions. He governed accordingly, from the staffing of his
administration (chock full of revolving door operatives from elite financial
institutions) to the policies he advanced – and the ones he didn't, like (to
name a handful) a financial transaction tax, the re-legalization of union
organizing, single-payer health insurance, a health insurance public option,
tough conditions on bankers receiving bailout money, and the prosecution of a
single Wall Street executive for the excesses that created the financial
meltdown.
Anyone who thinks that any of that might have changed to any significant
degree under a Hillary Clinton presidency is living in a fantasy world. She
gave
every indication
that a president Clinton 45 would be every bit as friendly
to the finance-led corporate establishment (the UDoM) as the arch-neoliberal
Cliinton42 and Obama44 presidencies. She was Wall Street's
golden/Goldman/Citigroup girl.
We are Not the 99 Percent
Third, elite liberals and left liberals often miss a key point on who white
(and nonwhite) working class people most directly interact when it comes to the
infliction of what the sociologist Richard Sennett called "
the
hidden injuries of class
." It is through regular contact with the
professional and managerial class, not the mostly invisible corporate and
financial elite, that the working class mostly commonly experiences class
inequality and oppression in America.
Working people might see hyper-opulent "rich bastards" like Trump, Bill
Gates, and even Warren Buffett on television. In their real lives, they carry
out "ridiculous orders" and receive "idiotic" reprimands from middle- and upper
middle-class coordinators-from, to quote a white university maintenance worker
I spoke with last summer, "know-it-all pencil-pushers who don't give a flying
fuck about regular working guys like me."
This worker voted for Trump "just to piss-off all the big shot (professional
class) liberals" he perceived as constantly disrespecting and pushing him
around.
It is not lost on the white working class that much of this managerial and
professional class "elite" tends to align with the Democratic Party and its
purported liberal and multicultural, cosmopolitan, and environmentalist values.
It doesn't help that the professional and managerial "elites" are often with
the politically correct multiculturalism and the environmentalism that many
white workers (actually) have (unpleasant as this might be to acknowledge) some
rational economic and other reasons to see as a threat to their living
standards, status, and well-being.
The
Green
Party
leader and Teamster union activist Howie Hawkins put it very
well last summer. "The Democratic Party ideology is the ideology of the
professional class," Hawkins said. "Meritocratic competition. Do well in
school, get well-rewarded." (Unfortunately, perhaps, his comment reminds me of
the bumper sticker slogan I've seen on the back of more than a few beat-up cars
in factory parking lots and trailer parks over the years: "My Kid Beat Up Your
Honor Student.") "The biggest threat to the Democrats isn't losing votes to the
Greens," Hawkins noted. It is losing votes to Trump, who "sounds like he's mad
at the system. So they throw a protest vote to him."
The white maintenance worker is certainly going to get screwed by Trump's
corporate presidency. You can take that to the bank. He would also have gotten
shafted by Hillary's corporate presidency if she had won. You can take that
down to your favorite financial institution too. And the worker's anger at all
the "big shots" with their Hillary and Obama bumper stickers on the back of
their Volvos and Audis and Priuses is not based merely on some foolish and
"uneducated" failure to perceive his common interests with the rest of the "99
percent" against the top hundredth.
We are the 99 Percent, except, well, we're not. Among other things, a
two-class model of America deletes the massive disparities that exist between
the working-class majority of Americans and the nation's professional and
managerial class. In the U.S. as across the world capitalist system, ordinary
working people suffer not just from the elite private and profit-seeking
capitalist ownership of workplace and society. They also confront the stark
oppression inherent in what left economists Robin Hahnel and Mike Albert call
the "corporate division of labor"-an alienating, de-humanizing, and
hierarchical subdivision of tasks "in which a few workers have excellent
conditions and empowering circumstances, many fall well below that, and most
workers have essentially no power at all."
Over time, this pecking order hardens "into a broad and pervasive class
division" whereby one class - roughly the top fifth of the workforce -"controls
its own circumstances and the circumstances of others below," while another
(the working class) "obeys orders and gets what its members can eke out." The
"coordinator class," Albert notes, "looks down on workers as instruments with
which to get jobs done. It engages workers paternally, seeing them as needing
guidance and oversight and as lacking the finer human qualities that justify
both autonomous input and the higher incomes needed to support more expensive
tastes." That sparks no small working class resentment.
It comes with ballot box implications. Many white workers will "vote against
their pocketbook interests" by embracing a viciously noxious and
super-oligarchic Republican over a supposedly liberal (neoliberal) Democrat
backed by middle- and upper middle- class elites who contemptuously lord it
over those workers daily. The negative attention that dreadful Republican
(Trump) gets from "elite" upper-middle class talking heads in corporate media
often just reinforces that ugly attachment.
2016: Hate Trumped Hate
It doesn't help the Democrats when their top candidates channel elitist
contempt of the working in their campaign rhetoric. Here's how the
silver-tongued Harvard Law graduate
Obama referred to white working-class voters
in old blue-collar towns
decimated by industrial job losses in the early spring of 2008: "They get
bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like
them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain
their frustrations." Amusingly enough, these reflections were seized on by his
neoliberal compatriot and rival for the Democratic nomination, the Yale Law
graduate Hillary Clinton. She hoped to use Obama's condescending remarks to
resuscitate her flagging campaign against a candidate she now accused of class
snotty-ness. "I was taken aback by the demeaning remarks Senator Obama made
about people in small-town America," she said. "His remarks are
elitist
and out of touch." Clinton staffers in North Carolina even gave out stickers
saying "I'm not bitter."
How darkly ironic is to compare that (failed) campaign gambit from nearly
nine years ago with the campaign Hillary ran in 2016! Hillary's latest and
hopefully last campaign was quite consciously and recklessly about contempt for
the white working class. As
John Pilger recently reflected
:
"Today, false symbolism is all. 'Identity' is all. In 2016, Hillary Clinton
stigmatised millions of [white working class and rural – P.S.] voters as 'a
basket of deplorables, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -
you name it'. Her abuse was handed out at an LGBT rally as part of her cynical
campaign to win over minorities by abusing a white mostly working-class
majority. Divide and rule, this is called; or identity politics in which race
and gender conceal class, and allow the waging of class war. Trump understood
this."
The "deplorables" comment was a great gift to Trump, whose staffers gave
people buttons saying "I'm an Adorable Deplorable."
Disappointed Hillary voters have chanted "Love Trumps Hate" while marching
against the incoming quasi-fascist president. But, really, the 2016 U.S.
presidential election was
about one kind of hate
– the "heartland"
white nationalist Republican version –
trumping another kind of hate
,
the more bi-coastal and outwardly multicultural and diverse Democratic version.
Let us not forget former Obama campaign manager
David Ploufe's comment
to the
New York Times
last March on how the
Hillary campaign would conduct itself against a Trump candidacy: "hope and
change, not so much; more like hate and castrate."
Meanwhile, the nation's UDoM rules on, whichever party holds nominal power
atop the visible state. Pardon my French, but the working class (of all
colors) is fucked either way.
Goldman Sachs Wins Either Way
We might also think of the essence of American politics as the manipulation
of identity politics – and identity-based hatred – by elitism. Reduced to a
corporate-managed
electorate
(Sheldon Wolin), the citizenry is identity-played by a moneyed
elite that pulls the strings behind the duopoly's candidate-centered spectacles
of faux democracy. As the Left author
Chris
Hedges noted three years ago
, "Both sides of the political spectrum are
manipulated by the same forces. If you're some right-wing Christian zealot in
Georgia, then it's homosexuals and abortion and all these, you know, wedge
issues that are used to whip you up emotionally. If you are a liberal in
Manhattan, it's – you know, they'll be teaching creationism in your schools or
whatever Yet in fact it's just a game, because whether it's Bush or whether
it's Obama, Goldman Sachs always wins. There is no way to vote against the
interests of Goldman Sachs." (We can update that formulation to say "whether
it's Trump or where it's Hillary.")
For all their claims of concern for ordinary people and beneath all their
claims of bitter, personal, and partisan contempt for their major party
electoral opponents, the Republican and Democratic "elites" are united with the
capitalist "elite" in top-down hatred for the nation's multi-racial
working-class majority.
The resistance movement we need to develop cannot be merely about choosing
one of the two different major party brands of Machiavellian, ruling class
hate. The reigning political organizations are what Upton Sinclair called (in
the original
Appeal to Reason
newspaper version of
The Jungle
)
"two wings of the same bird of prey." We must come out from under both of
those two noxious wings and their obsessive and endless focus on the
quadrennial candidate-centered electoral extravaganzas, which have replaced the
recently closed Ringling Brothers show as the greatest circus in the world. We
cannot fall prey anymore to the reigning message that meaningful democratic
participation consists of going into a voting booth to mark a ballot once every
four years and then going home to (in
Noam Chomsky's words
) "let other [and very rich ] people run the world
[into the ground]."
Join
the debate on Facebook
"... In the face of the enormous political chasm between the 99 percent and the 1 percent, a strategy of elite-led, bipartisan deal-cutting premised on calls for "shared sacrifice" leaves this grossly inequitable economic and political fabric intact. As such, the 99 percent are caught in the vise of small-bore policies from their supposed friends and allies while their opponents encircle them with scorched-earth politics. ..."
"... The Obama administration and much of the leadership of the Democratic Party took extreme care not to upset these basic interests. As a consequence, they squandered an exceptional political opportunity. The financial crisis and the Great Recession were one of those moments when members of the business sector were "stripped naked as leaders and strategists," in the words of Simon Johnson, former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund. The Great Depression was another. ..."
"... As he put the House of Morgan and other bankers on trial, Ferdinand Pecora, chief counsel of the Senate Banking Committee, helped popularize during the age of Al Capone a term not heard today: the "bankster." These hearings compelled Roosevelt to support stricter financial regulation than he might have otherwise. ..."
"... One cannot talk about crime in the streets today without talking about crime in the suites. ..."
"... The political intransigence lavishly on display in the Republican Party - which repeatedly brought Congress to a caustic standstill - obscured how a major segment of the Democratic Party was loath to mount any major challenge to the entrenched financial and political interests that have captured American politics today. ..."
"... For all the bluster about political polarization, the debate over what to do about the economy, the social safety net, and financial regulation - like the elite discussions over what to do about mass incarceration - oscillated within a very narrow range defined by neoliberalism for much of Obama's tenure. Indeed, the president repeatedly bragged that the federal budget for discretionary spending on domestic programs had shrunk under his watch to the smallest share of the economy since Dwight Eisenhower was president. ..."
Vast and growing economic inequalities rooted in vast and growing political inequalities are the
preeminent problem facing the United States today. They are the touchstone of many of the major issues
that vex the country - from mass incarceration to mass underemployment to climate change to the economic
recovery of Wall Street but not Main Street and Martin Luther King Street.
In the face of the enormous political chasm between the 99 percent and the 1 percent, a strategy
of elite-led, bipartisan deal-cutting premised on calls for "shared sacrifice" leaves this grossly
inequitable economic and political fabric intact. As such, the 99 percent are caught in the vise
of small-bore policies from their supposed friends and allies while their opponents encircle them
with scorched-earth politics.
The Obama administration and much of the leadership of the Democratic Party took extreme care
not to upset these basic interests. As a consequence, they squandered an exceptional political opportunity.
The financial crisis and the Great Recession were one of those moments when members of the business
sector were "stripped naked as leaders and strategists,"
in the words of Simon Johnson, former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund. The
Great Depression was another.
When President Franklin D. Roosevelt came into office, the Hoover administration was thoroughly
discredited, as was the business sector. FDR recognized that the country was ready for a clean break
with the past, and symbolically and substantively cultivated that sentiment. The break did not come
from FDR alone. Massive numbers of Americans mobilized in unions, women's organizations, veterans'
groups, senior citizen associations, and civil right groups to ensure that the country switched course.
During the Depression, President Roosevelt was forced to broaden the public understanding of crime
to include corporate crime. The Senate's riveting
Pecora hearings during the waning days of the Hoover administration and the start of the Roosevelt
presidency turned a scorching public spotlight on the malfeasance of the corporate sector and its
complicity in sparking the Depression.
As he put the House of Morgan and other bankers on trial, Ferdinand Pecora, chief counsel
of the Senate Banking Committee, helped popularize during the age of Al Capone a term not heard today:
the "bankster." These hearings compelled Roosevelt to support stricter financial regulation than
he might have otherwise.
One cannot talk about crime in the streets today without talking about crime in the suites.
Over the past four decades, the public obsession with getting tougher on street crime coincided with
the retreat of the state in regulating corporate malfeasance - everything from hedge funds to credit
default swaps to workplace safety. Keeping the focus on street crime was a convenient strategy to
shift public attention and resources from crime in the suites to crime in the streets.
As billionaire financier Warren Buffet
quipped
in 2006, "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making
war, and we're winning." President Obama's persistent calls during his first term for a politics
that rose above politics and championed "shared sacrifice" denied this reality and demobilized the
public. It thwarted the consolidation of a compelling alternative political vision on which new coalitions
and movements could be forged to challenge fundamental inequalities, including mass imprisonment
and the growing tentacles of the carceral state.
The political intransigence lavishly on display in the Republican Party - which repeatedly
brought Congress to a caustic standstill - obscured how a major segment of the Democratic Party was
loath to mount any major challenge to the entrenched financial and political interests that have
captured American politics today.
For all the bluster about political polarization, the debate over what to do about the economy,
the social safety net, and financial regulation - like the elite discussions over what to do about
mass incarceration - oscillated within a very narrow range defined by neoliberalism for much of Obama's
tenure. Indeed, the president repeatedly bragged that the federal budget for discretionary spending
on domestic programs had shrunk under his watch to the smallest share of the economy since Dwight
Eisenhower was president.
Cannot reconcile
your corporatist, neoliberal, war monger losing to a TV star who suggests we should not tilt with
a nuclear power with insane doctrine defining when peace should be breeched; you say the winner is
'illegitimate' or make up relations with a nationalist leader who does not toe the 'one worlder'
line.
Trump was right to point out
that the Clintons and their allies atop the Democratic National Committee rigged the game against
Bernie.
This rigging was consistent with the neoliberal corporate Democratic Party elite's longstanding
vicious hatred of left-wing of the party and anti-plutocratic populists. They hate and viciously
fight them in the ranks of their pro-Wall Street Party. It's "Clinton Third Way Democrats"
who essentially elected Trump, because Bernie for them is more dangerous than Trump.
The Democratic party became a neoliberal party of top 10% (may be top 20%), the party of bankers
and white collar professionals. "Soft" neoliberals, to distinguish them from "hard" neoliberals
(GOP).
Under Bill Clinton the Democrats have become the party of Financial Oligarchy. At this time
corporate interests were moving to finance as their main activity and that was a very profitable
betrayal for Clintons. They were royally remunerated for that.
Clintons have positioned the Dems as puppets of financial oligarchy and got in return two
major things:
Money for the Party (and themselves)
The ability to control the large part of MSM, which was owned by the same corporations,
who were instrumental in neoliberal takeover of the USA.
When the neoliberal media have to choose between their paymasters and the truth, their paymasters
win every time. Like under Bolshevism, they are soldiers of the Party.
In any case, starting from Clinton Presidency Democratic Party turned into a party of neoliberal
DemoRats and lost any connection with the majority of the USA population.
Like Republicans they now completely depends on "divide and conquer" strategy. Essentially
they became "Republicans light."
And that's why they used "identity wedge" politics to attract African American votes and
minorities (especially woman and sexual minorities; Bill Clinton probably helped to incarcerate
more black males than any other president).
As if Spanish and African-American population as a whole have different economic interests
than white working class and white lower middle class.
So Dems became a party which represents an alliance of neoliberal establishment and minorities,
where minorities are duped again and again (as in Barack Obama "change we can believe in" bait
and switch classic). This dishonest playing of race and gender cards was a trademark of Hillary
Clinton campaign.
See
10 reasons why #DemExit is serious. Getting rid of Debbie Wasserman Schultz is not enough
by Sophia A. McClennen
"... What do you call dumping a Ukraine president? And Qaddafi, blowing up the middle east, and funding al Qaeda? Fraud/treason, both Clinton neocon connections same as Reagan, shruBush and Obama. ..."
"... "In Yugoslavia, the U.S. and NATO had long sought to cut off Serbian nationalist and Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic from the international system through economic sanctions and military action. In 2000, the U.S. spent millions of dollars in aid for political parties, campaign costs and independent media. Funding and broadcast equipment provided to the media arms of the opposition were a decisive factor in electing opposition candidate Vojislav Kostunica as Yugoslav president, according to Levin. "If it wouldn't have been for overt intervention Milosevic would have been very likely to have won another term," he said." ..."
"... Google Camp Bonesteel. A large NATO base funded mostly by you to keep Serbia under wraps. Enforcing the Clinton neocon "just peace". With threat of US' brand of expensive high tech mass murder. ..."
"... Democrats voting against legalizing drug imports from Canada (Hall of Shame:) Bennett, Cory Booker, Cantwell, Carper, Casey, Coons, Donnelly, Heinrich, Heitkamp, Menendez, Murray, Tester, and Warner. ..."
"... progressive neoliberals are libertarians and market idolators' lackies that want gays to get their wedding cakes from Christian bakeries. ..."
"... 30000 destroyed e-mails, denying the public access to records. How many felony counts is 30000? Read the Federal Records Act. ..."
What do you call dumping a Ukraine president? And Qaddafi,
blowing up the middle east, and funding al Qaeda?
Fraud/treason, both Clinton neocon connections same as
Reagan, shruBush and Obama.
The recondite democrat bar for traitor is very high.
As arcane as the demo-neolib definition of progressive!
The old saying what's good for the goose is good for the
gander. Well considering all that the Republican party and
leadership has dissed out for 8 years or so. Hey, they need
to be dissed right back. Trump has set the "TONE" that all is
fair as he set the rules, established the rule-book way below
the belt, loves playing in the swamp and slinging mud. He
deserves any and all that gets slung back from in and out of
the swamp, in all global directions! Unfortunately everyone
else will be the only citizens to suffer. He's just way above
the maddening crowd, and protected by all his cronies!
"In Yugoslavia, the U.S. and NATO had long sought to cut
off Serbian nationalist and Yugoslav leader Slobodan
Milosevic from the international system through economic
sanctions and military action. In 2000, the U.S. spent
millions of dollars in aid for political parties, campaign
costs and independent media. Funding and broadcast equipment
provided to the media arms of the opposition were a decisive
factor in electing opposition candidate Vojislav Kostunica as
Yugoslav president, according to Levin. "If it wouldn't have
been for overt intervention Milosevic would have been very
likely to have won another term," he said."
Google Camp Bonesteel. A large NATO base funded mostly by you
to keep Serbia under wraps. Enforcing the Clinton neocon
"just peace". With threat of US' brand of expensive high tech
mass murder.
MLK's memory is defiled by the fake liberals grabbing it
for revolting political gain.
Democrats voting against legalizing drug imports from Canada
(Hall of Shame:)
Bennett, Cory Booker, Cantwell, Carper,
Casey, Coons, Donnelly, Heinrich, Heitkamp, Menendez, Murray,
Tester, and Warner.
Presumably many, like Cantwell, are avid supporters of
'free' trade--trade that is rigged in favor of certain
special interests. Legalizing drug imports from Canada would
have hurt the special interests that fund their campaigns.
Considering that Trump and the GOP majority got millions less
votes than their democratic counterparts, one can question
the legitimacy (but not the legality) of the laws they pass -
since they would not represent the will of the people.
I start this sermon with poor pk, and those who of
unsound logic who think he is not jumped the shark poor pk.
John Lewis.......
From Dr King's Vietnam Sermon Apr 1967:
"Now, I've chosen to preach about the war in Vietnam
because I agree with Dante, that the hottest places in hell
are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis
maintain their neutrality. There comes a time when silence
becomes betrayal."
The liberals' silence is betrayal! All the democrat
sponsored fake liberal agendas around this holiday remain
damnably silent about the evil that is Clinton/Obama war to
end "unjust peace".
Here is my comment for poor pk, Lewis and the whining
do-over tools:
Last week US drones killed 3 supposed terrorists in Yemen,
they were supposed to be al Qaeda in Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).
No charges, no jury, no judge.
AQAP is related to the guys Obama is funding to take down
Assad and put Syria in ruinous hate filled group of jihadis
like run amok in Libya.
So silent on deadly evil; but so boisterous about affronts
to gay people wanting nice cakes!
Lewis and his crooked neoliberal ilk have been milking Dr.
King for 50 years!
Hey, if it's politics every pathology from torture to
assassination to bombing civilians is approved. If you did it
as a person, you would be immediately incarcerated. This
nation state worship, or religious worship in many parts of
the world, is infused with pathology. It's in our DNA
apparently. We are over killers par excellence. Only rats are
as good. I'm betting on the rats.
"Politicians were mostly people who'd had too little morals
and ethics to stay lawyers."
George R. R. Martin
ilsm :
, -1
poor democrats!
Cannot reconcile your corporatist,
neoliberal, war monger losing to a TV star who suggests we
should not tilt with a nuclear power with insane doctrine
defining when peace should be breeched; you say the winner is
'illegitimate' or make up relations with a nationalist leader
who does not toe the 'one worlder' line.
The Congressional defeat, insured by Democrats, of the proposal by Bernie Sanders to allow the
import of drugs from Canada to lower drug prices in the United States.
'
This is only the beginning of Democrats' appeasement of Trump and Republicans...it will be stunning
to watch how much damage Republicans can do during Trump's first 90 days with only a slim majority
in the Senate. During the first 90 days under Obama, who had a true electoral mandate and big
majorities in both houses, Democrats basically sat on their hands, blaming Republicans for their
unwillingness to do much for the American people.
Ever noticed that marketing costs are 30% of revenue? This is a by product of the monopoly power
in this sector. Dean Baker has often noted we could have the government do the R&D and then have
real competition in manufacturing.
You forgot that those researchers often produce useless or even dangerous drags, which are
inferior to existing. Looks as scams practiced with hypertension drugs.
This rat race for blockbuster drugs is the same as corruption in financial industry.
Actually the industry profile is very relevant but goes in a different direction - if US firms
were compelled to charge market (not monopoly) prices, we would better compete with foreign firms.
Any excuse to charge sky high prices for drugs that don't cost that much to manufacture? If these
monopoly profits were not so high, we would buy more drugs and employ more people.
Do you think we would really buy materially more drugs if prices were lower? Particularly enough
more, at those (30-50%?) lower prices, to generate the funds to employ more people?
(If that actually generated at much or more funds, it would seem like the pharma companies,
seeking to make as much money as possible, would have already set prices at that lower per unit
level.)
In any case, that seems like a LOT more drugs.
Perhaps Anne has data on the number of scripts per person in the US vs OECD.
There are lots of poor people who don't take drugs because they can't afford them. This will become
especially true if the Republican repeal Obamacare.
The point of course is wildly exploiting ordinary people in need of healthcare in every possible
way, or a reflection of what we have come to. Returning now to the market...
Conservative activists in Nashville this week for the first-ever National Tea Party
Convention gave a hero's welcome to former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who closed the event
with a speech Saturday night. Palin praised the Tea Party movement and delivered a scathing
- sometimes mocking - critique of both the economic and national security policies of the
Obama administration.
After three days of workshops and speeches by movement leaders far
less well-known, Tea Party convention delegates got to see a bona fide conservative
superstar.
"I am so proud to be an American," she called out to the cheering crowd Saturday night
in a hotel ballroom at the Opryland resort. "Thank you so much for being here tonight. Do
you love your freedom?"
She drew more big cheers when she told Tea Partiers that America is ready for another
revolution.
This was the rare Palin speech these days to be open to the press, and she used the
opportunity to tear into the president. She described his foreign policy as not recognizing
the true threats America faces. She cited the decision to criminally charge the suspect in
the Christmas Day airline bombing attempt as a move that she says puts the country at grave
risk.
"Because that's not how radical Islamic extremists are looking at this. They know we're
at war, and to win that war we need a commander in chief and not a professor of law
standing at the lectern."
On the economy, she accused the White House of pushing a stimulus package that hasn't
created the promised jobs. Millions of dollars have been wasted, she said.
Palin also says the Obama administration has not been transparent, as promised during
the campaign.
"This was all part of that hope and change and transparency. Now, a year later, I gotta
ask the supporters of all that, 'How's that hopey, changey stuff working out?'
NYT tries to hide one interesting nuance: whether emails in Huma computer contained the set of emails deleted by Hillary from her.
Notable quotes:
"... The inspector general's office said that it was initiating the investigation in response to complaints from members of Congress and the public about actions by the F.B.I. and the Justice Department during the campaign that could be seen as politically motivated. ..."
"... Republicans, who made her use of a private email server a centerpiece of their campaign against Mrs. Clinton, attacked Mr. Comey after he decided there was not sufficient evidence she had mishandled classified information to prosecute her. ..."
"... In the end, the emails that the F.B.I. reviewed - which came up during an unrelated inquiry into Anthony D. Weiner, the estranged husband of a top Clinton aide, Huma Abedin - proved irrelevant to the investigation's outcome. ..."
"... Inspectors general have investigated F.B.I. directors before, but rarely. The most high-profile example was the investigation of William S. Sessions, who was fired by President Bill Clinton after an internal inquiry cited him for financial misconduct. In recent years, the inspector general has investigated accusations of wrongdoing by the F.B.I. involving some of its most sensitive operations, including a number of surveillance and counterterrorism programs. ..."
"... Mr. Horowitz said he would also investigate whether the Justice Department's top congressional liaison, Peter Kadzik, had improperly provided information to the Clinton campaign. A hacked email posted by WikiLeaks showed that Mr. Kadzik alerted the campaign about a coming congressional hearing that was likely to raise questions about Mrs. Clinton. ..."
"... Investigators will be helped in gathering evidence by a law that Congress passed just last month, which ensures that inspectors general across the government will have access to all relevant agency records in their reviews. ..."
"... Mr. Trump has not indicated whether he intends to keep Mr. Comey in his job. When he cleared Mrs. Clinton of criminal wrongdoing during the campaign, Mr. Trump accused him of being part of a rigged system. ..."
Comey Letter on Clinton Email Is Subject of Justice Dept. Inquiry
By ADAM GOLDMAN, ERIC LICHTBLAU and MATT APUZZO
JAN. 12, 2017
WASHINGTON - The Justice Department's inspector general said Thursday that he would open a broad investigation into how the
F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, handled the case over Hillary Clinton's emails, including his decision to discuss it at a news
conference and to disclose 11 days before the election that he had new information that could lead him to reopen it.
The inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, will not look into the decision not to prosecute Mrs. Clinton or her aides. But
he will review actions Mr. Comey took that Mrs. Clinton and many of her supporters believe cost her the election.
They are: the news conference in July at which he announced he was not indicting Mrs. Clinton but described her behavior as
"extremely careless"; the letter to Congress in late October in which he said that newly discovered emails could potentially change
the outcome of the F.B.I.'s investigation; and the letter three days before the election in which he said that he was closing
it again.
The inspector general's office said that it was initiating the investigation in response to complaints from members of
Congress and the public about actions by the F.B.I. and the Justice Department during the campaign that could be seen as politically
motivated.
For Mr. Comey and the agency he heads, the Clinton investigation was politically fraught from the moment the F.B.I. received
a referral in July 2015 to determine whether Mrs. Clinton and her aides had mishandled classified information. Senior F.B.I. officials
believed there was never going to be a good outcome, since it put them in the middle of a bitterly partisan issue.
Whatever the decision on whether to charge Mrs. Clinton with a crime, Mr. Comey, a Republican former Justice Department official
appointed by President Obama, was going to get hammered. And he was.
Republicans, who made her use of a private email server a centerpiece of their campaign against Mrs. Clinton, attacked
Mr. Comey after he decided there was not sufficient evidence she had mishandled classified information to prosecute her.
The Clinton campaign believed the F.B.I. investigation was overblown and seriously damaged her chances to win the White House
and resented Mr. Comey's comments about Mrs. Clinton at his news conference. But the campaign was particularly upset about Mr.
Comey's two letters, which created a wave of damaging news stories at the end of the campaign, when Mrs. Clinton and her supporters
thought they had put the email issue behind them.
In the end, the emails that the F.B.I. reviewed - which came up during an unrelated inquiry into Anthony D. Weiner, the
estranged husband of a top Clinton aide, Huma Abedin - proved irrelevant to the investigation's outcome.
The Clinton campaign said Mr. Comey's actions quite likely caused a significant number of undecided voters to cast ballots
for President-elect Donald J. Trump.
F.B.I. officials said Thursday that they welcomed the scrutiny. In a statement, Mr. Comey described Mr. Horowitz as "professional
and independent" and promised to cooperate with his investigation. "I hope very much he is able to share his conclusions and observations
with the public because everyone will benefit from thoughtful evaluation and transparency," Mr. Comey said.
Brian Fallon, the former press secretary for the Clinton campaign and the former top spokesman for the Justice Department,
said the inspector general's investigation was long overdue.
"This is highly encouraging and to be expected, given Director Comey's drastic deviation from Justice Department protocol,"
he said. "A probe of this sort, however long it takes to conduct, is utterly necessary in order to take the first step to restore
the F.B.I.'s reputation as a nonpartisan institution."
Mr. Horowitz has the authority to recommend a criminal investigation if he finds evidence of illegality, but there has been
no suggestion that Mr. Comey's actions were unlawful. Rather, the question has been whether he acted inappropriately, showed bad
judgment or violated Justice Department guidelines. It is not clear what the consequences would be for Mr. Comey if he was found
to have done any of those things.
The Justice Department and the F.B.I. have a longstanding policy against discussing criminal investigations. Another Justice
Department policy declares that politics should play no role in investigative decisions. Both Democratic and Republican administrations
have interpreted that policy broadly to prohibit taking any steps that might even hint at an impression of partisanship.
Inspectors general have investigated F.B.I. directors before, but rarely. The most high-profile example was the investigation
of William S. Sessions, who was fired by President Bill Clinton after an internal inquiry cited him for financial misconduct.
In recent years, the inspector general has investigated accusations of wrongdoing by the F.B.I. involving some of its most sensitive
operations, including a number of surveillance and counterterrorism programs.
As part of the review, the inspector general will examine other issues related to the email investigation that Republicans
have raised. They include whether the deputy director of the F.B.I., Andrew G. McCabe, should have recused himself from any involvement
in it.
In 2015, Mr. McCabe's wife ran for a State Senate seat in Virginia as a Democrat and accepted nearly $500,000 in political
contributions from Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a key ally of the Clintons. Though Mr. McCabe did not assume his post until February
2016, months after his wife was defeated, critics both within the agency and outside of it felt that he should have recused himself.
The F.B.I. has said Mr. McCabe played no role in his wife's campaign. He also told his superiors she was running and sought
ethics advice from F.B.I. officials.
Mr. Horowitz said he would also investigate whether the Justice Department's top congressional liaison, Peter Kadzik, had
improperly provided information to the Clinton campaign. A hacked email posted by WikiLeaks showed that Mr. Kadzik alerted the
campaign about a coming congressional hearing that was likely to raise questions about Mrs. Clinton.
Investigators will be helped in gathering evidence by a law that Congress passed just last month, which ensures that inspectors
general across the government will have access to all relevant agency records in their reviews.
The law grew out of skirmishes between the F.B.I. and the Justice Department inspector general over attempts by the F.B.I.
to keep grand jury material and other records off limits. The new law means Mr. Horowitz's investigators should have access to
any records deemed relevant.
Mr. Trump has not indicated whether he intends to keep Mr. Comey in his job. When he cleared Mrs. Clinton of criminal wrongdoing
during the campaign, Mr. Trump accused him of being part of a rigged system.
Although the president does not need cause to fire the F.B.I. director, a critical inspector general report could provide justification
to do so if Mr. Trump is looking for some.
This was pretty dirty provocation by Hillary Clinton close circle, as we now know who paid money
for it.
Notable quotes:
"... A private company had minute by minute intelligence on the Manchurian Candidate scheme and all the indictable illegal activity that was going on, which the CIA/NSA/GCHQ/MI6 did not have, despite their specific tasking and enormous technical, staff and financial resources amounting between them to over 150,000 staff and the availability of hundreds of billons of dollars to do nothing but this. ..."
"... A private western company is able to run a state level intelligence operation in Russia for years, continually interviewing senior security sources and people personally close to Putin, without being caught by the Russian security services – despite the fact the latter are brilliant enough to install a Manchurian candidate as President of the USA. This private western company can for example secretly interview staff in top Moscow hotels – which they themselves say are Russian security service controlled – without the staff being too scared to speak to them or ending up dead. They can continually pump Putin's friends for information and get it. ..."
"... The editors of the Washington Post and the Guardian are guilty of pushing as blazing front page news the most blatant forgery to serve their own political ends, without carrying out the absolutely basic journalistic checks which would easily prove the forgery. Those editors must resign. ..."
"... The Guardian has published a hagiography in which it clarifies he cannot travel to Russia himself and that he depends on second party contacts to interview third parties. It also confirms that much of the "information" is bought. ..."
"... Highly paid contacts, through also paid third parties, were inventing intelligence to sell. ..."
"... There is of course an extra level of venial inaccuracy here because unlike an MI6 officer, Steele himself was then flogging the information for cash. Nobody in the mainstream media has asked the most important question of all. What was the charlatan Christopher Steele paid for this dossier? ..."
The mainstream media's extreme enthusiasm for the
Hitler Diaries shows their
rush to embrace any forgery if it is big and astonishing enough.
For the Guardian to lead with such an obvious forgery as the Trump "commercial
intelligence reports" is the final evidence of the demise of that newspaper's journalistic values.
We are now told that the reports were written by Mr Christopher Steele, an ex-MI6
man, for Orbis Business Intelligence. Here are a short list of six impossible things we are
asked to believe before breakfast:
1) Vladimir Putin had a five year (later stated as eight year) plan to run Donald Trump as a "Manchurian
candidate" for President and Trump was an active and knowing partner in Putin's scheme.
2) Hillary Clinton is so stupid and unaware that she held compromising conversations over telephone
lines whilst in Russia itself.
3) Trump's lawyer/adviser Mr Cohen was so stupid he held meetings in Prague with the hacker/groups
themselves in person to arrange payment, along with senior officials of the Russian security services.
The NSA, CIA and FBI are so incompetent they did not monitor this meeting, and somehow the NSA failed
to pick up on the electronic and telephone communications involved in organising it. Therefore Mr
Cohen was never questioned over this alleged and improbable serious criminal activity.
4) A private company had minute by minute intelligence on the Manchurian Candidate scheme and
all the indictable illegal activity that was going on, which the CIA/NSA/GCHQ/MI6 did not have, despite
their specific tasking and enormous technical, staff and financial resources amounting between them
to over 150,000 staff and the availability of hundreds of billons of dollars to do nothing but this.
5) A private western company is able to run a state level intelligence operation in Russia
for years, continually interviewing senior security sources and people personally close to Putin,
without being caught by the Russian security services – despite the fact the latter are brilliant
enough to install a Manchurian candidate as President of the USA. This private western company can
for example secretly interview staff in top Moscow hotels – which they themselves say are Russian
security service controlled – without the staff being too scared to speak to them or ending up dead.
They can continually pump Putin's friends for information and get it.
6) Donald Trump's real interest is his vast financial commitment in China, and he has little investment
in Russia, according to the reports. Yet he spent the entire election campaign advocating closer
ties with Russia and demonizing and antagonizing China.
Michael Cohen has now stated he has never been to Prague in his life. If that is true the extremely
weak credibility of the entire forgery collapses in total. What is more, contrary to the claims of
the Guardian and Washington Post that the material is "unverifiable", the veracity of it could be
tested extremely easily by the most basic journalism, ie asking Mr Cohen who has produced his passport.
The editors of the Washington Post and the Guardian are guilty of pushing as blazing front page news
the most blatant forgery to serve their own political ends, without carrying out the absolutely basic
journalistic checks which would easily prove the forgery. Those editors must resign.
The Guardian has published a hagiography in which it clarifies he cannot travel to Russia himself
and that he depends on second party contacts to interview third parties. It also confirms that much
of the "information" is bought. Contacts who sell you information will of course invent the kind
of thing you want to hear to increase their income. That was the fundamental problem with much of
the intelligence on Iraqi WMD. Highly paid contacts, through also paid third parties, were inventing
intelligence to sell.
There is of course an extra level of venial inaccuracy here because unlike an MI6 officer,
Steele himself was then flogging the information for cash. Nobody in the mainstream media has asked
the most important question of all. What was the charlatan Christopher Steele paid for this dossier?
As forgeries go, this is really not in the least convincing.
It was very obviously not written seriatim on the dates stated but forged as a collection and
with hindsight. I might add I do not include the golden showers among the impossible aspects. I have
no idea if it is true and neither do I care. Given Trump's wealth and history,
I think we can say with confidence that he has indulged whatever his sexual preferences might
be all over the world and not just in Russia. It seems most improbable he would succumb to blackmail
over it and not brazen it out. I suppose it could be taken as the sole example of trickledown theory
actually working.
"... In the case of the US, a Republican donor-class candidate should have been a Democrat donor-class candidate. Owing to the particular corruption of the Democratic party over the last 8 years, effectively run by the Clinton crime family, the field was unofficially limited to just one. The collapse of the Republican establishment from below still makes my heart sing. Would that the same might occur among Democrats. ..."
"... `I do not understand the pushback [against transnational causes for these events]. Do they really believe that Trump, Brexit, Le Pen, the rise of many right-wing populist parties in Europe etc. have nothing to do with economics? That suddenly all these weird nationalists and nativists got together thanks to the social media and decided to overthrow the established order? People who believe this remind me of Saul Bellow's statement that "a great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is strong."' ..."
"... These are not idiomatic one-off events due to contingent political situations peculiar to each individual country. ..."
"... Something bigger is going on. If Marine LePen wins in France (and I predict she will), that will provide even more evidence. This looks like a global rebellion against globalization + neoliberal economics because the bottom 96% are realizing they're getting screwed and all the benefits are going to the top 6% of professional class + licensed professionals + top 1% in the financial robber barony. ..."
"... Because the 'soft' left, in collaboration with the soft right (and the hard right) have worked assiduously since roughly about 1979 to destroy the 'hard left'. ..."
"... If you help crush the communists then don't be surprised if, in 20 years time, you get the Nazis, because people who hate the system will vote to destroy it, and they will use whatever weapons are to hand to do so . If 'left wing' options aren't available, they will choose 'right wing' ones. ..."
"... I think that the Democratic Party is unlikely to hand over power to the average man and woman in America, but I'm sure that the Republican Party is even less likely to do so; anybody who voted Republican in 2016 because it seemed the best chance of getting power for the average man and woman was played for a sucker. ..."
"... The original Nazis emerged and rose to power in a context where the Communists were trying to destroy the system, and also seeking to crush the Social-democrats; close to the opposite of the pattern you're describing. ..."
"... And Trump, as we all know, is highly suspicious of the EU. Moreover, there is likely to be a battle between the 'liberal (in the highly specific American sense) leaning' intelligence services (the CIA etc.) and the Trump administration. ..."
"... And, thanks to Obama, the CIA, NSA etc. have far more leeway and freedom to act than they did even 20 years ago. It is also possible/likely that MI5/MI6 might be 'let off the leash' by a British (or English) nationalist orientated Conservative Government. ..."
"... you must know why you yourself aren't doing it, and the reasons that apply to you could easily apply to other people as well. ..."
"... There are people making statements daily about how what the Tories are doing is not in the interest of the vast majority of people; but with what effect? ..."
by Henry on January 5, 2017 A piece I wrote on Brexit and the
UK party system has
just come out
in Democracy. More than anything else, I wrote the article to get people to read Peter
Mair. I didn't know Mair at all well – he was another Irish political scientist, but was based in
various European universities and in a different set of academic networks than my own. I met him
once and liked him, and chatted briefly a couple of times after that about email. I wish I'd known
him better – his posthumously edited and published book,
Ruling the Void is the single most compelling
account I've read of what has gone wrong in European politics, and in particular what's gone wrong
for the left. It's still enormously relevant years after his death. The ever ramifying disaster that
is the British Labour party is in large part the working out of the story that Mair laid out – how
party elites became disconnected from their base, how the EU became a way to kick issues out of politics
into technocracy, and how it all went horribly wrong.
The modern Labour Party is caught in an especially unpleasant version of Mair's dilemma. Labour's
leaders tried over decades to improve the party's electoral prospects in a country where its traditional
class base was disappearing. They sought very deliberately and with some success to weaken its
party organization in order to achieve this aim. However, their success created a new governing
class within Labour, one largely disconnected from the party grassroots that it is supposed to
represent. Ed Miliband recognized this problem as party leader and tried to rebuild the party's
connection to its grassroots. However, as Mair might have predicted, there weren't any traditional
grassroots out there to cultivate. Mair argued that the leadership and the base were becoming
disengaged from each other, so that traditional parties were withering away. Labour has actually
taken this one stage further, creating a party in which the leadership and membership are at daggers
drawn, each able to stymie the other, but neither able to prevail or willing to surrender.
This has all changed. Class and ethnic and religious identities no longer provide secure
foundations for European parties, which have more and more tried to become "catchalls," appealing
to wide and diffuse groups of voters. People are not attached to parties for life anymore,
often waiting until just before Election Day to decide whom to vote for. Party membership figures
across Western Europe have shrunk by more than half in a generation.
Do you evaluate this change (on balance) positively or negatively? and why?
Also, since I'm commenting anyway, one minor query:
(Some European countries had different parties for Catholics and Protestants.)
Which countries did you have in mind? There are few European countries that have (or had) both
enough Catholics for a significant Catholic party and enough Protestants for a significant Protestant
party.
I know about the Netherlands, which had separate Catholic and Protestant parties until
the 1970s, when the Catholic party merged with the main Protestant parties (although there's
still a small Protestant party on the margins), but that's just one country.
Germany had a distinct Catholic party (but no specifically Protestant party) under the
Wilhelmine Reich and the Weimar Republic, but not the Federal Republic;
Switzerland has a Catholic-based party but no specifically Protestant-based party; where
else? (There's Northern Ireland, of course, but that's a bit different.) What am I missing?
The Labour Party is so weak that the Conservatives do not need to worry about Labour defeating
them in the next election, or perhaps in the election after that.
I don't think this is obvious, precisely because of the volatility of the situation. I remember
people saying this about the Cameron government in 2015 and I objected at the time that no-one
knew how the Brexit referendum will turn out. Now Cameron is gone and just about forgotten. It's
true that the Conservatives are still in, but it's a very different crew.
More importantly, we haven't yet seen what Brexit means, in any sense. May has been coasting
on the referendum result, and Labour has been wedged, unable to oppose the referendum outcome
and also unable to criticise May's Brexit policy because she either doesn't have one or isn't
telling. This can't continue forever (presumably not beyond March), and when the situation changes,
anything can happen.
Some scenarios where the Conservatives could come badly unstuck
(a) they put up a "have cake and eat it" proposal that is rejected so humilatingly that they
look like fools, then cave in and accept minor concessions on migration in return for a face-saving
soft Brexit
(b) hard Brexit becomes inevitable and the financial sector flees en masse
(c) train-crash Brexit with no agreement and a massive depression
The only scenarios I can see that would cement the current position are
(a) a capitulation by the EU on migration etc, with continued single market access
(b) an economically successful hard Brexit/non-fatal train crash
It seems to me that (a) is politically infeasible and (b) is economically unlikely
That's not to gloss over Labour's problems or your diagnosis, with which I generally agree.
" how party elites became disconnected from their base, how the EU became a way to kick issues
out of politics into technocracy, and how it all went horribly wrong."
This sounds exactly like what has happened to the Democratic party in America. Which suggests
that there's something transnational going on, much larger than the specific political situation
in any given country
The essay is excellent as we might expect, Henry. I'm not convinced that Labour had any other
choice but to elect Corbyn. Single data points are always suspect, but the decision by the Labor
bigwig (have succeeded in forgetting which) to mock 'white-van man' clearly suggests she was playing
to a constituency within Labour primed to share in a flash-sneer at the prols. I'd have
expected as much from any Tory. I have other quibbles, the decision by Labour to take a position
on the referendum and on Remain always seemed critical to forcing Labour to adopt anti-immigrant
Tory-light postures in order to have it both ways with working-class voters hostile to London
and Brussels.
More problematic is this paragraph: "Research by Tim Bale, Monica Poletti, and Paul Webb shows
that these new members tend to be well-educated and heavily left-wing. They wanted to join the
Labour Party to remake it into an unapologetically left-leaning party. However, the research suggests
that they aren't prepared to put in the hard grind. While most of them have posted about Labour
on social media or signed a petition, more than half have never attended a constituency meeting,
and only a small minority have gone door to door or delivered leaflets. They are at best a shaky
foundation for remaking the Labour Party." Your questionable decision to deploy 'they' and 'them'
muddies the reality a bit, as does your decision to rely on metrics from the past to predict future
behavior.
I take your point that failing to attend a political rally, or go door-to-door, means something
in a time when populist parties are in the 'ascent.' But as you point out this rise can only occur
because the 'old parties' have failed so badly to connect activists and members. Again, that said,
I'm still not convinced all is doom and gloom. Labour activists opposed to EU membership were
effectively gagged/shamed by the elite right up to the present. It is only now this week, that
Labour has elected to make English compulsory for new immigrants:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chuka-umunna-immigrants-should-be-made-to-learn-english-on-arrival-in-uk-classes-esol-social-a7509666.html
Labour wasn't anything but Tory-lite until Jeremy and the new influx of members. I'm not personally
in favor of the new policy. It does seem to me more Tory-lite. But the battles are now more out
in the open. My guess is that Labour will survive and will rule again, but only if the party can
persuade Scotland and Wales to remain part of the UK. Adopting Tory-lite policies is precisely
what alienated Scots Labour voters and drove them into the arms of the SNP, so that's that the
PLP gives you.
Britain is entering a period of flux: jobs, housing, respect for all – including all those
dead, white people who made such a mess of the world, and respect for all forms of work, and greater
social and economic movement within Britain will likely go over quite well with large sections
of the electorate. Strong borders and a sensible immigration policy is part of that.
@10 "This sounds exactly like what has happened to the Democratic party in America. Which suggests
that there's something transnational going on, much larger than the specific political situation
in any given country"
"This sounds " Yes, in general terms. Yet, the donor-class candidates could have and should
have won in Brexit and in the US.
In the case of the Brexit, I argued before and after that simply allowing Labour candidates
and members to express their own views publicly, rather than adhere to a (sufficiently unpopular)
particular policy set by Henry's elite would have negated the need to adopt anti-immigrant Tory
lite stances – a straddle that fooled nobody and drove Labour voters to UKIP in not insignificant
numbers.
In the case of the US, a Republican donor-class candidate should have been a Democrat donor-class
candidate. Owing to the particular corruption of the Democratic party over the last 8 years, effectively
run by the Clinton crime family, the field was unofficially limited to just one. The collapse
of the Republican establishment from below still makes my heart sing. Would that the same might
occur among Democrats.
Had, however, the Clinton campaign actually placed the candidate in Wisconsin, in Michigan,
and in Pennsylvania rather than bank on turning off voters, we'd be looking at a veneer of stability
covering up the rot now on display.
The point being: there's always something transnational going on. I explained Brexit to my
own students as a regional rebellion against London, as much as Brussels. Henry's essay is good
on Brexit and UKIP. Both the US and UK outcomes could have been avoided.
Britain is entering a period of flux: jobs, housing, respect for all – including all those
dead, white people who made such a mess of the world, and respect for all forms of work, and
greater social and economic movement within Britain will likely go over quite well with large
sections of the electorate.
If Britain were to enter a period of jobs, housing, and respect for all, with greater social
and economic mobility, it would be reasonable to expect most people to be pleased; but there's
no evidence that anything of the kind is happening, or is going to happen.
"The PLP didn't opt to get along, they opted to fight, and got mauled."
They lost the battle but are winning the war.
Corbyn has been keeping a very low profile since his re-election, proposals for reform such
as mandatory reselection seem to have been dropped, and the left of the party is squabbling over
whether it remains a Corbyn fan club or an active agent for the democratisation of the party.
Party policy remains inchoate and receives little media publicity.
Michels hasn't been disproved just yet, and I suspect the party remains immune to lasting reform,
short of a major split.
I suspect the party remains immune to lasting reform, short of a major split.
There are plenty of examples from the UK and other countries, including the Labour Party itself,
of parties undergoing major splits, and the evidence doesn't suggest that the experience is conducive
to lasting reform.
Yes, after the second election, the PLP have opted for the long game, with the expectation
that a disastrous General Election (one of the reasons why the talk up the possibility of an early
one at every opportunity) will see a return to "normality". In the meantime, the strategy is to
make Corbyn an irrelevance, hence the lack of coverage in the MSM, except for a drip of mocking
articles of which today's by Gaby Hinsliff in the Graun is typical.
Corbyn and his organisation don't help themselves but, faced with such irredentism, they have
little leverage on the situation.
You don't make a single mention of Scotland, which is a massive omission to make. (And frankly,
it's a particularly odd mistake for an Irishman: it's supposed to be the English who blithely
assume that where they live is coterminous with the whole United Kingdom).
I like a lot of the essay, but it's gravely weakened by the fact that you're prepared to discuss
things like political elites and class allegiance- and, in a European context, religious allegiance-
but you don't mention national or regional political identities. You really can't leave those
things out and give an accurate picture of current British politics.
I agree that a Labour revival isn't coming along soon. The problem is that a lot of people in
Labour think and hope that it might, and that makes them very unwilling to start thinking about
electoral alliances, because they are committed to standing candidates everywhere.
Labour, imo, needs some further and serious bad shocks to get them into the frame of mind that
could make an anti-Tory alliance possible. Once it is, FPTP could turn from the secret of Tory
success into the mechanism for their destruction. But 2020 might be too soon.
Forming coalitions and alliances requires negotiation and making trade-offs and active listening:
unfortunately there are probably too many people in the Labour Party who would find that very
difficult. They appear not to be willing to negotiate even with their own members.
I really can't see the obsession with an 'anti-Tory alliance'. Given that it involves allying
with a party who recently were effectively part of a pro-Tory alliance, it only works in any sense
if you think that the Tories have morphed into the far-right, or if you have a well-worked out
programme of constitutional reform you want to implement.
The bit that concerns involving the SNP particularly baffles me. Given that they have been
at daggers drawn with the Labour Party in Scotland, and that they are highly unlikely to step
aside from any of their 90-odd % of Scottish seats to give their alliance partner a few more MPs,
it seems a non-starter. This impression is magnified when you consider that the spectre of a Labour-SNP
minority government was thought to have scared off potential Labour voters at the last election.
Corbyn is just awful. A toxic mix of naivity, ego, and blundering stupidity.
His concept of role is almost non-existant. He walks onto a train without having pre-booked,
finds it difficult getting two seats together, and decides on the spot that all trains must be
nationalised. He spots a man sleeping rough and decides ending rough sleeping is his top priority.
He blunders around like he's just landed from another planet, sees an injustice and thinks he,
Jeremy, is the first person ever to see such a terrible thing, and decides on the spot to make
it his top priority to eliminate this evil by the simple policy expedient of saying he will eliminate
it.
He doesn't do policy in any recognisable sense. He does positioning statements which he assembles
with mates and puts on his personal web site. Take his "Manifesto for Digital Democracy". It claims
to be a policy, but in reality its just a list of Things That Jeremy Thinks Are Good. It doesn't
appear to have gone through a discussion process or approval process. It is not clear if this
is a party policy or just a personal document.
His position on Brexit is a disaster. On the issue which is coming to define politics in the
UK he is neither clearly for it nor clearly against it. He gives the impression he finds it a
dull subject. He is at best second choice for everyone, first choice for no-one; at worst, he
is an irrelevance.
Worse, he appears completely oblivious to the power games being played out in his name. Neighbouring
constituencies are to be carved up so Jeremy's seat can be preserved. His son Seb is given a job
in John McDonnell's office. He is effectively held captive by a North London clique who look after
him, tell him he's great, and then use his "policies" as a checklist against which to assess conformance
of MPs to The One True Corbyn Way and pursue vendettas.
His personality is completely unsuited to the job of Leader, let alone Prime Minister. Even
if you believe in Jeremy's policies you need to find someone else to implement them because he
lacks any of the requisite capabilities.
Nothing is going to magically get better.
No matter how bad things get, under Jeremy they can always get worse.
'Unofficially limited' dies give one the wiggle room to assert just about anything. It's a way
of lying which can't be rebutted. If you say 'but there were 3 candidates', he'll respond that
he did say 'unofficially' limited. If you say 'but two of them did quite well', he'll respond
that he did, after all, say 'unofficially' limited. So he can take a case where there was actually
a competitive race, and make it seem like there was never a competitive race. Of course, his post
is, officially, approved by the moderators
While most of them have posted about Labour on social media or signed a petition, more than
half have never attended a constituency meeting, and only a small minority have gone door to door
or delivered leaflets.
There's a strong feel of "young folks aren't doing politics the way my generation used to do
politics" about this, especially given the activities you're complaining they're not doing. Is
posting on social media achieving more or less than posting leaflets to fill up people's recycling
bins?
kidneystones @14 claims: "I explained Brexit to my own students as a regional rebellion against
London, as much as Brussels."
If that's correct, why did we get: [1] Trump/Sanders in the U.S., [2] Brexit in the UK, [3]
repudiation of Matteo Renzi along with the referendum in Italy, [4] a probable win for Marine
LePen in France (wait for it, you'll be oh-so-shocked when it happens)?
`I do not understand the pushback [against transnational causes for these events]. Do they
really believe that Trump, Brexit, Le Pen, the rise of many right-wing populist parties in Europe
etc. have nothing to do with economics? That suddenly all these weird nationalists and nativists
got together thanks to the social media and decided to overthrow the established order? People
who believe this remind me of Saul Bellow's statement that "a great deal of intelligence can be
invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is strong."'
I would suggest kidneystones is simply wrong. These are not idiomatic one-off events due
to contingent political situations peculiar to each individual country.
Something bigger is going on. If Marine LePen wins in France (and I predict she will),
that will provide even more evidence. This looks like a global rebellion against globalization
+ neoliberal economics because the bottom 96% are realizing they're getting screwed and all the
benefits are going to the top 6% of professional class + licensed professionals + top 1% in the
financial robber barony.
@43 Actually, I make no claim against trans-national developments. Quite the opposite.
Elsewhere, I've written that we are dealing with a world-wide tension between advocates of
globalization and their opponents. Where you differ is in determinations and outcomes, which I
argue are based on the actors, actions and dynamics of each state and which are, as such, unique.
There is nothing at all inevitable about any of this and JQ very sensibly reminds us of the volatility
of the present moment.
What is clear to me at least is that ideas and actions matter. Labour need not have decided
in 2014, or so, to ban members from advocating either a referendum, or leaving the EU. I dug all
this up at the time and the timeline is easy enough to recreate.
Austria stepped back from the brink, as did Greece when it repudiated Golden Dawn. The French
right and left worked together to keep the presidency out of the hands of the FN, although it's
less clear how that successful these efforts will be in the future.
The next few years will be telling. I see no reliable evidence to indicate good fortune, or
end times. The safest bet is more of the same, repackaged, with all the predictable shrieks and
yells about 'never before' etc. that usually accompanies the screwing of the lower orders. The
donor class is utterly dedicated to retaining power. I think JQ is spot on regarding alliances.
We didn't come this far just to have the wheels fall off.
The populism of the right (which I support in large measure) points the way. I'd have preferred
to see a populism of the left win, but too many are/were unwilling to burn down establishment
with the same willingness and enthusiasm of those on the right. Indeed, this thread has several
vocal defenders of an utterly corrupt Democratic party apparatus busted cold for colluding to
steal the nomination. There's a reason donors forked over 1.2 billion to the Clinton crime family
and it wasn't to help Hillary turn over power to the average woman and man in America.
Because the 'soft' left, in collaboration with the soft right (and the hard right) have
worked assiduously since roughly about 1979 to destroy the 'hard left'.
'High points' in this 'epic battle' include Neil Kinnock's purging of Militant, the failure
of the trade union establishment to (in any meaningful sense) support the miners' strike (1984),
the failure of the Democratic party establishment to get behind McGovern (1972), Carter's rejections
of Keynesianism (and de facto espousal of monetarism) in roughly 1977, Blair's war on 'Bennism',
the tolerance of/espousal of Reaganite anti-Communism by most sectors of the British left by the
late 1980s/early 1990s, and so on.
So what we are left with nowadays is angry working class people who would, in previous generations
(i.e. the 1950s, and 1960s) have voted Communist or chosen some other 'radical' left wing option
(and who did vote in such a way in the 1950s/1960s) no longer have that option.
What the 'soft left' hoped is that, with 'radical' left wing options off the table, the proles
would STFU and stop voting, or at least continue to vote for a 'nice' 'respectable' soft left
party.
What they failed to predict is that (as they were designed to do) neo-liberal policies immiserated
the working class, leaving that class angrier than ever before.
And so, the working class wanted to lash out, to register their anger, their fury. But, as
noted before, the 'traditional' way to do that was off the table. Ergo: Trump, Brexit etc.
If you help crush the communists then don't be surprised if, in 20 years time, you get
the Nazis, because people who hate the system will vote to destroy it, and they will use whatever
weapons are to hand to do so . If 'left wing' options aren't available, they will choose 'right
wing' ones.
We have all read this story book before: the 'social democrats' connived with the German state
to crush the 1918/1919 working class uprising, and then were led, blubbering, to Dachau 20 years
later. One wonders how many of them reflected that they themselves might be partially responsible
for their fate.
In the same way: the 'soft left' connived and collaborated with the Right to crush the 'radical
left' in the US and the UK (and worldwide) and then were SHOCKED!! and AMAZED!! that the Right
don't really like them very much and were only using them as a tool to defeat the organised
forces of the working class, and that with the 'radicals' out of the way, the parties of the 'soft
left' (with no natural allies left) can now be picked off one by one, at the Right's leisure.
I think that the Democratic Party is unlikely to hand over power to the average man and
woman in America, but I'm sure that the Republican Party is even less likely to do so; anybody
who voted Republican in 2016 because it seemed the best chance of getting power for the average
man and woman was played for a sucker.
(Incidentally, if 'the donor class' means the same thing as 'rich people', wouldn't it be clearer
to refer to them as 'rich people'? and if 'the donor class' means something different from 'rich
people', what constitutes the difference?)
Any tirade against Corbyn is entirely pointless, because you're not addressing the reasons
why he was elected, or what he represents. I think most of those that support him have a varying
degree of criticism, and many would prefer a more able leader. The problem for Labour is that
there is not a more able leader available that understands the need to ditch Third Way nonsense.
If any of the PLP "big beasts" had done this in any meaningful way, instead of plotting against
him, they would be leader by now.
So what we are left with nowadays is angry working class people who would, in previous generations
(i.e. the 1950s, and 1960s) have voted Communist or chosen some other 'radical' left wing option
(and who did vote in such a way in the 1950s/1960s) no longer have that option.
In the US, only tiny numbers of voters supported Communist candidates in the 1950s and 1960s.
It's true that the option of voting Communist no longer exists, because the Communist Party has
stopped running candidates, but that seems to be a realistic response by the party to its derisory
level of voter support. If there are people who still want to follow the Communist line, what
they would have done in 2016 is turn out to vote against Trump (that's what the party was urging
on its website; the information is still accessible).
In Italy, on the other hand, it's true that large numbers of voters supported Communist candidates
in the 1950s and 1960s; and in Italy, voters still have the option of supporting Communist candidates,
but the numbers of those who choose to do so have become much smaller.
People who voted for Trump weren't doing so because they were denied the option of voting Communist;
and people who voted 'No' in the Italian referendum weren't doing so because they were denied
the option of voting Communist.
If you help crush the communists then don't be surprised if, in 20 years time, you get the
Nazis, because people who hate the system will vote to destroy it, and they will use whatever
weapons are to hand to do so.
The original Nazis emerged and rose to power in a context where the Communists were trying
to destroy the system, and also seeking to crush the Social-democrats; close to the opposite of
the pattern you're describing.
Yes, and another situation where 'mostpeople' have failed to follow the logic of a situation
through. Many intellectuals can see that it is not in the EU's interests for the UK to prosper
out of the EU lest it 'encourager les autres'. Fewer have pointed out that this works the other
way, too. It is no longer in the UK's interests for the EU to prosper (or, indeed, to continue),
and a new nationalist orientated Conservative government might make moves in this direction.
As Jeremy Corbyn alone has had the perspicacity to point out, insofar as there is a political
movement in the UK that is most closely aligned with Donald Trump's Republicanism, it is the Conservatives
under May (the UK's latest intervention vis a vis the UN and Israel was a blatant attempt to curry
favour with the new American administration).
And Trump, as we all know, is highly suspicious of the EU. Moreover, there is likely to
be a battle between the 'liberal (in the highly specific American sense) leaning' intelligence
services (the CIA etc.) and the Trump administration. Assuming Trump wins (not a certainty)
it is possible/likely that Trump will use the newly 'energised' intelligence services to pursue
a more 'American nationalism' orientated policy, and it is likely that this new approach will
see the EU being viewed as much more of an economic competitor to the US, rather than a tool for
the containment of Russia, as it is primarily seen at the moment.
And, thanks to Obama, the CIA, NSA etc. have far more leeway and freedom to act than they
did even 20 years ago. It is also possible/likely that MI5/MI6 might be 'let off the leash' by
a British (or English) nationalist orientated Conservative Government.
It is not implausible, therefore, that the US and the UK will use what 'soft' power they have
to weaken the EU and sow division wherever they can. And of course the EU has enough problems
of its own, such that these tactics might work. Certainly it is highly possible that the EU will
simply not exist by 2050, or at least, not in the form that we have it at present.
"One of the consequences of the phenomenon you're discussing is that volatility is incredibly
high. I'd never before seen a politically party as totally, irredeemably fecked as Fianna Fail
in 2010, but look at them now."
I think this is just one of the features of postmodern politics. For potential governmental
parties they only have to retain enough support to be a realistic alternative, and even with 20%
of the vote Fianna Fail had enough of a profile that an opportunistic campaign of opposition could
lead to them recovering their fortunes to some extent at the next election. I suspect that even
PASOK and New Democracy will receive a similar bounce at the next Greek election.
These kind of stances usually involve avoiding too close a link to certain social groups and
maintaining a distance from potentially principled and activist party memberships. This explains
the hostility of Labour MPs towards Corbyn and the left of the party. They feel that ideological
commitments and an orientation towards the poor and disadvantaged will reduce the party's freedom
of maneuver, damaging their chances of capitalizing electorally on Tory failure.
Of course, they have not provided any reason why anyone of a left-wing persuasion should support
such a cynical and opportunistic worldview, apart from the fact that the Tories are evil. And
they then wonder why many people are alienated from politics.
"Fewer have pointed out that this works the other way, too. It is no longer in the UK's interests
for the EU to prosper (or, indeed, to continue) "
Interesting, I'd not seen that elsewhere. I'd be pretty certain that this is the objective
of people like Hannan.
".. and it is likely that this new approach will see the EU being viewed as much more of an
economic competitor to the US, rather than a tool for the containment of Russia, as it is primarily
seen at the moment."
Maybe less to do with competition than regulation? The Trump view is presumably that anything
that restricts continued plundering of the economy, especially transnational institutions.
@Igor
"I think this is just one of the features of postmodern politics. For potential governmental
parties they only have to retain enough support to be a realistic alternative "
"This explains the hostility of Labour MPs towards Corbyn and the left of the party. They feel
that ideological commitments and an orientation towards the poor and disadvantaged will reduce
the party's freedom of manoeuvre, damaging their chances of capitalising electorally on Tory failure."
"Perhaps these parties are in fact in sync with global political trends because they are
all nationalist parties and nationalism is clearly on the rise at the moment. "
Yes, they are clearly part of the nationalist turn. Or at least I assume that is true of Plaid
Cymru and the SNP, but it definitely is of Sinn Fein, who are policy wise a leftist party, but
ideologically first and foremost a nationalist one. You can see this in polling on their support
base, which tends to be more reactionary* and culturally conservative than even the irish centre
right parties, yet Sinn Fein as a political party often takes position (such as their strong support
for gay marriage) in opposition to the preferences of a large chunk of their base.
This Is particularly the case with immigration, where for going on a decade local politicians
have noted that this is one of the concerns they often hear in constituency work that they don't
make a priority in national politics. It's difficult to (as Sinn Fein does) see yourself (rightly
or wrongly) as the nationalism of a historically oppressed minority, and to support the rights
of that minority in the north (I'm making no normative claims on the correctness of their interpretation)
and then attack other minorities. This is why they're institutionally , and seemingly ideologically,
commited to diversity and multiculturalism in the south of ireland, while also being fundamentally
a nationalist party. (Question is (1) does this posture survive the current leadership , and (2)
is it enough to stave off explicitly nativist parties**) Afaict this is also true of the snp,
I don't know about PC.
But there's still a lot of poison in it. "Anti englishness" , which a lot of this, (at least
implicitly") can encourage , might be more acceptable than anti immigrant sentiment, but it's
still qualitatively the same mind set.
*this is 're a big chunk if their base, but by no means the full story.
**basically what happens to the independent vote, which is (afaict)possibly the real populist
turn in ireland.
At the risk of sounding like I'm simply saying 'but Ireland is special!' I think the (partial)
resurgence of Fianna Fail is a bit of a sui generis phenomenon. Irish politics have historically
been tribal in a way that makes UK voters look like an exemplar of rational choice theory. It
is only the very slightest exaggeration to say that my father's vote in every general election
he has participated in was determined in 1922, several decades before his birth – I'm sure other
Irish Timberteers have experienced similar. Even then, FF is still far away from the kind of hegemonic
dominance it enjoyed prior to the crash – when a poll result of 38% would have been regarded as
disastrous – and the FF/FG combined vote total is still struggling to hit 60%. While I'd agree
that this looks like pretty strong evidence for the 'resurgence of the right' thesis of European
politics at first glance, the failure of the left in Ireland is more due to a) Sinn Fein and Labour
being deeply imperfect vessels for the transmission of left-wing politics (albeit for very different
reasons) b) the low-cost of entry into the Irish political system due to PR-STV leading to a splintering
of the political left.
Additionally, the attempt by former Fine Gael deputy Lucinda Creighton to tap into the supposed
right-wing resurgence via the Renua party ended in an electoral curb-stomping as comprehensive
as it was satisfying to witness. So I don't think a surge in popularity for 'the right' is what's
going on here.
It should also be noted that Michael Martin is an infinitely more talented politician than
Enda Kenny (even though that is a bit of a 'world's tallest dwarf' comparison), and has explicitly
positioned FF to the left of FG, but also as a fundamentally 'centrist' and 'moderating' force.
In other words, he's pursuing a political strategy similar to that of Tony Blair, and is reaping
political dividends for doing so. Shocking, I know! (And FWIW – I have a deep, fundamental dislike
of FF and all it stands for and would never consider voting for them, lest anyone think I'm here
to carry water for Martin).
Unfortunately, for those arguing the 'Jeremy Corbyn is only getting clobbered in the polls
because of the perfidy of the PLP/the biased right-wing media/dark forces within MI5' the Irish
experience doesn't offer much comfort. After 2010 the various hard-left groupuscules in Ireland
put aside their factional differences and were able to mount a relatively united front in two
successive elections, and under leaders like Richard Boyd Barrett, Joe Higgins and Clare Daly.
All of these individuals are relatively charismatic, as well as possessing strong skills as political
communicators (attributes even Corbyn's most ardent defenders would admit he is lacking in).
They also had an issue, in the form of water charges, that allowed them to develop an extremely
clear, very popular political position which resonated with large swathes of the electorate in
every region of the country (again, something UK Labour is severely missing).
The results? Just over 5% of the vote in the last election for a total of 10 TDs, and basically
zero influence over the actual governance of the country.
This is not because of some vast array of structural forces and barriers are arrayed against
them (as discussed above, PR-STV makes the barrier to entry into Irish politics very low). It
is because, as with Corbyn, the electorate neither trusts them to competently administer the
state, nor supports their vision for its future socio-economic development. You can argue
that the electorate are ignorant, or mistaken in this regard, but given that Corbyn has at various
points in his career argued that East Germany, Cuba and Venezuela represent optimal socio-economic
systems, I would argue that they're probably right on this particular question.
In the US, only tiny numbers of voters supported Communist candidates in the 1950s and 1960s.
The effect is not direct. It comes down to the fact that for the average working person, there
two main ways they could be significantly better or worse off; wages could be higher, or tax could
be lower.
One of those is a thing that is promised by political parties, one isn't.
The actual rate of tax, or the feasibility or secondary effects of changing, don't really matter.
Leaving the EU, whatever else it means, means not paying tax to it. A belief that the tax paid
to the EU ends up as a net benefit to the payee requires a level of trust in the system that is
easy to argue against.
The US has lower taxes than any other developed democracy, and so presumably wouldn't carry
on functioning as one if you cut further. Which means to deliver further tax cuts, you need a
politician who doesn't understand, doesn't care, or just possibly is in hock to those who wish
the US harm.
Traditional Communists similarly considered the collapse of the system to be more of a goal
than a worry. Without them, arguments against higher wages always prevail.
Kidneystones: "Owing to the particular corruption of the Democratic party over the last 8 years,
effectively run by the Clinton crime family, the field was unofficially limited to just one."
Seconding Belle here – 'effectively run' means 'defeated by another, and forced to work your
way back up'.
The Labour Party as a functioning opposition seems to have vanished – seriously: what did the
general public hear from them over the last year or so apart from party infighting and accusations
of anti-semitism?
I still support many of Corbyn's policies and ironically
so does much of the general public . But he lost my trust with his ridiculous wavering over
Brexit and ineffectiveness as a politician in general.
I actually don't think it would be too hard to organize an effective opposition considering
the fact that the Tories have no idea at all what they are doing and their policies are not in
the interest of the vast majority of people. But you have to hit them over the head with this
on a daily basis and I have no idea why nobody does it.
Well I wouldn't say it was entirely pointless. It is important to establish a baseline, and
in this case the baseline is that Corbyn's leadership is most unlikely to deliver electoral success
for Labour.
But your main point is a fair one, so time to try a different tack.
Policy is a misleading guide to whether a party is left or right. The current conservative
party is running a significant deficit, is committed to maintaining the NHS free at the point
of use, has implemented a living wage, has introduced same-sex marriage, and at the last election
touted state spending as the way to improve economic performance. all these policies were traditionally
associated with left-wing parties.
Policy is free, and it isn't particularly sticky. Given those features, policy is not a particularly
reliable feature. No private company would make policy its chief USP as it can easily be replicated
and customers show little loyalty based on policy. So if policy is not a route to political identity,
what is?
What voters want from a political party is that the party holds them and their interests paramount
as it goes about its business. When it implements a policy, it makes sure that policy is implemented
in a way that benefits them and their group. They want to be sure that in the difficult and complex
world of politics, the people they have voted for will look after their interests. The modern
Conservative party understand this. So Teresa May puts her target market – Just managing families
– dead centre in her Downing Street speech. And so far she has very high levels of public support.
By contrast, Labour doesn't seem to know who it represents, who it is batting for, and what
it wants for them. It doesn't give clear signals about where British workers stand in its hierarchies
of priorities. Until someone stands up and clearly articulates a vision of ambition for the mass
of the people then Labour will get out-fought in all significant political debates.
Certainly it is highly possible that the EU will simply not exist by 2050, or at least,
not in the form that we have it at present.
What a weak and trivial assertion.
It is possible that the US will not exist by 2050 in the form that we have it at present. It
is possible that the UK will not exist by 2050 in the form that we have it at present. It is possible
that the Conservative Party [the Democratic Party] [the Labour Party] [the Republican Party] will
not exist by 2050 in the form that we have it at present. It is possible that MI5 [MI6] [the CIA]
[the NSA] will not exist by 2050 in the form that we have it at present. [Lather, rinse, repeat.]
'The reserve of modern assertions is sometimes pushed to extremes, in which the fear of being
contradicted leads the writer to strip himself of almost all sense and meaning.' (Winston Churchill,
A History Of The English-Speaking Peoples )
@52
Yeah maybe I should clarify that. Obviously much of the UK's trade is done with the EU so in that
sense the UK does have an economic interest in the EU prospering, but only in terms of
individual states. The UK (arguably) does not have an interest, any more in the EU as a unified
political/economic entity and if, as seems plausible, the UK now moves in a more Trumpian
direction, this tendency might well continue.
@55 Your evidence argues against your own argument. You have persistently argued, across many
CT threads, that the only and sole reason that Labour is doing badly right now is because of Corbyn.
And then the evidence you provide is that the left is doing badly in Ireland too. Do you see the
problem?
The fact is that if there was any serious alternative to Corbyn, the PLP would have put him
or her forward in the recent leadership election, and s/he would probably have won. But there
is no such candidate because the problems the Labour party face are much more deeply rooted than
the current crisis caused by the Corbyn leadership and these problems are faced by almost every
centre-left political party in the West . (The 'radical' left, as I pointed out above, having
essentially vanished in almost all of the developed world).
Let's not forget that as recently as the late 1990s, almost every country in Europe was governed
by the centre left. Now, almost none* of them are. That's the scale of the collapse. Indeed the
usual phrase for this phenomenon is 'Pasokification'. Not Corbynification (at least not yet).
Corbyn certainly doesn't have a solution to this problem but then nobody else does either,
so there you go.
All elections for the last few decades:
Many people in the UK: "Can we have our share of the benefits of globalisation?"
Tacit cartel: "After the City has taken the lion's share and we've had our cut, there might be
something left that you can have."
Referendum:
Tacit cartel: "Vote Remain or everybody will lose the benefits of globalisation!"
It's obviously in the interests of (hard) Brexiteers that the EU should fail, but it's not clear
what they can do to promote this end, except in the sense that hard Brexit itself will be mutually
damaging. Supporting ideological soulmates like Le Pen might help but could be a two edged sword
(do Le Pen voters welcome British support?)
By contrast, there's a great deal that the EU can do to harm the UK at modest cost, for example,
by objecting whenever they try to carry over existing WTO arrangements made under EU auspices.
Of course, they have not provided any reason why anyone of a left-wing persuasion should
support such a cynical and opportunistic worldview, apart from the fact that the Tories are
evil.
Preventing people from doing evil seems like a powerful motivation to me.
Traditional Communists similarly considered the collapse of the system to be more of a goal
than a worry. Without them, arguments against higher wages always prevail.
It's commonplace for minimum wages to be increased without Communists playing any role.
Yes, there's a definite thread of wanting to make the EU fail from the Brexiters (at the same
time as believing that it's going to fail anyway, which is why we should get out). As you say,
it's not clear what the UK could do to make this happen, especially from the outside pissing in.
Vice versa, whatever "the EU" thinks about wanting the UK to fail, "the EU" can't do much about
it, and the interests of the member states' governments may or may not be the same. On the other
hand, if there's one way to get them to respond with one voice, the UK attempting to damage Germany's
relationship with France might be it.
What voters want from a political party is that the party holds them and their interests
paramount as it goes about its business. When it implements a policy, it makes sure that policy
is implemented in a way that benefits them and their group. They want to be sure that in the
difficult and complex world of politics, the people they have voted for will look after their
interests. The modern Conservative party understand this. So Teresa May puts her target market
– Just managing families – dead centre in her Downing Street speech.
Anybody who thinks that the Conservatives are going to hold paramount the interests of 'just
about managing' families has been played for a sucker.
Corbyn, like Trump, is the consequence – not the cause of the some twenty years of failed policies.
Vastly more popular than Corbyn isn't saying much. Some 20 percent of those who pulled the lever
in November for Trump don't believe he's qualified for his new position.
Henry's essay does a good job, I think, of identifying the general problem Labour faces. As
for the leadership, it's going go be extremely difficult to find a senior Labour PLP big beast
who did not vote for the Iraq war/Blairites, or who did not oppose even the referendum on Brexit,
not to mention Leave. Both of these issues are deal-breakers, it seems, for some of the more active
members still remaining in Labour. Left-leaning Labour voters, especially those in Scotland, are
unhappy with Tory-lite and with the pro-war positions of the Blairites. Labour voters hostile
to London generally (many in Wales), and to the focus on Europe, rather than depressed regions
of Britain, are unlikely to rally around PLP figures who spent much of the run-up to the vote
calling Leave supporters closet racists.
Actions and decisions have consequences and the discussions that seem to distress a few here
and there (not to mention Labour's low-standing in the polls) are both long overdue and essential
if Labour plans on offering a coherent platform on anything. Running on the NHS and education
and even housing was fine for a while, and might still be so. Intervening in Syria, Libya, and
Iraq complicates matters considerably, as does forcing Labour supporters to adhere to either side
of the Remain/Leave case.
A little civility and good will here and there would do a world of good, but I'm aware that
discussion is better suited to Henry's earlier post on science fiction.
"It's obviously in the interests of (hard) Brexiteers that the EU should fail, but it's not clear
what they can do to promote this end, except in the sense that hard Brexit itself will be mutually
damaging."
I don't think this is right. Australia has neighbours that we aren't in a trade and currency
and migration zone with, but I don't think Australia wants these countries to fail economically
or any other way. I don't see why Britain would want the EU to fail - the UK is better off being
neighbours with stable prosperous countries in the EU than a lot of failed states pulling out
of the EU I would think .??
"While most of them have posted about Labour on social media or signed a petition, more than
half have never attended a constituency meeting, and only a small minority have gone door to door
or delivered leaflets."
My observations is that people do more voluntary work of this hands on kind with non-profit
advocacy groups than political parties.
Maybe as the major political parties became more similar, and weren't polarised in the sense
they were in the post-war era to the 80s, people prefer to volunteer for specific causes they
believe in, rather than for major political parties.
It's not 'Britain' that wants the EU to fail; it's the people who were strong supporters of
UK withdrawal from the EU who want that, because to them failure of the EU would provide vindication,
or at least a plausible appearance of it.
you must know why you yourself aren't doing it, and the reasons that apply to you could easily
apply to other people as well.
I wasn't aware that I was supposed to organize the opposition.
There are people making statements daily about how what the Tories are doing is not in
the interest of the vast majority of people; but with what effect?
Seriously, I don't see that. Now there might be a big media conspiracy to drown out these voices,
but I think it's more plausible that the current Labour leadership is just not very good at this
game.
'I don't see why Britain would want the EU to fail - the UK is better off being neighbours with
stable prosperous countries in the EU than a lot of failed states pulling out of the EU I would
think .??'
Yeah just to be absolutely precise (again) I don't think the UK would ever want the EU to fail,
exactly. But if the perception gains ground that the EU is trying to shaft the UK (and remember
it's in the EU's interests to do just that) 'tit for tat' moves can spiral out of control and
might be politically popular.
The joker in the pack is the new Trump Presidency. Almost all American Presidents since the
war have been (either de facto or de jure) pro-EU for reasons of realpolitik. Trump might go either
way but we know he holds grudges. In recent months Angela Merkel chose to give Trump veiled lessons
on human rights, whereas the May administration has done its utmost to ditch all its previous
'opinions' and fawn all over him.Who is Trump likely to like most?
If the UK goes to Trump and begs for help in its economic war with the EU, Trump might listen.
More generally (and a propos of nothing, more or less), it might be 'number magic' but at least
since the late 19th century 'Western' history tends to divide into 30 year blocks (more or less).
You had the 40 year bloc between the Franco-Prussian war and 1914. Then of course the 30 years
of chaos between 1914 and 1945. Then the Trente Glorieuses between 1945 and 1975. Finally we had
the era of the 'two neos': neoliberalism at home, and neoconservatism abroad (AKA the 'let them
eat war' period) between 1976 and 2006.
We now seem to be moving into a new era of Neo-Nationalism, with a concommitant suspicion of
trans-national entities (e.g. the EU), a rise in interest in economic protectionism, and increasing
suspicion of immigration. Needless to say, this is not a Weltanschauung that makes things easy
either for the Left or for Liberals. One might expect both the soft and hard right to thrive,
on the other hand.
"Preventing people from doing evil seems like a powerful motivation to me."
The problem is that merely asserting that the Tories are bad does not necessarily mean that
people will (or even should) automatically assume that you are a viable or less evil alternative.
Indeed, the response of the Labour Party's leading lights after the 2015 election was to minimise
the distance between themselves and the Tories, and their actions during the 'interregnum' between
Miliband and Corbyn demonstrated that they were quite willing to connive with evil in the shape
of Tory welfare policy as they assumed it would appease 'aspirational voters'.
This is the crux of the divide within the Labour Party. Corbyn's political career has concentrated
on defending those at home or abroad who cannot or find it difficult to defend themselves. The
majority of Labour's career politicians argue that these people are politically marginal and defending
their interests will not win elections or achieve political power. To some extent they have a
point, but they fail to acknowledge that their own brand of cynical opportunism has alienated
not just many Labour members but also many potential voters.
The accusations of anti-Semitism and sympathy for dictators made by Corbyn's enemies were so
virulent not just in an attempt to smear his reputation, but also to try and salve their own consciences,
having thrown so many of their moral scruples aside in an increasing futile quest to secure the
support of the mythical median voter.
"Policy is a misleading guide to whether a party is left or right."
You what?
I would have thought that policy, by which I mean actually implemented policies and actions,
with real effects, rather than rhetoric, sound-bites or general bullshit, is precisely how we
determine if a party is left or right.
As for the remainder of that paragraph:
"The current conservative party is running a significant deficit "
As any decent economist, and even George Osborne, will tell you, the deficit is an outcome
of the economy, not under the direct control of the chancellor so, despite the rhetoric, it's
not really meaningful to use as a policy target. Further, IIRC, in the history of modern advanced
economies, I believe they have run deficits in something like 98% of years, so the presence of
a deficit is hardly unusual if you're in government.
" is committed to maintaining the NHS free at the point of use "
This is just a bullshit phrase and, in the context of actual policy, entirely meaningless.
The Tory party has a long term project to privatise large sections of the NHS, and is currently
driving it into the ground as a means to this end. New Labour laid the foundations for this to
happen, so is equally to blame. No self-respecting left party would go anywhere near those policies.
" at the last election touted state spending as the way to improve economic performance."
More sound-bites. Nothing is delivered. Believe it or not, the state spends money with this
aim all of the time. The scope of what new spending is to be delivered is likely to be small.
The other items sound like you think that we are still in the centrist liberal nirvana of Blair/Clegg/Cameron
where we were governed by managerialist technocrats, concerned with "what works", delivering much
the same policy no matter who was elected, only competing with each other on the basis of media
platitudes. But that has caused massive resentment, failed, and is the reason for Brexit and Corbyn.
Precisely because none of those parties were delivering policies that benefited most people.
Indeed, I think that you will find that 600,000 Labour Party members believe that there is,
or rather should be, a big dividing line in policy between themselves and the Tory Party.
"The modern Conservative party understand this. So Teresa May puts her target market – Just
managing families – dead centre in her Downing Street speech."
This reads like it has come directly from Central Office. Do you really believe that the Tories
give two hoots about "just managing families"? Did Hammond reduce Osborne's austerity plan in
any way in the last Budget?
Labour, as a whole, certainly doesn't seem to know who it represents ATM. There are multiple
reasons for that: an irredentist PLP, a media sympathetic to the PLP and determined to trivialise
or ignore Corbyn, and the disorganisation and incoherence of Corbyn and his organisation amongst
them. But deposing Corbyn and returning to neoliberal bullshit won't solve the reasons why he
exists.
Brexit has not happened yet, so it can be whatever you want it to be: that freedom to project
counterfactuals tends to accentuate the centrifugal not the consensual as far as diversity of
opinion is concerned. I actually think Corbyn is unusually wise for a Labour leader to mumble
and fumble a lot at this stage. If it is a personal failing, it is appropriate to circumstances.
The Tories have given themselves a demolition job to do. If your opponent is handling dynamite,
best not to get close and certainly a bad idea to try to snatch it from them.
From the standpoint of Labour constituencies like Corbyn's own in North London, taking The
City down a peg or three would possibly be a means of relief, but if any Brexit negotiating "event"
triggered an exodus of financial sector players the immediate political fallout would be akin
to the sky falling and certainly would cause consternation among Tory donor groups not that supportive
of May's brand. And, failing to invoke Article 50 is likely to be corrosive to the Tories in ways
that benefit Labour as much as the Liberal Democrats only if Labour refrains from expressions
of hostility to Leave voters - a point too subtle for some Blairites, apparently.
There are a lot of different ways for Brexit to sink the Tory ship. May could be forced to
procrastinate on invoking Article 50. Invoking Article 50 by Royal Prerogative could bring on
a constitutional crisis, or at least a dispute over whether Article 50 has been invoked at all
in a way that satisfies the Treaty. Having invoked, the EU may well step in their own dog poop,
with overtly hostile or simply opportunistic gambits, underestimating the costs imo but otherwise
as JQ suggests.
The whole negotiating scheme will almost certainly run aground on sheer complexity and the
unworkable system of decision-making in the European Council. That could result in procrastination
in an endless series of extensions that keep Britain effectively in for years and years. Or, one
side or both could just let the clock run out, with or without formally leaving negotiations.
Meanwhile, at home, in addition to The City, Scotland and Ireland are going to be nervous, possibly
hysterical.
I suppose if you think the EU is fine just as it is, it is easy to overlook the glaring defects
in its design, particularly the imperviousness to reformist, adaptive politics. The EU looks to
go down with the neoliberal ship - hell, it is the neoliberal ship! I suppose the sensible Labour
position on the EU would be a set of reform proposals that would paper over different viewpoints
within the Labour Party, but that is not possible, because EU reform is not possible, which is
why Brexit is the agenda. Corbyn's instincts seem right to me; Labour should not prematurely oppose
Brexit alienating Leave voters nor should it start a love-fest for an EU that might very shortly
make itself very ugly toward Britain.
The Euro certainly and the EU itself may well break before the next General Election in Britain
opening up policy possibilities for Tories or Labour that can scarcely be imagined now. It is
not inconceivable to me that Scandanavia, Netherlands and Switzerland might be persuaded to form
a downsized EU2 sans Euro with Britain and a reluctant Ireland.
In my view, Corbyn as a political personality is something of a stopped clock, but as others
have pointed out, Labour like other center-left neoliberal parties have been squandering all their
credibility in post-modern opportunism. A stopped clock is right more often than one perpetually
fast or slow.
Labour has a chance to remake itself as a membership party while the Tories play with Brexit
c4 (PE-4). Membership support is what distinguishes Labour from the Liberals and transforming
Labour into a new Liberal party is apparently what Blair had in mind. Let Brexit mature as an
issue and let Labour try out the alternative model of an active membership base.
I wasn't aware that I was supposed to organize the opposition.
You're not, of course. But when you wrote 'I have no idea why nobody does it', it wasn't immediately
clear to me that what you meant was 'I have no idea why the Labour leadership doesn't do it' (where
'it' referred back to 'hit them over the head with this', and 'them' referred back to 'the vast
majority of people' and 'this' referred back to 'the fact that the Tories have no idea at all
what they are doing and their policies are not in the interest of the vast majority of people').
There are people making statements daily about how what the Tories are doing is not in the
interest of the vast majority of people; but with what effect?
Seriously, I don't see that.
Perhaps that's a result of where you've chosen to look. Seriously, where have you looked? have
you, for example, looked at the Labour Party's website?
Igor Belanov
If you think Labour is just as evil as the Conservatives, then obviously you have no motivation
to support Labour against the Conservatives.
Is that what you think, that Labour is just as evil as the Conservatives?
Sidenote to J-D @ 8 on parties with religious identification
The disappearance of religious affiliation or identity as an organizing principle in Europe
is interesting. You might recall that the British Tory Party was an Anglican Party, committed
to establishment and the political disability of Catholics and Dissenters, as defining elements
of their credo. Despite the extreme decline in religious observance in Britain, I imagine there
remain strong traces of religious identity in British party identification patterns.
Elsewhere in Europe, the Greek Orthodox Church plays a political role in Greece and Cyprus,
though the current SYRIZA government is somewhat anti-clerical. Anti-clerical doctrines have been
revived in France by tensions with Muslims.
"... I guess the good part is that writers, though shaking their heads, are admitting Sanders has even more closely aligned with the Ds and their money and his reputation from 20 years ago is no longer enough to coast on and will lose if he runs in 2020. ..."
Sanders problem isn't his age. He looks like a hypocrite supporting Ds no matter how noxious, being
the first to trot out a Trump tweet on the floor (he was memed for it), doing a Russia, Russia, Russia
townhall.
Every time he does this, a few more dozen are 'done'. Imploring Sanders to choose people over
money?
I guess the good part is that writers, though shaking their heads, are admitting Sanders has
even more closely aligned with the Ds and their money and his reputation from 20 years ago is no longer
enough to coast on and will lose if he runs in 2020.
"... "A lot of the inequality in the U.S. comes from rent seeking. It comes from firms and industry seeking special protection or special favors from the government To the very considerable extent that inequality is generated by rent seeking, we could sharply reduce inequality itself if rent seeking were to be somehow reduced." ..."
"... "In all areas of economics, the rules of the game are critical-that is emphasized by the fact that similar economics exhibit markedly different patterns of distribution, market income, and after tax and transfers income. This is especially so in an innovation economy, because innovation gives rise to rents-both from IPR and monopoly power. Who receives those rents is a matter of policy, and changes in the IPR regime have led to greater rents without having any effects on the pace of innovation," said Stigltz. ..."
"... Other than the loss of income, he said, "many men in the Rust Belt in Appalachia have lost meaningful work and are unable to find another. People want work that provides them with some agency-they want a chance to prosper, to have the satisfaction of succeeding in something. They would also appreciate the experience of developing in the course of a career, to have self expression through imagining and creating new things. The good jobs in manufacturing offered these men the prospect of some learning, some challenges, and some attendant promotions. The bottom-rung jobs in retailing services that these men are forced to take do not. In losing their good jobs, then, these men were losing the meaning of their very lives. The rise of suicide and drug related deaths among Americans might be evidence of just that sense of loss." ..."
"... The last four decades of slow growth in the U.S., said Phelps, fit Alvin Hansen's definition of secular stagnation "to a tee." Phelps traced the roots of this secular stagnation, characterized by slower growth and loss of innovation, to a "corporatist ideology that had come to permeate the government at all levels" starting with the 1960s, and has "replaced the individualist ideology supporting capitalism" ever since. ..."
"... The gap between the elite professionals and the heartlands is so wide than only someone with unimpeachable credentials like his might penetrate their Panglossian bubble. ..."
"... I am not optimistic that the greed can be punctured ..."
"... Honestly, greed might just be so thoroughly baked into the makeup of base instinct that it is unreachable. My Father reminds me regularly that males are intrinsically sexually competitive, which drives them to acquire territory, resources, and access to females at whatever the cost. To ask humans not to be greedy is to be tinkering with deep biological drives tied to successful reproduction. ..."
"... The last thirty years have been all about "firms and industry seeking special protection or special favors from the government" while everyone has been talking about the opposite thing, "free markets". Why has it taken so long to notice this? ..."
"... "Eat People" ..."
"... The elites should worry the day when the mob turns from destructive introspection, to directed agency at an external foe. That foe being the rent seekers and economic manipulators of injustice. Propaganda and monopoly violence don't last forever, and the hysterical response of the bourgeoisie to this possibility is what we are witnessing. ..."
Trump's
unexpected Presidential win appears to have delivered a wake-up call to the economics discipline.
At a major industry conference, the annual Allied Social Sciences Associations meeting, a blue-chip
panel of four Nobel Prize winners, Angus Deaton, Joe Stiglitz, Roger Myerson and Edmund Phelps, was
in surprising agreement that capitalism had become unmoored and in its current form was exacerbating
inequality. These may seem like pedestrian observations, but the severity of the critique,
as reported in the Pro-Market blog , was striking.
No video of the panel is available yet; I hope one is released soon and will post it if/when that
happens.
Tellingly, even though the panelists also included a fall in innovation, globalization and secular
stagnation as contributing to inequality, the discussion focused on rent-seeking.
Deaton was blistering by the normally judicious standards of the academy. Recall that he and his
wife Anne Case performed the landmark study, published at the end of 2015, that showed that
the death rate had increased among less educated middle aged whites, due largely to addiction and
suicides . Thus the plight of economic losers is more vivid to Deaton than his peers, and he
sees the disastrous human cost as a direct result of rent-seeeking and untrammeled monopolies.
Key extracts :
"A lot of the inequality in the U.S. comes from rent seeking. It comes from firms and industry
seeking special protection or special favors from the government To the very considerable extent
that inequality is generated by rent seeking, we could sharply reduce inequality itself if rent
seeking were to be somehow reduced."
While some forms of inequality could be linked to progress and innovation, said Deaton, inequality
in the U.S. does not stem from creative destruction. "A lot of the inequality in the U.S. is not
like this. It comes from rent seeking. It comes from firms and industry seeking special protection
or special favors from the government," he said.
Deaton highlighted a particularly salient example of rent seeking: the American health care
system which, he said, "seems optimally designed for rent seeking and very poorly designed to
improve people's health."
Deaton outflanked Stiglitz on the left. Stiglitz argued that taxes could help reduce inequality,
in concert with other policies to curb rent extraction:
"In all areas of economics, the rules of the game are critical-that is emphasized by the fact
that similar economics exhibit markedly different patterns of distribution, market income, and
after tax and transfers income. This is especially so in an innovation economy, because innovation
gives rise to rents-both from IPR and monopoly power. Who receives those rents is a matter of
policy, and changes in the IPR regime have led to greater rents without having any effects on
the pace of innovation," said Stigltz.
Deaton begged to differ:
"I don't think that rent seeking, which is incredibly profitable, is very sensitive to taxes
at all. I don't think taxes are a good way of stopping rent seeking. People should deal with rent
seeking by stopping rent seeking, not by taxing the rich," he said.
Deaton is clearly outraged by how opiate manufacturers (meaning Purdue Pharma) have profited by
killing poor whites:
"There are around 200 thousand people who have died from the opioid epidemic, were victims
of iatrogenic medicine and disease caused by the medical profession, or from drugs that should
not have been prescribed for chronic pain but were pushed by pharmaceutical companies, whose owners
have become enormously rich from these opioids," said Deaton, who later advocated for a single-payer
health care system in the U.S., saying: "I am a great believer in the market, but I think we need
a single-payer health care system. I just don't see any other sensible way to address it in this
country."
Mind you, the Case/Deaton study, despite its shattering findings, got front page treatment and
then the press and pundits moved on to the next hot news tidbit. Matt Stoller had a tweetstorm yesterday
on this issue, related to the impending revamping, which almost certainly means further crapification,
of Obamacare. You can read the whole tweetstorm staring
here . These were the linchpin of his argument:
... ... ...
Edmund Phelps, who leans conservative but is know for being eclectic, echoed Deaton's observations:
Other than the loss of income, he said, "many men in the Rust Belt in Appalachia have lost
meaningful work and are unable to find another. People want work that provides them with some
agency-they want a chance to prosper, to have the satisfaction of succeeding in something. They
would also appreciate the experience of developing in the course of a career, to have self expression
through imagining and creating new things. The good jobs in manufacturing offered these men the
prospect of some learning, some challenges, and some attendant promotions. The bottom-rung jobs
in retailing services that these men are forced to take do not. In losing their good jobs, then,
these men were losing the meaning of their very lives. The rise of suicide and drug related deaths
among Americans might be evidence of just that sense of loss."
The last four decades of slow growth in the U.S., said Phelps, fit Alvin Hansen's definition
of secular stagnation "to a tee." Phelps traced the roots of this secular stagnation, characterized
by slower growth and loss of innovation, to a "corporatist ideology that had come to permeate
the government at all levels" starting with the 1960s, and has "replaced the individualist ideology
supporting capitalism" ever since.
Even though the panelists disagreed somewhat on remedies, all were troubled by Trump's policy
proposals However, it's still telling that even if protectionism might not be a great remedy (or
would have to be applied surgically to yield meaningful net gains, something Trump's team appears
unwilling to game out), the group seemed constitutionally unable to accept that globalization had
made the working classes in the US worse off even when that is exactly what the Samuelson-Stopler
theorem predicted. For instance:
Phelps, for instance, criticized Trump's assertion that job and income losses among the American
working class were caused by trade and not by losses of innovation, and the President-elect's
"assumption that supply-side measures to boost after-tax corporate profits will bring generally
heightened incomes and employment to America," which he said runs the risk of explosion in public
debt and a deep recession.
The most hazardous, said Phelps, "is the assumption that by bullying corporations, such as
Ford, and stepping in to aid other corporations, such as Google, the Trump administration can
achieve various objectives that will widely boost employment."
Nevertheless, the very fact that a panel like this didn't even dispute the claim that rent-seeking
was the biggest contributor to the big jump in inequality is in and of itself a big step forward.
I wish Deaton would go a speaking tour of wealthy Democratic Party enclaves or become regular
on NPR (assuming the tote-bag carrying classes did not swiftly demand his removal). The gap between
the elite professionals and the heartlands is so wide than only someone with unimpeachable credentials
like his might penetrate their Panglossian bubble.
The gap between the elite professionals and the heartlands is so wide than only someone
with unimpeachable credentials like his might penetrate their Panglossian bubble.
Either these words, although I am not optimistic that the greed can be punctured, or class
violence, coupled with a decline and fall of Continental empire.
The US is the only remaining 19th century empire, all the others have fallen to self-determination,
and the EU appears to be falling apart for the same reasons.
I am not optimistic that the greed can be punctured
That is it in a nutshell. Greed. One destructive emotion has been elevated as the guiding principle
for our Western societies. The fail is baked into the cake. We are monkeys with nuclear weapons
and Donald Trump is the new leader of the Free World™. What could possibly go wrong?
Jane Goodall reported on a chimp who hit on the novel tactic of banging fuel cans together
to achieve alpha status. The noise scared his competitors witless. He didn't know what the cans
were, what they were for, or what they held, but it worked anyway. For a little while.
Honestly, greed might just be so thoroughly baked into the makeup of base instinct that it
is unreachable. My Father reminds me regularly that males are intrinsically sexually competitive,
which drives them to acquire territory, resources, and access to females at whatever the cost.
To ask humans not to be greedy is to be tinkering with deep biological drives tied to successful
reproduction.
Except we have millions upon millions of individual instances of US men over whom greed holds
no power, and scores of historical societies and even today a handful of countries so constituted
and evolved over time that there simply is no comparison on a scale of 'greed' with what goes
on in the US.
Greed obviously has a biological basis, as does everything else humans do, but culture
is quite capable of virtually erasing it.
But if you guys find a copy of this panel, also mentioned in the pro market article, please
post it.
"The Vested Interests Versus Rational Public Policy: Economists as Public Intellectuals,"
Stiglitz and Baker, along with James K. Galbraith of University of Texas at Austin, Stephanie
Kelton from the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and Lawrence Mishel from the Economic Policy
Institute discussed competition, trade, consumer protections, and how to reach effective public
policy. "We need to rewrite the rules of the market economy," said Stiglitz during the same
panel.
The last thirty years have been all about "firms and industry seeking special protection or
special favors from the government" while everyone has been talking about the opposite thing,
"free markets". Why has it taken so long to notice this?
Very effective propaganda and a complicit MSM. I will say it again: spend a day or two at any
statehouse in the country and you will see that the ENTIRE business of government is doing favors
for business people and their lobbyists. The notion that business people are in favor of small
or non-activist government is a big lie.
Which gets to a point that seems to get glossed over even by the better economists – that corporate
"investment" in lobbying generally has a way better ROI than real investment, often times on the
order of 1000-to-1 (for specific tax breaks).
I don't get what Deaton is saying about rent-seeking. Surely the return of the 90% tax bracket
for high incomes and estates would put a dent into modern rent-seeking. When he says, "People
should deal with rent seeking by stopping rent seeking, not by taxing the rich," what kind of
policies is he talking about? Does he mean single payer, and extended that kind of economic organization
to other industries? Once you get outside health care, that seems kind of radical for an economist.
The Mississippi Delta is just north of where we live. The "rent seeking" is mixed up with Paternalism.
Each feeds off of the other. What we have seen in our multi year search for affordable living
space has been an unending stream of overpriced habitats, and insularity.
The Paternalism encourages
an ethos of exploitation, the rent seeking finances it. At root, all these "base" motivations
are "rational." Thus, any "rational" critique undergirds the edifice of selfishness.
A corollary
of this is that any significant change requires a clean break with the past. An irrational ideology
needs must arise, if only for long enough to nurture a radical change. As with the present American
experience, an absurd excess is needed, and is looming. It sounds hardhearted, but a cleansing
fire must purge the dross from out the gold of the nations soul. Before we allow horrified sentiment
to deter us from this course, we must remember that the present system is itself the embodiment
of hardheartedness. Why else do many cultures have a myth of a Phoenix in their socio-cultural
tool kit? It has happened before. It will happen again.
As someone more erudite than myself likes to say; "Kill it with fire."
My only worry is that when mainstream economists start accepting the problem of rent seeking,
their solution is usually 'better, freer markets'. Its this logic which did so much damage to
the national electricity networks of Europe and the UK railway system and (my personal bugbear),
the domestic waste collection system in Europe. There is sometimes a fine distinction between
highly regulated markets which benefit both private companies and the consumer (for example, in
electricity generation and distribution), and manipulated regulated markets which benefit only
the seller, such as with medicines.
Plus, from what I am gathering from the summary, statements about how it was innovation that
destroyed jobs and not globalization seem to ignore the fact that the retraining and skills reeducation
that's supposed to happen after "disruption" has become rent seeking.
Education has become a massive, government controlled, rent seeking operation in the form of
student loans. Anyone seeking to better themselves with education now has become a victim.
Are taxes going to solve that, according to Stiglitz? As you say, is it going to be a "freer
markets" solution? I don't know.
Innovation destroyed jobs because Silicon Valley investors realized that corporations would
pay HUGE dollars for new processes that eliminated people. Human labor is an enormous cost, not
just in wages but in support (that useless HR team), benefits, and worst of all – pensions. The
goal of the modern corporation is to reduce head count, not to make better and more innovative
products/services. Once the investment community clued in on that, it was all about finding new
ways to eliminate jobs.
Andy Kessler's book "Eat People" is all about this topic.
I'm not an economist but even I can see that trade can increase average income while decreasing
incomes at the bottom of the distribution. Am I missing the point or are the Nobel laureates missing
it?
Do they think that some new industry will appear by magic to fill the void?
Wow! If this is what it takes to capture the attention of the American elites then I think
this society needs to think really hard about what's up with it.
I wish Deaton would go a speaking tour of wealthy Democratic Party enclaves or become regular
on NPR (assuming the tote-bag carrying classes did not swiftly demand his removal). The gap
between the elite professionals and the heartlands is so wide than only someone with unimpeachable
credentials like his might penetrate their Panglossian bubble.
You are never going to get the 10% to admit that their lifestyles are not possible without
the underlying economic conditions described at this website. All you have to do is look at Massachusetts
and see what "liberalism" has become there to understand this. The NIMBYism is rampant, and the
isolation of minorities and people of other classes is so obvious that no one can deny that it
happens. Most of the employment is so dependent on the rent seeking (Education, Biotech and Pharma,
Technology, Medical) that there is no way that they could be convinced of another way.
I believe you are right and the hysteria after the recent election demonstrates this resistance
to change (even if in the current case it may turn out to be bad change). The whole rationale
of our so-called democracy is to allow change at the top without resorting to violence which is
why attacks on the democratic process itself are the most sinister. Therefore the most interesting
story of 2016 may not be the dreary two year slog itself but what happened afterwards. One comes
to suspect that large portions of the "progressive" left have even less interest in democracy
than the Republicans do. If only those pesky proles could be kept down the comfortable middle
class of Boston could rest easy.
It's probably true that only when those middle class professionals themselves start to feel
economic pain that we will see more enthusiasm for leveling and social cohesion. A crash in the
stock market might do it or–god forbid–riots and chaos but it doesn't seem like there's a painless
way out.
Deaton highlighted a particularly salient example of rent seeking: the American health care
system which, he said, "seems optimally designed for rent seeking and very poorly designed
to improve people's health."
There is rent seeking even within sectors. Yesterday's Links had an article about large layoffs
at one of the premier academic cancer centers, driven by losses due to overruns in implementing
an electronic health records system.
Sh*t flows to the bottom and money floats to the top.
The elites should worry the day when the mob turns from destructive introspection, to directed
agency at an external foe. That foe being the rent seekers and economic manipulators of injustice.
Propaganda and monopoly violence don't last forever, and the hysterical response of the bourgeoisie
to this possibility is what we are witnessing.
We need a new term or word for the class of people dedicated to the spread of inequality. The
terms bourgeoisie, corporatists, capitalists, and fascists have been rendered ineffectual in raising
the consciousness of working people to their plight. Occupy brought the 1% into consciousness,
but there still is a lingering faith that somehow the business community can provide the necessities
for a good life, if only "something" can be done to "free" their creative potential. My take on
the Fake News phenomenon is yet another phase to keep the working population even more confused
and misdirected. It is a strategy to double down on propaganda. Propaganda questioning the validity
of propaganda.
In America, the psychic health of the nation is coming into question. Leadership that can provide
a vestige of calm amid the rising storm brought about by economic uncertainty will easily gain
followers. The crisis of leadership is daily becoming more acute.
Maybe a better strategy would be to come up with a new term for the 80% ruthlessly exploited
by the current system. A new term is needed because all others have been corrupted into impotence.
"In American, the psychic health of the nation is coming into question."
We are confused, in denial, projecting furiously Freud would have a field-day exploring our
cognitive dissonance. All this 'fake news' has begun to undermine our vision of ourselves as 'the
exceptional nation;' our mental pictures of soldiers handing out candy bars to starving child
refugees have morphed into drone operators taking out toddlers at wedding parties.
We have elders preaching the American virtues of 'self reliance,' 'personal responsibility,'
and the dangers of being coddled by an inefficient nanny state, while enjoying the benefits of
a guaranteed monthly social security check deposited into their bank accounts, and having their
hip replacements and open heart surgeries paid for by Medicare.
We are still entranced by our national narrative of 'go west, young man,' with acres of fertile
prairie and lush coastal valleys ours for the taking; all we need to follow is our sacred 'work
ethic' and success will be ours. Well, all the land is posted 'Private' and the water is in the
process of being purchased by faceless corporate entities. And the native Americans, whose land
we stole, are pissed and getting organized.
Spot on, Norb. We need new words, a new national narrative, a new vision of where we are, what
crimes we committed to get here, how we have managed to bring the planet to the brink of destruction
and, finally, how we can salvage what remains and forge a new identity, a better and more sustainable
story.
Until then, the next few years (decades?) will be messy. But filled with promise.
for all of the Media/Academia Left's obsession w/identity politics, the issues facing poor,
rural African-Americas are forgotten and "uncool" to address-just as with Appalachian whites.
Over several months many commenters have said something like the following: there can't be
any real deflation because prices keep going up. Food, health care, rents, etc. If there's deflation
why aren't prices coming down?
My opinion is you can have real deflation *and* increasing prices at the retail level if those
prices are determined by monopoly pricing power – price jacking and uncontrolled rent seeking,
which is what I think we have now. Iinstead of lowering prices for the little guy deflation increases
the profits for the monopolists and rentiers through lowered base costs for them coupled with
higher selling prices for customers, plus fees and other purely extractive costs. Monopolists
and rentiers have deformed various markets in a way such that deflation *and* higher selling/access
prices can co-exist, imo.
Longer comment lost in modland. Shorter: It's possible to have both deflation and rising sale
prices if monopolists and rentiers are setting the sale price. imo.
I keep hearing the idea that innovation can provide jobs: algorithms and robots consume many
more than they produce, AI is taking jobs from insurance agents in Japan, all seem to point the
other way. So the response is a basic minimum income, but with so much wealth off shored to tax
havens and the rest building bombs to replace the ones being dropped daily, where do the experts
see the money coming from? Sooner or later the mass' will have to stop buying the glossy widgets
which pays for the yachts and mansions.
Yves, thanks very much for this. Speaking for myself, I'd really appreciate more posts/guest
posts on this and related topics.
I'm currently reading Joe Bageant's Deer Hunting with Jesus, which addresses the desperation
of small-town northern Virginia – I knew Bageant's work (had read his essays), but the book is
great. Separate chapters, btw, on the mortgage scam in his hometown (for trailers, for heavens'
sake) and on the health care system and how that's working out in rural Virginia (it's not, and
it's a national disgrace).
It riffed off a piece by some person called Ben Shapiro, who was venting about health care
being a consumer product (he compared it to buying expensive furniture). I think I finally realized
that there are some people whose understanding of the value of human life and the basic rights
of man differ so much from my own that the divide cannot be bridged, ever. (He also sort of compared
sb who needs medical treatment but can't afford it to stealing bread. Made me wonder if he and
his physician-wife had recently caught a production of Les Miserables.) I was so appalled at his
thinking I couldn't even comment on the post.
I can't see how rent-seeking is to be reduced given the incoming regime, which appears to me
to be filled with rent-seekers of the highest order.
It's heartening to see renowned economists identifying these issues (poverty/unemployment/increasing
morbidity-mortality rates) as a genuine crisis – which it is, and it's only going to get worse;
in a few years, it won't be the lower and middle classes that are affected, but the white-collar
professional classes as well (i.e. the top 10%).
But as my Dad used to say, it's somehow "a day late and and a dollar short" – the Dems should
have been addressing this crisis years ago – if a humble citizen-observer like this commenter
saw it as a serious issue ten years ago, why didn't the professional policy guys?
I wouldn't just credit the Trump candidacy for shining the light on rent seekers, but kudos
to Yves for hosting economists who have also done this, among them Michael Hudson and (to a lesser
degree) Bill Black.
At the risk of seeming un-intellectual, I confess to having been also enlightened by library
reading the works of John Grisham – his theme is often how lawyers profit or do not profit from
big pharma medications that are introduced with great fanfare only to be discovered as the cause
of injury and/or death a few miles down the road. At which point the victims are rounded up by
low-income lawyers seeking a big windfall. One only has to be aware of certain tv commercials
to realize this is still happening, and it happens to low income people for the most part. In
the novels they are always the ultimate victims, no matter what the outcome of the lawsuits. The
money changes hands, but the poor get shafted.
juliana – I like Grisham a lot, too; the fact that he is himself a native of the "poor south"
(Arkansas, Mississippi) lends a gritty realism to his novels. More members of the credentialed
classes should read him, maybe they'd understand what's happening in the heartland better.
I've never much cared for his legal thrillers, but I was really impressed by his semi-autobiographical
novel, "A Painted House" set in rural east Arkansas in the 50s. My mother was from a small farm
in that area and I grew up not far away in Memphis and visited east Arkansas often as a kid in
the 50s and 60s. I am Grisham's age and the novel was spot on in my experience
Thinking out loud here, so take with a grain of salt: could IPR-related rents be fixed by switching
the "carrot" from monopoly on the IP to tax credits? Instead of "You are the only one that gets
to sell this for X years, unless others pay you a fee," the creator of the IP gets a tax credit
equal to a certain % of sales and/or profits that others make from use of said IP. This would,
of course, be a non-transferable right to the credit; some company cannot come along and buy it
out from the creator, nor can it be passed along to next of kin. Creator gets compensation, consumers
avoid the artificial rent cost, and by opening up the IP to the market, competition and refinements
can begin immediately.
shorter: current Bangladesh life expectancy is: males – ~ 70, females – ~73, total – ~71, world
rank – 99th.
The declining life expectancy for too many rural US populations, especially for females, is
caused by increased deaths in the 45-55 age range. Fewer are reaching the age of 60 or 70. Ergo,
these areas have lower than Bangladesh's overall life expectancy. These early US deaths are numerous
enough to lower the overall life expectancy of the US cohort, which is shocking.
adding: while the lowered overall US life expectancies are still above overall Bangladesh's,
in US counties with these large increased death rates in the 45-55 age cohort the the counties
life expectancy is lower than Bangladesh. There are so many of these US counties and such a large
percentage of the population that the overall US life expectancy has tilted down.
I suggest reading 'Deep South' by Paul Theroux for a scorching look at the day-to-day life
of the denizens of this area. That it might, in some areas, be compared to the 'Third World' is,
tragically, a compliment. How can these conditions exist in the richest country in the world?
And how can one be an American and tolerate this?
What were the economic conditions in Cambodia prior to Pol Pot and the killing fields? I'm
too young, but I that seemed to be a more modern tail of the 90% taking out the top 10%.
There has to be some shred of truth to drive people to eliminate an entire swath of their population
along economic lines only.
But the term "rent seeking" doesn't have much punch. To a moderately well educated reader,
It sounds like something we would all do in a "capitalistic" system and therefore, in some sense,
rational, and exempt from the jaundiced, deep consideration it deserves.
I believe that much of what ails us in the larger effort to make changes in (what's left of)
the Republic, is our more or less universal aversion to using the proper vocabulary to address
how one goes about "rent seeking," which is to engage in wholesale, long term and systematic bribery
of public officials who can (and will) enshrine our sought for "market" advantages.
When did "bribery" morph into "campaign finance"? There may have been a time and place in American
history when there could be fine distinctions, maybe even legitimate distinctions, drawn between
the two, but today? Any trip to "the Hill" or our state legislatures, to advocate for a policy
or law-unsupported by a major league checkbook-will convince a person that the Congress, etc.
has devolved into a massive "system" for soliciting money in exchange for agreeing to vote against
the public interest.
In short, I'd like to advocate that we bring back bribery into the "civic lexicon." The sooner
the better.
In a post-Reagan/Bush environment the third way Democrats simply adopted what seemed moderate
in relation to the zeitgeist. The failure of all those poor rural people to pick up and move to where the jobs were is a
choice which they must have rationally assessed the cost/benefit of and made decisions as autonomous
adults.
Their failure to educate and train for the jobs of the future was a choice. They were warned.
Like we are being warned now that we are redundant or soon to be, replaceable by peasants from
abroad or algorithms at home. I don't think we are going to get the Star Trek economy. I think we are getting the Logan's
Run, Aldous Huxley, Eloi vs. Morlock economy.
"Reeling from their inability to stop his election, envious of his power
to make people believe his most ridiculous statements, and rinsed by a needy
mood for self-soothing, the media and other American institutions are
greeting the era of Trump by lowering their ethical and professional
standards and indulging in attention-seeking hysteria. However cathartic it
may be, the effect is suicidal for the media and dangerous for the nation" [
The
Week
]. "[O]ur institutions can't temporarily suspend the very standards
that grant them credibility and expect to survive." And it's always possible
to make things worse
"[B]oth parties are built upon unstable coalitions. For Democrats, it is
a coalition driven by demographics. The Democratic mantra for the last eight
years has been built around the idea that an increasingly diverse and
urbanizing electorate was going to build them a permanent Electoral College
majority. But, as we saw in 2016 and every midterm election since 2008, the
only Democrat who was able to
mobilize the "Obama coalition" was Barack Obama himself" [Cook Political]. A
coalition held together by one man isn't a coalition at all, as
I
pointed out in early in 2016. As for the Republicans: "Speaker Ryan and
Majority Leader McConnell have had their policies and priorities teed up for
years. They've just been waiting for a GOP president to help implement them.
Trump, meanwhile, has shown an incredible, um, flexibility on issues,
policies and priorities. Without an ideological core to drive him and with
no experience in the give and take of the legislative process, there's no
telling what, or how, he will govern."
"The [Democrat] party is approaching the confirmation process as one of
the first steps in its rebuilding effort following painful November losses"
[
RealClearPolitics
].
"That effort includes getting opposition research and outside messaging
groups into high gear, fundraising off of certain confirmation hearing
highlights or controversies regarding some nominees, and coming up with a
way to paint the administration they will run against in four years in an
unflattering light." Hysteria is good for fundraising, so expect it to
continue.
So Booker signals he's going to run in 2020 by the noise he made at the
Sessions hearing. Then he took care to build up his campaign warchest:
"In 2020, the Democrats could run Streep, Leonardo DiCaprio, Beyonce,
Matt Damon, or Rosie O'Donnell. Some might guffaw at this idea. After all,
wouldn't running a celebrity candidate further associate Democrats with
coastal elitism?" [
The
New Republic
]. "But Democrats' main problem last year wasn't in
appealing to anti-elitist voters; it was in getting out the party's base. A
magnetic, attractive movie star would have a far better chance of
accomplishing that than just another accomplished, dowdy politician."
"Bernie Sanders can win in 2020, but he has to make a critical choice
right now" [
CNBC
].
I wish Sanders were four years younger .
"Is Bernie's Revolution Taking Over The California Democratic Party?" [
Down
with Tyranny
]. Yes,
according this story in Links this morning
. Note the role played by the
(badass) National Nurses Union. Organizing infrastructure really, really
helps and where else to you find it?
"... Bill Clinton's generation, however, believed that concentration of financial power could be virtuous, as long as that power was in the hands of experts. They largely dismissed the white working class as a bastion of reactionary racism. Fred Dutton, who served on the McGovern-Fraser Commission in 1970 , saw the white working class as "a major redoubt of traditional Americanism and of the antinegro, antiyouth vote." This paved the way for the creation of the modern Democratic coalition. Obama is simply the latest in a long line of party leaders who have bought into the ideology of these "new" Democrats, and he has governed likewise, with commercial policies that ravaged the heartland. ..."
Democrats can't win until they recognize how bad Obama's financial policies were
He had opportunities to help the working class, and he passed them up.
By Matt Stoller January 12 at 8:25 AM
During his final news conference of 2016, in mid-December, President Obama criticized Democratic
efforts during the election. "Where Democrats are characterized as coastal, liberal, latte-sipping,
you know, politically correct, out-of-touch folks," Obama said, "we have to be in those communities."
In fact, he went on, being in those communities - "going to fish-fries and sitting in VFW halls
and talking to farmers" - is how, by his account, he became president. It's true that Obama is
skilled at projecting a populist image; he beat Hillary Clinton in Iowa in 2008, for instance,
partly by attacking agriculture monopolies .
But Obama can't place the blame for Clinton's poor performance purely on her campaign. On the
contrary, the past eight years of policymaking have damaged Democrats at all levels. Recovering
Democratic strength will require the party's leaders to come to terms with what it has become
- and the role Obama played in bringing it to this point.
Two key elements characterized the kind of domestic political economy the administration pursued:
The first was the foreclosure crisis and the subsequent bank bailouts. The resulting policy framework
of Tim Geithner's Treasury Department was, in effect, a wholesale attack on the American home
(the main store of middle-class wealth) in favor of concentrated financial power. The second was
the administration's pro-monopoly policies, which crushed the rural areas that in 2016 lost voter
turnout and swung to Donald Trump.
Obama didn't cause the financial panic, and he is only partially responsible for the bailouts,
as most of them were passed before he was elected. But financial collapses, while bad for the
country, are opportunities for elected leaders to reorganize our culture. Franklin Roosevelt took
a frozen banking system and created the New Deal. Ronald Reagan used the sharp recession of the
early 1980s to seriously damage unions. In January 2009, Obama had overwhelming Democratic majorities
in Congress, $350 billion of no-strings-attached bailout money and enormous legal latitude. What
did he do to reshape a country on its back?
First, he saved the financial system. A financial system in collapse has to allocate losses.
In this case, big banks and homeowners both experienced losses, and it was up to the Obama administration
to decide who should bear those burdens. Typically, such losses would be shared between debtors
and creditors, through a deal like the Home Owners Loan Corporation in the 1930s or bankruptcy
reform. But the Obama administration took a different approach. Rather than forcing some burden-sharing
between banks and homeowners through bankruptcy reform or debt relief, Obama prioritized creditor
rights, placing most of the burden on borrowers. This kept big banks functional and ensured that
financiers would maintain their positions in the recovery. At a 2010 hearing, Damon Silvers, vice
chairman of the independent Congressional Oversight Panel, which was created to monitor the bailouts,
told Obama's Treasury Department: "We can either have a rational resolution to the foreclosure
crisis, or we can preserve the capital structure of the banks. We can't do both."
Second, Obama's administration let big-bank executives off the hook for their roles in the
crisis. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) referred criminal cases to the Justice Department and was ignored.
Whistleblowers from the government and from large banks noted a lack of appetite among prosecutors.
In 2012, then-Attorney General Eric Holder ordered prosecutors not to go after mega-bank HSBC
for money laundering. Using prosecutorial discretion to not take bank executives to task, while
legal, was neither moral nor politically wise; in a 2013 poll, more than half of Americans still
said they wanted the bankers behind the crisis punished. But the Obama administration failed to
act, and this pattern seems to be continuing. No one, for instance, from Wells Fargo has been
indicted for mass fraud in opening fake accounts.
Third, Obama enabled and encouraged roughly 9 million foreclosures. This was Geithner's explicit
policy at Treasury. The Obama administration put together a foreclosure program that it marketed
as a way to help homeowners, but when Elizabeth Warren, then chairman of the Congressional Oversight
Panel, grilled Geithner on why the program wasn't stopping foreclosures, he said that really wasn't
the point. The program, in his view, was working. "We estimate that they can handle 10 million
foreclosures, over time," Geithner said - referring to the banks. "This program will help foam
the runway for them." For Geithner, the most productive economic policy was to get banks back
to business as usual.
Nor did Obama do much about monopolies. While his administration engaged in a few mild challenges
toward the end of his term, 2015 saw a record wave of mergers and acquisitions, and 2016 was another
busy year. In nearly every sector of the economy, from pharmaceuticals to telecom to Internet
platforms to airlines, power has concentrated. And this administration, like George W. Bush's
before it, did not prosecute a single significant monopoly under Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
Instead, in the past few years, the Federal Trade Commission has gone after such villains as music
teachers and ice skating instructors for ostensible anti-competitive behavior. This is very much
a parallel of the financial crisis, as elites operate without legal constraints while the rest
of us toil under an excess of bureaucracy.
With these policies in place, it's no surprise that Thomas Piketty and others have detected
skyrocketing inequality, that most jobs created in the past eight years have been temporary or
part time, or that lifespans in white America are dropping . When Democratic leaders don't protect
the people, the people get poorer, they get angry, and more of them die.
Yes, Obama prevented an even greater collapse in 2009. But he also failed to prosecute the
banking executives responsible for the housing crisis, then approved a foreclosure wave under
the guise of helping homeowners. Though 58 percent of Americans were in favor of government action
to halt foreclosures, Obama's administration balked. And voters noticed. Fewer than four in 10
Americans were happy with his economic policies this time last year (though that was an all-time
high for Obama). And by Election Day, 75 percent of voters were looking for someone who could
take the country back "from the rich and powerful," something unlikely to be done by members of
the party that let the financiers behind the 2008 financial crisis walk free.
This isn't to say voters are, on balance, any more thrilled with what Republicans have to offer,
nor should they be. But that doesn't guarantee Democrats easy wins. Throughout American history,
when voters have felt abandoned by both parties, turnout has collapsed - and 2016, scraping along
20-year turnout lows, was no exception. Turnout in the Rust Belt , where Clinton's path to victory
dissolved, was especially low in comparison to 2012.
Trump, who is either tremendously lucky or worryingly perceptive, ran his campaign like a pre-1930s
Republican. He did best in rural areas, uniting white farmers, white industrial workers and certain
parts of big business behind tariffs and anti-immigration walls. While it's impossible to know
what he will really do for these voters, the coalition he summoned has a long, if not recent,
history in America.
Democrats have long believed that theirs is the party of the people. Therefore, when Trump
co-opts populist language, such as saying he represents the "forgotten" man, it seems absurd -
and it is. After all, that's what Democrats do, right? Thus, many Democrats have assumed that
Trump's appeal can only be explained by personal bigotry - and it's also true that Trump trafficks
in racist and nativist rhetoric. But the reality is that the Democratic Party has been slipping
away from the working class for some time, and Obama's presidency hastened rather than reversed
that departure. Republicans, hardly worker-friendly themselves, simply capitalized on it.
There's history here: In the 1970s, a wave of young liberals, Bill Clinton among them, destroyed
the populist Democratic Party they had inherited from the New Dealers of the 1930s. The contours
of this ideological fight were complex, but the gist was: Before the '70s, Democrats were suspicious
of big business. They used anti-monopoly policies to fight oligarchy and financial manipulation.
Creating competition in open markets, breaking up concentrations of private power, and protecting
labor and farmer rights were understood as the essence of ensuring that our commercial society
was democratic and protected from big money.
Bill Clinton's generation, however, believed that concentration of financial power could be
virtuous, as long as that power was in the hands of experts. They largely dismissed the white
working class as a bastion of reactionary racism. Fred Dutton, who served on the McGovern-Fraser
Commission in 1970 , saw the white working class as "a major redoubt of traditional Americanism
and of the antinegro, antiyouth vote." This paved the way for the creation of the modern Democratic
coalition. Obama is simply the latest in a long line of party leaders who have bought into the
ideology of these "new" Democrats, and he has governed likewise, with commercial policies that
ravaged the heartland.
As a result, while our culture has become more tolerant over the past 40 years, power in our
society has once again been concentrated in the hands of a small group of billionaires. You can
see this everywhere, if you look. Warren Buffett, who campaigned with Hillary Clinton, recently
purchased chunks of the remaining consolidated airlines, which have the power not only to charge
you to use the overhead bin but also to kill cities simply by choosing to fly elsewhere. Internet
monopolies increasingly control the flow of news and media revenue. Meatpackers have re-created
a brutal sharecropper-type system of commercial exploitation. And health insurers, drugstores
and hospitals continue to consolidate, partially as a response to Obamacare and its lack of a
public option for health coverage.
Many Democrats ascribe problems with Obama's policies to Republican opposition. The president
himself does not. "Our policies are so awesome," he once told staffers. "Why can't you guys do
a better job selling them?" The problem, in other words, is ideological.
Many Democrats think that Trump supporters voted against their own economic interests. But
voters don't want concentrated financial power that deigns to redistribute some cash, along with
weak consumer protection laws. They want jobs. They want to be free to govern themselves. Trump
is not exactly pitching self-government. But he is offering a wall of sorts to protect voters
against neo-liberals who consolidate financial power, ship jobs abroad and replace paychecks with
food stamps. Democrats should have something better to offer working people. If they did, they
could have won in November. In the wreckage of this last administration, they didn't.
"... The US nomenclatura is embarked on a massive media campaign to divert and reframe the election issues away from the economic and inequality concerns expressed by the Sanders campaign. No "break up the banks", no "free public college", no "medicare for all", no campaign funding reform. ..."
"... At the moment, the Democratic Party is structurally fragile and its members have shied away from the kind of radical upheaval Republicans have been forced to embrace. Nonetheless, Democrats will soon face enormously risky decisions. ..."
"... I do wonder how years went by with no one in the Obama administration wavering from their belief that they couldn't prosecute any of the banksters. These didn't just make bad loans. They stole homes. If you're going to steal, steal big, has long been the lesson. ..."
The US nomenclatura is embarked on a massive media campaign to divert and reframe the election
issues away from the economic and inequality concerns expressed by the Sanders campaign. No "break
up the banks", no "free public college", no "medicare for all", no campaign funding reform.
For a while we had the Russian hacking accusations, which have suddenly gone dormant (will we
ever get proof?). Now we have divide and conquer identity issues. But no proposed alternatives to
Trump for curing our economic malaise along the lines suggested by Sanders.
We are headed back to business as usual, with the right fighting the so-called center left (our
two neoliberal factions) for dominance. Apparently conditions have not deteriorated enough yet for
a populist uprising. How much more does it take before we reach a critical mass?
Some change is happening. Even Cuomo is now seeking the seal of approval from Bernie for supporting
a new college tuition plan for families making less than $125,000.
It's going to be a slow process though. There is a group within the Democratic Party that is
on the way out historically, and they want to do nothing other than turn the Party's politics
into nothing but vendettas, distraction and obstruction.
This is classic Cuomo. Give a bit to the right - then a bit to the left. Of course the ultra-rich
Uppity East Siders are whining we can't afford this while the Green Party is upset it does not
also cover food and rent. You can't win in NYC politics no matter what you do.
" At the moment, the Democratic Party is structurally fragile and its members have shied
away from the kind of radical upheaval Republicans have been forced to embrace. Nonetheless, Democrats
will soon face enormously risky decisions.
Does the party move left, as a choice of Keith Ellison for D.N.C. chairman would suggest? Does
it wait for internecine conflict to emerge among Republicans as Trump and his allies fulfill campaign
promises - repealing Obamacare, enacting tax reform and deporting millions of undocumented aliens?"
It's funny how there has been no discussion of the DNC chair contest, and yet the progressive
neoliberals here still whine that the forum isn't an echo chamber which reflects their views.
And then they fantasize about banning people with whom they disagree.
State governments famously (or infamously) give away billions in tax breaks to lure in firms that
make jobs. 19 Republican governors -- by rejecting Medicaid expansion -- have rejected TAKING
IN federal tax money to generate good medical jobs, not to mention the multiplier effect of new
spending ...
.. and it's the states' own money that they sent to the federal government that they don't
want to TAKE BACK ...
... oh, almost forgot; it's good for uninsured poor people too (almost forgot about that).
There was a reason why the Annapolis Convention that led almost directly to the Constitutional
convention was organized on the need to stop interjurisdictional competition in the favoring of
commercial interests so as to favor uniform commerce rules across the US, should the national
legislature exercise on the matter.
I sure like competition, recognize the federal system as a having great socio-political value,
even appreciate non-uniformity until it grabs the attention of more thoughtful view (experimentation),
but more and more I think Congress should enact the law to proscribe these crony actions by States.
Many politicians, and I've worked with many at the State level would appreciate it if these pandering
and favoring pleadings just went away.
Fed Officials See Faster Economic Growth Under Trump, but No Boom
By BINYAMIN APPELBAUM
JAN. 4, 2017
"Ms. Yellen has warned that fiscal stimulus, like a tax cut or a spending increase, could increase
economic growth to an unsustainable pace in the near term, resulting in increased inflation. The
Fed quite likely would seek to offset such policies by raising interest rates more quickly."
Progressive neoliberalism...
And Alan Blinder said Hillary's fiscal plans wouldn't be large enough to cause the Fed to alter
its path of rate hikes.
And Trump promised more better infrastructure like clean airports.
An update on the Chevy Cruze controversy. US consumption was 194,500 vehicles with 190,000 made
here in the US. That's 97.7% of them being produced locally. Tweet that.
I do wonder how years went by with no one in the Obama administration wavering from their belief
that they couldn't prosecute any of the banksters. These didn't just make bad loans. They stole homes. If you're going to steal, steal big, has long been the lesson.
Can you spend time on the republicans too?
Just asking for a little balance. You and I both share a dismay about the last eight years
and the presidential campaign. Your energy focused on the party in power now, even a bit, would
probably be helpful.
How the Obama Coalition Crumbled, Leaving an Opening for
Trump
Nate Cohn
DEC. 23, 2016
....
Mr. Trump's gains among white working-class voters
weren't simply caused by Democrats staying home on
Election Day.
The Clinton team knew what was wrong from the start,
according to a Clinton campaign staffer and other
Democrats. Its models, based on survey data, indicated
that they were underperforming Mr. Obama in less-educated
white areas by a wide margin - perhaps 10 points or more -
as early as the summer.
The campaign looked back to respondents who were
contacted in 2012, and found a large number of white
working-class voters who had backed Mr. Obama were now
supporting Mr. Trump.
...
Like Mr. Obama, Mr. Trump ran against the establishment
- and against a candidate who embodied it far more than
John McCain or Mr. Romney did. The various allegations
against Mrs. Clinton neatly complemented the notion that
she wasn't out to help ordinary Americans.
Taken together, Mr. Trump's views on immigration,
trade, China, crime, guns and Islam all had considerable
appeal to white working-class Democratic voters, according
to Pew Research data. It was a far more appealing message
than old Republican messages about abortion, same-sex
marriage and the social safety net.
...
Mrs. Clinton's gains were concentrated among the most
affluent and best-educated white voters, much as Mr.
Trump's gains were concentrated among the lowest-income
and least-educated white voters.
She gained 17 points among white postgraduates,
according to Upshot estimates, but just four points among
whites with a bachelor's degree.
There was a similar pattern by income. Over all, she
picked up 24 points among white voters with a degree
making more than $250,000, according to the exit polls,
while she made only slight gains among those making less
than $100,000 per year.
These gains helped her win huge margins in the most
well-educated and prosperous liberal bastions of the new
economy, like Manhattan, Silicon Valley, Washington,
Seattle, Chicago and Boston. There, Mrs. Clinton ran up
huge margins in traditionally liberal enclaves and stamped
out nearly every last wealthy precinct that supported the
Republicans.
Scarsdale, N.Y., voted for Mrs. Clinton by 57 points,
up from Mr. Obama's 18-point win. You could drive a full
30 miles through the leafy suburbs northwest of Boston
before reaching a town where Mr. Trump hit 20 percent of
the vote. She won the affluent east-side suburbs of
Seattle, like Mercer Island, Bellevue and Issaquah, by
around 50 points - doubling Mr. Obama's victory.
Every old-money Republican enclave of western
Connecticut, like Darien and Greenwich, voted for Mrs.
Clinton, in some cases swinging 30 points in her
direction. Every precinct of Winnetka and Glencoe, Ill.,
went to Mrs. Clinton as well.
Her gains were nearly as impressive in affluent
Republican suburbs, like those edging west of Kansas City,
Mo., and Houston; north of Atlanta, Dallas and Columbus,
Ohio; or south of Charlotte, N.C., and Los Angeles in
Orange County. Mrs. Clinton didn't always win these
affluent Republican enclaves, but she made big gains.
But the narrowness of Mrs. Clinton's gains among
well-educated voters helped to concentrate her support in
the coasts and the prosperous but safely Republican Sun
Belt. It left her short in middle-class,
battleground-state suburbs, like those around
Philadelphia, Detroit and Tampa, Fla., where far fewer
workers have a postgraduate degree, make more than
$100,000 per year or work in finance, science or
technology.
"... George Soros saw America in terms of its centers of economic and political power. He didn't care about the vast stretches of small towns and villages, of the more modest cities that he might fly over in his jet but never visit, and the people who lived in them. Like so many globalists who believe that borders shouldn't exist because the luxury hotels and airports they pass through are interchangeable, the parts of America that mattered to him were in the glittering left-wing bubble inhabited by his fellow elitists. ..."
"... Trump's victory, like Brexit, came because the neoliberals had left the white working class behind. Its vision of the future as glamorous multicultural city states was overturned in a single night. The idea that Soros had committed so much power and wealth to was of a struggle between populist nationalists and responsible internationalists. But, in a great irony, Bush was hardly the nationalist that Soros believed. Instead Soros spent a great deal of time and wealth to unintentionally elect a populist nationalist. ..."
"... Soros fed a political polarization while assuming, wrongly, that the centers of power mattered, and their outskirts did not. He was proven wrong in both the United States of America and in the United Kingdom. He had made many gambles that paid off. But his biggest gamble took everything with it. ..."
"... They sold their souls for campaign dollars and look what it got them. lmfao. ..."
"... I wouldn't give Soros that much credit. Sure, he helped, but face it, mainstream corporate media is now the Ministry of Truth. And both the Democrat and Republican elites have been working overtime in the last 16 years to dismantle the Constitution and Bill of Rights. ..."
"... The Deplorables at least understand they have been betrayed by BOTH parties. ..."
"... I'm guessing that even without the billionaire polarizing meddler Soros, the limousine liberal group, made up of the crooked Clintons, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Washerwoman-Schitz, Chuck 'the fuck' Schumer and the Obamas, was more than enough to sink a very divided, primary election-rigged Democrat Party ..."
"... Neoliberal lobbyists have successfully co-opted the policies & talking points of the center-left over the last two decades, and in so doing, poisoned progressive politics with a deep affinity for Wall Street, financialization, and free trade. Under neoliberalism, equality for all took a back seat to representational diversity within Western popular culture, redistribution was repurposed to include corporate welfare programs & taxpayer funded bail-outs for banks, and tolerance became increasingly subdued by identity politics. ..."
"... It was the takeover by neoliberalism that heralded the beginning of the end for Social Democracy. Nothing else. The consequences of this neoliberal-sized myopia, stupidity & hubris include historically low levels of trust in public institutions, and a rapidly rising tide of right-wing populism & ethnic nationalism across the West. Neoliberal policy is responsible for the current state of affairs in our societies; ergo, its advocates & pundits are to be held accountable for such events as Brexit and the election of Donald Trump. This fully includes legally accountable. ..."
"... Neoliberals control by divide and conquer tactics. ..."
"... I make a salient point about the detrimental influence of neoliberal & corporate lobbying on society, and soon after a troll appears to try divert attention away from the class struggle, and channel it right back to identity politics and the scapegoating of ethnic/religious minorities. It brings to mind the following quote, actually: ..."
"... " Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacificsts for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. " - Hermann Goering ..."
"... It makes one wonder what else neoliberals and the far-right might have in common beyond the mutual adoration for corporate welfare & racial hierarchy. ..."
"... Your corporate & neoliberal sponsors are the inheritors & beneficiaries of these " American legacies". And judging by the events of the 2008 financial crisis, they are far from being done with destroying the lives of people they somehow deem inherently "inferior". ..."
"... And, if you were to give any kind of balance to your comments, you'd refer to "leftists" like Brzezinski, Carter, Rubin, Billary Clinton, Summers and Jay Rockefeller as neoliberals. ..."
"... yep, soros is finishing the job begun by Scoop Jackson and the DLC. "There's not a dime's worth of difference between the Democratic and Republican parties" - G. Wallace 1968. He was right then, even more correct in 2014 ..."
"... Please. He was 14 and a half when the Nazis surrendered in Budapest (where he lived). Soros may be pernicious, but drop this "Nazi collaborator" bullshit. ..."
"... The Dems a party of "radical leftists"?? Are you kidding me? they are a bunch of corrupt liars at every party level that has even a slight real influence on state or national policies, by and large. The same ist true for the republicans. ..."
"... Oh, and Soros is no leftist billionaire either. He is a globalist, elitist NWO world government crook who wants to enslave mankind for his own personal enrichment no matter what. ..."
"... His "open society" and "reflexivity" bullsh!t is just some empty talk and blabbering to fool and deceive people. ..."
"... His only "principle" and "ideology" is "Soros first". he has more money than he can ever spend in his remaining life span, yet he still cannot grab enough $$. Leftist? Not! ..."
"... Soros did a great job helping Oblivio and Hillary obliterate the Democratic Party. ..."
"... And nobody seems to discuss how Putin became Public Enemy Number One in the minds of the Dems after Russia put out a warrant on Soros. Coincidence? ..."
"... Soros was only part of the problem for the democrats, Mostly the blame falls on the ones that let it go into ruin. So blinded by the money, couldn't see the obvious. ..."
"... "They have financed both sides of every war since Napoleon. They own your news, the media, your oil and your government. Yet most of you don't even know who they are. ..."
"... The corrupt avarice of the Clintons and the Chicago Mafia were all that was needed to complete the complete destruction. ..."
"... I can think of no finer display of corrupt pettiness than how they have acted since the election. And to think they almost ended up running this country. It does appear as if the Fortunes shine upon us. Time will tell. ..."
"... Kinda like all the "russian hacking" nonsense. The neoliberals bitches and moans about foreign interference in our election, but their entire national strategy relies upon same. ..."
"... Also funny how the democrat party has allowed itself to become the big money, corporate party. They rely on billionaire money to operate. All that money spend and they still couldn't get killery her crown. I never thought Id say this, but it looks like we all owe old georgie a big thank you for what he did. I doubt the germans would feel the same, but him destroying the neoliberals trying to remake it in his imagine did us a big favor this time around. ..."
"... Destroying political parties is the easiest thing on the world, as they are completely populated by greedy sociopaths. ..."
"... The neoliberals needs demons as they don't have an actual platform that is economically feasible. Unfettered immigrants coming in coupled with jobs leaving isn't sustainable. The old saying "we make it up in volume" applies. ..."
"... The Washington Post is now referred to as Bezos' Blog. Get with the program, man. ..."
"... If Trump is moderately successful in draining the swamp I think that bodes poorly for the neocon warmongering old guard wing of the party. And that is a good thing if it happens. ..."
"... The neocons can easily move over to the Democratic Party. Some of them already are. The Democrats would welcome them. ..."
"... Actually, that is where they came from. Bill Kristol sr., Perle, etc. were democrats until democrats became the anti war party in the 60's of George McGovern, they couldn't abide with that so they moved to the republican party which was historically more isolationist and anti war, because war was bad for business. ..."
"... Funny how you forgot the military-industrial complex, wall street, healthcare scam etc. That's where most of it goes, but they keep the sheeple blaming the poor. ..."
It was the end of the big year with three zeroes. The first X-Men movie had broken box office
records. You couldn't set foot in a supermarket without listening to Brittney Spears caterwauling,
"Oops, I Did It Again." And Republicans and Democrats had total control of both chambers of legislatures
in the same amount of states. That was the way it was back in the distant days of the year 2000.
In 2016, Republicans control both legislative chambers in 32 states. That's up from 16 in 2000.
What happened to the big donkey? Among other things, the Democrats decided to sell their base
and their soul to a very bad billionaire and they got a very bad deal for both.
... ... ...
Obama's wins concealed the scale and scope of the disaster. Then the party woke up after Obama
to realize that it had lost its old bases in the South and the Rust Belt. the neoliberals had hollowed it
out and transformed it into a party of coastal urban elites, angry college crybullies and minority
coalitions.
Republicans
control twice as many state legislative chambers as the Democrats. They
boast 25 trifectas
, controlling both legislative chambers and the governor's mansion. Trifectas had gone from being
something that wasn't seen much outside of a few hard red states like Texas to covering much of the
South, the Midwest and the West.
The Democrats have a solid lock on the West Coast and a narrow corridor of the Northeast, and
little else. The vast majority of the
country's legislatures are in Republican hands. The Democrat Governor's Association has a membership
in the teens. In former strongholds like Arkansas, Dems are going extinct. The party has gone from
holding national legislative
majorities to becoming a marginal movement.
... Much of this disaster had been funded with Soros money. Like many a theatrical villain, the
old monster had been undone by his own hubris. Had Soros aided the Democrats without trying to control
them, he would have gained a seat at the table in a national party. Instead he spent a fortune destroying
the very thing he was trying to control.
George Soros saw America in terms of its centers of economic and political power. He didn't care
about the vast stretches of small towns and villages, of the more modest cities that he might fly
over in his jet but never visit, and the people who lived in them. Like so many globalists who believe
that borders shouldn't exist because the luxury hotels and airports they pass through are interchangeable,
the parts of America that mattered to him were in the glittering left-wing bubble inhabited by his
fellow elitists.
Trump's victory, like Brexit, came because the neoliberals had left the white working class behind. Its
vision of the future as glamorous multicultural city states was overturned in a single night. The
idea that Soros had committed so much power and wealth to was of a struggle between populist nationalists
and responsible internationalists. But, in a great irony, Bush was hardly the nationalist that Soros
believed. Instead Soros spent a great deal of time and wealth to unintentionally elect a populist
nationalist.
... ... ...
Soros fed a political polarization while assuming, wrongly, that the centers of power mattered,
and their outskirts did not. He was proven wrong in both the United States of America and in the
United Kingdom. He had made many gambles that paid off. But his biggest gamble took everything with
it.
"I don't believe in standing in the way of an avalanche," Soros complained of the Republican wave
in 2010.
But he has been trying to do just that. And failing.
"There should be consequences for the outrageous statements and proposals that we've regularly
heard from candidates Trump and Cruz,"
Soros threatened this time around. He predicted a Hillary landslide.
I wouldn't give Soros that much credit.
Sure, he helped, but face it, mainstream corporate media is now the Ministry of Truth. And both the Democrat and Republican elites have been working overtime in the last 16 years
to dismantle the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The Deplorables at least understand they have been betrayed by BOTH parties.
I'm guessing that even without the billionaire polarizing meddler Soros, the limousine liberal
group, made up of the crooked Clintons, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Washerwoman-Schitz, Chuck
'the fuck' Schumer and the Obamas, was more than enough to sink a very divided, primary election-rigged
Democrat Party
" they ditched the working man to court the various hate groups - nyc skype, gay, black, illegal,
globalist warmers, etc "
Inclusive politics are not at the root of the crisis which the center-left is now experiencing
on both sides of the Atlantic. Neoliberalism is.
Neoliberal lobbyists have successfully co-opted the policies & talking points of the center-left
over the last two decades, and in so doing, poisoned progressive politics with a deep affinity
for Wall Street, financialization, and free trade. Under neoliberalism, equality for all took
a back seat to representational diversity within Western popular culture, redistribution was repurposed
to include corporate welfare programs & taxpayer funded bail-outs for banks, and tolerance became
increasingly subdued by identity politics.
Today, we witness this phenomenon across all major center-left parties & their associated media
pundits. A prominent example would be the vocal support that mainstream neoliberal outlets, such
as the Financial Times, Bloomberg, and The Economist, are consistently offering to the Social
Democratic parties & candidates. These neoliberal platforms take on a public profile of social
radicalism on key social issues, while they relentlessly advocate for unfettered free trade and
a form of laissez faire capitalism at the same time.
It was the takeover by neoliberalism that heralded the beginning of the end for Social Democracy.
Nothing else. The consequences of this neoliberal-sized myopia, stupidity & hubris include historically
low levels of trust in public institutions, and a rapidly rising tide of right-wing populism &
ethnic nationalism across the West. Neoliberal policy is responsible for the current state of
affairs in our societies; ergo, its advocates & pundits are to be held accountable for such events
as Brexit and the election of Donald Trump. This fully includes legally accountable.
Erik, when haven't England and the US been governed by neoliberals? Neoliberals control by divide
and conquer tactics. In the US, elections have always been rural vs city, young vs old, white
vs non-white. Even when Obama won, he didn't win the white vote, the rural vote or the old vote.
Brexit, too, was about young vs old, rural vs city and white vs non-white.
In the big national elections, it comes down to which sides get out the vote. In the case of
the Presidential election, the Democrats, who couldn't have picked a more entitled, crooked and
repulsive candidate, just couldn't get out enough of their own vote out her. In the case of the
Brexit election, it was the fear of the non-urban whites being over run by immigrants, that made
the difference.
I make a salient point about the detrimental influence of neoliberal & corporate lobbying on society,
and soon after a troll appears to try divert attention away from the class struggle, and channel
it right back to identity politics and the scapegoating of ethnic/religious minorities. It brings
to mind the following quote, actually:
" Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is
easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacificsts for
lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. "
- Hermann Goering
Your corporate & neoliberal sponsors are the inheritors & beneficiaries of these " American
legacies". And judging by the events of the 2008 financial crisis, they are far from being done
with destroying the lives of people they somehow deem inherently "inferior".
Perhaps the legacies of class warfare & racial hierarchy should end.
EML, would it kill you to be a bit more balanced in your comments? You always end up with a rant
about the "far-right" and "identity politics". Do you deny that the far left constantly disparages
Jews and working class whites, who these leftists refer to as "white trash" and "trailer trash"?
And, if you were to give any kind of balance to your comments, you'd refer to "leftists" like Brzezinski,
Carter, Rubin, Billary Clinton, Summers and Jay Rockefeller as neoliberals. Try not being such
a polarizing one-trick pony, or at least save yourself time by using the term, 'ditto' for your
posts, since most of your posts appear to be redundant pleas for negative attention.
Hermann Goering, please. Now you are resorting to Godwin's Law. How pathetic.
yep, soros is finishing the job begun by Scoop Jackson and the DLC. "There's not a dime's worth of difference between the Democratic and Republican parties" -
G. Wallace 1968. He was right then, even more correct in 2014
Please. He was 14 and a half when the Nazis surrendered in Budapest (where he lived). Soros may be pernicious, but drop this "Nazi collaborator" bullshit.
The Dems a party of "radical leftists"?? Are you kidding me? they are a bunch of corrupt liars
at every party level that has even a slight real influence on state or national policies, by and
large. The same ist true for the republicans.
Oh, and Soros is no leftist billionaire either.
He is a globalist, elitist NWO world government crook who wants to enslave mankind for his own
personal enrichment no matter what.
His "open society" and "reflexivity" bullsh!t is just some
empty talk and blabbering to fool and deceive people.
He sold out his fellow jews to the Nazis
back in the dark times of the 1930s/1940s; he virtually delivered them to the Nazio slaughterhouse
and never ever regretted it. He is doing and always will do the same to everybody else.
His only
"principle" and "ideology" is "Soros first". he has more money than he can ever spend in his remaining
life span, yet he still cannot grab enough $$. Leftist? Not!
Putin showed the world that you could aspire towards Christian nationhood, and take yourselves
out from under the debt enslaved thumb of Zoinist Rothchild Bankers. For that he must be stopped.
Soros was only part of the problem for the democrats, Mostly the blame falls on the ones that
let it go into ruin. So blinded by the money, couldn't see the obvious.
"They have financed both sides of every war since Napoleon.
They own your news, the media, your oil and your government. Yet most of you don't even know who they are."
Actually, I find this post to be a very accurate summation of what the 2016 election turned
out to be. It is true that it was not Soros alone who created the evil that was done, but he was
the money bags behind it.
The corrupt avarice of the Clintons and the Chicago Mafia were all that
was needed to complete the complete destruction. What is disturbing is how incapable those whose
guilt is writ in this fiasco are of coming to terms with their very own failures. All you see
them do is try to blame others for their iniquities.
I can think of no finer display of corrupt
pettiness than how they have acted since the election. And to think they almost ended up running
this country. It does appear as if the Fortunes shine upon us. Time will tell.
Since it came from Soros, Its "good" influence. Its only bad when such things hurt democrats.
Kinda like all the "russian hacking" nonsense. The neoliberals bitches and moans about foreign interference
in our election, but their entire national strategy relies upon same.
They import millions of
foreigners who overwhelmingly vote democrat. They wouldn't stand a chance in a national election
without a shitload of non americans voting. How exactly that isn't defined as 'foreign interference
in our elections' is beyond me.
Also funny how the democrat party has allowed itself to become the big money, corporate party.
They rely on billionaire money to operate. All that money spend and they still couldn't get killery
her crown. I never thought Id say this, but it looks like we all owe old georgie a big thank you
for what he did. I doubt the germans would feel the same, but him destroying the neoliberals trying to
remake it in his imagine did us a big favor this time around.
Also have to thank Soros for Black Lives Matter. When the revolution comes, there will be
a bunch of cops on our side, and most of the angry nutbags who kill random cops will be black,
which means there will be even more cops on our side.
Within a few years maybe we will thank Soros for a fascist Europe and the giant enema which
will follow. And the Farce will come full circle for this devil who got his start betraying
his own people to the Nazis so he could steal their shit.
"Excerpts from Perfidy are printed below. We begin with Adolf Eichmann's testimonial to Kastner's
activities, which Hecht quoted from "Eichmann's Confessions" published in the November 28 and
December 5, 1960 editions of LIFE magazine.
In Hungary my basic orders were to ship all the Jews out of Hungary in as short a time as possible.
. . . In obedience to Himmler's directive, I now concentrated on negotiations with the Jewish
political officials in Budapest . . . among them Dr. Rudolf Kastner, authorized representative
of the Zionist Movement. This Dr. Kastner was a young man about my age, an ice-cold lawyer and
a fanatical Zionist. He agreed to help keep the Jews from resisting deportation -- and even keep
order in the collection camps -- if I would close my eyes and let a few hundred or a few thousand
young Jews emigrate illegally to Palestine.
It was a good bargain. For keeping order in the camps, the price . . . was not too high for
me ....We trusted each other perfectly. When he was with me, Kastner smoked cigarets as though
he were in a coffeehouse. While we talked he would smoke one aromatic cigaret after another, taking
them from a silver case and lighting them with a silver lighter. With his great polish and reserve
he would have made an ideal Gestapo officer himself.Dr. Kastner's main concern was to make it
possible for a select group of Hungarian Jews to emigrate to Israel. . . .
As a matter of fact, there was a very strong similarity between our attitudes in the S.S. and
the viewpoint of these immensely idealistic Zionist leaders . . . . I believe that Kastner would
have sacrificed a thousand or a hundred thousand of his blood to achieve his political goal. .
. . "You can have the others," he would say, "but let me have this group here." And because Kastner
rendered us a great service by helping to keep the deportation camps peaceful, I would let his
group escape. After all, I was not concerned with small groups of a thousand or so Jews. . . .
That was the "gentleman's agreement" I had with the Jews. (p.261) - See more at:
https://www.henrymakow.com/2013/11/Zionists-Sacrificed-Jews-in-Holocaust...
Everyone, especially politicians. Destroying political parties is the easiest thing on the
world, as they are completely populated by greedy sociopaths. As long as they are getting
rich they are "winning".
The Koch brothers stayed out of the fray as they do not like Trump. The neoliberals tried to make
the Kochs a demon but no one was buying the bullshit. The neoliberals needs demons as they don't
have an actual platform that is economically feasible. Unfettered immigrants coming in coupled
with jobs leaving isn't sustainable. The old saying "we make it up in volume" applies.
Not this year really. They were not behind Trump, supported HRC if I am not mistaken, after Trump
won the nomination.
Thing about the Krotch brothers that is different from Soros is they try to influence thing
to benefit themselves financially, not necessarily to destroy the country, where Soros is flat
out anti traditional American values and US constitution. The constitution is the only thing that
has kept us from being a full blown totalitarian state run by global government so far, so it
has to be destroyed in his mind.
I could be wrong, but don't think the Krotch brothers are out to destroy the constitution,
just obscenely enrich themselves bordering on illegally.
Russians put the weeds in your lawn ... at night. Soros has always been a major problem for the
entire world, and that is why the news will be very interesting this year, because everyone knows.
Happy new year.
Goodbye, Democratic Party. See you maybe in 16 years, but I doubt it. My guess is
a different party will be formed to challenge the Republicans in 2032, and the Democrats will
go the way of the Bull Moose Party, as in extinction.
The status of the national part of the Republican party seems a little up in the air to me.
If
Trump is moderately successful in draining the swamp I think that bodes poorly for the neocon
warmongering old guard wing of the party. And that is a good thing if it happens.
Actually, that is where they came from. Bill Kristol sr., Perle, etc. were democrats until democrats
became the anti war party in the 60's of George McGovern, they couldn't abide with that so they
moved to the republican party which was historically more isolationist and anti war, because war
was bad for business.
Then the self perpetuating MIC that Eisenhower warned of became ascendant
and then war was even more of a racket than it always was. Their influence came to the fore with
Bush Sr.
Reagan had some in his administration, but he fired many or moved them out of positions of
power when it came to his attention they were following their own agenda. And yet, he had enough
to convince him of the Iran contra stuff.
Funny how you forgot the military-industrial complex, wall street, healthcare scam etc. That's
where most of it goes, but they keep the sheeple blaming the poor.
"... Obama campaigned on change and vague promises, but still change. Instead he normalized atrocities that most of us had been screaming about in the Bush administration AND he didn't just squander the opportunities he had to change our course domestically because of the crash and the majorities in Congress, no he couldn't throw those away fast enough. ..."
"... Indeed. Bush was a known quantity. "Compassionate conservatism" was was blatantly hollow jingoism. My only surprise under W was how virulently evil Cheney was. ..."
"... The big O, though, was handed the opportunity to change the course of history. He took power with Wall Street on its knees. The whole world hungered for a change in course. Remember "never let a crisis go to waste". O turned Hope into blatantly hollow jingoism. ..."
"... Obama can be legitimately described as worse than Bush 43 because Obama ran as a "progressive" and flagrantly broke almost all of his promises and governed like a "Moderate" Republican. ..."
"... At the least, Bush, Sr. and Jr. ran as right wing politicos. The people basically got what they voted for with them. ..."
"... In August 1999, Barack Obama strolled amid the floats and bands making their way down Martin Luther King Drive on Chicago's South Side. Billed as the largest African-American parade in the country, the summer rite was a draw over the years to boxing heroes like Muhammad Ali and jazz greats like Duke Ellington. It was also a must-stop for the city's top politicians. ..."
"... Back then, Mr. Obama, a state senator who was contemplating a run for Congress, was so little-known in the community's black neighborhoods that it was hard to find more than a few dozen people to walk with him, recalled Al Kindle, one of his advisers at the time. Mr. Obama was trounced a year later in the Congressional race - branded as an aloof outsider more at home in the halls of Harvard than in the rough wards of Chicago politics. ..."
"... But by 2006, Mr. Obama had remade his political fortunes. He was a freshman United States senator on the cusp of deciding to take on the formidable Hillary Rodham Clinton and embark on a long-shot White House run. When the parade wound its way through the South Side that summer, Mr. Obama was its grand marshal. ..."
"... A tight-knit community that runs through the South Side, Hyde Park is a liberal bastion of integration in what is otherwise one of the nation's most segregated cities. Mayor Washington had called it home, as did whites who marched with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and wealthy black entrepreneurs a generation removed from the civil rights battles of the 1960s. ..."
"... At its heart is the University of Chicago; at its borders are poor, predominately black neighborhoods blighted by rundown buildings and vacant lots. For Mr. Obama, who was born in Hawaii to a white Kansan mother and an African father and who spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, it was a perfect fit. ..."
"... "He felt completely comfortable in Hyde Park," said Martha Minow, his former law professor and a mentor. "It's a place where you don't have to wear a label on your forehead. You can go to a bookstore and there's the homeless person and there's the professor." ..."
Now that 0bama is about to exit as US Pres, perhaps it is time to revisit the Who Is Worse: Bush43
v 0bama question.
Conventional wisdom among "Progressive" pundits, even good ones like SecularTalk, seems to be
"yes, 0bama is better than Bush43, but that is a very low bar, & not a real accomplishment. 0bama
still sucks".
IMHO, 0bama's relentless pursue of 1 Grand "Bargain" Ripoff & 2 TPP, may alone make him Even Worse
than Bush43, as far as to damage inflicted on USians had 0bama been successful in getting these 2
policies. 0bama tried for years getting these 2 policies enacted, whereas Bush43 tried quickly to
privatize SS but then forgot it, & IIRC enacted small trade deals (DR-CAFTA ?). Bush43 focus seemed
to be on neocon regime change & War On Terra TM, & even then IIRC around ~2006 Bush43 rejected some
of Darth Cheney's even more extremish neocon policy preferences, with Bush43 rejecting Cheney's desired
Iran War.
IMHO both policies would've incrementally killed thousands of USians annually, far more than 1S1S
or the Designated Foreign Boogeyman Du Jour TM could ever dream of. Grand Ripoff raising Medicare
eligibility age (IIRC 67 to 69+ ?) would kill many GenX & younger USians in the future. TPP's pharma
patent extensions would kill many USians, especially seniors. These incremental killings might exceed
the incremental life savings from the ACA (mainly ACA Adult Medicaid expansion). Furthemore, 0bama
could've potentially achieved MedicareForAll or Medicare Pt O – Public Option in ~2010 with Sen &
House D majorities, & 0bama deliberately killed these policies, as reported by FDL's Jane Hamsher
& others.
Bush43 indirectly killed USians in multiple ways, including Iraq War, War On Terra, & failing
to regulate fin svcs leading to the 2008 GFC; however it would seem that 0bama's Death Toll would
have been worse.
"What do you think?!" (c) Ed Schultz
How do Bush43 & 0bama compare to recent Presidents including Reagan & Clinton? What do you expect
of Trump? I'd guesstimate that if Trump implements P Ryan-style crapification of Medicare into an
ACA-like voucher system, that alone could render Trump Even Worse than 0bama & the other 1981-now
Reganesque Presidents.
It does seem like each President is getting Even Worse than the prior guy in this 21st Century.
#AmericanExceptionalism (exceptionally Crappy)
You hit the right priority of issues IMO, and would add a few bad things Obamanation did:
1). Bombing more nations than anyone in human history and being at war longer than any US President
ever, having never requested an end but in fact a continuation of a permanent state of war declared
by Congress.
2). The massive destruction of legal and constitutional rights from habeas corpus, illegal and
unconstitutional surveillance of all people, to asserting the right to imprison, torture, and assassinate
anyone anytime even America children just because Obama feels like doing it.
3). Austerity. This tanked any robust recovery from the 2008 recession and millions suffered because
of it, we are living with the affects even now. In fact Obamanation's deep mystical belief in austerity
helped defeat Clinton 2016.
HAMP. And not just ignoring bank mortgage fraud, but essentially enabling it and making it
the norm.
Deporting more people than Presidents before him.
Passing the Korea and Columbia free trade pacts, even lying about what the pact did to get the
Columbian one passed. KORUS alone made our trade deficit with Korea soar and lost an estimated
100,000 jobs in the US (and not those part time ones being created).
Had the chance to pass a real infrastructure repair/stimulus package, didn't.
Had the chance to put the Post Office in the black and even start a Postal Bank, didn't. Didn't
even work to get rid of the Post Office killing requirement to fund its pension 75 years out.
Furthering the erosion of our civil rights by making it legal to assassinate American citizens
without trial.
Instead of kneecapping the move to kill public education by requiring any charter school that
receives federal funding to be non-profit with real limits on allowable administrative costs,
expanded them AND expanded the testing boondoggle with Common Core.
Libya.
Expansion of our droning program.
While I do give him some credit for both the Iran deal and the attempt to rein in the Syria
mistake, I also have to take points away for not firing Carter and demoting or even bringing Votel
before a military court after their insubordination killing the ceasefire.
Should I continue. Bush was evil, Obama the more effective one.
Was that a disastrous choice? Certainly and it is a big one, but it also ignores how much of
the disastrous choices attached to that decision Barack H. Obama has either continued or expanded
upon. It also ignores how that war continues under Obama. Remember when we left Iraq? Oh, wait
we haven't we just aren't there in the previous numbers.
And what about Libya? You remember that little misadventure. Which added to our continued Saudi/Israeli
determined obsession with Syria has led to a massive refugee crisis in Europe. How many were killed
there. How much will that cost us fifteen years on?
I get that the quagmire was there before Obama. I also get that he began to get a clue late
in his administration to stop listening to the usual subjects in order to make it better. But
see that thing above about not firing people who undermined that new direction in Syria, and are
probably now some of the most pressing secret voices behind this disastrous Russia Hacked US bull.
But I think only focusing on the original decision also ignores how effective Obama has been
at normalize crime, corruption, torture and even assassination attached to those original choices
– something that Bush didn't manage (and that doesn't even consider the same decriminalization
and normalization done for and by the financial industry). Bush may have started the wheel down
the bumpy road, but Obama put rubber on the wheel and paved the road so now it is almost impossible
to stop the wheel.
As mentioned, Bush is a very low bar for comparison, and if that's the best presidential comparison
that can be made with Obama, then that says it all.
Mr. O long ago received my coveted Worst_President_Ever Award (and yes the judging included
Millard Fillmore and Andrew Johnson).
Handed the golden platter opportunity to repudiate the myriad policy disasters of Bush (which
as cited above cost trillions of dollars and millions of lives) he chose instead to continue them
absolutely unchanged, usually with the same personnel. Whether it was unprosecuted bank crime
in the tens of billions, foreign policy by drone bomb, health care mega-bezzle, hyper-spy tricks
on everyday Americans, and corporo-fascist globalist "trade" deals, Mr. O never disappointed his
Big Wall St, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, and Big Surveillance-Industrial Complex constituents.
Along the way he reversed the polarity of American politics, paving the way for a true corporo-fascist
to say the slightest thing that might be good for actual workers and get into the White House.
History will remember him as the president who lost Turkey and The Philippines, destroyed any
remaining shreds of credibility with utterly specious hacking claims and war crime accusations
of other nations, and presided over an era of hyper-concentration of billionaire wealth in a nation
where 70% of citizens would need to borrow to fund a $400 emergency. Those failures are now permanently
branded as "Democrat" failures. The jury is unanimous: Obama wins the award.
"HAMP. And not just ignoring bank mortgage fraud, but essentially enabling it and making it
the norm."
Exactly. That is #1 on my list making him worst president ever.
I would question "ever" simply because I know I don't know enough about the history of previous
presidents, and I doubt any of us do; even historians who focus on this kind of thing, supposing
we had any in our midst, might be hard put to it to review all 44 thoroughly.
I vote the mortgage fraud situation (see
Chain of Title by David
Dayen -not really a plug for the book) as the worst aspect of the Obama Administration. What
to say about it? Regular readers of this site are well versed in the details but one aspect of
it needs to be expounded upon; stand on the housetops and shout it kind of exposition: the mortgage
fraud worked on millions (3, 5, 7, maybe 12 million) shows that rule of law is now destroyed in
the land. Dictionary .com says this about the phrase
Rule of Law: the principle that all people and institutions are subject to and accountable
to law that is fairly applied and enforced; the principle of government by law.
* The government and its officials and agents as well as individuals and private entities
are accountable under the law.
* The laws are clear, publicized, stable, and just; are applied evenly; and protect fundamental
rights, including the security of persons and property and certain core human rights.
* The process by which the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced is accessible, fair,
and efficient.
* Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent representatives and neutrals
who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities
they serve.
I would invite the reader to take a moment and apply those principles to what is known about
the situation concerning mortgage fraud worked on millions of homeowners during the past two decades.
The Justice Department's infamous attempts to cover up horribly harmful schemes worked by
the mortgage industry perpetrators involved the cruel irony of aiding and abetting systemic racism.
Not a lot was said in the popular press about the subject of reverse redlining but I'm convinced
by the preponderance of evidence that overly complicated mortgage products were taken into the
neighborhoods of Detroit (90% Black or Latin American, Hispanic) and foisted off on unsuspecting
homeowners. Those homeowners did not take accountants and lawyers with them to the signing but
that's how those schemes should have been approached; then most of those schemes would have hit
the trashcan. Many a charming snake oil salesman deserves innumerable nights of uncomfortable
rest for the work they did to destroy the neighborhoods of Detroit and of course many other neighborhoods
in many other cities. For this discussion I am making this a separate topic but I realize it is
connected to the overall financial skulduggery worked on us all by the FIRE sector.
However, let me return to the last principle promulgated by the World Justice Project pertaining
to Rule Of Law and focus on that: "Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent
representatives and neutrals who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect
the makeup of the communities they serve." Now hear this: "are of sufficient number" for there,
and gentle reader, please take this to bed with you at the end of your day: we fail as a nation.
But look to the 'competent, ethical and independent' clause; we must vow to not sink into despair.
This subject is a constant struggle. Google has my back on this: Obama, during both campaigns
of '08 and '12, took millions from the very financial sector that he planned to not dismay and
then was in turn very busy directing the Attorney General of The United States, the highest law
officer in the country, to not prosecute. These very institutions that were in turn very busy
taking property worth billions. 12 million stolen homes multiplied times the average home value
= Trillions?
Finally, my main point here (I am really busy sharpening this ax, but it's a worthy ax) is
the issue of systemic racism- that the financial institutions in this country work long hours
to shackle members of minority neighborhoods into monetarily oppressive schemes in the form of
mortgages, car loans, credit cards and personal loans (think pay day scammers) and these same
makers of the shackles have the protection of the highest officials in the land. Remember the
pitchforks Obama inveighed? Irony of cruel ironies, two black men, both of whom appear to be of
honorable bearing, (Holder moved his chair right directly into the financiers, rent takers of
Covington & Burling ) work to cement the arrangements of racist, oppressive scammers who of
course also work their playbooks on other folks.
To finalize, the subject of rule of law that I have worked so assiduously to sharpen, applies
to all of the other topics we can consider as failures of the Obama Presidency. So besides racism
and systemic financial fraud we can turn to some top subjects that make '09 to '17 the nadir of
the political culture of the United States of America. Drone wars, unending war in the Middle
East, attempts to place a cloak of secrecy on the workings of the Federal Government, the reader
will have their own axes to sharpen but I maintain if the reader will fervently apply and dig
into the four principles outlined above, she, he, will agree that the principles outlining Rule
of Law have been replaced by Rule of the Person.
Here's one of many scholarly articles that reviews the subject of systemic racism in the finance
and mortgage industries.
Am Sociol Rev. 2010 October 1; 75(5): 629–651. doi:10.1177/0003122410380868
Racial Segregation and the American Foreclosure Crisis
Jacob S. Rugh and Douglas S. Massey
Office of Population Research, Princeton University
Arghhh, the server is apparently napping-more caffeine please for the cables.
Here's one of many scholarly articles that reviews the subject of systemic racism in the finance
and mortgage industries.
Am Sociol Rev. 2010 October 1; 75(5): 629–651. doi:10.1177/0003122410380868
Racial Segregation and the American Foreclosure Crisis
Jacob S. Rugh and Douglas S. Massey
Office of Population Research, Princeton University
I dunno. President Obama is not great but the comments here make me feel like it's time for
me to skedaddle. Thinking he might be worse than Shrub? 6″ tall, smh
Oh I admit it can be a tough choice, but you might really want to add up the good and the bad
for both. Not surprisingly there is little good and a whole lot of long ongoing damage inflicted
by the policies that both either embraced, adapted to or did little or nothing to stop.
Even if the list of bad was equal, I have to give Obama for the edge for two reasons. First
because Bush pretty much told us what he was going to do, Obama campaigned on change and vague
promises, but still change. Instead he normalized atrocities that most of us had been screaming
about in the Bush administration AND he didn't just squander the opportunities he had to change
our course domestically because of the crash and the majorities in Congress, no he couldn't throw
those away fast enough.
Your position is obviously different.
And I don't give a damn what height either of them are, both are small people.
Indeed. Bush was a known quantity. "Compassionate conservatism" was was blatantly hollow
jingoism. My only surprise under W was how virulently evil Cheney was.
The big O, though, was handed the opportunity to change the course of history. He took
power with Wall Street on its knees. The whole world hungered for a change in course. Remember
"never let a crisis go to waste". O turned Hope into blatantly hollow jingoism.
In the end, the black activist constitutional lawyer turned his back on all that he seemed
to be. Feint left, drive right.
With W we got what we expected. With O we got hoodwinked. What a waste.
Look, if you don't like some of the comments you see, say so. We have some thick skinned people
here. A little rancorous debate is fine. If some reasoned argumentation is thrown in, the comments
section is doing it's job. (I know, I know, "agency" issues.)
Obama can be legitimately described as worse than Bush 43 because Obama ran as a "progressive"
and flagrantly broke almost all of his promises and governed like a "Moderate" Republican.
At the least, Bush, Sr. and Jr. ran as right wing politicos. The people basically got what
they voted for with them.
Finally, " it's time for me to skedaddle." WTF? I'm assuming, yes, I do do that, that you are
a responsible and thoughtful person. That needs must include the tolerance of and engagement with
opposing points of view. Where do you want to run to; an "echo chamber" site? You only encourage
conformation bias with that move. The site administrators have occasionally mentioned the dictum;
"Embrace the churn." The site, indeed, almost any site, will live on long after any of we commenters
bite the dust. If, however, one can shift the world view of other readers with good argumentation
and anecdotes, our work will be worthwhile.
So, as I was once admonished by my ex D.I. middle school gym teacher; "Stand up and face it.
You may get beat, but you'll know you did your best. That's a good feeling."
Picking the #1 Worst Prez is a fallacy inherent in our desire to put things on a scale of 1
to 10. It's so we can say, in this case, #1 was the WORST, and then forget about #2 thru #10.
It's like picking the #1 Greatest Rock Guitar Player. There are too many great guitar players
and too many styles. It's just not possible.
Even so, I'd like to see the Russian citizen ranking of Putin vs. Yeltsin. Secret ballot, of
course.
I don't think he's worse than Bush but I agree he was horribly dishonest to run as a progressive.
He's far from progressive.
I think the ACA, deeply flawed as it is, was/is a good thing. It wasn't enough and it was badly
brought out. I hope many thousands don't get tossed off health insurance.
My major criticism of him and most politicians is that he has no center. There is nothing for
which he truly stands and he has a horrible tendency to try to make nice w the republicans. He's
not progressive. Bernie, flawed also stands for something always has, always will.
Obama is highly deceptive, but I think that Bush (43) was worse. I doubt that Obama would have
performed many of his worst deeds if Bush hadn't first paved the way. But we'll never know for
sure, so it's possible to argue on behalf of either side of the dispute.
I have to tell you it is inaccurate in material respects, and many of the people who played
important roles in the fight were written out entirely or marginalized.
GW Bush sort of had two administrations. The first two years and the last two years was sort
of a generic Republican but sane administration, sort of like his father's, and was OK. The crazy
stuff happened in the middle four years, which maybe not coincidentally the Republicans had majorities
in both house of Congress.
Obama signed off on the Big Bailout (as did GW Bush, but my impression is that the worst features
of the Big Bailout were on Obama's watch(), and that defined his administration. Sometimes you
get governments defined by one big thing, and that was it. But I suspect he may have prevented
the neocons from starting World War III, but that is the sort of thing we won't know about until
decades have passed, if we make it that long.
Obama promised hope and change and delivered the exact opposite – despair and decline. Obama
should be remembered as the Great Normalizer. All of the shitty things that were around when he
was inaugurated are now normalized. TINA to the max, in other words.
It should be no shock to anyone that Trump was elected after what Obama did to American politics.
You got it. Obama was hired to employ "The Shock Doctrine" and he did. He was and is "a Chicago
Boy"; the term Naomi Klein used for the neoliberals who slithered out of the basements of U of
Chicago to visit austerity on the masses for the enhancement of the feudal lords. It is laughable
that he said last week that he could have beaten Trump. As always, He implied that it was the
"message" not the policy. And that he could "sell" that message better than Hilary. For him it
was always about pitching that Hopey Changey "One America" spleel that suckered so many. The Archdruid
calls this "the warm fuzzies". But the Donald went right into the John Edwards land of "The Two
Americas". He said he came from the 1%; but was here to work for the 99% who had been screwed
over by bad deals. We will see if the Barons will stand in his way or figure out that it might
be time to avoid those pitchforks by giving a little to small businesses and workers in general.
Like FDR, will they try to save capitalism?
The Donald has the bad trade deals right, but looks like he doesn't know what havoc Reagan
wreaked on working people's household incomes and pension plans by breaking any power unions had
and by coming up with the 401K scam; plus the Reagan interest rates that devastated farmers and
ranchers and the idea of rewarding a CEO who put stock price above research and development and
workers' salaries. But again, I believe it was a Democratic congress and a Democratic president
Carter who eliminated the Usury law in 1979. From then on with stagnating wages, people began
the descent into debt slavery. And Jimmy started the Shock Doctrine by deregulating the airlines
and trucking. But he did penance. Can't see Obama doing that.
And once usary laws went away, credit cards were handed out to college students, with no co-sign,
even if students had no work or credit history and were unemployed.
It took until just a few years ago before they revisted that credit card policy to students.
dont want to burst your bubble(or anyone elses) but obama is not and was not the power to the
throne it was michelle and val jar (aka beria) it was a long series of luck that got that krewe
anywhere near any real power mostly, it comes from the Univ of Chicago hopey changee thingee was
a nice piece of marketing by david axelrod..
the grey lady
5-11-2008
In August 1999, Barack Obama strolled amid the floats and bands making their way down Martin
Luther King Drive on Chicago's South Side. Billed as the largest African-American parade in the
country, the summer rite was a draw over the years to boxing heroes like Muhammad Ali and jazz
greats like Duke Ellington. It was also a must-stop for the city's top politicians.
Back then, Mr. Obama, a state senator who was contemplating a run for Congress, was so little-known
in the community's black neighborhoods that it was hard to find more than a few dozen people to
walk with him, recalled Al Kindle, one of his advisers at the time. Mr. Obama was trounced a year
later in the Congressional race - branded as an aloof outsider more at home in the halls of Harvard
than in the rough wards of Chicago politics.
But by 2006, Mr. Obama had remade his political fortunes. He was a freshman United States
senator on the cusp of deciding to take on the formidable Hillary Rodham Clinton and embark on
a long-shot White House run. When the parade wound its way through the South Side that summer,
Mr. Obama was its grand marshal.
but to capture the arrogance of hyde park (read the last line)
A tight-knit community that runs through the South Side, Hyde Park is a liberal bastion
of integration in what is otherwise one of the nation's most segregated cities. Mayor Washington
had called it home, as did whites who marched with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and wealthy
black entrepreneurs a generation removed from the civil rights battles of the 1960s.
At its heart is the University of Chicago; at its borders are poor, predominately black neighborhoods
blighted by rundown buildings and vacant lots. For Mr. Obama, who was born in Hawaii to a white
Kansan mother and an African father and who spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, it was a
perfect fit.
"He felt completely comfortable in Hyde Park," said Martha Minow, his former law professor
and a mentor. "It's a place where you don't have to wear a label on your forehead. You can go
to a bookstore and there's the homeless person and there's the professor."
also note how the lib racist grey lady can not bring themselves to name the parade it is the
bud billiken parade
peaceful, fun, successful
heaven forbid the world should see a giant event run by black folk that does not end in violence
might confuse the closet racists
There are enough examples of such things for it to be a reasonable expectation.
The parade also hasn't always gone without a hitch:
The 2003 parade featured B2K.[9] The concert was free with virtually unlimited space in
the park for viewing. However, the crowd became unruly causing the concert to be curtailed.
Over 40 attendees were taken to hospitals as a result of injuries in the violence, including
two teenagers who were shot.[38] At the 2014 parade, Two teenagers were shot after an altercation
involving a group of youths along the parade route near the 4200 block of King Drive around
12:30 pm.[39][40]
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.