Nancy

Documentation. Witnesses. Facts. Truth. That's what they're afraid of.
Showing posts with label #LockThemUpandRunItBack. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #LockThemUpandRunItBack. Show all posts

Thursday, December 29, 2016

A Small Price

A little more from Lindsey Graham and John McCain on the Russian hacks:

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) released a joint statement Thursday calling President Barack Obama's new sanctions against Russia a "small price" for the country to pay.
“The retaliatory measures announced by the Obama Administration today are long overdue," Graham and McCain said in the statement. "But ultimately, they are a small price for Russia to pay for its brazen attack on American democracy. We intend to lead the effort in the new Congress to impose stronger sanctions on Russia.”
Graham and McCain are among the most vocal Republican lawmakers calling for action against Russia.
Putting it in their language, what price will Trump pay? I'm getting increasingly sure it's nothing.

Tuesday, December 27, 2016

Not Nearly Enough

They all know:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) says President-elect Donald Trump is at odds with nearly the entire Senate over whether Russia interfered in the election.
“There are 100 United States senators. ... I would say that 99 percent of us believe that the Russians did this, and we’re going to do something about it,” Graham told CNN’s Jim Sciutto on “The Situation Room” on Tuesday.
Graham appeared alongside Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) from Estonia, a Baltic nation he said knows firsthand the danger Russia represents.
“It’s just not in our backyard. [Russia’s] doing it all over the world, not just the United States. They’re interfering in elections in democratic countries’ efforts to self-determination all over the world," Graham said.

Trump is not "at odds" with nearly the entire Senate. He's lying. He knew, and he (or at least his underlings) was complicit.

Evan McMullin is right:



That would imply to me that Trump should be sanctioned. But it seems that only Russia will be.

The Obama administration is close to announcing a series of measures to punish Russia for its interference in the 2016 presidential election, including economic sanctions and diplomatic censure, according to U.S. officials.
The administration is still finalizing the details, which are also expected to include covert action that likely will involve cyber operations, the officials said. An announcement on the public elements of the response could come as early as this week.
The sanctions part of the package culminates weeks of debate in the White House about how to revise an executive order from last year meant to give the president authority to respond to cyberattacks from overseas, but which did not originally cover efforts to influence the electoral system.

At least we can spend the next four years holding onto Obama's confidence in counterfactuals.

Or we can just puke for four years:


They're just gonna let this happen....

Monday, December 19, 2016

Our Long National Nightmare Is... Beginning (But Why?)

I just got back from an event held by one of our local city councilmen featuring a number of activists from local not-for-profit organizations talking about what they're doing in gearing up for the changing of the guard in Washington. It was great to hear about their work, but between the fact that it feels like draining the ocean (swamp?) with a teaspoon and the fact that it's incredible that we have to even be having these conversations (bystander training for hate crimes and ICE raids?) is a bit deflating. Yet we have to keep getting ourselves off the mat and fighting:




Keith Olbermann makes his suggestions for how to resist the coming Trump regime, now that it's been codified by the Electoral College.

One of his ideas is to never refer to Trump by his title. Just "Trump." I think I'll go with it.

He also talks about continuing to remind others every day of the Trump camp's, at best, treasonous-adjacent behavior.

I still remain puzzled by the Democratic leadership's complete reluctance to face this issue head-on, before we swear this walking horror show into office. I don't think I'm saying anything here that I haven't said before, but if would seem to me that inviting a hostile foreign country to interfere in an election would invite more than an investigation, which, if concluded anytime after January 19th and without Trump and his cronies behind bars, will accomplish nothing. These are people that do not care about the law, at all:

Newt Gingrich said Monday that President-elect Donald Trump could simply pardon members of his administration who may break anti-nepotism laws, adding that Trump's business ties require "a whole new approach" to addressing potential conflicts of interest in the presidency.
“In the case of the president, he has a broad ability to organize the White House the way he wants to. He also has, frankly, the power of the pardon,” Gingrich told WAMU’s Diane Rehm on Monday morning. “It is a totally open power, and he could simply say, ‘Look, I want them to be my advisers. I pardon them if anyone finds them to have behaved against the rules. Period.' Technically, under the Constitution, he has that level of authority.”
He really said that. Really. More from the same story:

After returning from a commercial break, Rehm asked Richard Painter, President George W. Bush’s chief ethics lawyer from 2005 to 2007, for his reaction to Gingrich's comments.
“There is no billionaire exception in the Constitution of the United States,” Painter said, adding later: “The pardon power can not be used by the president to pardon himself, or to cause other members of his administration to engage in illegal conduct or unconstitutional conduct and then simply use the pardon power in that way. If the pardon power allows that, the pardon power allows the president to become a dictator."

This is real. These are people who are happy to have a dictator with a leader who is happy to be one. We always tut-tut the Germans of the 1920s-40s for having done nothing to stop the rise of Hitler. But what I've come to wonder is how they'd actually do that and at what point they'd decide to. Because right now *feels* like the closest we've gotten to that, and it seems like we're just going to let it happen. I keep vacillating on whether we're going to see any action from our leaders, and right now I'm tipped toward "No." So how are we better than the Germans who didn't stop Hitler? By the time they knew he was really "Hitler," he had control of the military. Well, we're  a month away from an aspiring dictator gaining control of the military. I don't think I'm being alarmist when I say that if we do nothing now, that's it.

Not my best post, but it's where my head is at the moment. If you want better from me, revisit this post.


Thursday, December 15, 2016

Nancy Smash! (But Not Too Hard)

Nancy Pelosi issued a statement calling for an investigation into Russia's interference in the election:

“Republicans should work with House Democrats to pass the Protecting Our Democracy Act, H.R. 6447, introduced by House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Ranking Member Elijah Cummings and Intelligence Committee Member Eric Swalwell.  This critical legislation would establish a truly bipartisan, independent commission to investigate Russia’s efforts to undermine our elections and democratic institutions.
“The American people are gravely concerned about Russia’s involvement in our elections – and this Congress has a Constitutional duty to respond to these concerns with urgency.”
I need to see statements including the words, "recount," "revote," or "injunction."

Anything else just isn't acknowledging the gravity of the situation.

Wednesday, December 14, 2016

I Am JUST Like Donald Trump!

In that because I whine about something, world leaders do it...

Remember that time like three hours ago when I posted threatening to put my favorite Democrats on my shit list if they didn't move on Trump? Well.... check it out (H/T Elliott Lusztig):

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Wednesday that President-elect Donald Trump knew before Election Day that Russia was behind a series of hacks on Democrats during the campaign.
"There’s ample evidence that was known long before the election and in most cases long before October about the Trump campaign and Russia — everything from the Republican nominee himself calling on Russia to hack his opponent," Earnest said. "It might be an indication that he was obviously aware and concluded, based on whatever facts or sources he had available to him, that Russia was involved and their involvement was having a negative impact on his opponent’s campaign."
Earnest added that might have been a reason Trump "was encouraging them to keep doing it," in reference to a speech Trump gave in July in which he asked Russia to reveal to find and publicly disclose emails deleted from Hillary Clinton's private server, a request he later called sarcastic.
You don't make a statement like that and then do nothing about it? Right? Right? Ri(*whimper*)...

Fight, Dammit! (UPDATED)

I'm sitting about two blocks from the White House as I type this...




I only have a minute, but Dahlia Lithwick and David S. Cohen have a piece up at the NYT about the Democrats' possibilities of overturning this election:

There’s no shortage of legal theories that could challenge Mr. Trump’s anointment, but they come from outsiders rather than the Democratic Party. Impassioned citizens have been pleading with electors to vote against Mr. Trump; law professors have argued that winner-take-all laws for electoral votes are unconstitutional; a small group, the Hamilton Electors, is attempting to free electors to vote their consciences; and a new theory has arisen that there is legal precedent for courts to give the election to Mrs. Clinton based on Russian interference. All of these efforts, along with the grass-roots protests, boycotts and petitions, have been happening without the Democratic Party. The most we’ve seen is a response to the C.I.A. revelations, but only with Republicans onboard to give Democrats bipartisan cover.
Take the recount efforts in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. While the Democratic Party relitigates grudges in the press, Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate who received about 64 million fewer votes than Mrs. Clinton, has led the effort. The Democrats have grudgingly participated from the sidelines, but only because public perception forced them to. This effort has proved feeble, with a Pennsylvania judge denying the request because it was “later than last minute.”
Contrast the Democrats’ do-nothingness to what we know the Republicans would have done. If Mr. Trump had lost the Electoral College while winning the popular vote, an army of Republican lawyers would have descended on the courts and local election officials. The best of the Republican establishment would have been filing lawsuits and infusing every public statement with a clear pronouncement that Donald Trump was the real winner. And they would have started on the morning of Nov. 9, using the rhetoric of patriotism and courage.
There are so many conflicting opinions and stories, but what I do know is, when Dahlia Lithwick writes about the law, you listen. Democrats, FIGHT!

UPDATE (12/14/16. 6:41 PM): Rude Pundit has more on exactly why this is so urgent:

After all the lunatic conspiracy theories of this stupid century that's in its hormonal teenage years, the 9/11 insider job, the climate change "hoax," birtherism, and the multiple nefarious crimes of Hillary Clinton and her cronies, we are facing something that is more real than any of it. Right now, there is more evidence than all of those combined times 1000 that Russia, a nation that is antagonistic to the United States, might have, at the very least, taken advantage of a trove of hacked emails to push the needle just enough to get a dangerously inexperienced egomaniac with business ties to Moscow elected president. (This is not to mention the assist from the Republican FBI director.) It's also entirely possible that Russia fucked with the election on multiple fronts, up to and including manipulation of a candidate. And the evidence is not coming from internet savages and talk radio masturbators, but from sources at intelligence agencies and major media outlets. Yeah, the CIA has done a shit-ton of evil in the world. But they sure as hell aren't always wrong.
So all of this is scary, man. Like stomach-dropping scary. One preservation instinct that will kick in really quickly is to try to forget about it, to just let the installation of the Trump presidency happen and go about our business. We all pretended that George W. Bush actually won in 2000 and didn't burn the joint down. Except this time is different. People across the political spectrum understand that Trump is a real and present danger to Americans, whether through eliminating their health insurance or getting us into more idiotic wars. We need to know the extent of Russian interference as quickly as possible. And, if such interference existed, the election itself needs to be challenged on every possible front. Take things to the Supreme Court. If President Obama has evidence that the Trump campaign had any coordination with Russia in regards to the hack, the response needs to be forceful and direct, possibly including arrest of those involved. Either we give a damn about democracy or we don't. At the very least, let us believe that Trump was elected without foreign intervention. Let us just be disappointed with his idiot hordes as he sends us to the reeducation camps.
Not one word in there is hyperbolic.

There is no "proof" of Russian interference (i.e. no smoking gun), but based on the kind of evidence that's come out over the course of months or even years, there is no court in the country, including conservative ones, that would not put a stay on any actions going forward until things are sorted out in any other context.

If Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi do nothing about this, it will change my opinion of  them and their legacy drastically for the worse. I do not want the first set of political heroes I've ever had in my 36 years (man, I've been cynical) to go down as cowards who allowed a hostile foreign government to have caused every goddamn thing that they've accomplished to be flushed down the toilet and then have that toilet stuffed with dirty, fetid baby diapers.

Monday, December 12, 2016

Calling a Treason-Spade a Treason-Spade

Wow, Olbermann was on fire... he's been hot many times before, but this broke the thermometer. Is anyone listening?


The Next Seven Days Are Crucial

On December 19 the Electoral College meets to officially vote for the next President. But as we've seen over the past few weeks, several electors have been having second thoughts.  Furthermore, over the last five days we've seen a few more pieces of evidence emerge showing a coordinated treasonous effort by the Trump Team, Senate Majority Leader McConnell, and FBI Director Comey to work with, or at the very least benefit from, Russian hacking of our election.

The electors aren't blind, and as Politico reports, they want access to the full intelligence briefings which would connect the few remaining dots in what is known about the Russian involvement.

In a letter to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, the electors — nine Democrats and one Republican — argue that they require the information ahead of Dec. 19, when the Electoral College is set to meet and select the next president.
“The Electors require to know from the intelligence community whether there are ongoing investigations into ties between Donald Trump, his campaign or associates, and Russian government interference in the election, the scope of those investigations, how far those investigations may have reached, and who was involved in those investigations,” they wrote. “We further require a briefing on all investigative findings, as these matters directly impact the core factors in our deliberations of whether Mr. Trump is fit to serve as President of the United States.”
The letter is signed by electors from five states and the District of Columbia. In addition to Christine Pelosi — a California elector — it includes a signature from one former members of Congress: New Hampshire’s Carol Shea-Porter.
Shea-Porter’s three other New Hampshire colleagues — Terie Norelli, Bev Hollingsworth and Dudley Dudley — also signed the letter. D.C. Councilwoman Anita Bonds, former Rhode Island gubernatorial candidate Clay Pell and Maryland activist Courtney Watson round out the nine Democratic signatories. Colorado Democratic elector Micheal Baca, leader of an effort to turn the Electoral College against Trump, is also on the list. Texas' Chris Suprun, an emergency responder who has been a vocal critic of Trump, is the only Republican elector to sign on.
“Yes, we the Electors should have temporary security clearance to perform our constitutional duty in reviewing the facts regarding outside interference in the US election and the intelligence agencies should declassify as much data as possible while protecting sources and methods so that the American people can learn the truth about our election,” said Pelosi.
Following this statement, the Hillary Clinton campaign also submitted a statement of support:

In its first show of public support for efforts questioning the legitimacy of Donald Trump's victory, Hillary Clinton’s campaign said it is supporting a request by members of the Electoral College for an intelligence briefing on foreign intervention in the presidential election.
“The bipartisan electors' letter raises very grave issues involving our national security,” Podesta said in a statement Monday. “Electors have a solemn responsibility under the Constitution and we support their efforts to have their questions addressed.
“Each day that month, our campaign decried the interference of Russia in our campaign and its evident goal of hurting our campaign to aid Donald Trump,” he said. “Despite our protestations, this matter did not receive the attention it deserved by the media in the campaign. We now know that the CIA has determined Russia's interference in our elections was for the purpose of electing Donald Trump. This should distress every American.”
There's only a small likelihood of the request for security clearance being approved for the Electors, but if it is, then this is a game changer.

A Bit More Movement

Good to see the Clinton camp getting on board with having an election BEFORE December 19th. After that, it gets a lot harder.


Also, Scott Dworkin seems to have something important to announce soon, Follow him here.

The Balls Continue to Swell

First they blame it on the CIA, then Obama, now China?
Once again, the more they deflect, the more it's clear they're lying. 0 for 3, kids.

GUILTY. #LockThemUpandRunItBack

Sunday, December 11, 2016

The Balls on These People

John Bolton really just insinuated that the whole Russia "thing" is a false flag operation. Really, he did.

BOLTON: One thing that makes me very nervous is Barack Obama saying let's have this report before the 20th of January so I can wrap it up. I think the burden for well or ill is going to fall on Mike Pompeo who has been named as president-elect trump's cia director. I think he's trusted by republicans and democrats. He doesn't bring any baggage. He's a new official at the CIA. I'd look to him to head up an investigation across the entire intelligence committee. I just think these are such serious charges, again, if the Russians or any other foreign government think that they can undermine the integrity of our elections or defeat our constitutional process, this is just as serious an attack as a military attack.
SHAWN: For those who are bothered by your claim of a potential false flag, that's very disturbing as an American.
BOLTON: We would want to know who else might want to influence the election and why they would leave fingerprints that point to the Russians. That's why I say until we know more about how the insurance -- intelligence community came to this conclusion...
Every single bit of deflection makes me more and more sure that these guys were complicit. And these deflections are all over the place! Trump's transition team yesterday: "“These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction,” said a statement from his transition team."

...and then the next guy he sends out to spin it is John Effing Bolton.

I believe that's irony coming out of my ears, my eyes, my wherever...

#LockThemUpandRunItBack

Good News, Bad News

Aw, who am I kidding? It's all pretty terrible.

If there's been any (nanoparticle thin) silver lining in the loss of the Democratic Senate majority since 2010, it's been that the Democratic caucus has purged nearly all of its conservative members.

In light of John Kennedy's win in Louisiana last  night, which left the Rep/Dem balance at 52-48, the Wall Street Journal highlighted something I somehow missed:

Meanwhile, two vulnerable Democratic members, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, are being considered positions in the Trump administration. Their move to a Trump administration post could give Republicans additional seats given the competitive politics in both states.
Those are the last two Democrats in the Senate that I basically consider to be mostly playing for the other team. So, at least we'll all be on the same side.

But if the filibuster is totally removed (which I think it will be), in order not to lose pretty much everything that provides the average American with anything resembling security over the next four years, we need to rely on roughly ten percent of Senate Republicans to have a shred of a conscience. Boy, do those seem like long odds.

So, going forward, assuming the Republicans don't continue to continue to strengthen their electoral dominance through what in any real democracy should be considered cheating, do we have to start to bend ideologically again? We shouldn't HAVE to. Even with a fully progressive-leaning slate, we are more popular than the almost totally batshit Republicans.

We have to stop Trump before he takes the oath. There is no choice. Even if we do, we're still decades away from ever having a truly fair democracy. But we need to keep that door open.

The Evidence, Presented

Two really comprehensive posts to share on Russia's interference with this election...

Marcy Wheeler provides a very detailed, somewhat technical roundup of the evidence:

At a minimum, to blame Russia for tampering with the election, you need high degree of confidence that GRU hacked the DNC (item 2), and shared those documents via some means with Wikileaks (item 8). What is new about Friday’s story is that, after months of not knowing how the hacked documents got from Russian hackers to Wikileaks, CIA now appears to know that people close to the Russian government transferred the documents (item 8). In addition, CIA now appears confident that all this happened to help Trump win the presidency (item 13).
On Twitter (I've become a Twitter junkie for the first time ever), Grudge (@grudging1) lists everything that he/she can think of that ties Trump to the Russians, beginning here:

I'm not going to editorialize much here; it's safe to say that I was in the Obama camp of being pretty sure (in his case, it seems he outright knew) that Russia was trying to manipulate the election in Trump's favor but that I didn't think it would be worth bringing up more than Clinton and her people did because I didn't think he had a chance of winning (and if I'm kicking myself now, I can't imagine how Obama will ever forgive himself).

Ultimately it is the President, invested with the powers as Commander-in-Chief, who could have chosen to act aggressively against Moscow. But he wanted to present a unified front across the American political spectrum. He wanted bipartisan support—and when McConnell rebuffed this effort (more on that in a bit), the White House decided to take the cautious route to “name and shame” the Russians.
This was, to put it mildly, an ineffective strategy.
The White House should have pulled out all the stops to halt this obvious threat to the electoral process, and let the political chips fall where they may. Obama is well aware of the GOP’s massive resistance strategy against his policies—just ask Merrick Garland—but this serious challenge to our civilization should have stiffened this President’s resolve. But it didn’t.
Obama could have retaliated brutally, clandestinely, mercilessly, creatively, painfully, unilaterally—but he didn’t.
Ultimately, a mild reaction was Obama’s decision; a poor decision. But it was his decision.

It all adds up to Trump's illegitimacy, according to Justin Rosario:

The time for debate is over. Donald Trump's "win" is not legitimate by any definition and every position he fills, law he signs or executive order he pens must be considered an illegal power grab by the Republican Party.
.
.
.
Legitimizing the slow moving coup Republicans are on the verge of pulling off means the end of the American Experiment. We allowed our election to be stolen by a foreign power and the greedy Republicans enabled it with no thought to the cost. The Democratic Party is all that stands between the world and a super power now turned rogue nation. If they can't fight back, we're facing a new Dark Ages we may not recover from.

I still see only one solution to pursue. Say it with me: #LockThemUpandRunItBack

Saturday, December 10, 2016

They're Doing Something!

Hearing my pleas, the Dems jump in.

First the incoming Senate Minority Leader:

Incoming Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer is calling for a full, bipartisan congressional investigation into reports of Russian interference in the 2016 election that would likely continue after President Barack Obama leaves office.
Obama on Friday ordered an investigation into Russia's activities, but he leaves office on Jan. 20. Schumer said that Democrats will simultaneously press for an investigation when Congress returns on Jan. 3. Congress adjourned for the year early Saturday after wrapping up its business for 2016.
"Senate Democrats will join with our Republican colleagues next year to demand a congressional investigation and hearings to get to the bottom of this. It’s imperative that our intelligence community turns over any relevant information so that Congress can conduct a full investigation," Schumer said.

Then the outgoing one:

In the wake of a “soul-crushing” report on Russia’s meddling in the presidential election, Sen. Harry Reid has called for FBI Director James Comey to resign for allegedly withholding information on President-elect Donald Trump’s ties to Russia. Reid, who was a fierce opponent of Comey’s handling of Hillary Clinton’s email scandal, which many believe cost her the election, told MSNBC on Saturday that he believes the FBI knew all along that Russia was helping Trump and deliberately did nothing about it. “This is not fake news. Intelligence officials are hiding connections to the Russian government. There is no question,” Reid said. “Comey knew and deliberately kept this info a secret,” he said. Asked whether he believes Comey should step down over the matter, Reid replied, “Of course, yes.” 

Could they possibly be getting it?

And all it took was a bit of "light treason" to make it happen.

 
UPDATE (12/10/16, 1:25 PM): Another right hook from Harry Reid:

Should We Be Surprised That the New York Times Protected a Republican Before an Election?

If you're over 30, no.

Exactly a week before Election Day, The New York Times published a story entitled, "Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. sees no clear ties to Russia." (I'm not even going to link directly to it because we now know, and even knew then, it to be most certainly untrue.

If we knew that, the Times must have too. But they cherrypicked facts and asserted, based on the FBI, who was complicit in its own way in attacking Hillary Clinton inappropriately to affect the election, The FBI had no qualms about publishing a letter accusing but not accusing Hillary Clinton of wrongdoing a week before the election, but even CNBC, which is not the most pro-Clinton news source, could see on the same day that Comey was covering up Russia's involvement in our election.

Well, not we have evidence that the Times purposely covered up information that contradicted what Comey was telling them. From the Hiil:

A spokesman for Rep. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Saturday blasted the New York Times for publishing a story before the election downplaying Donald Trump's links to Russia without using quotes from Reid that challenged the story.
Adam Jentleson tweeted a link to an Oct. 31 Times article headlined "Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia."
"I'll say it: NYT interviewed Reid for this story. He said things contrary to the story. NYT discarded the interview," he added.
"Maybe some want to know why the NYT seemed to cover for Comey's FBI? Maybe even some at the NYT? Maybe not? I'm just asking questions," Jentleson added later.

So, according to Harry Reid's spokesman, the Senate Majority (EDIT: Minority) Leader of the United States made a statement to the Times that contradicted the FBI director, but left that out, thus changing the whole meaning of the story. That should be a shocker, right?

Well, not really, to me. I don't think that six weeks ago is long enough for us to forget how the Times shamelessly perseverated on Hillary Clinton's e-mails... On a Google search of "New York Times Hillary Clinton E-mails" I received about 22,800,000 results, including "Why Clinton's Emails Matter, 10 Questions (and Answers) About New Email Trove, "Emails in Anthony Weiner Inquiry Jolt Hillary Clinton's Campaign," "Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton, and a Test of Loyalty" (don't even get me started on how awful the press was to Huma, who is an incredible person that didn't deserve anything she got), "Hillary Clinton Assails James Comey, Calling Email Decision 'Deeply Troubling," "Justice Department Obtains Warrant to Review Clinton Aide's Emails," "FBI Begins Review of Clinton Aide's Emails, "Donations to Foundation Vexed Hillary Clinton's Aides, Emails Show," and "Chappatte on Hillary Clinton's Emails." Those were all just on the first page of Google, and all were published within ten days before Election Day. And this was, as Matthew Yglesias put it, "The Real Clinton Email Scandal Is That a Bullshit Story Has Dominated the Campaign," which I had put an entire Saturday into documenting waaaaay back on September 3rd.

But feeling free to make editorial decisions that deliberately damage the Democrat in a Presidential election is one thing; hiding important information to keep the Republican safe is another. And this is not the first time they've done it. They did this in the 2004 election as well, protecting George W. Bush:
The New York Times' revelation yesterday that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to conduct domestic eavesdropping raised eyebrows in political and media circles, for both its stunning disclosures and the circumstances of its publication.
In an unusual note, the Times said in its story that it held off publishing the 3,600-word article for a year after the newspaper's representatives met with White House officials. It said the White House had asked the paper not to publish the story at all, "arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny."
The Times said it agreed to remove information that administration officials said could be "useful" to terrorists and delayed publication for a year "to conduct additional reporting."
The paper offered no explanation to its readers about what had changed in the past year to warrant publication. It also did not disclose that the information is included in a forthcoming book, "State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration," written by James Risen, the lead reporter on yesterday's story. The book will be published in mid-January, according to its publisher, Simon & Schuster.
The decision to withhold the article caused some friction within the Times' Washington bureau, according to people close to the paper. Some reporters and editors in New York and in the bureau, including Risen and co-writer Eric Lichtblau, had pushed for earlier publication, according to these people. One described the story's path to publication as difficult, with much discussion about whether it could have been published earlier.

Those who forget history and all that...

Whew...

Calling it a night, but I feel like the game has been changed. We'll see in the morning!

#LockThemUpandRunItBack

Quick Thought: Did Putin expect retaliation?

I'll ask it again, did Putin expect retaliation?

Two months ago in little covered news, we learned:

Russia is ordering all of its officials to fly home any relatives living abroad amid heightened tensions over the prospect of global war, it has been claimed. 
Politicians and high-ranking figures are said to have received a warning from president Vladimir Putin to bring their loved-ones home to the 'Motherland', according to local media.
As we know, we did nothing to retaliate against the email hacks. It's possible that emboldened Putin to follow up with hacks on Germany as well.

In any case, it's time for President Obama to act.

#LockThemUpandRunItBack

Someone was talking about the Republicans as traitors a few hours ago...

Been waiting for something good to be written about tonight's big news, and Karoli at Crooks and Liars did that.

Shall we take a moment to allow that to sink in? Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Leader, sworn to uphold and defend the United States Constitution, chose to threaten the White House with a smear if they disclosed this information to the American people.
What happened to defending against enemies, domestic and foreign, Senator McConnell? Is this treason?
What makes this really interesting is what we can see in the rear view mirror. The Trump campaign fought tooth and nail to end the Michigan recount, in a state where there is some evidence seals were broken on voting machines there.
We don't know if malware was installed on those machines. We do know many machines in Detroit malfunctioned on Election Day, however. But what we don't know is how that impacted the final counts in Michigan, mostly because they ended the recount.
Yes, we had reports of Russian hacks. We had daily dribbles from Wikileaks, clearly intended to drive a wedge between Bernie and Hillary supporters while painting Hillary Clinton as Satan in a pantsuit.
But there's more. There's always more. You may recall the day that Rep. Michael McCaul inadvertently slipped during an appearance CNN and said the RNC was hacked by the Russians, too.

We must be getting closer to the Democrats really doing something. From what I've read so far tonight, Trump (and by extension, probably Pence), McConnell, Ryan, Comey, and others could be implicated. Can Obama cut a deal to kill the investigation in exchange for a Clinton Presidency? Probably not, so we really need a new election.

It's gonna be an interesting next few days... I don't think this story is going anywhere.

Friday, December 9, 2016

How Far are the Russian Hackers Willing to go?

Back in November, a few days before the US election, German Chancellor Merkel publicly stated her worry that Russian hackers could influence the elections in her country's and other Western countries' elections.

In the face of the never ending tennis ball machine (h/t Bob Cesca) of awfulness that was the Trump campaign, this was largely overlooked at the time. But as the New York Times reports:
After hackers infiltrated the German Parliament’s computer network in May 2015, it took nearly a year before the country’s intelligence agency concluded that the attack was most likely the work of their Russian counterparts.
Last week, when 900,000 Germans lost access to internet and telephone services, it took a matter of hours before politicians began pointing fingers at Moscow.
Berlin is now concerned that Germany will become the next focus of Moscow’s campaign to destabilize Western democracies as national elections approach next year.
Those fears intensified after the Obama administration accused the Russian government of attacking Democratic Party emails during the American presidential campaign.
The increasing dissemination of false news, disinformation and propaganda during the American campaign and before Italy’s referendum last weekend has added a related layer of worry about the potential to corrupt public debate and democratic processes.
Continue ading the main story
Putin isn't stopping with Trump. He's making sure he has allies in all of the large global economies.

Whatever comes of this will not be good.

Normal

Hot off the presses from TPM...

Republicans apparently aren't going to be satisfied with phasing out Medicare. They're going to try to pass huge cuts to Social Security this year too. Not Bush-style partial phaseout but just big, big cuts. And you're out of luck even if you're a current beneficiary.
More shortly. (JASON'S UPDATE, 12/9/16, 5:02 PM: Here's the more)
I'm about to lose my lunch. They need to be stopped cold.

And here's a reason to do it.

President Barack Obama has directed U.S. intelligence agencies to conduct an investigation into hacking attacks related to the U.S. election and issue a report before he leaves office next month, White House counterterrorism adviser Lisa Monaco said.
The report, which will be provided to Congress but not necessarily made public, will examine what impact hacking by Russia may have had on the election last month, Monaco said Friday at a breakfast in Washington hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.
Reiterating what I said yesterday, only now 100X so:

This cannot be about "grace," or "hashtags," or "the burden of being the President of the United States." Donald Trump doesn't give a shit molecule about your "concerns" or "fears." It can't be about a "Sincere and Inspiring" farewell speech. It can't be about crossing our fingers and hoping Mitch McConnell doesn't end the filibuster or begging three Republicans to stand on the side of good on some issues when there is not a single issue or nominee on which the other side is pushing abject evil.
We need to hear more from how the top of our party plans to handle this and what we should be doing, because we're fighting the top of theirs. This is a state of emergency. No more words. Plans. Actions. Barack, Hillary, Joe, Tim, Nancy, Chuck... do something. 
Back to the Bloomberg story:

"We may be crossing into a new threshold and it’s incumbent upon us to take stock of that," Monaco said. The report will “impart lessons learned,” she said.

This also cannot be about "imparting lessons learned." This has to be about stopping history from repeating itself. All of the times the Republicans have gotten away with treason. Treason. No exaggeration.

Nixon and Vietnam:

President Johnson had at the time a habit of recording all of his phone conversations, and newly released tapes from 1968 detailed that the FBI had “bugged” the telephones of the South Vietnamese ambassador and of Anna Chennault, one of Nixon’s aides. Based on the tapes, says Taylor for the BBC, we learn that in the time leading up to the Paris Peace talks, “Chennault was despatched to the South Vietnamese embassy with a clear message: the South Vietnamese government should withdraw from the talks, refuse to deal with Johnson, and if Nixon was elected, they would get a much better deal.”

And Johnson let him off because:

Though the basic story of Nixon’s involvement in stalling the Vietnam peace talks has been around before, the new tapes, says the Atlantic Wire, describe how President Johnson knew all about the on-goings but chose not to bring them to the public’s attention: he thought that his intended successor, Hubert Humphrey, was going to beat Nixon in the upcoming election anyway. And, by revealing that he knew about Nixon’s dealings, he’d also have to admit to having spied on the South Vietnamese ambassador.
And Nixon became President for the next two terms.

Reagan's "October Surprise":

In January 1992 I published my first journalistic article ever. Published in Puerto Rico’s Claridad weekly newspaper, it was titled “The October Surprise”. In it I affirmed that the 1980 Reagan-Bush campaign bargained secretly with Iranian radicals for the postponement of the liberation of 52 Americans that they were holding hostage. These hostages were employees of the US embassy in Iran’s capital city of Teheran, which had been stormed by militants loyal to the Ayatollah Khomeini in November 1979. This secret deal, known as the October Surprise, frustrated the attempts of US president Jimmy Carter to obtain the hostages’ release in time for the elections in November. This failure cost Carter his reelection, and swept Republican candidate Ronald Reagan into the presidency. Polls carried out before the election showed that the hostage issue was of top importance in the minds of the American electorate.
The Republican campaign’s main negotiators in this deal were George H. W. Bush, vice presidential candidate and former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director, and William Casey, the campaign’s director and veteran spook who spied for the Office of Strategic Services during World War Two. Once elected, president Reagan appointed Casey to direct the CIA.
The hostages were freed the same day Reagan was sworn in as his nation’s fortieth president on January 1981. What was in it for the Iranians? Weapons, tons of them. Iran needed them badly in order to repel an invasion by Iraq.

This one's not confirmed like the others, but given the context of the others, particularly the next one, is pretty damned likely. And Reagan ended up President for two terms.

Iran-Contra:

The Iran–Contra affair (Persian: ماجراي ایران-کنترا‎‎, Spanish: caso Irán-Contra), also referred to as Irangate,[1] Contragate[2] or the Iran–Contra scandal, was a political scandal in the United States that occurred during the second term of the Reagan Administration. Senior administration officials secretly facilitated the sale of arms to Iran, which was the subject of an arms embargo.[3] They hoped thereby to secure the release of several U.S. hostages and to fund the Contras in Nicaragua. Under the Boland Amendment, further funding of the Contras by the government had been prohibited by Congress.
The scandal began as an operation to free the seven American hostages being held in Lebanon by Hezbollah, a paramilitary group with Iranian ties connected to the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution. It was planned that Israel would ship weapons to Iran, and then the United States would resupply Israel and receive the Israeli payment. The Iranian recipients promised to do everything in their power to achieve the release of the U.S. hostages.[4][5] Large modifications to the plan were devised by Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North of the National Security Council in late 1985, in which a portion of the proceeds from the weapon sales was diverted to fund anti-Sandinista and anti-communist rebels, or Contras, in Nicaragua.[4]
While President Ronald Reagan was a supporter of the Contra cause,[6] the evidence is disputed as to whether he authorized the diversion of the money raised by the Iranian arms sales to the Contras.[4][5][7] Handwritten notes taken by Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger on December 7, 1985, indicate that Reagan was aware of potential hostage transfers with Iran, as well as the sale of Hawk and TOW missiles to "moderate elements" within that country.[8] Weinberger wrote that Reagan said "he could answer to charges of illegality but couldn't answer to the charge that 'big strong President Reagan passed up a chance to free the hostages'".[8] After the weapon sales were revealed in November 1986, Reagan appeared on national television and stated that the weapons transfers had indeed occurred, but that the United States did not trade arms for hostages.[9] The investigation was impeded when large volumes of documents relating to the scandal were destroyed or withheld from investigators by Reagan administration officials.[10] On March 4, 1987, Reagan returned to the airwaves in a nationally televised address, taking full responsibility for any actions that he was unaware of, and admitting that "what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages".[11]
Several investigations ensued, including those by the U.S. Congress and the three-person, Reagan-appointed Tower Commission. Neither found any evidence that President Reagan himself knew of the extent of the multiple programs.[4][5][7] Ultimately the sale of weapons to Iran was not deemed a criminal offense but charges were brought against five individuals for their support of the Contras. Those charges, however, were later dropped because the administration refused to declassify certain documents. The indicted conspirators faced various lesser charges instead. In the end, fourteen administration officials were indicted, including then-Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. Eleven convictions resulted, some of which were vacated on appeal.[12] The rest of those indicted or convicted were all pardoned in the final days of the presidency of George H. W. Bush, who had been vice-president at the time of the affair.[13] The Iran-Contra Affair and the ensuing deception to protect senior administration officials including President Reagan has been cast as an example of post-truth politics.

And we ended up with three terms of Bush presidencies.

There are others that are less talked-about, like Dana Rohrabacher's adventures in Afghanistan and his support of Russia in Crimea. And he's rumored to be up for Secretary of State.

So checking back in with "Cheeto Benito" (TM Rick Wilson),

“Why not get along with Russia?” Trump said, adding the Russians can help defeat Islamic State. On the perpetrator of the cyber attacks, he said, “it could be Russia, and it could be China, and it could be some guy in his home in New Jersey.”

This is what Trump sounds like when he's doing what Chez Pazienza calls acting like "the kid in their class who never studies and forgets to do his homework and so basically just wings it." We know very well by now that if he's doing it in reference to something where the truth has been totally established, he's lying. Just like Rudy Giuliani lied about his contacts with the FBI, which fit in perfectly with all of the above, and meanwhile using the following projection over and over about Clinton:

Giuliani, who said that he prosecuted and jailed thousands of people for doing a fraction of what Hillary Clinton did, said the Wikileaks emails prove the Clinton camp intended to break the law.

Which Trump also did regarding Donna Brazile (and about Hillary other times on the stump):

“She should be fired from the DNC. By the way, could you imagine if I did that? Bobby what would happen to me if I did that?” Trump said, turning to Knight, who was off to the side. “Electric chair, I think. The electric chair. If I did that, can you imagine?”
And Qusay Trump took to the absolute lowest level with this:

"The media has been her number one surrogate in this. Without the media, this wouldn't even be a contest. But the media has built her up. They've let her slide on every indiscrepancy, on every lie, on every DNC game trying to get Bernie Sanders out of the thing," Trump Jr. told Philadelphia-based conservative talk radio host Chris Stigall on Wednesday.
"I mean, if Republicans were doing that, they'd be warming up the gas chamber right now. It's a very different system -- there's nothing fair about it," Trump Jr. added.

Let's call them on it. Hillary did nothing wrong with her e-mails and they made references to gas chambers and execution. They are traitors and all of them should at least be in jail. LOCK THEM UP!

So, you know what? I'm not going to say this isn't normal, and I'm not going to say it's the new normal. It's been normal for 50 years, and we have to end it. Now. Democrats, are you listening? For all of our sakes, I really, really hope so. President Obama, call a State of Emergency, and sort this out. It may seem dictatorial, but we've got precedent.