This past July, when we first discussed the possibility that Vladimir Putin might be using Russia’s vast security apparatus to get Trump elected, I think it’s safe to say that a good number of you saw it as yet another baseless conspiracy theory. And, in October, when Senator Harry Reid announced that U.S. security agencies had “explosive information” about the role of Russia in the Trump campaign, I think a great many saw it as nothing more than pre-election posturing – an attempt to shift focus away from the fact that F.B.I. Director Comey had announced the day before that he’d be reopening the investigation into Secretary Clinton’s private email server. But, the story didn’t just go away after the election. At the end of November, seven Democrats serving on the Senate Intelligence Committee formally requested that President Obama declassify all of materials related to Russia’s interference in the U.S. presidential election. And, two days ago, the White House announced that President Obama had ordered a “full review” of the matter, to be concluded before the end of his term in office. Then, later that same evening, we got the payoff some of us had been expecting all this time. News broke that the CIA had concluded some time ago that Putin’s government had “intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency.”
And, today, U.S. Senators John McCain, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, Lindsey Graham, Member of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, Chuck Schumer, Senate Democratic Leader-elect, and Jack Reed, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, released a joint statement saying that these “recent reports of Russian interference in our election should alarm every American,” and promising a bipartisan response. While I’m not a fan of either Graham or McCain, I very much appreciate the fact that they came out today promising a bipartisan investigation, knowing that, by doing so, they would, in the words of the Washington Post, “risk antagonizing the president-elect, who has said flatly that he doesn’t believe Russia interfered with the election.” That move on the part of Graham and McCain took courage, and one hopes that others in their party might follow suit, as this really is more important than which party is in power.
For what it’s worth, not only has our President-elect said that he does not believe that Russia played a role in the election, but he’s also said that his team had absolutely no interaction with the Russians during the campaign. This last claim, however, was refuted shortly after the election by Russia’s own Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, who said in an interview with the state-run Interfax news agency, that “there were contacts” between the Russian government and the Trump team.
In spite of this most recent revelation about the CIA’s belief that Trump benefited from Russian intervention, the reality television celebrity turned President-elect went ahead yesterday and named Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson, a close collaborator with the Russians, to be his Secretary of State… Here, from CNN, is a clip about Tillerson’s deep economic ties to Russia.
…In 2013, Vladimir Putin awarded ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson the Order of Friendship, one of the highest honors Russia gives to foreign citizens…
The 64-year-old Tillerson, a lifetime Exxon employee, came up through the ranks by managing the company’s Russia account…
In fact, his close relationship with Russia is one of the major reasons Tillerson was selected to succeed Lee Raymond as CEO of Exxon (XOM) in 2006, according to Steve Coll’s book “Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power.”
Once he became CEO, Exxon bet billions on Russia’s vast but notoriously-elusive oil resources through a bold partnership with Russian oil giant Rosneft. Putin himself attended the 2011 signing ceremony for the deal with Rosneft, which is majority owned by Moscow.
Russia has already indicated it would welcome Tillerson being named America’s top diplomat.
“Trump continues to amaze,” Alexey Pushkov, the head of the foreign affairs committee in the lower house of Russian parliament, said on Twitter. He said that selecting Tillerson would be a “sensation” and noted he has “a lot of experience working with Russia”…
Here are Tillerson and Putin together, sharing a laugh… no doubt about their plans for the future.
Oh, it’s also worth noting that the CIA, according to a senior U.S. administration official, believes the Russians not only hacked the emails of the the DNC, which they made public through Wikileaks, but also the emails of the RNC. And, according to some in the intelligence community, the Russians could now be using these emails to blackmail the Trump administration… Here, with that in mind, is a quote from today’s Daily Beast: “Former and current U.S. national security officials and experts say that if it is true that the Russian government possesses documents belonging to the Republican National Committee, Donald Trump’s incoming administration may be the most compromised in U.S. history.“
Oh, and here are two more quick, related factoids from today’s news.
So, have you got all that? Trump said that his campaign hadn’t talked with the Russians, who hacked the DNC and spread both real and false news for the purpose of aiding his campaign. The Russian Deputy Foreign Minister said after the election, however, that his government had been in communication with the Trump team. Then, yesterday, the CIA finally came out and said that, yes, overwhelming evidence exists that Russian operatives worked behind the scenes to see Trump elected President. Trump then promptly announced that he would be naming Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson, who Putin awarded the Russian Order of Friendship, to be his Secretary of State. And all of this is happening as Russia is moving missiles into Eastern Europe, and Trump is refusing to take security briefings, saying that he’s getting information from sources other than our national security experts… Is that clear?
What could all of this mean? Well, I’ve just started digging into it, but it looks like Tillerson and the Russians had agreed to what could have been a $500 billion dollar oil exploration venture in the Arctic, which collapsed due to Obama administration sanctions in 2014. So, might it just be possible that we’ve finally got a narrative that makes sense? Could it be that, beneath everything, this is all about stopping the move toward renewable energy and executing the biggest oil deal the world has ever seen? Could it be that’s why Putin wanted Trump in office, and why Trump has been so aggressively hostile to the science of global climate change and the Paris Accord? Is this all about lifting Russian sanctions and setting things up for the biggest cash grab the world has ever seen, even if it means the end of humanity?
Regardless of why the Russians chose to become involved, and helped Trump ascend to power, what are we going to do about it? And, perhaps more importantly, what are our Electors going to do about it come December 19?
202 Comments
Thanks for filling in more of the pieces of this massive and majorly important puzzle. A few days ago the head of MI6 spoke out directly about the concerns of Russia’s cyber actions against the UK: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/08/britain-faces-fundamental-threat-sovereignty-russian-meddling/
Why anyone would believe the (Iraq has weapons of mass destruction) CIA is beyond me. It is obvious that the deep state is highly suspicious of a Trump presidency. CIA has been in the business of false flag operations since it was created. The NSA could tell us exactly what the “signal intel” indicates. As the anonymous CIA sources indicate, they have no evidence of the Russian government directing the hacking. Snowden believes that the NSA would know if they did. Assange says the Russians did not give him the DNC or Podesta documents . Neither Snowden or Assange have any real motivation to lie.
Nothing. We’ve been doing this to countries all over the world for a century. It’s shocking this hasn’t happened sooner.
Also, I feel the impact is exaggerated by hurt liberals looking for someone to blame for their catastrophic failures over time instead of looking in the mirror.
I’d feel fine wagering 98% of those that voted for Trump (or more) felt the same way about “Killary” all the same – with or without the DNC email hacks. Pretty sure those leaks just reinforced their negative views of her and the Democrats, not converting anyone. Maybe it influenced some of the Stein or Bernie or Bust voters, but not those already seeing red.
The electors are going to elect Donald Trump as our president. If anything else were likely to happen, we would know about it. We the people will be outraged, at least half of us, but unless the other half becomes outraged, nothing will happen. I have seen a lot of political controversies bubble up; I have never really understood what makes some of them boil over and others simmer down. It seems that it requires the congress of president and the press to legitimize the issue. An inquiry needs to happen. We should all wait and see what it turns up. It seems that where Russian intrusion in our self-governance is concerned, even many on the right will not stand by for long.
I agree with Jow that they probably didn;t turn the election. They may have helped. Lots of things turned the election. In a close race with inverse results between popular and electoral vote outcomes, you can blame just about anything and be partly right. Everyone wiht a political bone to pick has their own lens on the results. And none of them are showing any signs of letting go. It’s a diversion. And one extremely unlikely to bear fruit.
What concerns me is the apparent ongoing influence of the Kremlin on cabinet selections and policy direction. This could spell disaster. Let’s hope congress takes it seriously.
I agree with Jean and Joe on this one [Joe’s use of “Killary” is unnecessarily combative, but par for the course coming out of an election this frought with emotion]. I differ on response though.
Rather than “wait and see” I am encouraging people [mostly in person, networking and outreach] to get involved at the local and county levels whether within the DP or some other organizational vehicle. This will help us reclaim electoral power and some modicum of government policy influence. It’s gonna take some time. I’m cautiously hopeful, but also not sure how much time we*** have to organize.
Toward that end, I have taken notes on WCDP Exec Comm meeting from this past Saturday. The meeting was largely a leadership election for the organization for 2017 Chair and BOD. Other items emerged as well, check it out here: http://bit.ly/2gR44zN
***Of course, when I use “we” I am fully aware that not everyone who comments here wants to be included in that “we.” Again, par for the course in the wake of the 2016 election season.
Yes I know, frought s/b fraught.
Autocorrect only seems to work now when changing words to inappropriate homonyms :)
The New York Times: “It is unclear why the C.I.A. did not produce this formal assessment before the election”
Read more:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/11/us/politics/cia-judgment-intelligence-russia-hacking-evidence.html
The “Killary” was sarcastic, yet an honest representation of what many of those that voted for Trump regularly say, even if they don’t truly believe that the Clinton’s go around knocking off those who may challenge or harm their political prospects. Those sorts of people don’t need the DNC leaks to sway their mind to vote for Trump – just fuel their pre-existing anti-Hillary hate.
Once again, Obama took the high road and fucked us. When Comey announced he would be reopening the FBI investigation into Clinton’s email, Obama could have let everyone know about the CIA report into Russia’s work for the Trump campaign. He stayed quite though and Trump won. He is too decent a man for the job.
Joe, Gotcha thanks for the clarification. I try to tune into sarcasm and often when I think someone is sarcastic, they end up being serious. Thanks
Speaking of the Russian hacking of the DNC, the following was in my news feed this morning.
“Since the June 2016 announcement that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) had been breached by two Russia-based threat groups known as FANCY BEAR and COZY BEAR, the story has evolved from a presumed espionage operation into a series of strategic leaks and conflicting attribution claims. In this presentation, we’ll demonstrate techniques used to identify additional malicious infrastructure, assess the validity of the Guccifer 2.0 persona and other outlets like DCLeaks, and the strength of the attribution analysis.”
Bio:
Toni Gidwani is the Director of Research Operations at ThreatConnect and leads ThreatConnect’s research team, an elite group of globally-acknowledged cybersecurity experts dedicated to tracking down existing and emerging cyber threats. Prior to joining ThreatConnect, Toni led analytic teams in the U.S. Department of Defense. She is an adjunct faculty member at Georgetown University.
Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qi5T8B4-nU&sns=fb
“they probably didn’t turn the election”
How can you know this? As only 80,000 votes decided this election, how can you be certain that the Russian’s didn’t put Trump in office?
I’ll be the first to concede that there were failures on the Democratic side, but how can you be so certain that Russian interference isn’t what tipped the scale?
My ‘wait and see’ related to this issue and the inquiry. I’m working on redistricting at a state level. Everyone I have spoken to has a prioritized list of action now. That is a very different scenario for Ann Arbor. People are being strategic and focusing on meaningful action not words and progressive flag waving. It’s a good sign.
Mark– I’m wondering how you reconcile your call to ‘feel for and listen to the white middle class’ a la Michael Moore with your call to disrupt the election of their chosen president. He may not have won fair and square (who has???) but he has the unwavering support of almost half the country. It doesn’t seem like disrupting the election would do much to bridge the gulf between viewpoints or convince the WWC, the left has their interests at heart. Of course Michael Moore champions electoral college revolt as well. I’m not being sarcastic here. I really don’t understand how the two positions are reconciled. It seems like one or the other must be political grand-standing.
Anonymous– if one can’t prove causation, only correlation and even possibly intent, then one can’t assert something as fact. You are arguing tre difference between probably did and probably didn’t. And you acknowledge there were many factors influencing the result, so ‘probably didn’t’ is as close to right as we are going to get.
When talking about disrupting a presidential election and the peaceful transfer of power, you need more than your conviction that the new guy is probably an asshole or even tyrannical to disrupt it. Because that is an action that leads to civil war without susbstantoal proof and backing by most of the people.
Telling the truth matters. Asserting strongly held beliefs (aka dogma) does not over-ride the need to respect institutional integrity– especially now, when it is so terribly threatened.
This ongoing Russia storyline seems to reveal some of the major players moving game pieces that are usually reserved for backroom, backpage backgammon. While I’m dubious we’ll really know what’s happening(ed) in the immediate future, I believe there are important considerations for us (i.e., the general citizenry) about how to reconcile government intelligence, transparency and corporate media propaganda wars. If anything I think we’re seeing more clearly how some of the basic systems of our version of democracy are skewed, susceptible and sick. I’m trying to expand my sources of news to get more angles, at the same time hone my ability to critique all of them. I believe this will be an important practice for any of us who don’t want to just buy a party line or set everything on fire. Here’s another angle on this spy vs. spy CIA/FBI storyline from Glenn Greenwald: https://theintercept.com/2016/12/10/anonymous-leaks-to-the-washpost-about-the-cias-russia-beliefs-are-no-substitute-for-evidence/
In the meantime, I think what you’re saying and working on, Jean, is really important. The integrity of our elections in Michigan is atrocious, whether it’s the distorted districting or a recount system that can’t recount ballot boxes where the numbers don’t match up. So unless this latest Russia/CIA storyline sets us into civil unrest, I’m going to look for opportunities to get more involved with local and regional efforts to make our political system serve more common interests and sense.
This entire thing is a money grab. Every appointment will exploit their position of power to enrich their private companies and friends to the determent of America and the world. The wolves are in the hen house. It’s actually much worse than I could imagine eight months ago.
Another Republican joins the chorus, but stops short of saying the Russians helped decide the election.
NYT: “McConnell Supports Inquiry of Russian Hacking During Election”
Read more:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/us/politics/mcconnell-supports-inquiry-of-russian-hacking-during-election.html
You can see it on his face when he figures it out….
“This whole damn thing was about oil.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfVMPcepx3E
Re Glen Greenwald piece, NPR has now backed up the post story with independently verified sources. So has the Times. Greenwald and the Post have been going at it for a while. The left’s circle firing squad is not so much about the problem of differing perspectives as a problem of insistence on being right– which (IMHO) comes from believing the rightness = goodness. Which is new at this scale among liberals, and a limiting factor. Glen Greenwald is asking important questions. Unlike his friends (targets) in the regular press, he never prints a retraction when shown to be wrong. I’m still glad he’s out there– but Donald is right in taking everything in in measured doses and seeking out opposing, or just different, viewpoints. Critical faculties are best honed by applying them to our most closely held beliefs.
Actually, there is no evidence yet, and the FBI disagrees with the CIA’s assessment, which isn’t surprising since the CIA is pro-Hillary while the FBI is not. There is no new evidence offered over what the CIA advanced earlier in the year. Also, polling evidence shows that it was the Obamacare premium increase announcements that tanked Hillary’s numbers, especially in critical Midwest states.
See Marcy Wheeler:
https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/12/11/obamacare-not-comey-effect/
Lastly, what did the leaks do but expose some not-noteworthy real emails? Assange had his own reasons for leaking those emails without any need for a convoluted story about a foreign government being involved. Let’s wait till we see the actual evidence.
Kristin,
You’re right that there’s no new evidence… or at least not much. The only things that I’ve read that are new are 1. the CIA’s mention of the fact that the RNC was hacked by the Russians, and 2. the agency’s willingness to state that, in their opinion, the Russian’s were working on behalf of the Trump campaign. But, to your point, the underlying research has not been made public, so we don’t know what they’re basing this analysis on. And that, for what it’s worth, is why 8 Senators last week requested that Obama declassify the reports. So, hopefully, that evidence will be made public shortly. [The White House said yesterday that Obama has requested a report to be delivered by end of his term.]
As for the Russian hacks not having an impact, it’s difficult to tell where the blame lies for Trump’s win. Did the ACA rates play a part? Unquestionably. As did the fact that Clinton never really campaigned in Michigan, and didn’t even step foot in Wisconsin. There’s a lot of blame to go around. And I think it’s fair to say that Comey’s comment about reopening the case against Clinton certainly didn’t help. But I don’t think that means we should give the Russians a pass for their role. [As you’ll recall, one of those Wikileaks stories was about questionable evidence of anti-Catholic sentiment inside the Clinton campaign, and I’m sure that didn’t help.] And, as I suspect you know, there’s evidence that the Russians weren’t just hacking, but that they were also active in the “fake news” campaign being waged against Clinton.
From the Washington Post: “Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-propaganda-effort-helped-spread-fake-news-during-election-experts-say/2016/11/24/793903b6-8a40-4ca9-b712-716af66098fe_story.html
It makes my heart sink. And if you want to really be depressed, think about how all those hanging chads kept us from starting to deal with climate change and exploring alternative energy in a serious way 16 years ago…..
Not so fast. The bushy white mustachioed old dick John Bolton says that Obama could be behind the hack.
“John Bolton Implies Obama Administration Could Be Behind ‘False Flag’ Election Hack” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-bolton-false-flag_us_584e1aede4b0e05aded46e1e?)
The man reported to be Donald Trump’s pick for the number two job in the State Department says the election hacks could have been a false flag operation.
John Bolton told Fox News on Sunday that the hacks may not have been carried out by Russia, as the intelligence community believes, but implied the Obama administration itself could’ve been secretly responsible.
“It is not at all clear to me just viewing this from the outside, that this hacking into the DNC and the RNC computers was not a false flag operation,” Bolton told reporter Eric Shawn.
Call your Senator and urge him or her to support a robust, bipartisan investigation into Russia’s interference in our elections. Call: 202-224-3121 to be connected with your Senator, or find their direct phone numbers here.
http://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/
Kristin is misinformed. There was new evidence (namely the hacking of the RNC as well as the DNC with no similar wiki-releases) and the FBI does not dispute the evidence. The FBI v CIA distinction in interpretation is vastly overplayed– mostly on my SM feed by the alt-left, lead by Glen Greenwald, who have been repeating the talking points of the alt-right for too long now to ignore.
At what point do the people on the left start calling out their own fake news for the sake of the movement???
“A senior American law enforcement official said the F.B.I. believed that the Russians probably had a combination of goals, including damaging Mrs. Clinton and undermining American democratic institutions. Whether one of those goals was to install Mr. Trump remains unclear to the F.B.I., he said.
The official played down any disagreement between the F.B.I. and the C.I.A., and suggested that the C.I.A.’s conclusions were probably more nuanced than they were being framed in the news media.
The agencies’ differences in judgment may also reflect different methods of investigating the Russian interference. The F.B.I., which has both a law enforcement and an intelligence role, is held to higher standards of proof in examining people involved in the hacking because it has an eye toward eventual criminal prosecutions. The C.I.A. has a broader mandate to develop intelligence assessments.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/11/us/politics/cia-judgment-intelligence-russia-hacking-evidence.html
Pointing to one factor, beyond the electoral college, as entirely determinant of the election result is an absurdity. It only reveals the interests of the person putting forward the assertion. I hold myself accountable in that assessment. I do believe bigotry or disinterest in bigotry (and equity) was a primary characteristic of those who voted for Trump. I feel comfortable with that assessment. I don’t believe that Trump won because of those voters though; He won because of the distribution of electoral college voters.
We hear from many of you each day asking whether Democratic and Republican leadership are aware of the efforts to ask the Electoral College to stop Trump. Please be assured that they are, and there are lots of things happening that we don’t see right away. Please keep sharing the message!
@ Hamilton
I hope you are right!
Just keep drinking that CIA cool-aid.
http://dailycallernewsfoundation.org/2016/12/11/fbi-disagrees-with-cia-on-russian-influence-in-the-presidential-election/
If we had concrete evidence of the Russians behind the Podesta, DNC hacks, the NSA would know. And they don’t.
If you can make it through the whole thing (it’s long), this is IN-CRED-IBLE! I think the h/t goes to Mary Morgan.
https://twitter.com/ericgarland/status/808045818024497157
Podesta got caught by a phishing scam. There’s big difference between foolishly handing over your login and account info. Or someone running a TFTP/DHCP server with no gui and some preset configs who’s sole purpose to get inside.
http://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/the-phishing-email-that-hacked-the-account-of-john-podesta/
One problem with the Trump era is that the outrages come so frequently and so fast that it’s hard to remember the last one when the next one comes.
Remember,
1) Trump never released his tax returns, so we have no idea whatsoever what business relationships to Russia he has, although Eric Trump suggested that they are extensive.
2) Paul Manafort, his campaign manager before Kellyanne Conway, was let go over the summer because his connections to Russia became untenable — Manafort has advised some incredibly bad dudes, including undemocratic /Putin forces in Ukraine.
I don’t mean to go all pizzagate by connecting dots that aren’t actually dots, but this all stinks to high heaven. Whether Trump himself knows he is a pawn, I seriously doubt, but it’s clear that democratic norms are being trampled in several ways, some that we can’t quite grasp yet. It’s absolutely clear that Putin is very concerned to weaken democracies around the globe, and the GOP has been only to willing to play along for the sake of their obstructionism and nose-holding in the face of Trump. (I read a great article on this in New York Magazine the other day).
In other words, we can know that this is a really big fucking deal because McConnell (unlike Ryan) has finally acknowledged some limit to Trump’s excesses.
And, btw, Mark, I used to loathe Lindsay Graham too, but Trump (and perhaps McConnell in the past few years) has turned him into an old fashioned senator with some shred of integrity and attachment to the constitution.
I just saw that Robert Reich is on the same page regarding Trump’s tax returns (demanding that he release them before the Electoral College votes) and Paul Manafort.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/robert-reich-donald-trump_us_584ee9a0e4b0e05aded4e0cf
While there is a probable business collusion going on with Russia given the appointment to Sec of State there are a few problems with this CIA reports with regards to it’s influence in the elections.
1. The CIA has a long track record of suppressing democratic elections in other countries and supporting autocratic dictators to serve American’s influence and power balance in regions. Even Hillary continued this Realpolitik meddling in Central America as Sec of State. It seems naive to think major powers don’t regularly engage in this activity even if now it is more sophisticated with technology. It should be investigated but if anything it is more indicative of our lax security and that we are behind on the technology curve.
2. Unless there is hard evidence that votes were changed by Russian hacking that directly led to Trump being elected (which is not likely), this development is providing a useful “get out of jail” card for the Democrats to explain their utter failure to defeat the most inept and compromised candidate to run for office. They sabotaged the Bernie campaign and forced the problematic and unlikable Clinton as the only choice, leading to a record low voter turnout. The corruption and hubris of the Democrats gave us Trump and the party needs to be destroyed and rebuilt as a true progressive party or abandoned for a new alternative.
Wobblie– Daily Caller is the media outlet of Tucker Carlson. Nothing more needs to be said, but even that report says the FBI believes the details are more fuzzy– not inaccurate.
The NSA is not mentioned in the posted article, yet Wobblie feels sure she knows what the NSA knows or doesn’t…
If there was no concrete evidence that the Russians were not behind the Podesta, DNC hacks, those people with access to the intel, would have refuted the WaPo piece, and then NPR’s, and then the NYTimes, and then the Atlantic… But they did not.
Even Fox News is getting in on the action, supporting the call for an investigation.
https://mediamatters.org/video/2016/12/12/watch-foxs-shepard-smith-debunk-trumps-false-claims-scrubbing-russia-involvement-us-election/214796
“My ‘wait and see’ related to this issue and the inquiry. I’m working on redistricting at a state level. Everyone I have spoken to has a prioritized list of action now. That is a very different scenario for Ann Arbor. People are being strategic and focusing on meaningful action not words and progressive flag waving. It’s a good sign.”
Jean: If you are going to respond to something I write online and throw a bunch of under-the-radar shade, could you at least compose a coherent paragraph? I’d appreciate it much, thanks.
“I’m a Leninist. Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal, too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.” — Steve Bannon (via the NYT
“Trump Goes Into Hiding And Cancels Press Conference As Russia Investigation Gains Momentum”
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/12/12/trump-hiding-cancels-press-conference-russia-investigation-gains-momentum.html
Greg– No shade intended. At all. Once again, you have misread my generalized statements as personal. And then you go all ad hominem on me. I really don;t know that there is much I can do about that.
As for the errors– it was early. I was on my phone without glasses. My phone does not allow me to scroll up to edit. Can’t figure out why, so there are always typos.
Usually people can figure out well enough my meaning. If they can’t, I’m ok with that. I’d prefer people didn’t take things personally that aren’t meant as such, but that’s beyond my control.
I guess not. Oh well, back to something productive.
Greg– I honestly have no idea how you saw that statement as throwing shade. People are working on solutions– mostly at a local level. You have a lot of company now in grassroots level work. That’s good, no?
Uh no. Once again, I didn’t take anything personal and you projected your stuff onto me. I called you no names, there was no ad hominem. Read your paragraph re: wait and see. It makes no sense. There is no meaning to be interpreted because there is no thesis. End of story. Good night.
Trump is a symptom, not the problem. http://www.vox.com/identities/2016/12/12/13894546/obama-race-black-white-house-cornell-belcher-racism
JCP2– He was a symptom, now he’s also a very big problem.
Greg– ‘wait and see’ was your phrase. Maybe I misunderstood your meaning when you used it. I suggested in my first post on this thread that we should wait and see what the inquiry into Russian influence produces, rather than speculate. (Much more has been revealed today) I was replying that while I would wait and see about the subject of this post– the Russian inquiry– I was doing other work to effect change. As are many more people. As you suggested.
I really do not understand what your interpretation was, nor do I care to, since I know my intent was to reassure you, not throw shade.
Greg: This is an ad hominem attack, and a snarky one at that: “Jean: If you are going to respond to something I write online and throw a bunch of under-the-radar shade, could you at least compose a coherent paragraph? I’d appreciate it much, thanks.”
This is an ugly pattern between us. It’s unpleasant for both of us. I like you and value your work. Let’s just assume the other person means well from now on, ok?
(Note: This link is not directed at Greg since he has not been present in this forum until now, nor was he on my social media feed during the election and so he missed the year long back and forth I had with leftist bros here and elsewhere.)
For all of THOSE bros– yeah you got played. Your entire narrative was spoon fed to you while you insisted everyone else was being fooled by the DNC. http://www.shakesville.com/2016/12/lets-not-forget-left-fell-for-russian.html
“Jean Henry
Posted December 12, 2016 at 6:59 am | Permalink
The electors are going to elect Donald Trump as our president. If anything else were likely to happen, we would know about it. We the people will be outraged, at least half of us, but unless the other half becomes outraged, nothing will happen. I have seen a lot of political controversies bubble up; I have never really understood what makes some of them boil over and others simmer down. It seems that it requires the congress of president and the press to legitimize the issue. An inquiry needs to happen. We should all ***wait and see*** what it turns up. It seems that where Russian intrusion in our self-governance is concerned, even many on the right will not stand by for long.”
“Let’s just assume the other person means well from now on, ok?” That’s fine with me Jean.
I’m sorry Greg. I still have no understanding of what caused you offense. It’s confounding to me. I used the term first but you referenced it. The context is correct. I just don’t understand what is upsetting to you.
So maybe we are equally confounded and that’s just how it will be
FROM RUSSIA, WITH LOVE
Trump finally officially nominated Rex Tillerson for Secretary of State. ICYMI: Tillerson is CEO of ExxonMobil and a friend of Putin. Trump praised Tillerson’s “deep understanding of geopolitics” and called his “relationships with leaders all over the world” (read: in Russia) “second to none.” The only people more jazzed about Tillerson’s nomination than Trump are Russian politicians and press. Putin’s official spokesperson said, “[Tillerson] fulfills his responsibilities in a highly professional manner,” and Tillerson’s nomination would “demonstrate a constructive attitude [toward Russia] and display professionalism.” The head of the Foreign Affairs Committee in Duma called the selection of Tillerson a “sensation,” and a consultant to Putin’s staff said Tillerson, Flynn, and Mattis make “a fantastic team.” Meanwhile, American politicians on both sides of the aisle seem considerably less sold on Tillerson for Secretary of State.
And it looks like Trump might not be the only one with conflicts of interest. Another major concern around Tillerson’s nomination is whether he’ll use his position as Secretary of State and his relationship with Putin to Make Exxon Great Again. Right now, sanctions against Russia for its actions in Ukraine killed one of Tillerson’s business deals worth an estimated $500 billion. But as Secretary of State, Tillerson would be in charge of making decisions about U.S. sanctions, power he could use to make big oil and gas rich even if it makes the U.S. less safe.
ACTION OF THE DAY
Tilleron’s tap is just the latest indication that Trump isn’t serious about his promise to drain the swamp. In fact, Tillerson has privately donated thousands in the past six years to a number of Senators who will vote on his nomination, including Senator McConnell ($3,400, Senator Blunt ($2,700), Senator Murkowski ($5,400), Senator Gardner ($1,000), Senator Corynyn ($2,600), and Senator Barrasso ($2,500). If this is one of your Senators, contact them to demand they recuse themselves from considering Tillerson’s nomination.
Daily Kos agrees with you.
“Oil and natural gas aren’t just a part of Russia’s economy, they are the economy. Up until 2014, oil accounted for 50 percent of revenue going into the budget. As long as oil and gas prices were high, Putin was able to float along, using oil profits to prop up the Russian economy and his own popularity. But as oil and gas fell, so did Putin’s ability to pretend that his policies were bringing improvement. Since 2014, the value of the ruble has plunged to a third of its former value against the dollar.
The reason is the same as the reason the coal industry is going under: fracking. Fracking for oil and natural gas has filled the US market to overflowing. It’s the reason that gas is $2 at the pump, the reason that the largest coal companies in the world are bankrupt, and the reason that over 160 oil companies have also gone bankrupt this year. Prices are so low, companies and countries that depend on fossil fuels for revenue are feeling a huge squeeze.
Those low prices crimp not just Putin’s ability to show largess at home, but slow his program to move the Russian economy to a more diverse base. And, most importantly of all, low energy prices restrict Russia’s military ability, both because less funds are available to drive military expansion, and Western nations are less inclined to look the other way based on their own population needs for natural gas pipelines controlled by Russia.
There are three things Putin needs: short term capital to pad out his shrinking budget, long term investment to fuel his ambitious expansion schemes, and someone to take the Paris Agreement off the table so all that oil in Russia keeps getting sold.”
http://m.dailykos.com/stories/2016/12/12/1609948/-Why-does-Russia-want-Trump-It-s-all-about-oil-Why-does-Trump-want-Russia-It-s-all-about-money
Republicans are now pushing back against the idea of a Russia probe.
From Politico:
“GOP leaders shield Trump from expanded Russia probe: Despite calls for expanded investigations, Republicans are content with their existing oversight of alleged Russian misdeeds.”
Read more:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/republicans-russia-donald-trump-232528
734, I don’t doubt that it is fracking that has caused world oil prices to drop but it does make one wonder why the Russians didn’t bump someone into office who was more against fracking. I find it difficult to believe that Trump might suddenly become anti-fracking.
just keep drinking that CIA cool-aid.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/US-Intel-Vets-Dispute-Russ-by-Consortium-News-Hackers_Leaked-Information_NSA_Russia-And-Us-Conflict-161212-896.html
The Russians frack too. They like Trump because they can manipulate him. Like the Daily Kos article suggested, they want an alliance with the US to lock out Saudi Arabia, open up the arctic to joint drilling and have more control over the market. All of this at cost to the planet.
Russia, whose economy is completely hinged on oil and gas, is more motivated than the US will ever be to manipulate oil supply by any means necessary. The reasons for low oil prices are much more multi-facted than just fracking. Fracking for oil isn’t very cheap really. The glut in supply came from lots of places. Not just the Us. Lower demand in first world countries and rising demand in developing nations has a great deal of impact on price as well. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/business/energy-environment/oil-prices.html
For Wobblie– more news she can’t trust.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html?utm_source=fbia&_r=0&referer=http://m.facebook.com
“the” russians
Are we not ‘the’ Americans?
Jean Henry The NY Times and Washington Post have been the mouth pieces for the CIA for ever. The article you posted provides not a single piece of evidence that the DNC emails or the Podesta emails were in fact “hacked”. This is no different than the cheer leading these two newspapers engaged in in the run up to the Iraq war. The CIA is extremely upset about losing in Syria. Trump has as much said that the Russians can have Syria. Our deep state has been engaged in a policy of regime change in the Muslim world since the bush was appointed president. Obama continued that program, Hillary was on board. For two years they have been blaming the Russians for every “bad” thing that has happened, providing no evidence along the way.
Just keep drinking that cool-aid and we’ll have that war with Russia
In depth analysis of complex world events.
“I don’t doubt that it is fracking that has caused world oil prices to drop”
What, like this has to be left to speculation?
The comments section of this site is laughably lazy at times.
Kool-Aid is spelled with a “K.” Facts.
Pete– there is only ever one cause to any given event ever. At some point political ideology became the primary determinant of the truth. And ideology can not bear complexity. Only one analysis can be correct. There is right and wrong. Complexity is a chore. Research is a chore. Ideology is found on the back of shiny packages in bold print. You don’t even need to open them. If you look at other packages , much less examine them, you lack conviction and integrity. We have all self selected into totalitarian creep.
re:”The comments section of this site is laughably lazy at times.”
Heck, half the time you have to make up arguments because you are too lazy to address actual ones. The other half of the time, you just interject useless statements like “The comments section of this site is laughably lazy at times.” You are as lazy as anyone here.
I think it is ok though. Comments sections are rigorous academic essays. They are informal conversation.
er NOT rigorous academic essays.
In Pete’s defense when he or anyone here offers more than snark or one off lines that do not simply mirror what mark says, they subject themselves to all out assault and ad hominem attacks.
I mean who do we bother?
A progressive paper calls BS on rust belt voters.
http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/12/13/24744710/white-media-outlets-are-trying-not-to-blame-white-rural-voters-for-shooting-themselves-in-the-foot
questions the electors should ask if they get that intelligence briefing they want
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/12/14/questions-for-the-electors-on-russian-hacking/
Did you happen to see that John Bolton, who will likely be the second in command at the Sate Department, has suggested that the CIA’s conclusion that Russia intervened to help Trump win the presidency could be a “false flag” operation?
“Tietjens . . . fell to wondering why it was that humanity that was next to always agreeable in its units was, as a mass, a phenomenon so hideous. You look at a dozen men, each of them not by any means detestable and not uninteresting; you formed them into a government or a club and at once, with oppressions, inaccuracies, gossip, backbiting, lying, corruptions and vileness, you had the combination of wolf, tiger, weasel and louse-covered ape that was human society.” -Ford Madox Ford, Parade’s End.
Then again this crew is, by and large, detestable individually as well. “With Puzder, the Trump White House now has as many men accused of spousal abuse as women in total.”
https://www.the-pool.com/news-views/politics/2016/50/laura-bates-on-trump-men-spousal-abuse
NPR: “Trump’s Men In Moscow: Trump Disciples Suddenly Showing Up In Russia”
Read more:
http://www.npr.org/2016/12/14/505581348/trumps-men-in-moscow-trump-disciples-suddenly-showing-up-in-russia
This run down of the public record of Trump’s comments on Russia was interesting:
https://twitter.com/leahmcelrath/status/809412005945872384
“Heck, half the time you have to make up arguments because you are too lazy to address actual ones.”
How does one “make up” an arguement? That’s like saying that someone fabricates an opinion.
The fact it, there is plenty out there to read on how fracking and shale oil have impacted world oil prices (because people are interested in this kind of thing… because, well, money), but you act like we’re talking about the Bermuda Triangle (“I don’t doubt that a sea monster is swallowing ships in the Atlantic.”)
The comments section here IS lazy. Most comments sections are.
Argument.
is.
typo.
Yes, it is very much like fabricating an opinion.
I have no idea what your problem is with my statement. Saying that I don’t doubt fracking is causing global oil prices to be lower than they otherwise would be is so NOT like saying “I don’t doubt that a sea monster is swallowing ships in the Atlantic.” For one thing, fracking is a real thing and it HAS had a measurable effect on global oil prices. You know, the fact is, there is plenty out there to read on how fracking and shale oil have impacted world oil prices (because people are interested in this kind of thing… because, well, money). Maybe you should broaden your horizons and read something on the subject before you expose your ignorance by criticizing people wrongly? Just a thought
Now if you want to make an argument that I am wrong and fracking has not been part of the reason global oil prices have fallen, then make that argument. Otherwise you are just pissing into the wind.
To be clear though, I wasn’t saying that Peter makes up his own arguments or fabricates his own opinions but rather instead of addressing the actual arguments that people present, he makes up arguments for them (or perhaps fabricates opinions for them too) and then he addresses those made up arguments instead of the arguments which were actually presented. It really is a classic technique.
I don’t think Pete was arguing your point, Lynne. I’m not sure what his point is, honestly. I guess he thinks we should be able to substantiate our points. I thought he was addressing the lack of complexity in isolating one cause to a market price fluctuation. But got that wrong…maybe.
In the end, this has become another tangle of people taking things personally. I don’t know honestly why I expect more, but at least I know not to expect complexity of thought in a comments section. I mean Comrade Alan offered complexity, or what sounded like complexity, but was just a whole lot of one-sided substantiation.
What will Stupid Hick and EOS say about this one?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-backs-cia-view-that-russia-intervened-to-help-trump-win-election/2016/12/16/05b42c0e-c3bf-11e6-9a51-cd56ea1c2bb7_story.html
Yeah, weren’t they saying that the CIA was on Clinton’s side, and that we should only listen to the FBI? Well, it would appear as though the FBI is in agreement that the Russians hacked our election. So now what? Now that everyone in the US intelligence community is in agreement that Putin interfered to benefit Trump, where does that leave us?
Re:”I don’t think Pete was arguing your point, Lynne. I’m not sure what his point is, honestly.”
The more I think about it, the more I think that he just doesn’t like me for some reason and can see that I have a tendency to react to certain things. In other words, I think he is just being your typical troll and pushing my buttons. Which is fine. I could choose not to react to his obvious BS and probably should take this as an opportunity to learn more self control in expressing reactions to things.
Re: Russian involvement
It seems pretty obvious to me that even though the Russians had a role to play, it wasn’t that they were directly hacking the election. Instead, they were planting fake news and having paid trolls in comment sections and twitter. The scammed us but because it was the kind of scam that counts on people being especially unaware and trusting, I don’t see how we are going to be able to deal with this adequately. There are a lot of scams which are illegal but don’t get reported because people just do not want to admit to themselves that they were scammed. I have yet to hear a single Trump voter complain that they formed a false opinion of Clinton based on the emails leaked by the Russians or by the fake news about her. I don’t expect to and in fact, I expect to met with “you are just being a sore loser” if I bring up the topic with them.
“LaLaLaLaLaLaLaLa!” I can’t hear you, Jean!
I’m sorry, I had my fingers in my ears. Why would anyone trust the Washington Post? Look where they fall on this graph of freedom loving vs tyrannical media:
http://hw.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/map-news.jpg
EOS: no comment
Video discussing Veterans for Professional Sanity statement that DNC information was leaked, not hacked
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh0EAj9UUIY
*Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity*
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
MEMORANDUM
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/12/12/us-intel-vets-dispute-russia-hacking-claims/
Allegations of Hacking Election Are Baseless
A New York Times report on Monday alluding to “overwhelming circumstantial evidence” leading the CIA to believe that Russian President Vladimir Putin “deployed computer hackers with the goal of tipping the election to Donald J. Trump” is, sadly, evidence-free. This is no surprise, because harder evidence of a technical nature points to an inside leak, not hacking – by Russians or anyone else.
I’m sick. And I’m on cough medicine. And I’ve fallen behind on the comments here. What should I make of this new Hyborian Warlord person, who has apparently just been waiting in the wings until Trump passed the Electoral College?
By the way, while I haven’t read all of his comments yet, I did look up Hyborian.
“The Hyborian Age is a fictional period within the artificial mythology created by Robert E. Howard, in which the sword and sorcery tales of Conan the Barbarian are set.”
A fictional period inside an artificial mythology… Seems perfect for a Trump supporter, no?
I am definitely real. Want to discuss things I am talking about? We can meet over coffee if you like.
I wasn’t waiting for anything. I just never bothered to post on your blog before is all. If you don’t want I won’t post any more. All you have to do is say the word.
Some good news. Trump attacking the CIA has lost him their favor. It will be hard to fulfill all of his authoritarian strong arm aims without the aid of the CIA.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/trump-isolates-himself-with-c-i-a-attack
Maybe he’ll piss everyone off so much, he’ll just spend the next 4 years on the victory tour circuit seeking praise and adulation.
Kennedy pissed off the CIA and look where it got him.
And I’m sorry, Hyborian Warlord, but we can never meet. I have a strict policy about not engaging with real people. Plus, it might ruin the magic that we’e starting to create here on the internet.
Too bad you don’t talk about anything real either.
Wow, Hyborian. You and Bob should hang out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjHKe7SYsMc
Remember when Hyborian wasn’t going to be smug and condescending?
She was only going to be ‘factual.’
But when presented with facts that counter her narrative and a less than receptive audience…
Well, that didn’t take too long.
“I have no idea what your problem is with my statement. Saying that I don’t doubt fracking is causing global oil prices to be lower than they otherwise would be is so NOT like saying “I don’t doubt that a sea monster is swallowing ships in the Atlantic.”
It’s that both topics are easily confirmed or refuted.
As for using “classic techniques,” you assume that I would care enough to do so. I do not.
As for liking or disliking people, I don’t know you and have never met you so I can’t say.
I will say that the statement “I don’t doubt that fracking has had an impact on global oil (and energy, I’m assuming) prices” is lazy, because it is. Why not simply just look it up? Clearly, you have time to write lengthy posts, it seem to not be all that much trouble to make a firm statement, rather than some lazy speculation on something so easily researched.
But, it’s not a huge issue. There are more annoying things that go on in the comments section of this blog.
I think I have been pretty nice, Jean Henry! Not calling anyone “names” or trying to bait people like you do or anything.
My point is true: I am talking about real issues that undermine the prevailing narrative but ut is falling on deaf ears. Good morning by the way.
*but it is falling*
New computer keyboard I am still getting used to.
Comrade Alan was entertaining.
I’m putting my money on murdered DNC insider Seth Rich being the source of the DNC leak. Assange all but spelled out that’s where it came from. Isn’t the real story that the DNC subverted Democracy for Hillary though? I mean I want to know that. I would want to know it about any party.
Hyborian EOS warned you!
Jcp2 – could you give Hyborian that little lecture you gave Alan about how you all know each other, are friends from here and there , give each other money etc.?
No one ever answered, is it an insult to call a man she?
Clinton really is history. I think we can really just move on to Trump.
Have a Merry Christmas!
17 U.S. intelligence agencies are in agreement that the DNC hack was perpetrated by the Russians. That includes the FBI, which has proven itself to be anti-Clinton. In spite of this, however, you believe that it was an inside job pulled off by a low level DNC staffer who the Clinton’s had bumped off. Why? I guess because it confirms your narrative that they’re bloodthirsty killers. There’s no evidence to support that, though. The young man’s parents have said as much, begging the far right to leave their murdered son out of their paranoid conspiracy theories. If you want to talk facts, I’m all for it. But when you come to the table with nonsense like this, I thin I speak for everyone here when I say that you’re probably not going to find many conversation partners.
Forgive me for not automatically taking spy agencies word for it. I know they are above reproach. I just can’t help but question everything. Would you link to the evidence put forth by the 17 agencies? James Clapper sounded pretty wishy washy about it.
And I mean how would the parents know? It’s a strange thing to say. On one hand they are looking for the killer and on the other they are discounting potential leads. Shot in the back twice in a robbery where he didn’t…get robbed. It’s not adding up.
There were NO commercial planes on 9.11.
Not sure why the Warlord should get the time of day.
After all, the Warlord believes in “enlightened anarchy” which (assuming the Warlord has ever thought about it) essentially requires everyone to think as the Warlord does.
Why is it that all of these freedom fighters actually crave totalitarian systems intolerant of dissent?
Always been a mystery to me.
And it was a Slam Dunk that Sodom had Weppins o’ Mash Deshtrukshin.
Haha, you have to be kidding!
Evolving to no need for government anymore is totalitarianism – huh!
That’s an amazing ability to be able to say someone who is not trying to squash dissent is trying to squash dissent while trying to squash their dissent!
The truth about the Rich case, and the far right’s attempt to politicize it.
http://www.newsweek.com/seth-rich-murder-dnc-hack-julian-assange-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-492084
For organizations that have defined benefit retirement and health plans, as well as for individuals that have defined contribution retirement plans, Dow 20,000 will be very helpful in meeting funding obligations.
Wulp, there you have it. The trusty old DNC says nope so that’s that.
No it is not an insult to call an anonymous person of unspecified gender ‘she.’ Unless you believe women are lesser to men.
If a person perceives it as such, that is very clearly her problem.
But it is true that Pete, JCP2, Mark and I are all tied together in a mutually beneficial financial web that requires us to align with one another. I mean, if you just look at the record on this site, you will see that we ALWAYS agree with one another. And that’s how we will grow rich. Markmaynard.com is a money train.
I am still hoping someone will offer to corrupt me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SS02GeKuWQ4
Comrade Alan was less predictable than our anarchist warlord. But that bar is not very high.
If you don’t believe journalists, our national intelligence agencies, and experts, Mr. Warlord, who do you believe? Where do you get your information from?
Didn’t the Anarchist Lord refer to Morbid as Petey?? Didn’t she say she knew him. Maybe she too is roped in. I have to work out filling in the details now so they correspond to my narrative and incorporate that new fact. But I’m sure I can do it. Just a little narrative s-t-r-e-t-c-h to proving that everything said here is corrupted by predatory greed and ambition.
PS Somebody, Nobody, Hagopian and Westside are all the same person. An Ex. That’s my own personal conspiracy theory. No one has denied it so it must be true.
It was established in another thread that Jean Henry was paid to comment here, was it not?
Hi Kim. I examine each bit of info on its own merits. The source is of minor importance. A “discredited” source can say something true and a highly respected source can say something false.
I know Pete from way back. If I ever see him again I’ll tell him this was me and he can decide if he ever wants to give me the time of day again. I like being friendly with people but it’s their choice if they want to do the same.
I am all man, baby. 165 pounds of twisted steel and sex appeal. Whoo!
Mark– where’s my check?!?
I do not confuse comments spaces on blogs with people, nor do I find that differences of opinions matter much to interpersonal relationships.
There are plenty of people I don’t agree with that I love dearly and am always elated to see.
“Evolving to no need for government anymore is totalitarianism – huh!”
Just think about it for a while. There is no “evolution” unless you assume that there is a universal place to get to, which there obviously is not.
I would say intelligence increase can take us wherever we want to go. We could still be dumbasses if we wanted but why would we?
Are you confident Westside isn’t female? I wish she or he would return. Westside was very good at satire.
Ben Swann: 5 Problems with CIA Claims of Russian Hacking
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNIrPLHVfdI
Ever notice that the people bemoaning the lack of intelligence or education in others very often believe that, if properly educated, the political perspective of the ‘others’ would align with their own?
I live in fear of a country that is uniform (or appears to be) in political perspective. Political alignment historically has always required the mass application of pressure to conform and the tribal/nationalist ostracism of any people who do not fall in line. The basis of democracy and anarchy is the embrace of multiple perspectives to produce the best outcome for the greater good. Democracy works better.
Ben Swann is a libertarian, false flag, ant-vaxxer who runs a site called “Reality Check.” Please note that the first sign of any conspiracy theorist site is the use of the term “Truth” or “Reality” in the title.
Alex Jones describes Swann thusly: “Basically, he’s like a professional, focused, kind of news-style Alex Jones, which I love … I think this guy’s going places because he’s got it all … He just absolutely knocks it out of the park.”
Also, all of those 5 points (same source,etc etc) have since been debunked as more information has been revealed as the CIA story evolved and the FBI corroborated it. But Ben Swann, obsessed with accuracy in reporting, does not issue retractions.
Stupid Hick– I did not specify a gender for my ex. I also wouldn’t assume all westside’s posts were sarcastic. Enveloping an insult or bullying in cheer is part of the familiar pattern. It sounds like sarcasm, but it’s really gaslighting and deflection, and I believe, if my hunch is correct, that westside/somebody/nobody/hagopian mean every word. It all makes perfect sense to them.
Did I say in others and not myself? Read what I actually say. We are all born with a nervous system capable being more intelligent than the most intelligent person currently on Earth. That is what I think. Our intelligence potential is our greatest asset by far. We have the ability to think about thinking so we can increase our intelligence if we want to.
This is the same as when you said Clinton Cash has been debunked and linked to an article saying it has been debunked, Jean. That’s an opinion. If you want to disprove it then use facts.
There is no debunking that the CIA lies! That is for damn sure
I asked for the evidence provided by the 17 agencies (jeez, didn’t know there even were that many – I can rattle off about six off the top of my head) a while ago.
Leftists in the US continually make the mistake of assuming that if we just had the “right” people in charge and the “right” type of education and the “right” policies, we could enter some sort of perfect utopia.
If we’d just “evolve” we would have a need for systems and laws which protect the rights of individuals and work to solve disputes when someone has been wronged, which, of course, can’t happen naturally so must rest on education, which requires the “right” people creating the “right” policies.
Humans are bound to have disputes. Some of those disputes can turn ugly, not because people aren’t “evolved” but because people sometimes have differences of priorities. No level of “evolution” (whatever that is, because it clearly depends on the world view of a single individual, in this case, Mr. Warlord) will ever relieve of of the need for systems of resolving disputes and protecting individuals, because, after all, we are human.
The idea that our society is flawed because we aren’t “evolved” enough is insulting because it assumes that a particular “other”, i.e. people who think differently than Mr. Warlord, are just simply stupid. It’s a tired repeat of liberal condescension toward, for example, country folk, poor white people and people who vote Republican.
Enough.
You don’t get what I am saying.
Actually Pete, there is some truth that cultures can evolve in ways that make things more pleasant for all. Ok, ok. “more pleasant” is pretty subjective but there are cultural values we could work towards which would reduce the need for systems to resolve disputes and protect individuals. I even think we have already make significant progress. Even with all of the wars going on right now, humans are actually less violent than they have been in a long time which is saying something considering how much we have invested in technology for killing people. As a data point, the worst we have been in the past 100 years was WW2 and the rate of deaths due to war was 300 out of every 100,000 people. The rate of deaths due to war is now around 1 out of 100,000*. It isn’t just war deaths either. Violent crime is going down significantly. We seem to be becoming less violent.
*http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-09-29/world-actually-becoming-more-peaceful-believe-it-or-not
Nice post, Lynne
Morbid, I am a leading expert on American hillbilly psychology and I can tell you, with clinical detachment that in the US, “country folk, poor white people” and (recently) “people who vote Republican” are, in fact, among the stupidest hicks worldwide. It’s not condescension, it’s a scientifically proven fact. You are correct, however, that they will not evolve in response to any stimulus from a source they perceive to be “liberal”.
Lynne– I’m not sure humans are evolving into better people, so much as their quality of life is improving– due largely to science and less war in most places. They simply have more to lose. People with something to lose tend to be less violent. This should shock no one. They also tend to be more conservative, even when they call themselves liberal. The most popular show on Michigan Radio is Marketplace. I have nothing against that show, or wealthy liberals or conservatives or poor white people or even white men– believe it or not. I think people (everywhere) are a lot more the same than different. Reading any Ancient Greek play or Shakespeare will tell you we have only evolved so far. What is essential in people is also often violent and reactive and destructive. Circumstance is hugely determining of outcomes, despite appealing and prevalent myths to the contrary.
Behavioral economics has evolved as an academic discipline to address how much the emotional responses of the brain affect our economic behavior. Knowing this allows us to manipulate those responses. It will never, ever allow us to change them.
But I came here to add this bit of news. Obama has responded to the DNC hacking: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/29/us/politics/russia-election-hacking-sanctions.html
Happy New year
I’m sure Hyborian will refute these findings:
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/312132-fbi-dhs-release-report-on-russia-hacking
I really cared nothing about the stupid Hillary email scandal until now. It was so far down the lost of reasons why she shouldn’t have been nominated. But in light of the new info, it clearly was important. Her arrogance and paranoia backfired in spectacular fashion. That and Podesta’s stupidity were just enough to squeak this idiot into office.
That’s some impressive turn around there, Bob. Hillary is responsible for the email scandal and the hysteria that erupted. (‘She asked for it.’)
She is even responsible somehow for Russian hacking into the DNC and Podesta’s emails.
You understand that the Russians did not hack into Hillary’s emails, right??
Bob– you should probably stick to attacking me. You’re better at it.
JOINT ANALYSIS REPORT
!
“DISCLAIMER:
This report is provided “as is” for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within.”
So if I buy it I can’t get my money back if it is disinfo? I think I’ll keep my money in the credit union.
” humans are evolving into better people”
Do you really believe that people in the past were considerably different from now?
Certainly, our governance has improved as a function of how economies have changed, but I don’t at all think that humans are individually any better or worse than we’ve ever been. Clearly, people have always loved their friends and family and frowned upon crime.
The term “evolution” is only meant to imply change, not any sort of qualitative improvement. Organisms can evolve in ways which are ultimately detrimental. Please end the (historically common) gross misuse of the term.
I believe that’s just what I said Pete. Your excerpt cut out the negative phrase ‘I’m not sure’. I used Hyborian’s language and Lynne’s implication. I could have used stronger phrasing and put ‘evolved’ in quotation marks I suppose, but my points echoed yours. If you had read closely, you might have seen we were in violent agreement.
Jean, her behavior was sloppy, arrogant and stupid. Not criminal. Just dumb. She blew it in an epic way. Stick your lame-brained, girl-power defense of her though. That should be comforting during the the next decade of misery.
Bob– you understand the Russians did not hack into Clinton’s emails, right?
PS I agree the private email server was sloppy and dumb. But that behavior, which led to no security breaches, did not turn the election. To say so is absurd.
You are repeating talking points seeded by the right.
I’d rather be told I’m repeating ‘girl power’ rhetoric any day.
Yes, we are in agreement. I was addressing the idea, not that particular quite from you.
I very much take issue with the idea that humans are fundamentally better now than in the past.
I think we have many extant religious texts with show that people in the past were very concerned about moral standards.
I am pretty sure that most people believe that the Russians hacked into the emails on Clinton’s private server.
In my opinion, the server was not “stupid” or “irresponsible.” It was in direct response to archane government policy toward electronic devices and digital communication. Please do some reading about it.
I know people who work for the CDC here and they all tell me they are all under strict rules as to what they can or cannot use.
A lot of them have to carry two laptops because the CDC forbids them from using Skype on government machines.
One can say that Clinton is “stupid,” but it is true that government policy is often so stupid or onerous as to force one do things that appear unnecessary, like carrying two laptops for work, one of which one had to buy with one’s own money.
No doubt Skype has backdoor vulnerabilities built in by Microsoft. That is an intelligent policy. Hillary Clinton’s server was just out there waiting to be accessed by any hacker in the world.
“That is an intelligent policy. ”
It depends on the content. Since the rest of the world uses Skype, for noncritical topics it makes sense to use it, and obviously people are, hence the second laptop they are in practice forced to buy for work, with their own money.
Moreover, it is impractical to require non-government people to use something other than Skype. Sometimes, in a group call, you might only have one person who works for the US government out of 5 or more people, some of whom aren’t tech savvy.
It’s an unnecessarily rigid policy.
Believe it or not, there is a real world out there, with real people struggling to make sure they comply with government policy. In my experience, it is not always possible to comply, and policy takes time to change, necessitating things which might seem “stupid” but are necessary to get the job done.
My old lady friend Sally Redfield told me years ago, “People don’t change, they only get more so.” I think this is mostly true individually and collectively. The only individual evolution that has mattered in my life is towards self-acceptance and so, acceptance of others.
I know that’s not the evolution Pete is talking about, but I think many of us can see a micro-parallel to evolution in coping skills we develop to difficult circumstances as children. While they work for us then adapting to that environment, they may not be positive or useful in the rest of our life, under better circumstances. Still they persist stubbornly. There is lots of evidence of brain plasticity throughout our lives, which people take as the capacity to change. But those changes seem marginal, and again mostly about acceptance not change. Mostly I see humans, collectively and individually, diving back into the same wrecks– over and over again. It’s a great sadness of my maturity to see that, despite our narrative of self-actualization, we mostly repeat our mistakes. And sometimes, via the cruelty of genetic inheritance and skipped generations of illness, we are subjected to reliving the difficulties of our youth through our kids. Mrs Redfield seems to have been right. She usually was.
That was meandering. I always tend to the cheap philosophy (and pseudo-science parallels) around new years. I know there will be Trump operas and plays, I hope someone writes the Clinton opera too. These are great human dramas taking place under extreme circumstances. Her life and failings and resilience and drive can not be summed up so neatly as people on all sides would like. She is a heroine to me, as is Obama, but not without failings. The difference between those too and Trump is I think they are very capable of self-reflection and regret. That makes for a better opera.
But you could be talking about washing the dishes on Skype on your government computer and someone could gain access to sensitive information on your hard drive. That’s the point: It’s not secure.
My point about voluntary intelligence increase seems to have been lost. As a self-aware species we can choose to be more intelligent if we wish. Even at our current level we can choose more intelligent behavior. I gave the ban on Cannabis sativa as an example. As the world’s most beneficial plant by far it is stupid to disallow it via an international treaty.
As far as I can tell, using skype allows others (governments and microsoft) access to your skyped conversations and location information, but does not provide access to your hard drive. Please provide evidence of your claim, Mr War Lord.
“My point about voluntary intelligence increase seems to have been lost. As a self-aware species we can choose to be more intelligent if we wish. ”
Oh my… See behavioral economics. There is no evidence that this is true. Your point is speculative. There are many possible policy opinions that can be formed by what we know about cannabis. The conclusion is not obvious. That you think it is is evidence of your own intellectual limitations. Your blindspots. We all have them.
Your position seems to imply that ‘intelligence’ corresponds to believing what you believe, Hyborian. From my perspective, (admittedly limited), this is the definition of ignorance not intelligence.
https://www.hackread.com/skype-malware-saves-screenshots-records-conversations/
Vnkd.dat is the second module of the T9000, which gets loaded when the perpetrator of the malicious malware campaign needs to steal files from the computer. It can also steal data from local removable storage devices that contains these extensions: “doc, ppt, xls, docx, pptx, and xlsx.”
However, the third one is the most innocuous module among all, which is the qhnj.dat module. This module allows the command and control server to send commands to every targeted computer and instruct T9000 to generate files and directories, remove/delete files and directories and also move files and directories, encrypt data and get the user’s clipboard copied.
If you want to debate the pros and cons of Cannabis sativa I would be happy to, Jean. Do not want to hijack Mark Maynard’s post here so maybe an email exchange would be better. If it is fine to go off on whatever tangents we like then I have no problem doing it here. If you have any cons to go against the mountain of pros then have at it.
Is there any evidence that any expert has ever stated, in the history of the internet, that a computer hack, via Skype, can’t result in unauthorized access to the hacked computer’s files?
Seriously, where do these opinions come from?
Good Lord. If you’re concerned Skype is insecure simply because malware exists to target it, you might as well give up your web browser, whatever brand it is.
I’m not dealing with sensitive government info and I still don’t use it.
FF–I looked up Skype security vulnerabilities and read a few articles. None indicated that Skype had the potential to be a portal into one’s hard drive. None. There were other vulnerabilities. So I asked Warlord To provide evidence of this vulnerability. It was not a rhetorical question. His answer had no link so I’m still left without an answer. But yes I asked the question about hard vulnerability in the positive and negative and found nothing. That does not mean I’m right, nor did I ever assert I was.
Warlord– we probably agree about pot legalization so there’s no point in arguing. But I understand that many well informed people– better informed than you or I– disagree with both of us, and I respect that informed political perspective as much as mine or yours. Because I like to see all sides to an issue.
There is a link right on my post. Do not know what you are seeing.
It’s not just “pot.” It would be wise to educate yourself on the benefits of hemp, Jean.
I’d like to see who you think is better informed than me on Cannabis who is against it and what their argument is.
“As the world’s most beneficial plant by far it is stupid to disallow it via an international treaty.”
What the fuck does that mean?
I would argue that there are more beneficial plants. Corn, for example. Wheat. Maybe rice.
You know, things that people eat.
Wow, never heard of hemp seed, Pete? I eat it every day with flax meal and almond butter. Check out the nutritional profile. It blows that shit away.
It’s pretty much the perfect single source of nutrition. That’s what the fuck it means, my friend.
…one of the things.
Hyborian– most people would take your committed advocacy for hemp as NO strike in your favor. They may even view it as some explanation. Your righteousness, your incapacity to absorb alternative perspectives and your paranoia are symptome of excessive pot use. It does not seem to be helping you or your argument, but I doubt that’s a reality you can absorb through the haze.
Yes there are people who study pharmacology and public health who specialize in cannabis who know more about it than you do, Hyborian. Duh.
Sometimes it seems like every conversation I have with an off his rocker bro turns into a pitch for the all-encompassing benefits of marijuana/hemp legalization. As someone who is inclined to support broad legalization of drugs, this is depressing. We certainly don’t need more of you guys.
I’m sorry but while flax seed might make you feel good when you put in on your cereal from the Ypsi Food Co-op, the rest of the world is eating grains like rice, wheat or potatoes to abandon. You are kidding yourself if you think that flax seed compares at all.
Flax seed is irrelevant to the diets of the 99.9999999% of the world and meaningless when it comes to keeping people alive.
Mr. Warlord is religious. Certainly, legalization will keep a lot of kids out of jail, but you guys are smoking it. Marijuana is not the “magic plant” you believe and many of the “benefits” are either wholly unproven or based on only limited data. I’m sure that Mr. Warlord will begin to enlighten us with links from pot websites.
Humans do lots of things to get fucked up, which is fine and there are many ways of getting fucked up, some of which are as innocuous as weed. We could pick any of them and make all kinds of grand statements about imagined miracles performed by said drug but in the end, we would just want to get fucked up.
Real medicines suffer from major problems of availability due to problems of cultivation (for plant based medicines) and processing. Kids die every day from malaria, but you don’t hear anything from marijuana advocates about growing more artemisinin. If they would put 1% of their energy into advocating to the US Government for drugs which REALLY DO save lives, we might not have as many dead kids.
And sorry, pot does not cure malaria. I’m sure the Natural News has an article on how kids around Lake Victoria would be ok if they just got stoned all the time.
But no, fanatical advocates don’t care about anything except for one plant (like religious fanatics only care about abortion). They just want to get fucked up and the pot haze keeps them from seeing what kinds of religious nuts they really are.
I don’t give a fuck what people do or what they get fucked up on, but pot advocates waste precious airtime. Moreover, the propagate pseudoscience and fantasies guised as reality and dismiss people who rightly call them on it. Fortunately, they only listen to themselves.
Not to beat a lame horse but I post this only because I found it interesting. An entertaining article from cancer researchers debunking the idea that there is any substantial evidence that anything derived from marijuana cures cancer.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/medical-marijuana-as-the-new-herbalism-part-2-cannabis-does-not-cure-cancer/
Markmaynard.com is a black hole.
But you can’t articulate an argument or even name someone you think could do it, Jean.
Pete, I’m talking about hemp seed. Did you even look it up?
I’ve been researching Cannabis medicine for a long, long time. I’ve read that article and discussed it in depth with someone who thinks like that.
“These substances have not been tested in humans to find out if they can lower cancer risk. There is no available scientific evidence from controlled studies in humans that cannabinoids can cure or treat cancer.”
This quote from that article sums up the problem. There is plenty enough pre-clinical research to show that clinical trials must be done.
By the way it took two seconds to find a 2015 pre-clinical study showing cannabinoids are a promising treatment for malaria.
http://cannabishealthindex.com/cannabinoid-research/cannabis-and-malaria-new-study-reveals-cbd-is-effective-in-preventing-deaths/
This time researchers from Brazil, responding to this urgent need, have discovered that Cannabidiol (CBD), the non-psychoactive compound of cannabis with known neuroprotective properties has the capacity to reduce inflammation of the brain during cerebral malaria.1
CBN was also found to prevent memory loss and anxiety commonly associated with this phase of the disease. The experiment was conducted on mice and while human trial are still to be conducted it is good to know that new, safe, and natural treatment options may be forthcoming.
1 Campos AC, Brant F, Miranda AS, Machado FS, Teixeira AL. Cannabidiol increases survival and promotes rescue of cognitive function in a murine model of cerebral malaria. Neuroscience. 2015 Mar 19;289:166-80.
The new research would appear to confirm wisdom from nearly 5,000 years ago. So how is it intelligent to have such an attitude?
http://www.livescience.com/24554-medical-marijuana.html
“Marijuana’s medicinal uses can be traced back as early as 2737 B.C., when the emperor of China, Shen Neng, touted cannabis tea as a treatment for gout, rheumatism, MALARIA and even poor memory, writes Mitch Earleywine, a professor of psychology at the State University of New York at Albany who researches drugs and addiction, in “Understanding Marijuana: A New Look at the Scientific Evidence” (Oxford University Press, 2005).”
yeah so the take home about pot from that article is that is is mildly cytotocidal..and the other thing was not addressed it that it is an anxiolytic and appetite stimulant.
that is interesting, confirmation of what was conventional wisdom..pot does kill brain cells..amd it will make a person mellow and hungry. I dont think it should be legalized.
Which article are you referring to, Maria Huffman?
Regarding anxiolytic effects and appetite stimulation many patients need those to live. People with wasting syndrome can eat when they have cannabinoids in their body. PTSD patients can have relief from debilitating panic attacks. Corporations try to make medicines as good as Cannabis for those things so it’s odd to see it as a fault.
Talking about apoptosis and autophagy, Maria? That is what cannabinoids promote in cancer cells, not healthy ones.
Long but good. Details Trump camp’s Russian and mob connections: http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/12/19/the-curious-world-of-donald-trumps-private-russian-connections/
Real emails from the DNC and Clinton campaign got leaked. They described numerous ways in which the Clinton campaign was using tactics to throw both the primary and the general election. They knew debate questions in advance, they previewed and altered news stories before they were published, and they paid protesters to create violence at their opponents rallies, among other things. Months later, everybody wants to point the finger at a Russian conspiracy to keep Clinton from office. Assange, who has never been proven to leak anything that wasn’t true, has stated repeatedly that Russians did not give him the info.
At some point, will Democrats demand that their candidates conduct more honorable campaigns?
EOS, what email showed that they paid protestors to create violence? I mean the right pays people to protest and it is actually a very effective and legitimate tactic. Seriously, one the reasons the tea party got traction is that guys like Koch bothers would pay people to go talk to congresspeople in person at their townhalls and such.
I am guessing that you haven’t read those emails. There is really nothing in those emails that was that bad. For instance, a lot of the emails which supposedly showed Clinton using tactics to throw the primary were written *after* she won. Maybe you shouldn’t accuse people of things out if ignorance? I mean, I know that is standard operating procedure for the right but dang. Yes, it was wrong that they had someone give them the debate questions in advance, especially when there was no need since the topics were obvious and anyone with even the littlest bit of logic could have figured it out.
Also, the issue is one of fairness. They only exposed one side. That is the point. You cannot make a claim that the democrats were worse in terms of politics than the republicans unless you have seen their emails too. We are talking about a group of people, btw, who held a secret meeting (or rather a meeting they tried and failed to keep secret, thank goodness) to make it so that they controlled any ethics investigations against them. I suspect that the emails of those kinds of shady people would be rather enlightening.
I think that the right is ignoring this because they won and if some other nation does this in the future in a way that causes them to lose, they will cry bloody murder. If there is one thing you can count on from the right, it is hypocrisy. I for one, feel that most of what the Russians did was fair game. Obviously the hacking of the emails and the subsequent distribution of said emails crosses a line but the rest of it? The fake news stories? The paying people to engage in comments sections? That seems totally fair and the only reason it worked is that a significant number of Americans (on the left *and* the right) are morons. That is on us though. Just remember, this same stuff can work against you and most likely it will at some point in the future. I will admit though that if Cuba or China or France or whomever were to pull the exact same shenanigans in order to elect an uber liberal who would tax the rich at 90% in order to pay for a Universal Basic Income, I would probably be hypocritical about it myself to some degree.
Assange said that he had emails from the Republicans as well, but nothing that wasn’t already publicly known. You don’t think that the US has planted fake news stories in foreign countries? I don’t think you are that naive.
Fake news stories don’t influence my vote. Campaign money doesn’t influence my vote. Trusted News sources do. And having a memory that can recall events that occurred in the past.
Yes, I know that the USA often tries to influence foreign elections with the use of propaganda. Probably most countries do to various degrees. However, just because you think you aren’t influenced by such things, you clearly are since you repeat the lies so often. And even if YOU weren’t, others are but imho, that isn’t Russia’s fault. That is on us 100%. The hacking though crossed a line.
I also don’t trust Assange. If he had Republican emails and didn’t release them, I find that suspect. If there was nothing there not already publicly known, why not release them?
The details contained in today’s joint intelligence report are stunning:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3254237/Russia-Hack-Report.pdf
According this this report, among the Russian goals of this operation were to … “undermine the US led liberal democratic order,” and “undermine public faith in the US democratic process.”
Well … mission accomplished.
After this, there is no way Trump can have any legitimacy as President. The question is … what would we do instead? Delay the inauguration? Call for new elections …?
What a mess …
Also still waiting for the other shoe to drop … does anybody really believe Trump wasn’t aware of – or involved in – this propaganda effort?
Come on. Podesta fell prey to a phishing scam and gave his password out. His password was “p@ssword” – I’m sure! It stands to reason that a DNC staffer would leak their emails after what they did to Bernie Sanders. Even if it was Russia (which I do not believe the evidence points to) would you rather not know the primary was rigged? It’s like yeah, I would rather just not know about it then get damning info from the REDS!
Anyone who think is was just about hacked/leaked e-mails need to read the full report. This was a complex, coordinated campaign that also involved creating and placing false “news” items designed to denigrate one candidate and promote another. It even involved having Russian operatives getting involved in state and local electoral boards. (!)
Like many others, I have serious issues with how the DNC and HRC campaign behaved in this election … but the hacking and publication of the e-mails that led to these revelations – combined with other manipulations – were all part of a complex foreign operation that leads straight to Vladimir Putin. In that sense, this interference, and its aftermath, is *not* a partisan issue.
Can we not agree that we wish to have elections that are free from substantial, covert foreign manipulation – or have we now become so bitterly divided as a nation that some folks are even O.K. with that … as long as the end result is that their guy (or gal) won?
Can we also agree that knowing what we now know, this election, and its result, need to be regarded as illegitimate?
Clinton (and Obama and the Bushes)had a track record and an agenda to continue to overthrow the leadership in multiple countries in the Mid East to create more instability. Russia and the rest of the world have a legitimate interest in in stopping American aggression. There’s still no hard evidence that Russia was directly involved, merely assessments of a politically motivated intelligence system carrying out the wishes of the outgoing president. But I am glad that Assange revealed the truth. The election was legitimate.
EOS and Russia. Strange bedfellows.
http://mindbodypolitic.com/2014/02/22/per-capita-abortion-the-top-and-bottom-five-countries/
News flash: Everyone spies on everyone and has been doing so for a long time. That is not evidence Russia influenced our election. Shoot – Israel is supposed to be our “sacrosanct” ally (Obama’s words) and they probably spy on the USA more than anyone.
Stanford, Berkely analysis proves massive fraud in primaries by Clinton. Where is the outrage about that and how is it even on the same planet ethically as exposing it? But, but…Russia Today is reporting it! The Rooskies must have infiltrated our educational institutions!
http://alexanderhiggins.com/stanford-berkley-study-1-77-billion-chance-hillary-won-primary-without-widespread-election-fraud/
You want to harp on whoever leaked (hacked, whatever the reality is) this information undermining our democracy? You should have been screaming about Clinton’s theft of the primary.
What are we going to do about? I mean look at this. We want our President to take a stand against these kind of things not mollycoddle regimes that endorse them. I hope Saturday stays with us.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-decriminalise-domestic-violence-vladimir-putin-ultra-conservative-family-laws-a7541371.html
7 Trackbacks
[…] « Now that we know the Russians played a role in getting Trump elected, what are we going to d… […]
[…] about why Putin might have invested so heavily in the prospect of a Trump win. As you may recall, this high level narrative of mine had to do with a desire on the part of Putin to see renewables fai…. Well, as I’ve got a little time on my hands tonight, I’ve decided to pick up where and […]
[…] you may recall, I suggested some time ago that I thought that Putin was interested in seeing Trump become President not just because he would allow him to do what…. Well, if you read to the very end of the intelligence document noted above, you will find the […]
[…] you may recall, I suggested some time ago that I thought that Putin was interested in seeing Trump become President not just because he would allow Russia to do w…. Well, if you read to the very end of the intelligence document noted above, you will find the […]
[…] you may recall, I suggested some time ago that I thought that Putin was interested in seeing Trump become President not just because he would allow Russia to do w…. Well, if you read to the very end of the intelligence document noted above, you will find the […]
[…] you may recall, I suggested some time ago that I thought that Putin was interested in seeing Trump become President not just because he would allow Russia to do w…. Well, if you read to the very end of the intelligence document noted above, you will find the […]
[…] I suspect all of you know, it’s the opinion of our intelligence community that the Russian government played a role in he…. That isn’t fake news. That isn’t a conspiracy theory. That’s the opinion of not […]