It’s interesting that the left in this country is probably more committed to the idea that the people should get to vote for the president than the Republicans are, but we don’t vote for president and never have. We vote for electors. And we ought to vet those electors and know exactly who they are and trust them to make a decision on who our president should be, but our educators and our media don’t lead us in that direction so we pay zero attention to who we’re electing to make this decision.
If you want to argue that the Electoral College should be abolished, that’s a legitimate conversation to have. It’s totally irrelevant to our current situation, though. Our current situation is that the president-elect is apparently beholden to a foreign power that intervened in our election to damage his opponent and is now getting their clear reward which is as plain as day in the appointments Trump is making to lead our foreign policy.
The Electors were created to prevent exactly this situation from happening.
End of story.
“Our current situation is that the president-elect is apparently beholden to a foreign power that intervened in our election to damage his opponent and is now getting their clear reward which is as plain as day in the appointments Trump is making to lead our foreign policy.”
Where is the actual proof that: a) Trump is beholden to Putin, and b) that Russia/Putin actually did “intervene” in the election – in what way? how? what happened?, and c) how that actually swayed voters. What proof is there of that?
I’m not being facetious. I truly want to know. I may well be missing something, and if I am, I’d be happy to be enlightened.
I haven’t done extensive R&D on this situation, but what I have read & heard has not, so far, provided me with incontrovertible, unassialable Intel that any of this actually happened. I’m not saying it didn’t. I’m just asking for more proof than what I’ve seen or read so far.
I know you are more plugged in than I am. Do you have more information to share? Asking genuinely. Thanks.
me too.
If you know something, Booman, share it!!!
Or at least tell us that you do know more than what has been bandied about on the pro-HRC media.
Please.
AG
“pro-HRC media.” lol
I am not sure if this is snark. If it is, please forgive me for asking the following question.
If it isn’t snark, then where were you for the entire stretch of the campaign?
Almost the entire major media system was consistently anti-Trump and had been so since the day that he entered the RatPublican primaries. In a two-dog race, being anti-one dog necessarily means being pro-the other dog, unless of course you are quite clear that you like neither dog. I saw no major media that said they liked neither, myself, and although I was crystal clear on the subject of not liking either candidate I was constantly accused of being pro-Trump by several hasnamuss wiseacres here on this site.
Where are you on this spectrum?
AG
Editorial boards were universally against Trump, sure. Reporting was a different story, check the emphasis on EMAILS.
Headlines were against Trump. TV news was against Trump. The Google News page cherry-picking was overwhelmingly against Trump and still is. Where do you think most of the electorate gets its info? From deep reading?
Please.
Only this time the tables turned.
A large number of average-Joes-and-Janes lost all trust in the media…actually became hostile to whatever it said. An earned hostility after years of copious bullshit reporting.
And now here we jolly well are, aren’t we?
Thinking about pulling a fast one on the Constitution as it stands…the one that we so clamorously defend whenever it seems to be in our best interests.
So it goes.
AG
This might be why average ‘Jane and Joes” lost all trust in the media.
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/12/the-mainstream-media-is-guilty-of-grotesque-malpractice
As to the Constitutional issue you raise, the electors refusing to elect Trump and tossing the election to the house is well within the law.
Oh, and I would appreciate any help you can provide as regards embedding links on this site.
For example, you could do this:
The Mainstream Media is Guilty of Grotesque Malpractice
Basically type:
title
See if that helps.
That did not work quite the way I wanted, but look below to the allowed html code and look at its guidelines for help:
<“A href” = “yoururlhere”> somethingsomethingsomething <“/A”>
Remove quotation marks. You will then have an embedded url.
how to make a hotlink in HTML
.
40% of Americans only get their news from FOX. They area oblivious to newspapers.
Yeah, but…
Fox actively opposed Trump too. It had to be careful to not lose its core audience, but the general tenor of their dealings with Mr. Trump was…from Megyn Kelly early in the process right on through…negative. Subliminally negative, implied negativity, but there nonetheless.
The people who voted for Trump made up their own minds. Most of them are not very bright, but they certainly figured out the media’s PermaGov bias early on in the process. Opposition to Trump from nearly every powerful RatPublican helped, of course.
The old saw “The enemy of my enemy is my friend?”
Yes, but it works other ways.
“The enemy of my friend is my enemy.”
“The friend of my enemies is my enemy.”
Like dat.
AG
Nicely done.
Not that it will penetrate the protective shields, but….
What kind of “proof” do you need?
Marcy Wheeler has a starting list:
Marcy Wheeler, emptywheel: The Evidence [Needed] to Prove the Russian Hack
Evidence that:
Seen anything specific on these items?
Former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan and Wikileaks supporter Craig Murray claims knowledge of (without his own evidence) the fact that the DNC and Podesta leaks were inside jobs–by a mole or an unfaithful employee.
Craig Murray: The CIA’s Absence of Conviction
Murray’s claim of motive was that it was a Bernie or Bust type upset with the way Democratic institutions rigged the primary and the sort of backroom deals they witnessed the Clinton campaign making.
Take this with as many grains of salt as you wish, but realize that it is an alternative narrative that comes closer to meeting an Occam’s Razor test.
Presuming this is salt. Fair enough if you have your reasons.
You are therefore certain that it was not an internal leak of information.
How is an internal leak even in the conversation?
While it’s possible that someone inside NSA leaked something pretty significant, that has nothing to do with the demonstrable intrusions into the DNC’s servers, or the obvious other successful phishing attacks that were done against Podesta, Powell, etc.
One does not leak a phishing attack. And if they trace back to Russia and even amateur sleuths on the internet discovered this immediately, then the only question would be if the Americans did this to themselves in order to blame Russia. And that’s nonsensical because it would require the NSA to do it, and they would be doing it to help Trump and harm Clinton?
No. That did not happen.
I think you and Marcy may be looking for levels of proof that simply do not exist. If Putin did it, he would of necessity demanded plausible deniability. Hide the thing behind many levels and perhaps in foreign countries. I doubt there is any direct computer link to the FSB in Moscow.
But Booman gave a list of items that together suggest there is a smoking pile of something going on here. I do agree with you that we need more information and to that end, I would welcome our intelligence agencies to weigh in. The very fact Trump is so sure Russia did not do it and his associates ties to Putin ( including the latest SOS proposal) make this suspicious to me.
He has no proof – what Tarheel says could just as well be true.
Does anybody really know what time it is?
Does anybody really care?
It is one week before the electoral college meets. I cared the moment that AP announced that it was Trump who won.
This is not a time for loyalty tests. It is a time for creating an opposition party against Trump.
The only question at the moment is whether Democrats are onboard and allied in creating an opposition political party.
I’ll take an opposition party rooted in facts, thanks.
We have forensic evidence that Craig Murray is lying. It is not the case that “what Tarheel said could equally be true”.
All positions are not equally valid. Some have more basis than others. We abandon critical thinking and we end up with a whole party of barking conspiracy theorists like AG.
This too shall pass. As soon as agencies under the command and control of Trump begin the new round of propaganda, Martin and others will put back on their critical thinking caps. But they sure don’t like those that wear non-partisan caps. That don’t deviate from reasonable standards of demands for evidence of allegations regardless of the political affiliation of the CIC. Skeptics that were adults during decades of the Cold War and had to wait patiently for the truth have an advantage in addressing new anti-Russia allegations by TPTB over those with no experience of those days. I’m thankful that when I was young for the number of people that I knew that had lived through the McCarthy period and were able to direct me in how to assess government foreign policy pronouncements. Never once steered me in the wrong direction or towards the obviously unhinged loony-left.
RE:
link (noteworthy for non-response to “reasonable standards of demands for evidence of allegations”.
Bit selective in application of such “standards” are you?
It’s not complicated. Those that said/say “show me” wrt the WMD, birther, Benghazi, and Putin/Russia did it allegations aren’t large in numbers. Most Senate Democrats didn’t/aren’t say/saying “show me” wrt to the first and last on that list; they were/are quick to declare that allegations are good enough.
English be too much to ask?
The motive for wikileaks is easy. Assange has both justified personal animus against America, and he sees the American Empire/Hegemony as the grearest threat in the world today. He stated flat out he saw HRC as a continuation of Empire while Trump was a wild card.
Agreed. If Assange was involved in any of the leaks, which seems possible, I doubt he was acting on behalf the Russians. He was acting on his own recognizance. My understanding, which could be very flawed, is that no one has heard from Assange since Oct 3. Why not?
I’m not a huge Assange fan, but it’s well known that he was out to get Clinton by any means. I’m not clear that there was a Russian connection there.
I am not sure what you mean by “no one has heard from Assange since Oct 3” but he has been in the media recently. Mainly about the rape investigation.
Yep – last week as a matter of fact.
Occams Razir?
Disgruntled person + hack ability + cover up + a conspiracy to pin it on Russia.
Hack ability + Russian support.
Which has the fewer assumptions?
Thanks. I have kept up with Marcy at Emptywheel, but it’s good to repeat that list.
I don’t see that there’s absolute proof that the Russians were involved in some way, and even if they pushed forward some anti-Clinton propaganda (I realize that the CIA is probably asserting that more than this happened), how do you actually verify some sort of proof that it really tilted the election so much that Trump won. It’s pretty hard to verify something like that.
If the CIA says, for example (which I don’t believe they are), that Russia somehow hacked voting machines and that ended with more votes for Trump, then that would be positive proof of serious and severe election intervention (or whatever terminology is appropriate).
From where I sit, I’m not seeing something along those lines, but again, I’m not saying that nothing happened. But I’m not convinced by what I’ve seen so far. That’s just me.
“how do you actually verify some sort of proof that it really tilted the election so much that Trump won. It’s pretty hard to verify something like that.”
Right, but you don’t have to prove that. All you have to do is provide convincing evidence that Trump is beholden to the interests of the same foreign power that hacked into the computers. That is not so hard to do.
And use the word Treason in every other sentence. That is the only thing that may light a fire under republicans. It probably won’t, but it will sure be a nice shitstain to keep on them for he next 50 years.
Missing the point on several issues by quite a lot.
“Hacking voting machines to actually change the result is something that could be done,”
Tin foil hat crowd.
It is not possible absent massive conspiracy with Americans working in polling places.
The CLINTON campaign has said this did not happen. They had thousands of lawyers watching the vote.
In fact there is overwhelming evidence this did not happen.
That you resort to it shows you have little regard for the evidence you would use to overturn an election.
The point is it doesn’t matter if they hacked. Trump colluded with Russia to sway the election and therefore he is guilty of treason. The electors theoretically have the ability to do what ever they want. Treason against the nation is a pretty good argument for denying the will of 100,000 people in PA, WI, and MI.
Do you understand the concept of disinformation? Gaslighting?
Some people are very good at it.
How about global warming? You don’t believe that nonsense, do you? LOL.
Guess what? You can do this with any statement.
I didn’t know it was meant for people like you.
I do know it is meant for Trump supporters. They live for this stuff.
I believe that you are saying that all information has now become suspect.
But you also imply that neither the Democratic Party nor the US intelligence community ever participates in gaslighting or disinformation.
I don’t necessarily buy the insider part, but I do think it is much more likely that domestic insider actors delivered the DNC and Podesta information to Wikileaks, possibly with a false story about their motives.
I see that intelligence community knowledge of this and unwillingness, for whatever reason, to provide more than vague innuendo (which is also what Murray provides) likely argues against state actors and probably against hacking as well. Even given the apparent lousy state of IT security at the DNC.
What I do know is that only strong evidence, as strong as came out in Watergate will cause the Electoral College pause. We are still at the “there was a breakin at the DNC” stage.
you have been unwittingly parroting the Kremlin line since they released the audio file on Nuland.
Are you unwilling to accept that you were duped or just so in alignment with Russia interests that you take their side in our foreign policy disputes?
On the latter, of course it is possible to take the Russian side on Ukraine or Syria or NATO expansion or anything else. But at least you should know that you’ve been like a puppet on a string to RT and GRU/FSB information campaigns for years now.
And you are so sure of these facts because your sources are? the Washington Post and the New York Times?
Does this mean that Democrats are returning to the form of 1946-1947?
Or that only NSA and CIA sources are considered valid from here on out, but only if they are issued through anonymous cut-outs.
We folks out in the boondocks haven’t a real clue what is going on in DC. Or really anywhere, given that the US commitment to disinformation is as strong as any other nation’s.
I’m sure you are going to lay out chapter and verse how those disinformation campaigns unfolded with actual facts instead of blanket allegations.
“But you also imply that neither the Democratic Party nor the US intelligence community ever participates in gaslighting or disinformation.”
I did not mean to imply that at all.
I’m just saying that it’s not something you can generalize about. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don’t.
For example, as i pointed out in a post a couple of days ago, although the CIA lied about WMD in Iraq, actually they were pretty much bamboozled into it by political pressure (on them), because the fake evidence all came from the “Office of Special Plans” in the Pentagon, controlled by Rumsfeld (and Wolfowitz and Cheney).
It was not the CIA that got us into the Iraq War.
In this case, it’s clear that they don’t like Trump.
He doesn’t like them either, but not for any good reasons.
What I’m really saying is that if Trump’s lips are moving, you pretty much know he’s lying.
It took tape recordings to make Nixon resign.
Or direct evidence of involvement.
Which is what it should take.
We are nowhere close to there.
over crimes he committed (or were committed on his behalf, at his bidding, with his knowledge) while in office.
There is not even any question of Trump “resign[ing]”.
The issue is whether the Electoral College should install him in the first place (against the Constitutional purpose of the EC), despite expanding evidence the election may (to put it mildly) have been corrupted by a foreign power.
There’s simply no valid comparison to be made between the two things.
We are still at the “there was a breakin at the DNC” stage.
Only if you mean at the stage of “it looks as if someone tried to break in to the DNC headquarters” that began on May 28, 1972. The break in familiar to us all on June 17, 1972 resulted in the arrest of five burglars and within a few days they were linked to CREEP. The next two years entailed uncovering how far up the chain of command and outside of CREEP to the administration the whole operation went.
I’ve been asking for months now what standard of evidence you would find acceptable. Thanks for the list.
Would you really be surprised if there is satisfactory evidence pointing to Russian involvement in gaming our election? Is it not in their national interest to do so here and elsewhere?
It will never ever be enough proof for some of the commentators. They spent months repeating republican memes, which they were fine with. Now it turns out they were RUSSIAN memes.
So nothing will convince them they were/are dupes. In their minds, the ones not out right republican, are the only pure progressives. They are now invested.
It’s called bias capture.
.
It’s not the commenters who must be persuaded. It is the electoral college–in one week from now.
Given that the current majority of them are pledged to Trump, that will require a staggering amount of proof.
Chanting Putin and Russia and foreign intervention does not deliver that proof. What exactly led the intelligence community to leak that story to the media? Disrupting a gathering Trump resistance with trivia?
It was bait to a lot of grieving Clinton voters. But without evidence or the power to gain evidence, it becomes a distraction.
“Chanting Putin and Russia and foreign intervention does not deliver that proof”
I agree but there is gathering circumstantial information that should not be ignored. Once again, my jury vote is there is a pony under that pile of shit. Maybe it’s a good thing I am not an elector.
“They spent months repeating republican memes”
You are a liar. You slander those here who disagree with you.
Those here who suspicious of Clinton did so from a completely different perspective.
I will never let you get away with that slander.
I do not respect your opinion are you.
Back you your usual games with ratings you slime.
As I said before I do not respect you.
As usual you provide and contribute nothing of value.
Yep, we had commenters who insisted that HRC would be the Goldman Sachs candidate, who repeated false claims about her health and how she needed to step down immediately, and tons of talk about those damned emails. Much of that info had been transmitted either directly or indirectly from sites that turned out to be reputed for spreading fake “news” and clickbait. It’ll be denied, of course. I would expect nothing less. To call the comments to many of the posts here a cesspit would be an insult to cesspits. And so the progressive movement that got built up in the aftermath of the Bush II wars, as it was, ends. Stay upwind, whatever you do. The odor will be foul for a long time to come.
Now some have realized what they have done, and become sensitive little children about it.
Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
.
” how she needed to step down immediately”
Show me the link.
Here’s at least one. Diaries around that time of her bout with walking pneumonia (something I know something about having lived through it) were filled with speculation about her having Parkinson’s or MS. It was a real hoot and a half.
I followed your link back to that cesspool and I noticed something interesting.
Lots of speculation by the usual suspects about Clinton’s health, but without demands for evidence or proof of those speculations. Yet those same commentators are now demanding irrefutable, absolute, and 100% proof when it comes to Russian interference. It’s important to read up on how those health questions started and
where they originated
So when it comes to passing on republican memes? No proof needed.
But memes that might help democrats in the upcoming 4 year fight? Where’s the proof? And it must be 100% irrefutable.
But what do I know? I’m a lying slime.
.
It’s all ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ isn’t it?
All the way down….
If the comments are a cesspit why are you participating?
Not tipping these two comments to avoid elevating the single troll rating by one of our resident troll rating abusers to an active low score. Expect this comment to earn the wrath of one of more of these rating abusers as well.
I’ve asked myself that same question on numerous occasions since returning. Maybe I am hoping against any tangible evidence that what’s left of the progressive blogosphere will stop the circular firing squad long enough to focus on a common enemy (admittedly I am not terribly optimistic at least in the short term), I have a certain amount of respect for Booman, and there are some folks here who haven’t yet been chased away (including some who are fairly newish) who have something worthwhile and thought provoking to say. So in the meantime, I’m stocking up on Febreze, clothespins, and fly swatters.
Also,
Goldman Sachs connections seem to have disappeared from the concerns around here. It was all the rage in diaries when it was Democrats.
It’s just like Russia issue, it’s funny how their positions so perfectly align with republicans.
.
you present me with several difficulties, including that I cannot quite believe I should be forced to dignify your questions with a response, that do so adequately to satisfy you skepticism would be a lot more work than I can commit to doing right now, at this moment, and that part of this comes down to trusting the assessment of intelligence organizations that we know better than to trust unquestioningly.
So, I don’t expect you to find the following adequate and it is not intended to be.
Try starting at the end, and looking at who Trump is appointing. As Secretary of State, a guy who has been given an award for being a friend of Russia, for National Security Adviser, a guy who feted Putin in Moscow and took a job working for his propaganda network.
Look at policy, including a lack of commitment to NATO and a decision to abandon Syria to Russian domination.
Look at advisers during the campaign, including Paul Manafort who made sure that pro-Ukrainian stuff was taken out of the Republican platform.
Then look at the leaks. Look at what was leaked and what was not leaked. And, yes, look at what the Intelligence Community is saying about this, what they people they’ve briefed from both parties are saying about it. Also, what Europeans are saying and our own former NATO commander.
Look at Trump’s own statements about Putin, including his taking sides with Putin against his own government, sweeping aside well documented human rights abuses, including outright assassinations, etc.
Look at statements by Russian leaders, both formal and informal, active and retired. That they wanted revenge on Clinton, that they used Snowden and Wikileaks, which also corresponds to IC assessments.
Look at connections between Trump and Alfa Bank in the Carter Page incident as well as in the direct server line into Trump Tower.
Look at the preponderance of the evidence, and then also consider that the Russians probably have stuff on Trump and the Republicans that they didn’t release but can release at any time.
Mostly, just ask yourself what more Trump could do to suggest that he’s in the pocket of Putin other than coming out and admitting it?
I am in no way denying that Trump has made many moves to ally the U.S. with Russia, Booman, nor do I think that we have seen the end of that movement. This is totally in line with the kind of world that Orwell predicted in “1984”…three superpowers in a continual dance of partner-swapping.
My point is as follows.
Where’s the surprise?
Has the U.S. not done similar things in other countries? Does it not continue to do so? Is a better relationship w/Russia necessarily a pre-proven bad thing? Has Israel not pursued similar goals in affecting the U.S. government using other means? EWhere is the uproar about their relationships with various congressmen,m starting with Chuck Schumer? Please!!!
I have a “Wait and see” attitude towards trump’s Charybdis. We have already thoroughlyseen what the neoliberal/neoconservative center has accomplished over the preceding 30 years or so of Bush I, Clinton I, Bush II and Obama I, and it’s not a pretty sight. Not to my eyes it isn’t. Allying w/Russia? Are they any more or less guilty than is the U.S.?
An alliance of thieves.
So it goes.
What’s the real alternative?
A Trump takedown?
There’s be blood in the streets if that happens.
bet on it.
Let’s see what starts to go down first before Chicken Littling ourselves into yet more “The sky is falling!!!” trouble.
Please.
AG
I appreciate your response. Thanks for taking the time to line that out.
For technical stuff, this Motherboard piece from late July is a good primer, but keep in mind that a lot has come to light since then.
Marcy Wheeler’s view on that Motherboard article.
Marcy Wheeler, emptywheel: The Two Intelligence Agency Theory of Handing Trump the Election
And why didn’t the intelligence community come to a consensus on the issue in real time before election day?
There is fogging of a domestic story going on here.
There’s a more recent article from him in Esquire. Much more comprehensive.
“There is fogging of a domestic story going on here.”
Perhaps. but it is still mighty smoky in here – and that pile of shit is wriggling.
Well, yes, but P-U-T-I-N is easier to spell and sell than E-M-O-L-U-M-E-N-T-S .
Lets review the facts.
First I would think given your writing before this election you would have learned some humility, since two days before it you were highlighting a prediction that had Clinton with a 99% chance of winning.
Now, having offered some of the worst political predictions there are you seem offended that someone challenges you about overturning the results of an ELECTION.
Dude you haven’t earned the right to the arrogance.
There is no way to put this: you have been consistently wrong about this election for about 6 months.
Second, none of your arguments come close to the evidence that would support the conclusion you want to draw.
You flippantly when challenged offer a bunch of innuendo. You have nothing close to proof – which you know – which is which is why you responded the way you did.
All you have is speculation which you pretend is fact.
Unlike you I take overturning the results of an election seriously. For you it is a punchline. You offer no standard that should be applied Before I would even consider doing that I would want something more than the fucking CIA – who has been wrong more times than I care to count – to come forward with direct evidence of collusion.
Absent such evidence this is horseshit. The EC is not more going to overturn this election than Clinton was going to win 400 Electoral votes.
And the people who are suggesting this is a real possibility are misleading people.
Probably not but we’ve long since blown through whatever sanctity our democratic process. And if the president elect gives every indication of being an asset of a hostile foreign power – which opinions can differ on- then to me it seems we have to consider the possibility that drastic and otherwise horrible action must be taken.
We’ve got incontrovertible evidence of that. The Russian thing is by comparison a matter of interpretation. But when a candidate says he hopes the Russians hack his opponent, and a lot of circumstantial evidence says he’s in bed with them…
(Might be my bad!)
Which was that in Rightwingnuttia, “incontrovertible evidence” carries roughly zero weight.
Think I was paraphrasing Krugman there, re: Worse-Than-Useless Corporate Media’s persistent false equivalence/both-siderism, i.e. (paraphrase!),
“Scientists report incontrovertible evidence of Earth’s approximately-spherical shape — opponents disagree” (or something along those lines).
Let’s take it down a notch. You’re the one that kept saying Clinton would win by 10 points.
To be fair, we didn’t expect the FBI to act as a coup d’etat instrument,nor did we expect the Republicans to be working hand in hand with the Russians to skew the elections. I give Booman a pass on not accounting for treason.
addressed to fladem, not booman.
If you think about it, this is not the sort of thing that can be proven when he’s not even president yet. The point is, you don’t want it to be proven AFTER he is president. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to be have more than valid grounds for suspicion. The Russian meddling with the computers plus the observable profile of this particular candidate/president-elect in terms of foreign policy, as of everything else, is off the charts bizarre compared to anything we have ever seen previously. Isn’t that enough?
To overturn a DEMOCRATIC ELECTION?
No, it isn’t close.
Live by the Electoral College, die by the Electoral College. If we’re talking democracy, that’s one thing. But we’re not talking democracy; we’re talking the Electoral College, which is not democracy.
It is incredible to see this argument made.
It is completely morally bankrupt.
No. The right wing in this country is morally bankrupt. I would pursue any legal means to stop Trump. There nothing morally bankrupt about fighting by the rules as set out in the constitution. Sorry,(not sorry) but I have no intention of neutering my opposition.
It is incredible to see this argument made.
It is completely morally bankrupt
Sorry. We don’t inhabit a universe where such exists. We just aren’t ever granted that level of definitive certainty (exception being disproof of a universal claim, which only requires a single, documented counter-example to disprove it).
In essentially all other cases, we are limited to a “preponderance of available evidence” standard of “proof”. (This really needs explaining???)
Yet decisions must be made anyway.
booman’s own response very adequately covers the rest of why your request is not reasonable.
Here’s a challenge for evidence:
I’ll be curious to see if Scahill gets anything of interest. Thanks.
If I had such a thing I certainly wouldn’t send it to Scahill. I’d look for somebody I thought was capable of unbiased judging.
I wonder who that might be? Finding an unbiased judge in this day and age is a hard one.
It may be impossible to provide proof positive of Russian intervention. Consider, for example, that Russia subcontracted it to their people who may be anywhere in the world. But there is plenty of smoke out there about it, and we should have a full investigation about it. I personally think there is a real pony under the smoke.
What is it that allows the CIA to make the allegation and why won’t they go public with it and their basis. We are so far short of “proof positive” that that nitpick is not on the horizon.
Also, what allows them to assume that it was not a rogue element of US intelligence?
I don’t follow your logic. We already have a rogue element of US intelligence in the story. Except it’s in the FBI, not the CIA.
But it is not the subject of investigation, is it?
My logic is clear. Proof of Putin must discount rogue elements of the US establishment. Occam’s Razor.
Let me also point out we knew about the rogue element of the FBI months before the hack.
So why aren’t we focusing on Rudy Giuliani, rogue FBI officers and rogue agents carrying out a burglary of the DNC? Much less convoluted on motive.
Especially since the Trump=Putin narrative has traction only with Clinton voters and few else. Where should journalists put their investigative energy?
Just stop.
SERIOUSLY.
And thank you, Booman.
That is one that I missed at the time.
The fact about “kompromat” as Rid describes it is that it is using compromising information at a strategic moment and it depends on the compromising information being true. The damaging information in Wikileaks information and the damaging information in the leaks of the conversations between Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt were damaging in that they showed a US Assistant Secretary of State and a US Ambassador in real time deciding the fate of a country in which a coup was taking place. And being frustrated that the EU was not falling automatically in line. All while the public story was of US seeking a democratic solution. The US public had not real context then and still doesn’t as to what the conflict in interests between the US and Russia are about. Nor why, given the world situation, the US was on a war footing about Russia protecting its obvious strategic base in Sebastapol except to distract from the way Putin deflated the “red line in the sand” over chemical weapons in Syria.
That sort of ham-handedness without reason and the ties with the Kagan neo-con family soured me on Nuland. It seemed a self-defeating appointment for Europe and Eurasia if one is seeking stability and not endless war. Opening up conflict in Europe seemed to me to be a horrible foreign policy.
This article is the fullest yet about what the hacks did and what was suspected taken. It clearly has intelligence community sources without attribution. And the security community observation of the internet surely functions as a low-budget independent NSA.
What we need from the intelligence community about this is what did they know, when did they know it, how was the Trump campaign involved, and why was this not made bigger news, given its importance to the election?
The reason that I missed it likely is because the focus was on Comey’s letter at that time, which makes Comey’s intervention in the election narrative even more suspect.
So does all of the warrantless wiretapping that the NSA has been doing have answers to those questions of Russian hacking and its relationship to the Trump campaign or not? Time to put the cards on the table before Monday.
And given the drift of Rid’s narrative, one must ask how early did the GOP cultivate a relationship with Putin? Which Russians were Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, Tom Delay close to, for example? What role did the US war on Serbia during the Clinton administration have in shaping Putin’s relationship with Clinton and the Clinton’s with him?
Although Rid hints at Trump’s promoting Russia during his campaign, some reporter needs to do a more thorough look at how the Russia connection played through the Trump campaign and how the presence of Manafort or Bannon or Lewandowsky affected that relationship?
More serious, why is US cyber-defense so damn crappy and why does the US contract with multinational suppliers of cyber-offense malware? What this has resulted in is the crapification of the internet.
But that is all aside from the electoral college. And what US-Russia relations are going forward no matter who the electoral college selects.
Clinton voters are more than half the voters.
You seem to be following the meme that the CIA is doing this at the behest of the Democratic Party. That’s understandable, of course — the CIA has such a reputation for acting at the behest of the Democratic Party.
Not.
The CIA has not formally done anything yet. The leaks to the media are presumed from the CIA because of the reporters involved.
I agree that it is risky to attribute it to being at the behest of the Democratic Party just because Obama is President.
Someone who is a source for the reporters involved is likely making mischief. Not necessarily a Democrat.
It’s the Trump people that are saying it’s the Democratic Party (allegedly because they’re embarrassed they lost so badly).
But it’s ridiculous do think that the CIA would be doing this to help the Democratic Party.
What do you mean the CIA hasn’t done anything formally yet? They’ve just issued an intelligence assessment stating that Russia tried to swing the election in Trump’s favor.
The questions the FBI is asking are academic distinctions. Any way you slice it, the Russians interfered with out elections, in which one candidate was espousing Russian policy goals completely contrary to anything we’ve ever heard before from a candidate for major office. Can that possibly be a coincidence?
The Russians couldn’t know exactly how it would turn out, and it’s impossible to prove that they brought about the results, there were so many other factors.
But that’s not necessary. All that’s necessary is to understand that they deliberately meddled in our election in favor of one candidate who just happens to be strangely and inordinately favorable to them.
Maybe we should trust Trump. He is convinced Russia did not do it and he is very smart you know. Besides he says he has no connection to the Russians and neither do any of his appointments. But the CIA appear to be saying the Russians did it. As I said, depending on your views of these matters, there may be no way to prove this absolutely. I tend to think they had a hand in all this and the fake news. The CIA may be persuaded to release what they know and how they know it. But even that won’t satisfy everyone.
It’s the CIA — they could release it, everything, sources and methods, the works — and no one would believe it. For obvious reasons.
Settle in for eight years of Trump, and Pence, after Trump strokes out.
It’s our penance for all the governments we spied on, and all the elections where we put our thumb on the scale.
The least we can do is take our medicine without bitching. If there’s still a Republic left in 2024, we can pick up the pieces then.
Well, Davis, I really don’t want to go silently into that night and trust there is some light at the end of the dark tunnel.
It’s the price you pay for living in the source and focus of all the evil in the world.
Yeah … that’s the ticket!
I really don’t get this. If a rogue US agency is capable of released hacked information in order to influence an election, as you imply, then a hostile foreign power is capable of such as well.
So, we have capability and motive.
Is there a reason you don’t find such a strategy by a foreign nation plausible? It makes perfect sense to me and I don’t blame them for doing it one bit.
Play close attention to how Wikileaks covers upcoming elections in Europe.
I do too. It definitely is consistent with Russia’s psyops tactics both in terms of method and effect. And the tech stuff does suggest Russian links. McConnell even has said something but of course he prevented it during the election (and I think its even money whether Obama should have listened or not) and is arguing for an existing committe instead of an independant investigation group he can control and bury results.
I’m not hair on fire as other people because a lot of people in this world live in places where foreign powers meddle in internal elections to get their preferred candidate. We are guilty of the same. Its just… welcome to the world. Its vital to investigate but I dont doubt the actual vote counts.
“I’m not hair on fire as other people because a lot of people in this world live in places where foreign powers meddle in internal elections to get their preferred candidate. We are guilty of the same. Its just… welcome to the world.”
That makes perfect sense as an armchair observation. But doesn’t it make any difference that this is your country? I just don’t understand the attitude. “Oh, happens all the time, we do it too, so what’s the big deal?” The big deal is what’s in store for us if this is allowed to go through. If we don’t even care that a cabal of psychopathic oligarchs are selling us out to a foreign power.
I’ve got news for you. Other countries do care.
Your last sentence will eventually become incredibly prescient.
Our government is about to become a direct conduit to the Kremlin. Who will trust us?
.
I do think its a big deal but in fact it doesn’t raise the stakes if its happening to my country. I am equally incensed about it no matter what country it happens in. I guess you do need to explain what is in store if it goes through. Because gutting SS, Medicare, Obamacare, empowering police to fuck us, that would happen under any Republican. Torture would be greenlit under maybe half the candidates that were running. More surveillance happened under Obama.
So far thats the same whether the oligarchs are selling us out to foreigners or just fucking us themselves. Do you meannon foreign policy?
And if other countries care, good on foreign policy it will restrain us or limit damage.
Well if you’re equally incensed which countries it happens in, then you ought to be equally incensed that it’s happening here.
To be honest, I don’t get your drift. Your house is starting to catch on fire, but why call the fire department, because other people’s houses burn down all the time?
I quite agree with you. There’s evidence aplenty that the CIA has messed in many elections around the globe over many decades. Just bc the CIA does it to other countries does not make me say: oh well. If Russia (or whomever) does it to us, we just have to suck it up.
No, we should investigate and take appropriate steps depending on what we find.
I’m just waiting for more evidence. I agree that there is some evidence available – many good pertinent things (and links) have been provided here.
That’s the way to do this. Investigate, verify, keep looking, make sure.
Good, because that’s what’s happening.
I am equally incensed.
But to use your analogy it’s like we’ve been setting fire to other people’s houses and when someone sets fire to our house suddenly it’s all “ARSON IS A TERRIBLE CRIME!” though I concede it’s a natural response. In fact it IS a bad thing.
I agree with both you and RUKidding in terms of what should be done. Investigate and reveal. Just because I’m not freaking out like Booman doesn’t mean I don’t want to drill down on what happened and fight it.
The working class has no fatherland.
“The working class has no fatherland.”
You’re 25 years too late with that.
Putin quit the Party in December 1991.
It’s counter-revolutionary to insist that foreign interference in one country’s elections is somehow more special than in any other’s.
Especially when the country in question had it coming.
The charge was aired before the election. The associations were made public before the election.
Clinton made an issue of in the debates.
It is not, absent some evidence of direct coordination, sufficient for overturning the election.
Yes, I remember. it was thoroughly aired before the entire Republican Party.
Well, now that that’s settled, let’s move on to something important, shall we?
fladem, all these extraordinarily pro-Russian Cabinet and Administrative appointments, many of the appointees wildly inappropriate and/or unqualified for their jobs…
…the President-elect directly claiming that he believes the CIA is lying on behalf of the Democratic Party, setting himself up as uniquely unable to achieve a working relationship with our chief international intelligence agency and the Congressional minority…
…this is all new news which corresponds with substantial amounts of circumstantial, factual, and now apparently classified evidence which links Russia to the explicit propagandizing of the American electorate with the intent of delivering Trump’s win.
Christ, during the campaign you frequently claimed that the smoke around the Clinton Foundation was sufficient for you to name it a fire. The smoke is billowing from this woodpile, and you’ve not only become reticent to draw a reasonable conclusion, you’re attacking those who have. It’s peculiar.
Thanks.
Treason is a damn good reason for overturning an election. 2.7million more votes just makes it easier.
Besides, if it goes to the house a Republican still comes out, and not a good one– but hopefully one not guilty of treason as is the president-elect.
Alexander Hamilton argued the reason for the electoral college was to prevent this situation from happening. He argued that in 1789 or so. Yes, Founders’ intent, or at least one Founder.
The practical reality is that states have arranged elections with winner-take-all allocation of electors (except for Nebraska and Maine), have passed state “faithless elector” laws and select slates of electors tied to each party (for the most part). In addition, electors vote at their state capitals. How exactly does the deliberation stage that produces a President other than Trump occur?
One has to imagine 50 separate gatherings coming to a majority of electors for Hillary Clinton or some third person other than Trump suitable enough that there would not be immediate rioting by Trump supporters (or that President Obama would treat Trump supporters like he treats other protesters). If Clinton, you would see a huge howl left and right and court challenges to throw it into the House of Representatives.
The problem isn’t Putin; it’s the blatant billionaire purchase of an American election through collaboration of US media CEOs and the Democratic collapse from its own internal national and local corruption and lack of effort in the field. That is what made the election not one of inevitability.
If nothing else, this is what the bargaining stage of grief looks like. More than an election was lost with the vote on November 8.
And the effort to ramp up the Cold War to reunite a fractured European Union is a fools errand from the beginning. Austerity fragmented Europe just like it created the anger that propelled Trump into office. Time for Democrats to take a hard look at the consequences of failed domestic and foreign policies and sketch out how to be a real opposition instead of punching against shadows and fictions.
“The problem isn’t Putin; it’s the blatant billionaire purchase of an American election through collaboration of US media CEOs and the Democratic collapse from its own internal national and local corruption and lack of effort in the field. That is what made the election not one of inevitability.”
Two different levels of problems. Yes, you’re right, the problem is the blatant billionaire purchase of an American election … etc. Except this year it got out of even their control. Because of our two party system, the election, after starting off as a scrimmage of 17 oligarchical factions on one side and a pre-ordained coronation on the other, wound up as a battle between two different oligarchic cabals, one behind the GOP and the other behind the Democrats.
The Russians took advantage of this unprecedented stability (in fact, they helped foment it as much as they could).
However, the fact that they did should be enough of a shock to call for action to stop this clusterfuck from going forward. Unfortunately, the slow-motion takeover by the oligarchy that’s been going on for decades doesn’t present that opportunity.
I find it incomprehensible that you don’t see the danger in the Putin/Trump nexus, where Putin is the kingpin of the international fascist movement today.
Or that you cannot even accept that there is a Putin/Trump nexus. Who are what are you defending here?
I meant “unprecedented instability”.
There are multiple trends going on that do not put Putin in a catbird seat any more than the US really was a sole superpower. Perceptions guided reality until W showed the limits of US power.
In this election, we faced two major dangers as it turned out. With a Clinton win, we faced a futile effort to turn Putin-fear into an instrument of NATO consolidation and European Union collapse under a failed austerity policy. That restarted an arms race that could intensify nuclear danger instead of producing extension of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty or a build-down of nuclear weapons worldwide. We also faced continuation of the “Pivot to Asia”, a strategy to which China has responded by intensifying its efforts in One-Belt-One-Road to improve overland and air infrastructure in Eurasia should there be interruption of maritime shipments through the South China Sea and Strait of Molucca. That economic development of Eurasia has trigger all the Halord MacKinder-Nicholas Spykman reflexes of the US (Western?) strategic community who automatically see that as a threat. That is the direction that more of the same was bringing us.
With a Trump victory, we start looking at oligarch collaboration between US and Russian oligarchs under a religious and ethnic nationalist (white supremacist?) political pan-national framework. (Notice a little contradiction?). Who is “first among equals” of the authoritarian cabal is a kind of interesting prospect to consider, given Trump’s personality and Putin’s skills. For the short term, it means a more prosperous Russia, a more profitable Exxon-Mobil, the extension of the civilian nuclear power industry, strip-mining of the last fossil fuel reserves and likely the first burst of infrastructure booms in the US and Eurasia, with China and Russia making the better ecological choices while the US burns Russian oil.
I didn’t see these dangers as equivalent; remember, I did vote for Clinton. But both were seriously more dangerous going forward than we faced in 2012. And both were the consequences of bad policies and collapsed governing processes.
What I do not see is 37 Republican electors voting for Clinton, Congress having the will to impeach before 2020, or the CIA being more aggressive in disclosing its evidence of hacking after January 20.
To stop the juggernaut requires very solid evidence, solid enough to scare established Republicans in each of their factions, and solid enough to overwhelm the mainstream media, which still is salient enough.
I’m not defending anyone. I’m calling for Democrats to insist on stronger evidence before running around in panic. Panic has the effect of distracting an emerging resistance against a Trump Presidency.
If you are as concerned by the international fascist movement coalescing on the ashes of organized labor in the West and Russia, we need to discuss how to deal with that locally, at the state level, and trans-nationally in the midst of collapsing social institutions as they are subverted by the new regimes where they take power.
It will be an act of deliverance (for which we likely will not take advantage) if December 19 delivers a better choice than Donald Trump and can make that choice stick without civil war.
There really is no one to defend. We are in a mell of a hess brought about by the failure of both established political policies more than the subversion of a foreign power. If we begin to fix that, we can put up a resistance. So far, that fix seems to lie outside the current establishments. To the extent that garment-tearing is from the Democratic establishment, it is nice that they are beginning to feel the pain that they have ignored for two decades, but hysteria really does not move us forward.
We do need to know what the CIA has on the hacking, whether or not that changes the EV. It runs to the legitimacy of this presidency. If nothing else our elected representatives need to deal with it if there is more solid evidence of Russian involvement – beyond what we already infer.
I too voted for Clinton. And I also disliked her hawkish foreign policy and implicit approval of TPP, not to mention her centrist economic policy. But now we have a president elect who lies almost every time he opens his mouth, believes he is so smart he doesn’t need briefings and appoints a cabinet in opposition to nearly everything we have come to depend upon. And he seems to hate everything that crosses his mind and attacks anyone who offends him. And to top it off he has close ties to Putin. Even McCain noted him getting a friendship award from a butcher is concerning.
Let us hope this idiot does not do anything that would require an impeachment or drag us into war with China or Iran. Or take away the things we really need.
A President who won the electoral college without winning the popular vote and won states through excluding registered voters from voting because of CrossCheck databases of convicted felons, who won by caging voters with innocuous postcards, who won by playing the media, who won without really talking policy–that President in normal times would be considered illegitimately elected. But I’m not sure we’ve ever had those normal times in the US.
What we have heard as policy is the equivalent of butchery. Will the “checks” and “balances” of the US government be strong enough to stop him from becoming just like Putin? Interviewing Allen West and John Bolton suggest not.
Whether there war with China or Iran now depends on the GOP majority and what Vichy Democrats. Whether there is impeachment depends exclusively on the GOP majority. Whether Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Veterans Administration benefits, or even public infrastructure depends on the public. We are hoping in the face on some harsh trends.
It cannot seriously be argued that the result of the hacks were a serious factor in the election. What was disclosed wasn’t close to the central issue in the election.
Moreover it is worth remembering that what was disclosed was actually TRUE.
The FBI and Comey is a completely different matter.
Nor does it have to be.
The election can be legitimate, but electors are still permitted to vote for someone else if they have reason to believe the president-elect is grossly corrupt and/or under the influence of a foreign power.
“What I do not see is 37 Republican electors voting for Clinton, “
They … do … not … have … to … vote … for … Clinton …
They just have to vote for someone other than Trump. Anyone.
Couldn’t we agree that even Mitt Romney is preferable to this evil train wreck?
I suspect Romney’s more controllable. Not sure Booman thinks so, though.
You’re perfectly right about the electoral college.
It’s a cognitive dissonance. People are blathering about abolishing the electoral college, and how the only reason it even exists is because it was a concession to the slave states, at the one moment in history that it could actually do something really important, and something it was designed to do, which has nothing to do with the south. Namely, as you say, prevent the inauguration of a person beholden to a foreign power. (Not to mention his myriad other disqualifications for office.)
Secondly, too many people are trying to convince Republican electors to vote for Hillary, when for these electors (and for the voters of their state), facing an already difficult decision, voting for her is the worst possible option, the inducement LEAST likely to convince them not to vote for Trump.
Electors do not have to vote for either Trump OR Clinton.
https://www.bustle.com/articles/199475-can-faithless-electors-choose-a-third-party-candidate-they-do
-have-the-power
The election would go to the House. This has happened twice before, in 1800 and 1824.
The 1824 model is kind of compelling, in that JQA was an unpopular member of a dynasty who just happened to be infinitely superior morally and intellectually to his main rival. But he did little in office and lost to the “populist” slaveholder in 1828.
Interesting history, but my point here is just merely that it can be done because it has been done.
How?
So, you want to, at a minimum, double the number of races that voters would have to consider? Nothing seems to prevent any state from doing that, but are there any that have even considered that?
We currently live with/tolerate a situation where the electors are functionally mostly imaginary (a number and not a person). Because the alternatives are either next to impossible (constitutional amendment for direct election of president) or a significantly increased burden on voters. Voters that could barely vet four (plus) candidates for president.
As all members of Congress are elected (and presumably vetted by voters), it might be possible (again through a Constitutional amendment) to add the duty to serve as an elector every four years, but that would likely create as much friction and disagreement as the current method.
The EC only very rarely produces a different outcome from the popular vote. Democracy is impeded far more frequently with the two Senators per state construction. That’s further compounded by the gerrymandering of CDs which for some reason can’t be prevented and eliminated.
Folks will be debating/arguing for many years over why such a ludicrous candidate won this year. Imagine how much this moment would have favored a credible GOP candidate. Democrats should be thankful that no such person was on the GOP presidential bench. All they had were guys that struggled in their home states (Christie and Jeb) and guys that couldn’t make it out of their home states (Walker, Perry, Paul, Jindal, etc.), and the default candidates for those that disliked the front runner.
Great comment.
A side note: 3 times since World War 2 the party with the most votes did not win the most seats in the United Kingdom.
Any system that has first past the post and is not based on raw popular vote is vulnerable to this result.
I’d like to thank Martin and commenters here today for insightful information, plus links, etc.
I confess that I’m still on the fence about this issue – mainly in re to what the EC should do under the present circumstances. And I confess to being very biased against the CIA, and I could provide ample backing + verifiable credible links for my extreme cynacism about that outfit. I don’t see the CIA as always acting in the better interests of US citizens. Disagree with me, if you will, but that’s my opinion.
That said, I appreciate the discussion here today, fwiw, because I have most certainly been following this story with a great deal of concern and interest. I do feel that it’s extremely important to get as much verification as feasible under such extremely difficult circumstances.
Information provided here today is helpful and insightful. It’s asking hard and sometimes painful questions that I feel is extremely necessary under such circumstances.
Thanks.
If there’s anybody here who doesn’t think the CIA always acts in the best interests of the citizens of the United States — hell, I KNOW they don’t — it’s me.
But it’s patently obvious that Trump represents a threat to them, AND to this country, AND a threat to me personally. And I do know that the great majority of the CIA, misguided though they may sometimes be, are patriots.
So it’s not just that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
It’s that a president who has literally no other interest in life than to use the office to benefit himself, is a danger to me, to the CIA, and to the United States — and that the CIA, being (one of) the world’s foremost authorities on disinfo, knows it when they see it. They are not taking any of his BS. But apparently some people here are.
the longest of long shots . . . I thought that about Trump “winning” an EC majority on 11/8, too!
May I be as wrong about this as I was about that!
Please!
And thank you for keeping a focus on the possibility, requirements, Founders’ intent, and ramifications.
Wisconsin State Journal – Completed Wisconsin recount widens Donald Trump’s lead by 131 votes
A full and from what anyone can see, a well organized and managed recount should be applauded.
Of course they weren’t able to inspect those Putin/Russia microchips that were secretly implanted in the brains of over 1.5 million Trump voters. So, we’ll have to wait for the NSA to complete that task.
Didn’t expect anything to change, nor was I surprised the state went to Trump. These are the same people that elected and re-elected Scott Walker three times. No Putin chip required.
Yes that was the writing on the wall.
Give ’em a out-and-proud progressive like Russ Feingold, though, and they’ll sweep to the polls to elect him. He understands their economic plight.
For the 50 millionth time, the issue is not whether Russia swung the election to Trump, which would be impossible to prove anyway.
The issue is whether they meddled in the election in Trump’s favor, and whether Trump is beholden to them (for that and probably other reasons as well). Which it is pretty clear they did.
If we’re going to string up every “dark force” that meddled in the US election, that’s going to be a long list of “dark forces” to go after.
But as we (collectively) tolerate “dark forces” meddling in US elections (the Koch bros and other super-wealthy folks, GOP politicians and officials that through various means disenfranchise voters, and the documented fact that the DNC and ClintonInc operations fixed the Dem nomination) and all the US meddling in the elections in foreign countries, it’s rich that Democrats are so exercised about alleged Russian meddling. Note: the “dark forces” election meddling that I included are actual and not suspected or alleged meddling as is currently the case with Russia.
Would we have heard anything further about this alleged Russian meddling if Clinton had won?
Which suggests that for you, it’s not the meddling but the assumption that the meddling produced the desired result for the alleged meddler. Considering that GWB and Putin were sort of cool with each other (unorthodox for a GOP politician), perhaps Putin/Russia meddled in the 2000 and 2004 US elections. Showed Jeb! and that OH SoS how to rig the voting. OTOH, domestic election rigging has a long history in the US; so, Jeb!, etal wouldn’t have needed any foreign instruction on this.
The evidence today that S. Vietnam meddled in the 1968 election is very strong; so, this Putin/Russia allegation is hardly unique. Did Iran meddle in 1980? Or maybe they just disliked Carter enough (for decent reasons) that all on their own, they chose not to release the hostages while Carter was president. And Reagan’s team returned the favor with weapons. The most overt and outrageous meddling in US presidential elections was in 2000 when the SC stepped into the fray and chose GWB without any legitimate authority to do so (and they knew that hence the decision included the notation that it wouldn’t be viewed as a legal precedent).
As for election meddling that makes the winner beholden to the meddlers, I think most voters accept this as a given. AIPAC meddles and then the winner gives Israel more aid and weaponry and turns a blind eye to expansion of illegal Israeli settlements and the intermittent bombings of Gaza, etc. Energy and “defense” companies fueled the Bush/Cheney election and were rewarded. Wall St almost exclusively lined up for Obama and they got bailed out. Scott Walker has been following the agenda the Koch Bros handed him.
Like many others, I struggle to wrap my brain around how such an unqualified candidate (intellectually, emotionally, ethically and with zero experience in government) could win. Then I factor in 1) voter hunger for a change after eight years 2) poor/weak economic conditions for so many people and for many seen as the result of US trade agreements from NAFTA on through the proposed TPP 3) war weariness 4) his opponent (an old face with personal baggage, but more importantly represents more of #1-3) and it becomes clearer that it was a coin toss. It’s likely that more people voted against Trump and against Clinton than authentically voted FOR either candidate. That’s what should distress Americans. That we cling to a notion of being a strong democracy and then voters are treated like rubes forced to choose between two unacceptable products based on false advertising.
Plus the third-term-in-power thing. I know it’s small this time compared to other factors, but it’s still a really tough nut to crack, apparently.
“it’s not the meddling but the assumption that the meddling produced the desired result for the alleged meddler.”
No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. It’s that the desired result having come about, the meddling, who did it and why, is a clear sign that this result represents a grave danger for the future of the United States and of the world.
Of course there has been all sorts of meddling in U.S. elections in the past. Do you think I don’t know that or that I’m in favor of that?
It’s all very well to make generalizations that, in fact, have some validity. But Marie — BE HERE NOW. You don’t seem to get that there is a difference between (a) historical generalization, and (b) deliberation about what to DO about something that is happening NOW, under the unique circumstances of NOW. It’s a complete abrogation of responsibility to just say, “Oh well, it’s happened before, it’s happened in other countries, same old same old”, and be done with it.
South Vietnam did meddle in the 1968 election in direct cahoots with candidate Nixon.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/08/12/george-will-confirms-nixons-vietnam-treason
Iran meddled in 1980 in cahoots with Presidential candidate Reagan, VP candidate George H.W. Bush and the CIA.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/07/11/the-october-surprise-was-real/
There are some significant differences this time. In the 1968 episode, the CIA was not a principal actor, however, they did convince Johnson (who knew about it) not to say or do anything because that would tip off the South Vietnamese government that the CIA was tapping their secret communications and would interfere our future ability to do that. Also, South Vietnam, whatever they may have thought, was basically a puppet state of the U.S., which is hardly the case with Russia.
In 1980, the CIA, through Bush, was directly involved, because the CIA hated Carter. This nexus continued with the extremely nasty Iran/Contra network. (Which BTW involved many more players than just Iran and the Contras.)
In 2016, the CIA is on the opposite side, it’s the FBI and a former director of the DIA that’s involved. You may find it refreshing that the CIA is getting a taste of its own medicine, but actually it indicates something even worse than the other cases, if you see the forces Trump, Flynn & Co. are stirring up and the range of potential effects. Look at the cabinet picks. Nixon’s, Regan’s, Bush’s cabinet were bad, but these guys are a lot worse, especially considering the dangers we face today, like global warming and fascism.
“Would we have heard anything further about this alleged Russian meddling if Clinton had won?” Yes, because if Clinton had won, she would have had both the power and the motive to find out who tried to prevent that and why. But admittedly, the issue would not have been quite as urgent, because the meddlers would not have achieved their desired result
Your logic leads to the conclusion that this is simply business as usual, so why get so excited about it? My logic is, there’s nothing we can do about 1968 or 1980 any more, but both were treasonous acts with terrible, long-term consequences, therefore we don’t want to let that happen again, under the even worse circumstances of today.
Awkward:
Ok, “we” interfered with Russia, so, fair is fair, let Putin interfere with us.
Yes, that is certainly Putin’s perspective. Why do you have the same perspective?
I would say, yes, we interfered with Russia, made a horrible mess of things. They are interfering with us, with the potential of making a total mess of things here. Therefore we have to do everything we can to prevent that.
Personally, my position at the time was, Gorbachev was the perfect person to work with to achieve a good relations with the USSR and more peace in the world. But no, that wasn’t good enough for these idiots that were convinced “the end of history” had arrived and we were “the world’s sole superpower.”
I don’t remember playing any part in the Yeltsin business. I doubt you did. I have no vested interest in it. Quite the contrary. So why should that play any role in what I think about Putin?
Besides, as I’ve pointed out before, Putin is a direct beneficiary of the Yeltsin period. He’s not the solution for Russia, he’s part of the problem.
US State Department == Reset Slides.
Well, at least we now know one source of the Tillerson-Putin handshake photo. That Putin sure seems to be controlling a lot of senior US officials.
And your point is?
If Barack can have a friend in Moscow, why can’t Donald?
If you can’t say something nice about somebody, well then — DON’T SAY IT?
My point should be obvious. The Dem/lib media, including blogs, have been using that Tillerson-Putin photo to smear Tillerson as being in bed with Putin/Russia and using that to support the larger claim that Trump is a Putin/Russia asset, dupe, etc.
Yet, we can see that photos of US government elites and major corporate CEOs with Putin/Medvesky aren’t rare and have been used by the State Dept as evidence of peaceful oligarchic cooperation. An area where “both sides do in fact do it” and both sides should be properly castigated for it, but I’m only seeing attacks from one side of the political aisle and therefore, the rightwing will dig in defense of Trump and we’ll all continue to lose.
And guess how the right wing has been using those photos of Obama and Medvedev and Putin.
I think that that there are progressives and Democrats who don’t realize that a left-wing Breitbart does not play to our principles, where a right-wing Breitbart is just an asset in the “culture war”.
Just for grins, lets concede your point that the electoral college was setup to prevent a candidate like Trump from becoming president. How do you think that would really play out if they tried to exercise their authority? My guess is not well.
For one thing, don’t you think the chances of Republican selected electors doing a reversal and switching to Clinton would be almost nil. If they do anything, they would most likely just abstain from voting.
If you have enough faithless electors to deny Trump a majority, then most likely it gets tossed to the Supreme Court because the question of faithless electors appears to still have enough gray areas to present a valid court case. So then you have yet another high stakes legal battle that worked out so well for us in 2000. Well, this time the court’s tied 4-4. Oh peachy… what does that mean? The lower courts ruling stands? Would their be lower court rulings? One in each state?
Okay, say the court does the smart thing and just throws the election to the house. The Constitution says that they have to pick from the top three electoral vote candidates. Again, it’s going to be either Clinton or Trump and the Republican selected electors won’t pick Clinton. So if they want someone else besides Trump, some electors would have had to vote for a third candidate- who? Not sure how that would work in practice given the fractured nature of the Republican party. I guarantee that it wouldn’t be pretty. And the end result is probably still government completely in Republican hands unless the Republicans split decisively enough. But again, they can still count, so that’s unlikely to happen.
And this also completely ignores whatever evil that Trump could drum up along the way to try to influence the electors.
Honestly, if our government has direct evidence that foreign powers hold influence over Trump, I am all for presenting them with that evidence. Hell it should be presented to all of us. His finances as well- the country should know who he owes money to and what his business relationships are.
I also believe that the only way you are going to separate the working class from Trump is to show what a liar and a dismal failure he is to their interests after he attempts to be president. If Trump gets quashed now, most likely they just double down on the crazy.
Sure, Trump shouldn’t be president, but the reality is that the electoral college rejecting him might not work out very well either.
It’s going to go deep and far beyond Russia.
It might be happening with Turkey
I’ve believed the proper way to look at a Trump’s appointments is through the prism of him being a grifter. He’s appointed people who won’t object to his family stripping the country bare, as long as they get their slice of the pie. Then lots of generals to follow orders.
But until your post I did not realize it goes the other way when it comes to foreign affairs.
Every country that he does business with, and every country he wants to do business with, now have him over a barrel.
And so they will get a piece of the pie also.
.
And he doesn’t even care. As long as he gets a cut.
“For one thing, don’t you think the chances of Republican selected electors doing a reversal and switching to Clinton would be almost nil.”
Yes, I do think that. Fortunately, there is absolutely no requirement that they vote for Clinton. They can vote for anyone they want other than Trump if they don’t want to vote for Trump.
It can be blackmail, but it doesn’t even have to be blackmail, it can just as well be favors, “deals”. You know how much trump loves a deal.
The point is, that’s all Trump is interested in.
Now can you see why the CIA would be genuinely concerned?
Winter is coming, people. And we are arguing snowflakes.
Nah,
It will only be a slight shift to the right from one of the two equally neoliberal political parties.
ht L,G, and M.
.
For your commenting pleasure: