Blame Putin ... and Obama

If reports are correct, the Russians made serious breaches into our cyber system. They compromised government sites and private servers. The DNC was evidently easily breached because of rookie mistakes, ignorance & arrogance. We should blame Putin. He is an evil man. But we blame Putin in the same way we blame a burglar who has robbed our house because we failed to close the front door and blame Putin in way we blame a burglar for revealing dirty secrets he discovered while robbing our place.

Who was watching the shop when the Russians made their intrusions? The Obama team. Who was in charge of the DNC servers? Democrats. Who put her sensitive on private servers? Hillary. Who was it wrote all those stupid and embarrassing things the Russians revealed? The Hillary Team. Who leaked debate questions to Hillary? Donna Brazille. I could go on, but why? We all know who was involved and who was not. We know that all of those involved were associated with Democrats. The Russians evidently tried and failed to breach RNC servers. The Russians really are not that good. Their efforts can be countered by reasonably intelligent people and counter measures.

So ... this problem is allowed to go on for years by the Obama Team. The breaches occurred because of carelessness on the Hillary Team. It was embarrassing and harmful to Hillary because it revealed some really boneheaded things she and her advisors were saying and doing. So who do all the guilty parties blame? Trump. Does that make sense to anyone who is not so seriously infected by hateful partisanship that the truth is obscured.

Posted by Christine & John at January 3, 2017 1:12 PM
Comments
Comment #411811

Me, blame Trump? Hell no!

Trust Putin? Hell no!

That the DNC and Hillary allowed this to happen is simply further proof of their inability to lead.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 3, 2017 3:42 PM
Comment #411812

Trump?

People are highly, highly suspicious about this. Why?

1) A number of associates of his, including his candidate for Secretary of State, have close ties to the Putin Regime or their puppets in the Ukraine.

2) Trump reportedly has investments in and debts to Russian organizations.

3) He didn’t practically invite hackers to breach Hillary Clinton’s security to get her e-mails, he outright did so, unlike any person in recent political history.

4) The hacking and the distribution of hacked material lopsidedly benefited him. This despite information that tells us that both political parties were hacked. If you’ve been through all the horrific sort of things that the less intelligent or wise officials among the state, local and federal GOP organizations have shared, you would share my doubts that there was nothing in those e-mails that could be used against the GOP. Does anybody here believe that Republicans did nothing corrupt, were just simply pure as the driven snow?

Let me stop belaboring the point and just say it outright: if somebody wanted to tilt the vote towards Clinton, they likely had the material to do so. They may still do, which is worrisome in itself, given the blackmail value of that. But they chose not to harm Trump, and instead went after Clinton. The reports indicate that Putin personally lead this process, so it’s unlikely they decided on Trump without it being party of Putin’s plan.

5)Significant changes were made in the Republican Party’s platform that favored Russia. Trump has been vocal about friendlier relationships with Russia, and done his absolute best to quash investigations, contradict experts who said the Russians were responsible, and encourage vocal criticism of those who continue to point out how disturbing this intervention is.

All in all?

There’s a lot of strange, poorly motivated behavior going on here, behavior not conducive to either taking this threat seriously or resolving the security issues that allowed this to happen. Now, I would be the first to tell both parties to improve their digital security, especially since they have significant numbers of records with confidential information involved.

The NSA needs to step things up, and so does the cybercrimes division of the FBI. But if we have one party obviously and undoubtedly trying to sweep this all under the rug, I have little faith that the questions will end concerning Trump’s reasons for not pursuing this matter to its necessary end.

Let me ask a question to my Right Wing colleagues here: what happens if Putin decides the GOP stepped wrong, as far as his interests go? He’s got your information, too. But you’ve set a horrible precedent for gleefully accepting the stolen data. Nobody is going to argue to the press from my side that they shouldn’t publish what the hackers provide us. Is that what your leaders are afraid of? Do they know what’s hanging over their heads?

Or… having failed to actually pursue the investigation, what happens if another whistleblower or an enterprising reporter stumbles on evidence that indicates that Trump or members of his campaign, or party members in general were doing something untoward with Putin or his associates? Do you want to find out now, or find out later?

You guys seemed very eager to get to the bottom of Benghazi, so much so that you succeeded in hitting rock bottom on that particular issue over and over again. But now that it’s Trump that’s tempting fate here, it seems like it’s hands off and eyes turned.

Put the partisan politics aside, and ask yourselves, doesn’t America deserve to know the truth? Doesn’t Trump, if he’s innocent, benefit from having that clearly established?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 3, 2017 5:56 PM
Comment #411813

But now that it’s Trump that’s tempting fate here, it seems like it’s hands off and eyes turned.

Put the partisan politics aside, and ask yourselves, doesn’t America deserve to know the truth? Doesn’t Trump, if he’s innocent, benefit from having that clearly established?
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 3, 2017 5:56 PM

Where in the hell have you been Stephen while I, and others, have written that congress should investigate? What kind of crap are you peddling?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 3, 2017 6:31 PM
Comment #411815

RF,

Silence sometimes speaks louder than words. When it came to Benghazi, Congress created a special committee to investigate. Should we not expect this matter to be treated similarly?

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 3, 2017 6:41 PM
Comment #411819

Warren, a congressional investigation is certainly warranted. I would like to know facts, not assumptions or innuendo.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 3, 2017 7:12 PM
Comment #411820

Royal Flush-
I don’t care what YOU say, I care what your elected representatives DO. If the potential manipulation of our elections by a Foreign power doesn’t generate more scrutiny than the Republicans doubts about the handling of Benghazi, then we’ll know politics and not Truth is the RNC’s chief concern.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 3, 2017 7:26 PM
Comment #411821

Our national unity will be enhanced with the Clinton’s and Bush’s recent announcement that they will attend the Trump inauguration. Jimmy Carter announced his plans to attend some days ago. George H.W. Bush has said his health prevents his attendance.

We all understand that attendance at the inauguration by past presidents is not an implicit endorsement of Trump.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 3, 2017 7:31 PM
Comment #411826

Stephen

You can say lots of bad things about Trump. But Obama was in charge when all this went down. The Russians penetrated DNC because of their bad security and arrogance. And the Russians leaked things that Hillary folks had actually said or done.

I think that we should indeed get to the bottom of this. How was it that Obama folks knew this was happening and did nothing, or at least nothing effective? Why did Hillary treat cyber security so casually? Why did John Podesta so foolishly write down such foolish things? Why did Donna Brazile provide debate questions to Hillary? Why did the DNC seek to defeat Sanders. Yes, indeed, let’s investigate these leaks.

Posted by: Christine & John at January 3, 2017 8:38 PM
Comment #411828

The Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, and others have penetrated virtually every business one cares to name. As someone said, ‘there are those who have been hacked, and there are those who have been hacked and don’t know it.’ Even the FBI has been hacked. What made this particular hack extraordinary is that it was launched by an adversary for political reasons. It was an attack on the political system of the US with the intent of influencing the election. It was done by the Russians, and we know it. And what makes it even more extraordinary is that Trump embraced the hack and leak, and now denies the source.

““•Oct. 31 from Warren, MI: “Did you see where, on WikiLeaks, it was announced that they were paying protestors to be violent, $1,500?… Did you see another one, another one came in today? This WikiLeaks is like a treasure trove.”

•Nov. 2 from Orlando, FL: “Out today, WikiLeaks just came out with a new one, just a little a while ago, it’s just been shown that a rigged system with more collusion, possibly illegal, between the Department of Justice, the Clinton campaign and the State Department.”

•Nov. 2 from Pensacola, FL: “They said about Hillary, she’s got bad instincts right. You know who said that, Podesta. I would fire Podesta so fast. I mean the way he talks about her, whether true, not true, who cares. He speaks so badly about her. Of course he didn’t know there was a thing called WikiLeaks right.”

“•Nov. 4 from Wilmington, OH: “Boy, I love reading those WikiLeaks.”

•Nov. 6 from Sioux City, IA: “Just today, we learned Hillary Clinton was sending highly classified information through her maid. Did you see? Just came out a little while ago, who therefore had total access to this information, completely jeopardizing the national security of the United States. This just came out. WikiLeaks.”

•Nov. 7 from Manchester, NH: “Hillary has shown contempt for the working people of this country. Her campaign in WikiLeaks has spoken horribly about Catholics and evangelicals and so many others. They got it all down folks, WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks. And what Podesta said about her, bad instincts. He said she’s got bad instincts.”

Remember, Trump KNEW these were coming from the Russians through Wikileaks. Combined with Director Comey putting his thumb on the scales re e-mails, it was enough.

On another note, here is something to consider:

Only 46% of voters went for Trump, not even a plurality. 42% went for Republican Senators, and 49% for GOP Congressmen.

Our democracy failed, and failed badly.

Posted by: phx8 at January 3, 2017 9:41 PM
Comment #411844

People are highly, highly suspicious about this because left-wing politicians, talking-heads, minnions, and the media are pushing biased assumptions in an attempt to delegitimize Trump. Because what is best for the country comes second to the division and dependency that the left has created.

Don’t fool yourself, Stephen, the left has already proven over and over again that they won’t ‘argue to the press’ for anything that does not benefit them.
They applauded Wikileaks hacking info on President Bush, embraced the info, and encouraged more. They didn’t care when tax return info was leaked. They didn’t care that Obama had close ties to members of a domestic terrorist group, or that he attended an anti-American racist church for decades. But now you want people to believe that you are concerned about a persons private business ties with another country, and it has nothing to do with politics?

“3) He didn’t practically invite hackers to breach Hillary Clinton’s security to get her e-mails, he outright did so, unlike any person in recent political history.”

I am a little confused about this talking-point, Stephen.
First, what Trump said was that the media would probably reward Russia greatly if it were able to find the emails Hillary illegally deleted from her private server.
And let’s be honest here, at the time Trump said that, Hillary’s private server was already off line and could not be hacked.

Second, if the classified information found on Hillary’s private server was no big deal because it was never hacked into, why does this talking-point matter?

“You guys seemed very eager to get to the bottom of Benghazi”

Talk about “hands off and eyes turned.”
Benghazi was a colossal clusterf*ck, Stephen. Intel was ignored, wrong decisions were made, and a sad attempt at damage control only worsened things.
Now, the left was absolutely correct in saying it was wrong to claim Hillary was totally responsible for what happened, or that it was intentional, but you guys are absolutely wrong for mocking the concern.

“Put the partisan politics aside, and ask yourselves, doesn’t America deserve to know the truth?

Of course we do. Unfortunately, your calls for the truth ring hollow because you only care about the truth when ‘your people’ aren’t in power.

Posted by: kctim at January 4, 2017 9:37 AM
Comment #411848

C&J-
Honestly, as a computer tech, I think barely anybody is good at computer security, at least on the level of organizations without strong technology backgrounds.

Take Trump’s friends at Infowars. These people should be paranoid as hell about hackers… well this takes an explanation. When you implement a password, there are two ways to store that password. One way, you absolutely should not do: clear text. Somebody gets into your system and gets that file, they can instantly invade anybody’s account, because it’s just THERE.

So, most password security systems worth their hash… hash their passwords. That is, they feed what you enter as a password into an algorithm which processes it into gobbledygook. That gobbledygook, though, is unique to your password. No other password would shoot out the same gobbledygook. When you enter your password for access, the hash that program creates matches the hash of the other password.

Well, here we have Infowars, ground zero for paranoia on the internet, but using an outdated password hashing method (MD5) known to be easy to crack. They claim that they were hacked in 2012 and forced password changes, but this data is from 2014.

In short, some of the most paranoid people in the world can be clueless about this sort of thing. People are just not used to the notion of security in a situation where distance is irrelevant. The folks who think they’re the savviest customers when it comes to conspiracies use terrible security.

In general, my experience is that people pick terrible passwords, because they need to be able to remember them quickly. They pick short, they pick stuff that’s personal to them, in short, they pick easy to guess.

On one side of things, technically speaking, you need passwords that are long (better than eight character) contain more than just letters, more than just upper or lower case letters, numbers, special characters, etc.

But who does that? That is your baseline for security, becuase even the most powerful system can be defeated if your hacker can guess your username and password. Security systems don’t get in the way of proper credentials.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 4, 2017 1:16 PM
Comment #411850

The “Russian hacking” problem was generated right here in the US.

One does not need to know government intel to know the facts. One does need to know discernment and how to deal with the situation.

Do I need to document this? Why should I waste my time trying to convince some on this site that will call me names and try to tell me they know all the answers when they really don’t. Just speculation by the know-it-alls. HoHum. The more things change the more they stay the same

Posted by: tom humes at January 4, 2017 1:28 PM
Comment #411851

The Russians ran the hack and leak operation. We already have that conclusion from 17 US intelligence agencies.

This is really very simple.

Trump is lying. We already know he is lying. Why does he keep lying about this?

Today Trump said in a tweet: “The “Intelligence” briefing on so-called “Russian hacking” was delayed until Friday, perhaps more time needed to build a case. Very strange!”

Except no one in the intelligence community knows of any briefing that was scheduled for today, other than the normal PDB.

Trump is siding with a foreign adversary against the US intelligence community. Why?

Posted by: phx8 at January 4, 2017 2:25 PM
Comment #411852

tom humes-
Then who the hell are you getting your information from? If you build reason entirely on the back of refusing to believe a certain set of people, then you’re a fool the instant they’re telling the truth.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 4, 2017 2:41 PM
Comment #411853

sd
see I told ya so
call me a fool at your disposal
but you are wrong

Posted by: tom humes at January 4, 2017 2:57 PM
Comment #411854

” We already have that conclusion from 17 US intelligence agencies.”

Really? No kidding? Absolute confirmation? No doubts? Verifiable proof? No speculation? No maybes, possibles, might be, etc.?

This is beginning to sound much like the proof offered by the MMGW folks.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 4, 2017 3:04 PM
Comment #411855

Here is a list of the US Intelligence Agencies:
“◾Air Force Intelligence
◾Army Intelligence
◾Central Intelligence Agency
◾Coast Guard Intelligence
◾Defense Intelligence Agency
◾Department of Energy
◾Department of Homeland Security
◾Department of State
◾Department of the Treasury
◾Drug Enforcement Administration
◾Federal Bureau of Investigation
◾Marine Corps Intelligence
◾National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
◾National Reconnaissance Office
◾National Security Agency
◾Navy Intelligence”

The USIC onclusion is quoted in the middle of the following:

“Donald Trump’s claim that the United States has “no idea” who is behind recent email hacks is just not true.

The fact-checking website Politifact says Hillary Clinton is correct when she says 17 federal intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia is behind the hacking.

“We have 17, 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyber attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin. And they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing,” Clinton said during Wednesday’s presidential debate in Las Vegas.

Trump pushed back, saying that Clinton and the United States had “no idea whether it is Russia, China or anybody else.”

But Clinton is correct. On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies, in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

“The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.”

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/

Posted by: phx8 at January 4, 2017 3:20 PM
Comment #411856

Always an interesting read, here’s a link to Stratfor and their 2017 Annual Forecast.

“This will be a critical year for Europe. Elections in the pillars of the European Union — France and Germany — as well as potential elections in the third largest eurozone economy — Italy — will affect one another and threaten the very existence of the eurozone. As we have been writing for years, the European Union will eventually dissolve. The question for 2017 is to what degree these elections expedite its dissolution. Whether moderates or extremists claim victory in 2017, Europe will still be hurtling toward a breakup into regional blocs.”

https://www.stratfor.com/forecast/2017-annual-forecast?utm_campaign=LL_Content_Digest&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=39991720&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_iC5VoDjdPkc4UKsTZ6I75K1ssqVq7cY4wOd4k4RLngInz7VlSi7vMlYJ6QHupyDcDI63MjRvXu8kKv3dTmKCeQAlG7g&_hsmi=39990578

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 4, 2017 3:28 PM
Comment #411857

Here is the 13 page analysis by the DHS & FBI:

https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY%20STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf

There is no uncertainty.

Now, once again. Trump knows this. Why is he lying?

Posted by: phx8 at January 4, 2017 3:33 PM
Comment #411858

Here’s the ugly Truth: Putin favors Trump and his people because they are dismantling the alliances and the country that has been defeating his people for generations now. Make America Great Again? More like make us a disrespected backwater again.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 4, 2017 3:37 PM
Comment #411861

Thanks to phx8 for the link to the analysis by the DHS and FBI. I read the report but am not qualified to really understand it all.

Some experts have written that the JAR appears to be very rushed, resulting in a very confusing non-explanation that tried to cover too much, while saying too little.

I will make no judgement now and anticipate a congressional investigation. Trump’s further comments should be interesting.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 4, 2017 4:10 PM
Comment #411863

phx8, that report is NOT proof positive of anything except the fact that someone hacked the DNC and Podesta. Then we have S.D. with his Chicken little impersonation of the sky is going to fall because Trump is going to be President. It didn’t fall with Obama I doubt it will with Trump. By the way Stephen IMO Putin would rather have Hillary because she would be just as weak as Obama was.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at January 4, 2017 4:22 PM
Comment #411864

RF,
The first three pages contain the material you would most likely find relevant.

“The U.S. Government confirms that two different RIS actors participated in the intrusion into a U.S. political party. The first actor group, known as Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) 29, entered into the party’s systems in summer 2015, while the second, known as APT28, entered in spring 2016.”

KAP,
A private firm, Crowdstrike, provided an even more detailed forensic analysis.

And remember, this is just the publicly available version. Cyber attacks are easy to launch and difficult to stop, but do not doubt for a moment that the United States has capabilities far better than anyone in the world. Remember how shocked everyone was back in the Bush administration, when the NSA wiretap capabilities became known? That was over a decade ago.

Posted by: phx8 at January 4, 2017 4:35 PM
Comment #411865

An expert has summed up the brief joint report of “Russian Malicious Cyber Activity” this way.


There’s no standing allegation by U.S. officials that the Russians (or anyone else) “hacked” into our elections system or altered vote counts.

U.S. officials have not alleged that anyone falsified the emails provided to WikiLeaks.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says: “Our source is not the Russian government…

Former British ambassador Craig Murray backs up Assange’s version: “I know who leaked them. I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.”

There is no evidence that the hacks “affected the election” or “helped Donald Trump win.”

We apparently know of serious cyberattacks against US government institutions (State dept, Office of Personnel Management, and 22 more from 2006 to 2016) by both Russia and China.

Why has Obama not punished these hacking attempts?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 4, 2017 4:39 PM
Comment #411866

Just wondering…did the Russians trick Donna Brazille into giving Hillary the debate questions?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 4, 2017 4:49 PM
Comment #411867

phx8, Hacking has been going on for decades both sides do it. Russia hacks us we hack them and now because your side lost it is all of a sudden a big deal. You guys blamed everyone but the right one and that was Hillary, it was her arrogance not hacking that beat her.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at January 4, 2017 5:11 PM
Comment #411868

Did the Russians trick Donna Brazille into giving Hillary the debate questions?

Come on Royal. Everybody knows that the Russians blackmailed Trump into tricking Donna Brazile into giving Hillary the debate questions.
Sheesh.
:)

Posted by: kctim at January 4, 2017 5:17 PM
Comment #411869

OK tim, you caught me.

Personally, I believe the Russians would help Hillary win if that was their intention. They know she is inept in world political affairs and they know she could be easily blackmailed by either revealing secrets or a simple money bribe.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 4, 2017 5:30 PM
Comment #411871

Just too funny not to share with my Leftie Pals.

“That Trump laughs at how a creaky ex-superpower is so relentlessly trolling the feckless Obama – President Faily McWorsethancarter even makes acting butch seem super femme – draws cries of “Treason!” and “Traitor!” from the same set who never saw a flag they didn’t want to burn, mourned Castro, and who know damn well it isn’t them or their gender indeterminate children who would get to fight and die in the war they seem so eager to provoke to close out Obama’s pathetic reign.”

http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2017/01/02/for-democrats-2017-will-be-the-year-of-living-stupidly-n2265749

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 4, 2017 6:45 PM
Comment #411872

RF,
“There’s no standing allegation by U.S. officials that the Russians (or anyone else) “hacked” into our elections system or altered vote counts.”

Correct.

“U.S. officials have not alleged that anyone falsified the emails provided to WikiLeaks.”

Correct. The original writers of a few of the e-mails made that allegation.

Do you believe Julian Assange is telling the truth? Keep in mind, a Russian did not waltz into the Ecuadorian embassy and hand him the files. There were intermediaries. It does not take a master spy to figure that one out.

Craig Murray. Interesting guy. Former British ambassador to Uzbekistan. But this most certainly was a hack and leak, NOT merely a leak. We know about the Podesta hack in detail. Kind of sad, kind of pathetic.

The hacks influenced the election. There is no way to quantify their effect. Less than 80,000 votes in three states made up the difference in the electoral college, so while it is possible, and even likely, no one can say with certainty that the hack and leak was the difference. I would argue Director Comey re-opening the investigation nine days before the election was a bigger influence. Polls showed a large and measureable drop for HRC as a result. It is worth nothing the theme of e-mails was the common denominator in the attacks on Hillary Clinton, so in that sense, the Russian hack and leak was perfect- from a Russian point of view.

Previous cyber attacks on businesses and government agencies are serious. I would not discount the possibility we did launch counterattacks. It is not exactly the sort of thing the Obama administration would advertise.

Donna Brazille was incompetent and I would be glad to see her political career ended, regardless of her role in this.

What makes this particular issue so serious is that a foreign adversary- the Russians- interfered in our election and succeeded. That is bad, but understandable from a Russian point of view. They perceived it was worth the risk to help Trump take the White House. In the past Trump has said “NATO is obsolete” and that he might not honor NATO treaty obligations. He has made numerous statements like that, and the Russians loved to hear that kind of talk. Trump is on extremely dangerous ground.

And it brings us back to the main point. Trump KNOWS the Russians did the hack and leak. Why is he denying it?

Posted by: phx8 at January 4, 2017 7:04 PM
Comment #411873

phx8, good post and analysis except for the last two paragraphs. Would anyone care to speculate why Obama waited so long to publicly chastise the Russians and has done nothing about the Chinese.

At present, NATO has done little to deter Russian aggression in Europe. Is NATO still the most effective way for the US to deal with our greatest threat…terrorism? Must we continue to pay the lion’s share of NATO expenses? Why?

I believe it is good to have a national conversation regarding both NATO and the UN.

phx8, you have no way of knowing what Trump knows about Russian hacking. Just hold your horses and let the man fill in all you want to know when HE IS READY.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 4, 2017 7:43 PM
Comment #411874

RF,
Obama and his administration wanted to reveal more in than they had already made public in October. Senator Mitch McConnell opposed the idea because it would appear too partisan. IMO Obama made a mistake. He should have done it anyway.

Trump stated he would reveal what he knew about the hacking yesterday or today. He did not do so. He says he knows things no one else knows. Whatever it may be, it remains a mystery. He says he knows a lot about hacking. I very seriously doubt that; then again, maybe Trump has been studying for his Certified Ethical Hacker certification late nights and just wanted to save it for a surprise. Does anyone believe Trump knows anything whatsoever about hacking? During one debate he called it “the cyber.” Perhaps he misspoke. But I think he is lying through his teeth.

Trump is trying to run out the clock. Once the GOP is in power they will bury any investigations in committee.

According to the WSJ, Trump is about to cut the CIA budget and the DNI. Nothing suspicious about that! The DNI was the organization that General Flynn used to head until he was fired.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/lawmakers-officials-frown-on-donald-trumps-dismissal-of-u-s-intelligence-1483554450

There are some terrible nominations for the cabinet, but Flynn is flat out scary.

Posted by: phx8 at January 4, 2017 9:55 PM
Comment #411882


There are three objectives for all the faux concern over these ‘hacks’:

1 - Delegitimize Trump and Republicans.
2 - Dismiss the content of the emails.
3 - To ignore the rejection of liberal/progressive policy.

The simple fact is that Hillary would have gotten millions of more votes:
IF the ACA wasn’t hurting millions of Americans.
IF the left hadn’t ramped up their identity politics by 1000%.
IF she hadn’t made attacking and trampling all over 2nd Amendment rights a key part of her campaign.

Posted by: kctim at January 5, 2017 9:32 AM
Comment #411885
Delegitimize Trump and Republicans.

Haven’t they done that themselves? Trying to get rid of the ethics panel first day back made the repubs in Congress look like buffoons, I mean ethics and intelligence have been what they have been fighting against this week.. Trump just opens his mouth and deligitimizes his own self. Nope, judging by the past week or two they don’t need help. If it wasn’t for wish washy would Trump have anything to say? No it wasn’t, Yes it was … oh maybe, sums up Trump so far.


Posted by: j2t2 at January 5, 2017 1:03 PM
Comment #411886

“Haven’t they done that themselves?”

By disagreeing with your position on yet another redundant government office and its ability to use anonymous sources? No, I don’t believe that delegitimizes them in the eyes of normal voters. That’s small potatoes man.
Now, all the Republicans are ‘gutting all ethics overwatch’ and ‘getting rid of the ethics panel’ rhetoric should qualify as fake news though.

“Trump just opens his mouth and deligitimizes his own self”

Um, no. While there is no doubt that Trump has said wishy-washy things, there is absolutely no doubt about his legitimacy or authority as our next President.

Posted by: kctim at January 5, 2017 2:07 PM
Comment #411887

phx8 writes; “According to the WSJ, Trump is about to cut the CIA budget and the DNI.”

Is that news to you phx8?

The man made promises and got elected. Among those promises was to streamline our government agencies to make them work more efficiently and effectively.

Does anyone believe our current national security agencies are performing as they should?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 5, 2017 4:25 PM
Comment #411893

RF,
Conservatives are certainly welcome to own it. Have fun with that streamlining the next time an intelligence failure results in harm to the national security.

This is a transparent act of revenge. General Flynn was fired for failing to do a good job. According to a previous Republican Secretary of State, Flynn was erratic, disorganized, and made a total mess of things. Now he is getting his payback.

It will be interesting to see how the incoming CIA Director, Congressman Pompeo, handles this. He is owned by the Koch Brothers. With the exception of a couple GOP Neocons like McCain and Graham, most Republicans seem anxious to prevent an examination of what happened, so Pompeo will probably go along. Some Republicans have fallen so far, they have become Russian appeasers and fans of Julian Assange.

That is a sad state of affairs.

Posted by: phx8 at January 5, 2017 4:59 PM
Comment #411894

I understand phx8. It’s gloom and doom under Trump and Republican leadership in congress.

Liberals and Lefties have suffered great losses in political clout in our nation’s cities, counties, states and on the national level. Their liberal/progressive message of governance is being discounted nearly everywhere.

We conservatives fully expect resistance to changes in how government works. Millions of Americans and I support Trump in his stated agenda of “draining the swamp”.

One can not drain the swamp without eliminating a considerable amount of patronage and favoritism.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 5, 2017 5:39 PM
Comment #411895

On the lighter side, I wanted to share this hilarious description of Feinstein, Boxer and Pelosi.

“Frankly, I don’t know what it is about California, but we seem to have a strange urge to elect really obnoxious women to high office. I’m not bragging, you understand, but no other state, including Maine, even comes close. When it comes to sending left-wing dingbats to Washington, we’re number one. There’s no getting around the fact that the last time anyone saw the likes of Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, and Nancy Pelosi, they were stirring a cauldron when the curtain went up on ‘Macbeth’. The three of them are like jackasses who happen to possess the gift of blab. You don’t know if you should condemn them for their stupidity or simply marvel at their ability to form words.”

… . . columnist Burt Prelutsky, LA Times

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 5, 2017 5:52 PM
Comment #411896
By disagreeing with your position on yet another redundant government office and its ability to use anonymous sources?

Wow yeah kctim I guess this was the most important issue facing Congress wasn’t it. Seeing how they have things running so well and all. To top it off these guys are so ethical anyway they must have realized they created the office just for practice and because it was the top item on the American peoples agenda…..

Now, all the Republicans are ‘gutting all ethics overwatch’ and ‘getting rid of the ethics panel’ rhetoric should qualify as fake news though.

Seems to me Congress woke up and decided to wait until no one was looking to do their work, so in the post truth or Trump era yeah anything factual can be called fake news.

there is absolutely no doubt about his legitimacy or authority as our next President.

Yet here we are discussing it. Despite electing him many Americans aren’t so sure he can do the job kctim. That affects his legitimacy, like it or not. His actions, his tweets, his talking out both sides of his mouth show him to be unprepared for the job. This affects his legitimacy in the eyes of his fellow countrymen and the world.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 5, 2017 6:10 PM
Comment #411902

Is Trump really this stupid?
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/05/us/politics/trump-ambassadors.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=1

Jeez, not even in office and already breaking major campaign promises. How can we trust anything he says?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/politics/border-wall-house-republicans-donald-trump-taxpayers/index.html

Yet we have Royal with some “light” but ignorant conservative himor..er…um… humor from some twit.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 5, 2017 9:58 PM
Comment #411904

The question of the legitimacy of Trump’s election is a little confusing. In the legal sense, Trump is legitimate. He won in the electoral college and will be sworn in as president. He is illegitimate in the sense that he has no mandate. His win was tainted. Trump lost the popular vote by 2.9 million, which is a pretty amazing number in itself. Trump had 46% of the vote, and Republicans won only 42% of the vote in the Senate and 49% in the House, yet emerged with majorities. That should not have happened. The system failed. In addition, Trump’s win was illegitimate in the colloquial sense because the Russians influenced the outcome, and so did the Director of the FBI.

As for gloom and doom…

I would never welcome a person like Trump in my house. He is a racist who re-tweets Neo-Nazi propaganda about blacks murdering whites. He is a bigot who claims Mexico is sending us their criminals and rapists. He favors a ban on people entering the country based on their religion. He is a misogynist, a xenophobe, and a rude person who pedals conspiracy theories about Ted Cruz having five mistresses, and Rafael Cruz being involved in the JFK assassination. This is a guy who based his 2012 political campaign on Birtherism, a fundamentally racists conspiracy theory.

So don’t think that will just go away, because that is never going to happen. Trump will get called on this stuff again and again and again, and the people who either support it, or are willing to overlook it, will own it for the next four years.

Posted by: phx8 at January 5, 2017 10:47 PM
Comment #411915

J2,

Myself and Trump actually agree with you that this wasn’t the most important issue facing Congress. But, if we are going to be honest here, no Congress ever only addresses our most important issues, Republican or democrat.
To claim it delegetimizes THIS Congress, is silly.

“so in the post truth or Trump era yeah anything factual can be called fake news.”

We already have a Committee on Ethics, so they were not gutting or getting rid of our “ethics panel”. Claiming and ‘reporting’ that they were doing so was not true. It was fake news.

“Yet here we are discussing it. Despite electing him many Americans aren’t so sure he can do the job kctim.”

Yep. In fact, it’s just like when we were discussing Obama being a muslim and an inexperienced community organizer.
That didn’t affect Obama’s legitimacy, J2. And it sure as he11 doesn’t affect Trump’s.

“His actions, his tweets, his talking out both sides of his mouth show him to be unprepared for the job.”

His actions? He is not yet President.
His tweets? Annoying and unpresidential, IMO.

“This affects his legitimacy in the eyes of his fellow countrymen and the world.”

Horse-hockey.
The left disagree’s with what they think his politics are and because of THAT alone, they don’t want him to be President. Because Trump has not stated that he believes exactly as they do, or that he will pander to their special interests, the left deems him incompetent.
Neither of those have anything to do with the legitimacy of the election, or with Trump being President.

Posted by: kctim at January 6, 2017 10:03 AM
Comment #411916

kctim,
Fake news sites “deliberately publish hoaxes, propaganda, and disinformation, using social media to drive web traffic and amplify their effect. Unlike news satire, fake news websites seek to mislead, rather than entertain, readers for financial or other gain.”
Wikipedia

Rush Limbaugh went so far as to call the WaPo and NYT fake news sites.

You misunderstand the purpose of the Office of Congressional Ethics, as opposed to the House Committee on Ethics. The OCE is independent and non-partisan. The Ethics Committee is run by the party in power. The OCE was founded eight years ago by the Democrats after a series of scandals rocked the House, including the one with Jack Abramoff. It was necessary because the partisan nature of the Committee on Ethics allowed it to ignore behavior on the part of the party in power.

So this is most certainly NOT fake news. It was literally the first order of the day for the incoming Republicans- stop inquiries into corrupt behavior. It was an awful thing to do, and the Republicans were warned by their leadership, including Ryan and McCarthy, NOT to do it. They took a secret vote and did it anyway. This resulted in a firestorm of controversy. The phone lines for the House were swamped, and every morning news show featured this horrendous action.

Posted by: phx8 at January 6, 2017 10:54 AM
Comment #411917
To claim it delegetimizes THIS Congress, is silly.

Look at the approval rating of Congress and what they deem to be important kctim and you will see not many Americans support them as a collective. They needed the additional ethics support because it closed loopholes and problems with the Congressional committee, it was a case of the fox in charge of the chickens and did little.

We already have a Committee on Ethics, so they were not gutting or getting rid of our “ethics panel”. Claiming and ‘reporting’ that they were doing so was not true. It was fake news.

Don’t be silly kctim. The reporting told the story accurately they never claimed, to my knowledge, that all ethics panels were going away. Your comment is what is fake here.

Yep. In fact, it’s just like when we were discussing Obama being a muslim and an inexperienced community organizer.

The difference being Obamas words and actions at the time and Trumps tweets actions and words now. Definitely not the same situation. What we know now is between Congress and Trump it has been a week of attacking ethics and intelligence. Zeig Heil Mein Trump.

That didn’t affect Obama’s legitimacy, J2. And it sure as he11 doesn’t affect Trump’s.

Look at the link and you will find you are wrong kctim. The American people are not confident about the buffoonery Trump has disgraced the office with prior to being sworn in.

Hypocrisy is one of Trumps strong points, one of his best qualities so far kctim, it goes down hill from there. Look at how he is leaving the family so the son can attend the rest of the school year in NYC whilst not allowing the same for our foreign diplomats. Hail Victory Mein Trump.

He is earning “speak loudly and carry a small stick” status by backing down so quick on Mexico paying for the wall!!! My god not even in office and already breaking major promises. Certainly even conservatives have to question his meekness on this. His boasting has been shoved up his a** and he isn’t even in office, what next for this guy. Zeig Heil Trump Hail Victory

I agree with phx8 on the definitions of legitimacy so perhaps instead of the word that isn’t a word, “deligitimizes”, used by the right to defend the buffoonery we should ask the righties to be a bit more accurate. I would suggest confidence and respect. Because that is what it seems to me Trump has accomplished so far, a loss of confidence that he can do the job and the respect of the American people and the world.Hail Trump.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 6, 2017 11:25 AM
Comment #411928

phx8 writes; “So don’t think that will just go away, because that is never going to happen.”

We know, the Left is always operating in the past. We will take care of the future.

j2t2 asks us to; “Look at the approval rating of Congress…”

And that would tell us????

Just curious j2, what was the approval rating of Congress when Obama was a member?

Don’t we just love it when the Left, accustomed to breaking promises to get elected, are so arrogant as to suggest Trump is doing the same with his wall promises.

Trump is not yet even a legitimate politician if one uses the definition that one must hold elective office in order to qualify. Yet, Trump has beaten every “seasoned” politician from both the Left and the Right. With a few exceptions, Trump has defied all the pollsters and their professed brilliance.

Now, the Left attempts to use its political brain to analysis Trump and that, for them, would be similar to using a ruler to measure the distance to the sun.

Trump baffles politicians and the chattering heads of mainstream media. We, the people, understand him, voted for him, and expect him to restore America.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 6, 2017 2:29 PM
Comment #411931

Phx8,
The claims that reforming equals ‘gutting’ or ‘getting rid of ethics panels,’ IS misleading. There was still going to be ethics overwatch.

J2,

The BS wishes of no mandate, tainted win, election hacking etc… in no way invalidate Trumps legitimacy.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/delegitimize

Definition of delegitimize
transitive verb
: to diminish or destroy the legitimacy, prestige, or authority of

Your assumptions and opinions of Trump, based only on your disagreeing with him politically, in no way diminishes or destroys the fact that he won the election, earned the right to be our President and will have the authority of the office. IF it did, you guys wouldn’t be grasping at all the neo-nazi, fascist, and Trump is Putin BS.

Posted by: kctim at January 6, 2017 2:49 PM
Comment #411935

Here’s a legacy to be proud of. Democrats lost 12 governorships, 13 Senate seats and 69 seats in the House of Representatives during Obama’s two terms, highlighting “a devastation up and down the party across the nation,” according to The Hill.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 6, 2017 3:32 PM
Comment #411937
j2t2 asks us to; “Look at the approval rating of Congress…”

And that would tell us????

It would tell us that more Americans approved of Congress back when Nancy Pelosi was speaker. In fact, Congress’ approval ratings were almost always above 20% until July 2011 when we Republicans sparked the very first debt ceiling crisis. 6 years later, Congress has never recovered its popularity.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 6, 2017 4:59 PM
Comment #411940

I always marvel at the mind-set that is critical of the entire congressional body while the individual members are reelected at a very high percentage.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 6, 2017 5:24 PM
Comment #411969
Trump is not yet even a legitimate politician if one uses the definition that one must hold elective office in order to qualify. Yet, Trump has beaten every “seasoned” politician from both the Left and the Right. With a few exceptions, Trump has defied all the pollsters and their professed brilliance.

A half true statement from our rightie friends, will wonders never cease. After all the blathering about Trump, all the excuses,well a broken clock and all. But hey why not just call him Putin’s lackey?

The myths misinformation and outright lies that have made up the Trump/Putin campaign has proven they can con many people into believing just about anything. Their main accomplishment is taking the work of Faux and other propaganda outlets, organizing the misinformed voter and turning them into a political force. Tainted out of the gates IMHO.

Yet our rightie friends continue to try to convince the rest of the world that Trump is legitimate. I say make him earn it don’t give it to him. He has already broken a major campaign promise and he isn’t even in office. Who actually believes this man will build the wall and then backcharge the Mexicans!!

Posted by: j2t2 at January 7, 2017 10:53 AM
Comment #413071

Thank you for sharing useful informastion to the reader. By reading your article post, I can gain a lot of knowledge, insight and new knowledge from your blog.
Tas Branded

Posted by: Tas Branded Terbaru at February 9, 2017 7:11 PM
Comment #415166

Thanks for sharing

Posted by: Tas Branded Murah Terbaru at April 9, 2017 6:50 AM
Post a comment