100 Days - Walking Backwards Away From Manufactured Scandal

It will be 100 days in a few hours as this gets written. We are flooded with 100-day evaluations of Trump’s presidency. Most of them sorted along a deep partisan divide. But here’s another way to look at Trump’s first one hundred days in office as President of America.

Backwards.

No. Not in that crude cultural stereotype that elite media and still-NeverTrump conservative commentators might mean. Like ketchup on a steak. Which Trump loves. But rather, backwards in terms of walking away from the Watergate metaphor. As if Nixon had started his presidency in the early summer of 1974 and time had flowed backwards as he solidified his supposedly tenuous hold on power with each passing day.

Think of it this way. The Russia investigation has yet to truly turn up any offence that would approach anything remotely impeachable on Trump's part. Even Mike Flynn, as poined out by the very reputable Eli Lake at Bloomberg, may have used bad judgement in not reporting his earnings from RT, the Russian Broadcaster, but even that is not treasonous nor was it done undercover, as they say. Flynn reported before and after his trip directly to the Defence Intelligence Agency. And exchanged emails with the Defence Intelligence Agency's liason in Moscow while he was in Moscow in December. Obama's administration renewed his security clearance around April 2016 as well.

In other words, what was deemed legal and even proper when Obama was president is now considered evidence of treason. And not just by Louise Mensch. So at some point, the Russia investigation may just run out of steam because a shortage of truly incriminating evidence. And Trump will take one more step backwards, away from what has been an attempt to recreate a Watergate-style scandal in order to have an excuse to impeach a president who nobody in the media or in the intelligence community thought would get elected.

Imagine, as each month passes by, and President Trump manages a few more wins, the reality sinks in to people like Samantha Bee and Evan McMullin. Maybe the lower court stays on his immigration order get overturned. Maybe another Justice retires (Kennedy perhaps?) and he appoints another conservative. Maybe his tax proposal - in some shape or form - actually gets passed. Maybe. Maybe some reforms or even focused repeals of Obamacare get passed later this year or even next year. Maybe parts of a border fence actually go up, along with added hiring of personnel. Which is actually happening. Maybe NAFTA gets a slight makeover which President Trump claims as a huge win for American workers, and it does produce some - perhaps modest - benefits for workers.

Oh. My. God. He really is president they will have to finally admit.

Posted by Keeley at May 1, 2017 7:05 PM
Comments
Comment #415685

On May 8th, Clapper and Acting AG Sally Yates will publicly testify before the House Intelligence Committee. In January, Yates (and Comey) informed the White House Council that Flynn was a security risk because he was vulnerable to blackmail. It took Trump 17 days to fire Flynn, and then only when the media revealed the story.

“… what was deemed legal and even proper when Obama was president is now considered evidence of treason.”

Obama FIRED Flynn from his DIA post. And there were no suspicions that Obama was working with the Russians to undermine an election.

The Russians influenced our election. And there is a lot of circumstantial evidence surrounding Flynn. He certainly broke the law. He has already asked for immunity. Whether he committed treason is still undetermined.

“Imagine, as each month passes by, and President Trump manages a few more wins…”

Well, why don’t we start with one, and then work up to a few. Unless someone wants to count the Gorsuch nomination. That justice will always be tainted. Always. For all time.

Congress just slapped Trump in the face. We’re talking a round house, open palm, no holding back b**** slap. This budget is a huge defeat for him. It is openly disrespectful. Not only is there no money for a wall, funding for it is specifically forbidden… No deportation force. No cuts for Sanctuary Cities. Planned Parenthood will NOT be defunded. The EPA budget will NOT be slashed by 30%. NIH will NOT be cut; in fact, its funding increased.

This is what happens when a president has such a low approval rating. Everyone starts to ignore him. The Executive Branch has a lot of power, but with so much of it either unstaffed or staffed with people who are inexperienced, incompetent, both, or outright opposed to the basic mission of the agency, the ability to accomplish anything dwindles to nothing.

Posted by: phx8 at May 1, 2017 10:41 PM
Comment #415687
And there were no suspicions that Obama was working with the Russians to undermine an election.

And there are no legitimate suspicions that Trump was either. Not only is there zero evidence to even suggest it, there’s zero evidence that Russia engaged in hacking of the DNC. It’s all manufactured by people who WANT it to be true, not because there’s any evidence to even suggest it.

Remember, Hillary’s camp also talked to Russian ‘operatives’ during the election. Are we going to now say that she was working with them as well?

This is what happens when a president has such a low approval rating.

Trump currently has a 44% favorability rating. Obama once had a 40% favorability rating. But in the world of the leftist authoritarians, facts are nothing to be talked about…

BTW, just since I’ve been away, I wanted to point out that all Bill O’Reilly had to do to keep his job was to come out as a Democrat. There was more evidence against Clinton but he gets lauded as a great man by the left, the only thing I can see as a difference there is the side of the aisle he was on. The left would have defended him against some of the lamest accusations I’ve ever seen… I couldn’t stand to watch his show but the planned effort (this has been admitted) to have him oustered was disturbing and the Soros led group then started going after Hannity immediately (and I mean the day after).

And yes, the group who was behind getting O’Reilly out at Fox had a top donor by the name of Soros… Go look it up. The lawyer is also on record that this was the plan all along.

The real unfortunate part is that the things that Trump is actually screwing up will never get discussed much because idiot leftists are making such stupid outrageous comments and statements that it gets drowned out and by the time they come to light, the public is exhausted. Just like Obama’s birth records, etc. The warmongering left wants war with Russia for some reason. Remember when the left used to be for normalizing relations with Russia and being anti-war? How far have they fallen…

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 2, 2017 2:08 AM
Comment #415688

BTW, Trump *STILL* has a higher favorbility rating than Hillary Clinton does… When is the left going to admit they ran the wrong candidate and the Trump presidency is their fault for thinking they could appoint who THEY wanted, not who the voters wanted?

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 2, 2017 2:11 AM
Comment #415689

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJq4zNqzGOY

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 2, 2017 2:18 AM
Comment #415694

phx8, didn’t they pass a CR, not a budget? This will last, what, 6 months? Then they do it over again.

Remember that marching cadence in basic?

Roll me over, Yankee Soldier, Roll me over, lay me down, and do it again, do it again, do it again.

Appropriate, considering what the Democratics gave in to was military spending of almost half a trillion dollars. Also, a billion and a half for border security.

I can’t say Trump got rolled on this one. He ran on funding the military and border security. Democratics gave in to him on those points. It will only be 6 months before he will rack up a few more victories in the next round of CR bickering. Who cares how the media frames it as long as it gets done, right?


Posted by: Weary Willie at May 2, 2017 11:23 AM
Comment #415695

WW,
As I understand it, the difference between a budget and a continuing resolution is the length of time, and the appropriations process. A budget is for one fiscal year. A CR funds government for a shorter period of time. A budget goes through 12 appropriations, while a CR does not. The media uses the terms interchangeably, but the current deal will be a CR.

Military spending will be increased. There is some money for border security. Neither is especially controversial.

Trump will receive half of what he asked for in military spending. He promised a wall. That will not happen. He promised Mexico would pay for it. That will definitely not happen. He proposed slashing virtually every other program. That will not happen.

This morning, Trump is calling for a government shutdown in September, and doing away with the Senate filibuster. That will not happen either. Congress has essentially decided to ignore Trump.

Rhinehold,
Either watch or read a transcript of the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing in which cyber experts testify:

https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-01-05/watch-live-senate-hearing-russian-hacking-and-us-cybersecurity

This was not just a hack and leak. It was a campaign that also targeted state voter registration databases, social media, planting disinformation and fake news.

Perhaps the most amazing aspect was the deliberate targeting of Trump as an individual through social media. They knew when Trump viewed it, and flooded his feed with fake news. Trump actually repeated the fake news twice, including a false story about a terrorist attack in Turkey, so the targeting unquestionably worked.

Posted by: phx8 at May 2, 2017 12:01 PM
Comment #415696

Rhinehold-
Please don’t insult our intelligence with “zero evidence” claims. You have a National Security Adviser who was fired for not being honest with people about his contact with Russian officials.

There is also plenty of consensus as to Russia’s involvement, which so far I’ve only seen denied by those who buy into the Conspiracy theory that somehow it’s all just a political put-on (because military and intelligence people just LOVE liberals, right?)

You’re the one who wants Trump’s innocence to be true. To believe that, you’re ignoring evidence that was so strong, the Trump administration felt it necessary to fire Flynn.

As far as I know, any contact between the Clinton campaign and Kremlin officials was minimal, with only Kremlin officials saying otherwise!

As far as approval ratings, Trump is currently at 41%, where Obama was at 65% at this time. Seeking out some other period in his Presidency is misleading. Trump has had only a limited time during his Presidency to destroy his approval ratings. He’s managed to do that better than any President past Eisenhower.

And if he was a Democrat, would O’Reilly have kept his job? No. Hell, he would have been out YEARS ago, if only because of the factual error. Right Wing Media has been playing by different rules. There are no consequences for screwing up the facts for them. There is only the party propaganda. Don’t screw that up, don’t do something unpopular like come out pro-choice (like Tomi Lahren), or oppose a Presidential candidate (like George Soros) and you’ll be just fine.

As far as war with Russia?

Look, many years ago, some people said, let XXXX have this territory on a basis of an ethnic population claim. Just go along to get along. Never mind the aggressiveness of the regime, they would achieve peace in their time!

Munich didn’t satisfy that leader. Crimea will not satisfy Putin. Like that previous leader avenging the Kaiser’s defeat, Putin wants to avenge the USSR’s loss to the US in the Cold War.

Personally, I don’t want a war, but I want to smash his hand in the door, make it clear that such intrusions are as unwise as they are unwelcome.

As far as Hillary goes? She doesn’t have to run for re-election.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 2, 2017 12:48 PM
Comment #415697

Maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe. You seem to love that word. I find it kind of weak, though.

The Watergate metaphor is apt. Somebody stole DNC files, committed a digital burglary, so to speak. We traced that back to a certain set of people, and those certain sets of people seem to have had a number of discussions and odd interactions with the current White House.

The trouble is that too many on the right have let a media bias overcome their common sense, and thus their ability to appreciate how bad this all looks.

By the way, Flynn isn’t supposed to have accepted ANY money from foreign governments as a former general, without seeking permission and disclosing it.

What you have here is wishful thinking. It applies to the way you think regulations will work out, the way your tax cuts are supposed to work out. You just don’t consider that things could go south, and then they do.

Don’t confuse a lull in revelations and events with some kind of passive vindication.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 2, 2017 12:56 PM
Comment #415702

No doubt about it- Trump got his head handed to him with this CR.

Heh. Trump is so pleased with the results, he says we need a “good shutdown” of the government in September. He even sent out his Budget Director, who said “we might need a shutdown at some point.” Yeah, nothing spells ‘success’ like threatening to shut down your own government! Sean Spicer celebrated by canceling the daily press briefing.

Let’s see. Trump got crushed on that CR. He got thoroughly dissed in the worst possible way, because the GOP & Democrats IGNORED him. Meanwhile, Trump invited the leader of the Philippines to visit the White House, a guy who is leading a wave of extra-judicial vigilante killings. 7,000 dead so far. Trump said it would be an honor to meet the North Korean dictator. Sigh. Sigh. So much for the US standing for human rights. And he topped it off with a bizarre tweet about Andrew Jackson that is too messed up to discuss seriously, though some talking heads made a valiant effort.

Next: Trumpcare. Speaking of messed up… The AHCA is a present that just keeps giving.

Posted by: phx8 at May 2, 2017 3:15 PM
Comment #415703
Either watch or read a transcript of the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing in which cyber experts testify

I have. There was and is still to this day no actual evidence that Russia was behind the DNC hack. Yet people people still make the claim as a ‘fact’. The problem is that the left has lost all sense of what facts are these days. I know the basis for those opinions and how flimsy they are.

Opinion != Fact.

I know it’s hard to tell the difference these days, what with the news media giving out opinions as facts on a daily basis. But there are still some people out there that do know the difference and are pushing back and demanding those facts be presented before allowing others to claim things that are still to this day unproven.

If you have any facts that prove that Russia was behind the DNC hacking other than a) there were a few cyrillic characters in the code (because we all know hackers never borrow or buy hacks) and b) that the hacks took place between 9am and 5pm Russian time (because we all know that hackers always work 9-5 jobs) which is all the evidence that exists, I would be most welcome to see it.

Please don’t insult our intelligence with “zero evidence” claims.

The only one insulting anyone’s intelligence are those who pass of logical fallacies as some sort of factual evidence.

There is also plenty of consensus as to Russia’s involvement

Consensus != Fact. I know in the days of people claiming that consensus means something that may be a hard concept for the left’s addled brains to grasp, but it is what it is.

You’re the one who wants Trump’s innocence to be true.

I could give a toss if he’s innocent or not. I simply demand evidence before I make such accusations. The left did NOT and have not to this day waited for any such thing. Don’t insult MY intelligence by suggesting that they did. They were demanding impeachment before he was even in office with no evidence whatsoever for anything and have gone on a witch hunt, every thing they find is ‘proof’ of malfeasance.

And I remember when the left abhorred such things, like in the late 1990s. But of course, back then the left were destroying women who accused a Democrat of sexual harassment as being a ‘plot’, but when we have actual evidence that the same thing was done to someone they don’t like… Well, hypocrisy is a word for a reason.

Seeking out some other period in his Presidency is misleading.

Not really paying attention to what I’m saying are you? The assertion was made that at 41% he is irrelevant. Was Obama irrelevant at a lower approval rating? Hillary?

Do you see the hypocrisy?

And if he was a Democrat, would O’Reilly have kept his job?

Bill Clinton kept his. Seems like the evidence suggests something different than what you assert.

As far as war with Russia?

Crimea didn’t want to go along with the revolution in the western part of the country and fought back to break away. A revolution that the US insisted on instigating and supporting, I might remind you. So much like France during our break away from Britain, Russia assisted them in their efforts. The US backed the revolutionaries in the west, Russia backed those that were wanting to stay aligned with Russia in the east. And they are the bad guys and we are the good guys. It’s that sort of mentality that has put us in the situations we have been in for decades, the sort of thing that the left USED to be against.

All the left (and many on the right) have done is create a bogey man for political purposes and convinced the majority of Americans it’s true.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 2, 2017 3:16 PM
Comment #415704
Somebody stole DNC files, committed a digital burglary, so to speak. We traced that back to a certain set of people, and those certain sets of people seem to have had a number of discussions and odd interactions with the current White House.

“we traced”? No, we didn’t. No evidence exists that any Russian, let alone state-sponsored Russian, was behind the DNC hack. Wikileaks who received the information has asserted many times that who they received the information from was not Russian but an inside person. The person who has claimed responsibility for the hack claims to be Serbian. The only ‘evidence’ are that there were a few cyrillic characters in the code and the hacks seemed to occur between 9-5 Russian time. All of this is based on a report by a private security group that has been ridiculed by many other security firms in their lack of facts. The FBI nor the CIA did their own investigation of the servers or the hack, relying on that one report that the DNC paid for. Never mind the revelation a couple of months ago that the CIA routinely performs hacks in ways to make security experts think that the hack was done by a foreign entity of their choice and have been doing so for years…

“But Clapper said…” You mean the guy who sat in front of Congress and testified that they weren’t spying on Americans? You will understand if I don’t take his word for it and demand that he show evidence, yeah?

If you are going to keep making the assertion, I am going to keep demanding the facts that support them. Please provide them or stop making the assertion.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 2, 2017 3:23 PM
Comment #415705
nothing spells ‘success’ like threatening to shut down your own government!

Like the left has done for years?

Democratic leaders have gone on record several times in the past saying that they want a government shutdown so that they can use it to their political advantage, but people still keep buying the ‘it’s the republican’s fault’ line… proof that if you say something often enough, stupid people will believe it.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 2, 2017 3:35 PM
Comment #415708

http://www.csoonline.com/article/3084594/security/dnc-hacker-slams-crowdstrike-publishes-opposition-memo-on-donald-trump.html

Overall, the Washington Post story actually read more like a promotion for CrowdStrike’s incident response offerings than actual security news.

But the fact is, someone targeted the DNC directly and that is news worth watching. At the same time, many experts felt it was a stretch to hype the incident as some sort of massive international conspiracy.

The hacker claiming responsibility for the DNC attack (using the alias Guccifer 2.0) mocked CrowdStrike’s assessment that he was a sophisticated hacker group, noting that he was pleased the company “appreciated my skills so highly. But in fact, it was easy, very easy.”

“Guccifer may have been the first one who penetrated Hillary Clinton’s and other Democrats’ mail servers. But he certainly wasn’t the last. No wonder any other hacker could easily get access to the DNC’s servers. Shame on CrowdStrike: Do you think I’ve been in the DNC’s networks for almost a year and saved only 2 documents? Do you really believe it?”

And don’t forget that the DNC refused to let the FBI do any investigation…

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/05/politics/fbi-russia-hacking-dnc-crowdstrike/

Yeah, so much ‘evidence’. :P Anyone who has any actual knowledge of ITSec is just facepalming this whole thing, you get that yeah? If this is what the security agencies do for ITSec, I’m surprised we aren’t in worse shape than we already are in that regard.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 2, 2017 3:52 PM
Comment #415742

The link you supplied takes you to a page in which there are two more links to articles that claim that Russia was behind the hack. Not surprisingly in the article you supplied, the hacker himself disavows any connection to Russia. Would we expect anything less? This is like quoting “Julian Assange”, and expect him to be telling the truth.

This was indeed a “face-palm” situation as all phishing is. However comparing the evidence that Russia was behind this versus the disinformation that Russia wasn’t, leads experts to believe Russia was behind the hacks.
Believing Guccifer 2.0 is like believing “Curveball” when he said that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. How is that search going on?

Also, there is no evidence that I have seen that shows Clinton’s email server was hacked. Not surprisingly, it was probably more secure than the State’s Dept’s servers, which were hacked. I did read an email account off her server was hacked, but a brute force attack could have easily been the reason for that.

Posted by: Cubed at May 3, 2017 1:31 PM
Comment #415743
This is like quoting “Julian Assange”, and expect him to be telling the truth.

Show me evidence that Julian Assange has lied about anything. One. Single. Time. In fact, Wikileaks have to date been 100% correct with everything they have published, Wikileaks the former darling of the left when they were going after Bush…

I can show you evidence that Clapper has though. I can also show you evidence that the CIA has engaged in hacking and leaving behind hints that other state agencies have done the hacking. I can show you evidence that the DHS was port scanning voting machines which led to many thinking that they were being ‘hacked by Russia’.

However comparing the evidence that Russia was behind this versus the disinformation that Russia wasn’t, leads experts to believe Russia was behind the hacks.

WHAT EVIDENCE. Please, just simple do me the simple courtesy of showing me a single piece of evidence that Russia was behind the hacking. You say that it exists, so it shouldn’t be hard to provide, yeah?

This is the problem I have. People with no actual knowledge of the evidence stating ‘just look at the evidence…’ Well, I have and there is none. I have decades of experience in ITSec. CrowdStrike is full of shit.

Here’s the difference. I don’t believe anyone’s word, I believe facts and evidence. There is zero evidence that Russia was behind the attacks. Does this mean they weren’t? Nope. It just means that there is no proof and saying that it has been proven is false to say. Does this mean that Guccifer 2.0 and Julian Assange and Craig Murray are not lying? Of course not, they could be (but to what end?) But it also doesn’t prove that they are. But at least Assange and Murray are putting their names out there. You may not trust Assange, but what about Murray? What do you have against him and what evidence do you have that he is prone to lying? He’s a former UK Ambassador…

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/

Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims “bullshit”, adding: “They are absolutely making it up.”

“I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “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.

“If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA’s statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States.

“America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it’s not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever.”

This is a prime example of the abandonment of journalistic integrity that this story is being reported the way it is. This wouldn’t have flown 2 decades ago. Back in Watergate they required proof, multiple sources, collaboration. Now, we just throw opinion out as fact and people take it as such, it’s disgusting.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 3, 2017 2:00 PM
Comment #415748

As I said in my previous post, the link you provided discrediting CrowdStrike, leads to a page with 2 other links that supplies the forensics used to determine that the Russian groups “Cozy Bear” and “Fancy Bear” were behind the hacks. While the breach was due to phishing, the malware is attributed to these two groups.

There is no point in reprinting the forensics here, as I’ll be just regurgitating what has been written in multiple articles, including in the ones accessible in the links on the page you cite. However to add more weight to the analysis, Fidelis Security also agreed with CrowdStrike. Look them up if you like, they have earned their reputation.

I never said what Assange posted on Wikileaks were lies, I said I wouldn’t trust what Assange has said. Why would he lie, perhaps as in Guccifer 2.0 to distract from the true source of the hacks.

I also have experience in Security, and the interpretation of the forensics seem logical to me.

The only evidence you have supplied that Russia were not behind the hacks, is because Guccifer 2.0 said so. The only other caveat to this is perhaps, you don’t believe the forensics that have been reported, you haven’t read them, or you would prefer to believe Guccifer over the above mentioned Security Organizations and our own Intelligence community.

Posted by: Cubed at May 3, 2017 5:25 PM
Comment #415752
the link you provided discrediting CrowdStrike, leads to a page with 2 other links that supplies the forensics used to determine that the Russian groups “Cozy Bear” and “Fancy Bear” were behind the hacks

Names that they created to identify what they ‘believed’ was the same actor (even though there is no proof, they could have been using purchased tools, that does happen) and they have no evidence that the multiple attacks that they attribute to those self-created identities are even the same person or group of people. They then suggest that their actions lead them to believe what their motive is, which has to ignore the fact that hacks that took place that doesn’t match up with espionage that they’ve attributed to those actors exist as well.

IE, they are GUESSING. They have no actual evidence.

There is no point in reprinting the forensics here

Because they have no evidence in them, it is all supposition and guessing about motives.

The only tangible ‘facts’ are that the hacks came from an IP address/email address associated with Russian’s version of hotmail, the activity occurred during 9-5 Russian time and there was a few cyrillic letters in the code. That’s it.

Fidelis Security also agreed with CrowdStrike. Look them up if you like, they have earned their reputation

And several others disagree with them. The problem comes in when you start to look at the fact that they are making guesses on motives instead of analyzing the facts. Oh, and looking at the people involved at the higher levels of those companies and who they support politically… But that’s another issue.

The only evidence you have supplied that Russia were not behind the hacks, is because Guccifer 2.0 said so

Guccifer 2.0 said so, Assange said so, Murray said so. Assange and Murray are two people who have actually met/interacted with the hacker when they received the information.

And I quite clearly said that I have no proof that they weren’t behind the attacks. But that’s not how accusations work Cubed. You don’t make accusations without proof or enough evidence to overcome the benefit of the doubt and those accused don’t have to prove their innocence, the burden of proof is on the accusers, which hasn’t been met in any way shape or form. If so, where are the indictments? Where are the extradition efforts? We have Snowden holed up in the Russian embassy unable to leave or get picked up, but we can’t pick up a single ‘Russian Hacker’? The reason is that we have no idea who committed the hack.

own Intelligence community.

The ones who have lied to us again and again? Clapper sat in a Senate hearing and straight up said that they were not spying on US Citizens, FFS. Is that what the left has come to, no questioning of authority? When did this happen pray tell? Oh yeah, when it suits their new found warmongering needs.

And remember, the DNC *refused* to let the FBI even do it’s own investigation. Everyone is going off of that badly put together analysis by Crowdstrike, no one else has even looked at the servers or done any forensics on their own. No intelligence agents, no other security organizations, no one but Crowdstrike. Don’t you think there should be some alternate analysis? A ‘second opinion’?

And as I said, it’s not a ‘he said/she said’ situation, this is an accusation and requires proof by the accusers. Not guesses and supposition.

If there is evidence, let me see it. Again, I ask for the simple courtesy and you have yet to provide it.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 3, 2017 6:03 PM
Comment #415757

Tomorrow the House GOP may vote on the newest version of the AHCA without knowing how much it will cost, or who it will cover. Unlike the AHA, there will be no expert testimony by individuals or representatives of businesses, and unlike the AHA there will not be over a hundred hearings and as many amendments. They may vote on the AHCA despite opposition from the American Medical Association, Hospitals, the insurance industry, and an awful lot of constituents.

I see no possible way in which this could go wrong.

Posted by: phx8 at May 3, 2017 9:35 PM
Comment #415763

Way to change the subject, phx8. Were things getting too hot in the previous comments for you to handle? Did you have to change the subject to protect your party’s talking points?

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 4, 2017 8:48 AM
Comment #415764

Yeah, it would be just terrible if people couldn’t keep their insurance plan and doctor. Or if their insurance skyrocketed instead of saving $2500 a year. Or if they were forced to pay for services they don’t want or need. Or if they were forced to support things they are religiously opposed to.
My God man, how will our country survive if things go wrong.

Posted by: kctim at May 4, 2017 9:03 AM
Comment #415766

WW,
The subject of the article is the first 100 days. Personally, I am not interested in wasting time reading Rhinehold’s conspiracy theories about the Russians and Wikileaks. Even YOU gave up on that one some time ago.

kctim,
“… how will our country survive if things go wrong?”

Oh, the country will survive. But some Americans will not. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the GOP’s AHCA will literally kill some people who need not have died, due to the lack of preventative care and allowing insurers to reinstate lifetime caps. It is just a matter of statistics, if not compassion. People will lose homes due to foreclosure, too. Under the ACA, bankruptcies dropped 50% since 2010. With the AHCA, a person halfway through chemotherapy treatments could lose coverage if they hit that lifetime cap, and for most people, that means bye bye house, assuming they live that long.

Large companies will be able to base their insurance coverage for employees in states that opt out of the AHA rules, thereby saving the company money. That means, even if your state continues AHA coverage, the corporation may not.

It is arguably the ugliest piece of legislation in American history. What makes it even worse is the motivation. The GOP wants to use the money to give corporations and the richest of the rich big tax cuts.

Posted by: phx8 at May 4, 2017 10:13 AM
Comment #415768

And there you go, asking for evidence is now considered a conspiracy theory. This is how far the left has fallen, from demanding proof (rightfully) before going into Iraq to now just believing everything they hear on their favorite echo chamber news shows…

Why did you guys lose power all over the country again? I can’t seem to place my finger on why that might have been.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 4, 2017 10:52 AM
Comment #415769

I attempted twice to post a response, it is being held by the Watchblog editor.

Posted by: Cubed at May 4, 2017 10:57 AM
Comment #415770

The detailed information you wish me to supply, can’t be supplied, due to it being classified. We do know that CrowdStrike reports that they were monitoring the network when the hackers were in the network. CrowdStrike also reports that they have seen the same signatures in other networks and other hacking instances. The source IP of the hackers are owned by the Russian Government. Also, the software used was too sophisticated for a script kiddie. We also know that software is a written language, which is how we can determine the authors of it.

It is also reported that the Intelligence Community has identified the Russian operative that supplied the documents to Assange.

Finally, I will supply the link to the declassified Intelligence report :https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

Note the following quote from it:


The Intelligence Community rarely can publicly reveal the full extent of its knowledge or the precise bases for its assessments, as the release of such information would reveal sensitive sources or methods and imperil the ability to collect critical foreign intelligence in the future.Thus, while the conclusions in the report are all reflected in the classified assessment, the declassified report does not and cannot include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence and sources and methods.

There is an alternative argument floating around that Russia is not the culpable for the hacks. But I have not heard any denials from anyone who had access to the classified report, specifically Republicans.

As far as the intelligence community spying on US citizens. I opposed the Patriotic Act when it was first proposed and we discussed it here on Watchblog. I remember many on the right up in arms that anyone would oppose it. Spying is an interesting word, but anyone involved with security is aware of the different programs utilized to capture our network traffic. Which leads to what we were told, that the FBI warned the DNC that they were hacked, before the hack was confirmed by CrowdStrike.

Posted by: Cubed at May 4, 2017 11:01 AM
Comment #415771

Oh such drama, Phx8.
A private company choosing which benefits it wishes to offer, instead of government dictate? Gasp!

For the past 7 years, the country and Americans have survived government intrusion, losing their plans and doctors and watching their costs skyrocket. The left mocked those who predicted such things would happen, then blamed the ACAs failures on the right and called those who pointed those things out racists and bigots.
We will be no worse than we are now with this ACA lite.

Glad to see you getting back to the ‘tax cuts equal the end of the world’ mantra. Old and tired envy and fear mongering, but much better than the Russia conspiracy theories.

“I am not interested in wasting time reading Rhinehold’s conspiracy theories”

Now the demanding of facts is akin to promoting conspiracy theories?
LO freaking L!

Posted by: kctim at May 4, 2017 11:17 AM
Comment #415772
The detailed information you wish me to supply, can’t be supplied, due to it being classified.

Bullshit.

The source IP of the hackers are owned by the Russian Government.

This is not accurate. No where have I read this information, please provide were you got it. I mean seriously, what hacker uses their actual IP address when they hack? Do you know how these things work?

Also, the software used was too sophisticated for a script kiddie.

Again, bullshit. The hacks where not that sophisticated, hell the original egress was getting into Leon Panetta’s email account with a phishing attack that resulted in finding his password was ‘password’ ffs.

I also don’t think you realize the hacking tools that are purchasable and what they are capable of.

From the unclassified report…

“When Intelligence Community analysts use words such as “we assess” or “we judge,” they are conveying an analytic assessment or judgment.”

Which means, ‘we are making an educated guess’. This is not proof, this is not evidence, this is a judgement. Which is my point, everyone is making this assertion that it has been ‘proven’, it hasn’t. The news media is doing a huge disservice by not making this clear and the commentators passing themselves off as news, which people are using as news sources, are simply full of crap. I’m looking at people like Don Lemon, Chris Matthews, Sean Hannity, Rachel Maddow, etc.

BTW, did you read the report you linked? Here are some examples of their reasons why RT is a ‘Russian propaganda arm’:

From August to November 2012, RT ran numerous reports on alleged US election fraud and voting machine vulnerabilities, contending that US election results cannot be trusted and do not reflect the popular will.

In an effort to highlight the alleged “lack of democracy” in the United States, RT broadcast, hosted, and advertised thirdparty candidate debates and ran reporting supportive of the political agenda of these candidates. The RT hosts asserted that the US two-party system does not represent the views of at least one-third of the population and is a “sham.”

RT aired a documentary about the Occupy Wall Street movement on 1, 2, and 4 November. RT framed the movement as a fight against “the ruling class” and described the current US political system as corrupt and dominated by corporations. RT advertising for the documentary featured Occupy movement calls to “take back” the government. The documentary claimed that the US system cannot be changed democratically, but only through “revolution.” After the 6 November US presidential election, RT aired a documentary called “Cultures of Protest,” about active and often violent political resistance

Those bastards, televising a 3rd party debate… Just like those propagandaists at C-Span!

The whole report is cringe-worthy at best, there is no evidence provided at all, just reasons why they think it is likely that Russia was behind it because it ‘makes sense’, not because they have any actual evidence. At least none that they have provide to the lowly citizens who actually, you know, pay their salary to tell us this information.

Now here I am going to play devil’s advocate…

IF the intelligence communities has information about the hack that they are keeping classified, what reason could that be? The only think I can think of is that they would then have to admit that they have an in on the TOR network to see actual IP addresses that are meant to be obfuscated. Meaning that they either have honeypotted the network (possible) or they have a back door into the encryption technologies which, if true, is even more dangerous…

But let me ask you, did you catch the release of information that the Deep State routinely hacks and makes it look like foreign entities performed the hacks? At a time when it appears that for increased funding, having a ‘big baddie’ that the organizations can be used to fight against is an essential need…

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/wikileaks-vault-7-3-0-reveals-cia-can-disguise-hacks-malware-russian-chinese/

However, all I want is for people to stop saying that Russians Hacked the DNC as a FACTUAL statement, since we don’t have any evidence of any such thing happening. Only guesses. Those guesses may be true, Russia may very well have done that to get even for Hillary doing the same thing via the State Department (which the document conveniently leaves out as a motive btw, which is telling) to Putin in 2011. But they are guesses and attacking anyone who simply wants evidence before accepting the story as ‘conspiracy theorists’ is pathetic.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 4, 2017 1:09 PM
Comment #415773

It would appear that phx8 forgot that Nancy Pelosi told us we wouldn’t know what was in the Obamacare Bill until it passed. Am I correct?

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 4, 2017 3:13 PM
Comment #415774

My friends on the Left are perhaps not aware that more and more people can not even find a plan in their county or state since so many insurance companies have pulled out of Obamacare.

So my Lefty Pals, how is “no care” better than whatever plan the Republicans have passed?

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 4, 2017 3:33 PM
Comment #415775

“Bullshit” – I remember in the past you talking about classified information, funny now the concept of it is bullshit.

A hacker will more than likely use a proxy, or Tor network. However access to these resources has to come from the true source IP. You really think we don’t know that. Also, there is no purpose in hacking an environment, if you don’t retrieve the information, this can and is traced.

The hacks were phishing, but that only implemented the tools. Do you understand the difference between the hack and the tools? Have you ever seen this software? There are different sophistications to it. Since the software was recovered, I trust the analysis of it and purported source of it.

Of course Tor networks are infiltrated, they still have to interface with the “Internet”. As far as encryption goes, it is required that any encryption software supplies the US government with a key. Which is why, if you want to buy encryption software, buy it overseas. However what we are talking about is for encrypted network traffic. First off, even if the data and/or ip packet is encrypted, it still has to be encapsulated with traceable information.

Of course the U.S. can disguise hacks. There are well known stories of hacks into network equipment. The source of these hacks are in question, but it is assumed the U.S. is behind some. My favorite story is the one concerning Juniper Networks, but there are many more.

As I said however, where are the objections from the people that read the classified analysis of the Russian hack? If there was any question to it, I’m sure the Republican Party would have questioned it, without revealing its’ contents.

In fact the only true evidence you have offered is, that Guccifer and Assange says it isn’t true. You are right, we should be critical of any information supplied to us. Which is why I argued against the Iraq war, and I didn’t accept the argument for it. But then, opposed to now, there was information available to call it in question.

Posted by: Cubed at May 4, 2017 4:38 PM
Comment #415776

The Obamas and the Clinton Road to Perdition

“Such smart, capable, self-assured, and haughty people are the stuff of Greek tragedy, and its warnings about the descent from hubris (overweening arrogance) to atê (unhinged madness) to nemesis (divine retribution and downfall).”

https://amgreatness.com/2017/05/03/obamas-clinton-road-perdition/

This has to be one of the best synopsis I have read of the Clinton and Obama “would be” dynasty.

Reading this is not for the faint of heart if one is a Democrat. Too much truth can be harmful to their health.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 4, 2017 4:38 PM
Comment #415777

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California Wednesday evening (May 3rd) if she has seen anything to make her believe there was collusion between the Trump campaign and America’s Cold War foe.

“Not at this time,” Feinstein said.

She really needs to talk with my Pals on the Left on WB who can fill her in on all the evidence she missed.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 4, 2017 5:47 PM
Comment #415778

RF,
The Senate Intel Committee has been at a virtual standstill. They have not interviewed people or collected evidence. In any case, I think collusion or cooperation will be hard to prove. There is already a lot of circumstantial evidence, but that is not good enough.

Remember, if anything is ever going to happen, it will be a result of the FBI investigation. The questions asked by Senator Whitehouse, a former prosecutor, were carefully posed to hint where the investigation is going. He hints that this will be about RICO statutes and money laundering. It isn’t easy, but money laundering can leave a trail and can be proven. By the way, the British, Dutch, Polish, and Estonian intelligence agencies are also investigating Trump and the Russian connections.

Trump is a very crooked guy and he associates with a lot of unsavory characters. He lies a lot. Eventually, it will catch up with him.

As for the AHCA, that actually worked out really well for Democrats. The CBO score will come out and it will be an absolute disaster for House Republicans, and now those votes are there for all to see. The Senate GOP will have nothing to do with that piece of… legislation. ‘Sure,’ McConnell will say, ‘We’ll get right on it.’ (snicker)
Who knows what kind of reform the Senate GOP will produce- but it will be nothing like the garbage produced by the House.

Posted by: phx8 at May 4, 2017 6:23 PM
Comment #415779

Keep “snickering” phx8. It looks good on you. We know you will snicker at almost any foul pig sty comment or comedian.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 4, 2017 6:29 PM
Comment #415780

David Axelrod, who was Obama’s chief strategist on both of his winning presidential campaigns and advised him in the White House, argued that Clinton’s reputation for dodging responsibility for her mistakes has hurt her in the past and is not a wise strategy going forward.

“One of the things that hindered her in the campaign was a sense that she never fully was willing to take responsibility for her mistakes, particularly that server,” Axelrod said. “So if I were her, if I were advising her, I would say, ‘don’t do this, don’t go back and appear as if you’re shifting responsibility off.’”

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 4, 2017 7:11 PM
Comment #415784

$880 billion in cuts Medicaid cuts. The money that would have gone to poor and middle income people for health care will be re-distributed to the riches of the rich. Big tax cuts for the richest of the rich in the works. Trump is so stupid, later that day he praised the Australian health care system for being better than ours. Australia has universal health care. The more I see of Trump, the clearer it becomes that he is a moron, a carnival barker, a cunning amoral bully, an absolute idiot.

Conservatives are also working on a repeal of Dodd-Frank. Why anyone would want to make a replay of the economic crash is anybody’s guess. Oh wait! Campaign contributions. All those Goldman Sachs guys nominated by Trump. Yeah. Now I remember.

Oh, and some of you might have missed it, but the GOP passed and Trump signed a bill letting companies sell your browser history in the public marketplace. They were real quiet about that one. No cameras, please! Those big campaign contributions by telecoms to GOP politicians really paid off!

Posted by: phx8 at May 5, 2017 10:27 AM
Comment #415799
The outgoing White House also became concerned about the Trump team’s handling of classified information. After learning that highly sensitive documents from a secure room at the transition’s Washington headquarters were being copied and removed from the facility, Obama’s national security team decided to only allow the transition officials to view some information at the White House, including documents on the government’s contingency plans for crises.

Holy Mackerel!

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 5, 2017 8:19 PM
Comment #415802

phx8, why do you have a problem with ISPs having access to the sites you visit, but not have a problem with the US Postal Service knowing who you correspond with? The post office has the same kind of data this bill deals with.

What was Obama protecting?

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 5, 2017 9:09 PM
Comment #415941

Weary Willie-
The better equivalent in electronic terms would be them being able to open your mail and packages to see what’s inside.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 10, 2017 12:14 AM
Post a comment