Russia Investigation - Convenient Clouds of Doubt over the White House
When lawyers get into a dueling match through an exchange of letters where those very lawyers on each side argue over the meaning of those letters … you know the House Investigation under Chairman Nunes and Schiff is grinding towards some sort of gridlock. Or falling apart. Or being sabotaged by every lawyerly trick in the book by the Democrats.
Was there - in other words - an attempt by the White House to block testimony by rebellious former Deputy AG Yates? The White House insists not. Democrats howl: yes there was. And it boils down to a nit-picking analysis of what each letter said, and what each letter meant. Even when they were sent.
Things get less clear with each day. For example:
Who is the already notorious source that shepherded Nunes to a computer on the White House Grounds? Did they chill out (literally it is March after all, even in DC) under an Oak on the White House lawn, while Nunes checked out the information on a laptop? No, we can assume not. But there is precious little that can be assumed at this point.
Should Nunes step down? Some of his recent moves seem a little clumsy perhaps. But has he done anything egregious that would require him not only to step down but also to be investigated as some Democrats are demanding? From what we know - again which is very little - there's no evidence to support the Democrats claims.
And that's the main problem. This is an intelligence investigation - not a criminal prosecution, at least not yet - and that means all sorts of evidence will not be shared with the public. Once again, we have no way of knowing if Comey and the FBI and other agencies like the NSA and the CIA are trying to cover up their own missteps, or whether it really is vital information that must remain classified due to national security interests. And who decides that? The White House? Or the intel community? So far, it's been the latter. While Congress goes begging for a thumb drive. Or a secure connection. And a little data. Just a little data please.
This is ridiculous. With the evidence under encrypted key or maybe even locked in a drawer, the rumor mill is in a frenzy and anything becomes possible. The only way to clear this up is by having as public and transparent as possible an investigation. Nunes doesn't have to resign. He should however, demand as much public access for his committee as he can muster the courage to ask for. And Schiff should support him, rather than engage in partisan sabotage.
Never mind what the intel community says. Never mind what the White House says. This is getting murkier by the minute and we need some clarity. Who leaked? Who unmasked? Is unmasking inappropriate or illegal? We know leaking is illegal, in intelligence matters especially. Who from Trump's team met with who from Russia's government or from Russia? What type of meetings between Russians and the Obama administration occurred? Or anyone associated with Hillary's campaign team.
All of it. It all needs to come out. Anything less, and we have all these convenient clouds of doubt over the White House regarding any possible connection to Russia. And that is a dysfunctional outcome that only favors short-term Democrat interests, and damages America, all of America, more and more every day it drags on. But it's too damn useful for Schumer, Schiff, and company. They can use it to justify just any obstruction they see fit to engage in. Like filibustering Gorsuch, for example. That's very short-term thinking on the part of Senator Schumer. This could blowback, in a very ugly way.
Posted by AllardK at March 29, 2017 3:00 PM
Allard, it is nearly impossible to wade through all the misinformation, lies, and hyperbole going on today in our nation’s capital.
The Democrats have suddenly become suspicious of the Russians. What a turn-about for them.
Democrats Reverse Long Love Affair with Russia
Liberals’ newfound fear of the Kremlin at odds with their apologist past
“From the second half the 20th century right through the 21st and until about six months ago, the Democrats largely — except for President John F. Kennedy — have been the pro-Russian party in the United States. What they really loved was the Soviet Union.”
I am a liberal. I served in the USAF, in SAC, on nuclear alert as a B-52 Radar Navigator- a bombardier. I volunteered and served honorably. Every third week me and one other officer signed for personal responsibility for a payload of nuclear bombs and missiles. My targets were obvious. Even today I will not say. I certainly will not appear on a Russian propaganda station like RT, Russia Today, or praise Wikileaks 164 times in the months of October alone for releasing material hacked by the Russians.
So when some a**hole starts rewriting history in order to justify President “I love Wikileaks” Trump getting chummy with the Russians, they can stick it.
Many thanks for your service phx8.
What part of my link are you suggesting was a “rewrite” of history?
The entire article.
I have never heard of that guy. Looked him up online, and there is not much. The effort to bring down the USSR was a bipartisan effort. Both Republicans and Democrats worked towards that for decades. There was certainly disagreement on how best to do it, but the overall goal was shared, and ultimately, it worked. The USSR fell apart, and best of all, it happened without WWIII.
Eventually, the USSR morphed into what it is today, an authoritarian kleptocracy. The sanctions initiated by the Obama administration after Crimea and the Ukraine have been very effective. The Russian economy has been in a deep recession for years, and Putin is desperate to escape from the sanctions imposed by the US and the EU, hence, the hack and leak to affect the US elections, along with a prolonged campaign through social media.
Trump and his cronies chose to get close to those people. They CHOSE to do it. I wouldn’t. You probably wouldn’t. Most people wouldn’t. They did. They did business with the equivalent of the American mafia, only worse, and then Trump welcomed Russian interference in our election, and now the proverbial chickens are coming home to roost.
My opinion? Trump has been money laundering for the Russians for years. He is vulnerable to blackmail. And I think he is going to get caught. It is impossible to prove a lot of accusations because conversations and meetings are not enough to convict. But the money trail will be what does Trump in.
phx8, I suggest you do a little original research on the history of the CPUSA and the Democrat Party. You obviously will not believe anything I write, or links I provide.
Believe? I was THERE. I was as much on the front line as a person can be in the Cold War with the USSR. I volunteered while Carter was president, and finished under Reagan. Some jackass on the internet claims the left supported the USSR. That is false. There was a lot of support for the anti-nuclear movement, and I agree with that to this day, because Reagan came closer than you will ever know to blowing the whole thing up without even meaning to. His administration gave away vital information to the USSR by the way they reacted to that incident. They revealed that we knew exactly where their subs were at all times.
Conservatives are all butt-hurt because they imagined themselves to be the only patriots. They thought Obama was a weak leader. Now it turns out conservatives were the weak links in the defense of our democracy. They supported Trump, and their social networks and talk radio were used as tools against them, to manipulate them into supporting a candidate the Russians preferred- Trump.
If they had anything of substance to prove the narrative being propagated by the democrats, we would know about it, and an indictment would already be a thing. But there isn’t and this dog and pony show is nothing more than a distraction meant to dishonor, a delegitimize the Trump presidency. If I were you I would be worried about the investigations into the leaks of classified information by the intelligence community. That could spell disaster for the democrats and their friends in high places. Maybe even Obama himself.
If they had anything of substance to prove the narrative being propagated by the democrats, we would know about it, and an indictment would already be a thing.
Huh? The Congress has only barely started its investigation with a single hearing hosted by the House and none by the Senate. It’s absurd to expect that enough evidence to warrant indictments would have already accumulated. Relax and let the process play out on its own.
My personal hypothesis is that the FBI already ready has plenty of damning evidence regarding Manafort and Page, but they are tight lipped because they still haven’t been convinced that the conspiracy doesn’t go further up the chain. It doesn’t make any sense to indict Manafort or Page now as it will just tip the FBI’s hand to Trump. It’s much better to operate with a certain degree of secrecy.
I heard that in the 80s, Trump did business with a guy who’s sister lived next door to a guy who worked for a business that sold Smirnoff Vodka.
Yes, THAT Smirnoff Vodka. The company founded by some guy named Smirnov, who was a freaking RUSSIAN!!!
Then from out of nowhere comes Trump Vodka, in 2005. And a HUGE ‘advertising’ budget that paid for ‘fake news’ about how great the vodka was. Magazines, newspapers, billboards, posters and online. Yes, I said ONLINE.
Here’s the kicker though, guess who was the Russian President in 2005? Yep, PUTIN!!!
Take that you uneducated Trump supporters.
Amazing stuff from the Senate Intel Committee testimony.
The Russians meddled with Rubio during the campaign because he, like Hillary Clinton, was perceived to be hostile to their interests. The Russians targeted Ryan with propaganda.
Most amazing of all was the testimony by Clinton Watts about how the Russians went about influencing Trump. They specifically targeted his Twitter feed with fake news. They flooded social media at the times he was most likely to see it. On more than one occasion, it worked; Trump repeated the Russian propaganda. They targeted Trump because he was unable to distinguish between real and fake news, so they flooded him with the stuff- that the election was rigged, claims of voter fraud, that Trump Tower was “wiretapped.”
When Senator Wyden said “follow the money,” Watts said “follow the trail of dead Russians.”
Now we have what John Oliver calls “Stupid Watergate.”
The NYT reports two White House sources provided Chairman Nunes the material he used at that press conference. The two are a lawyer and a guy on the NSC, a Flynn appointee. The latter is especially interesting. The new head of the NSC, General McMaster, wanted to fire him following complaints. Kushner and Bannon took it to Trump, and Trump overruled McMaster. So this guy did some research to try to justify Trump’s tweets about Obama tapping Trump Tower. Nunes then comes over to the White House to get the information- switching cars on the way- and then the next day publicly goes to the White House to supposedly inform Trump, followed by a press conference. Since then, Nunes refused to tell anyone, Democrat or Republican, where he got the information, and he refused to show it to anyone. But now the cat’s out of the bag.
Meanwhile, Nunes has cancelled the scheduled testimony from several, including a public hearing with Sally Yates, which supposedly will be a bombshell. Currently nothing else is scheduled.
Remember the news last fall saying that Russia hacked states’ voter registration databases.
Today’s important news:
“This is a three-headed operation,” said one former official, setting out the case, based on the intelligence: … Thirdly, Russia downloads the online voter rolls. The voter rolls are said to fit into this because of “microtargeting”. Using email, Facebook and Twitter, political advertising can be tailored very precisely: individual messaging for individual voters.
“You are stealing the stuff and pushing it back into the US body politic,” said the former official, “you know where to target that stuff when you’re pushing it back.”
This would take co-operation with the Trump campaign, it is claimed. “If you need to ensure that white women in Pennsylvania don’t vote or independents get pissed in Michigan so they stay home: that’s voter suppression. You can figure what your target demographics and locations are from the voter rolls. Then you can use that to target your bot.”
This is the “big picture” some accuse the FBI of failing to see.
Now, this isn’t anywhere near the sort of evidence we’d need to start indicting anyone, but it does mean that there are plenty of leads that merit further investigation.
Nevertheless, Paul Wood says it best
With each new drip of information, option three - the chance that this is all a giant mistake, an improbable series of coincidences - seems further out of reach.
Increasingly, the American people are being asked to choose between two unpalatable versions of events: abuse of power by one president or treason that put another in the White House. It cannot be both.
phx8, please find out what “CPUSA” is, and then comment.
phx8 writes about Reagan; “His administration gave away vital information to the USSR by the way they reacted to that incident. They revealed that we knew exactly where their subs were at all times.”
Hmmm…some more rewriting of history? My history gives Reagan the primary credit for the dismantling of the Soviet Union.
Many thanks to Warren for the quote by an unnamed former official.
Why would I care about the CPUSA?
The testimony today about Russian cyber warfare during the election campaign is astounding. I am just amazed. I never realized how far they went, or how sophisticated they were in targeting Trump. They turned him into a Siberian Candidate. Whether he was turned wittingly or was merely an unwitting “useful idiot” remains to be seen. That was a terrible thing to do the this country, but I have to admit, that was brilliant. Sort of a Colbert ‘tip of the hat/wag of the finger’ act. It was a form of brainwashing, psychological warfare, and it worked. But where was Trump’s security team? Oh wait. General Flynn.
And it never occurred to me that they could specifically target states. Senator Warner suggested they concentrated on the ones we would expect- WI, MI, PA. Did they use hacked voter roles? I knew they were trying to sow discord between Clinton and Sanders supporters, but they were also targeting Rubio and his staff continue to do so to this day. That is just incredible.
And they were targeting down ballot tickets too. Was it enough to sway House or Senate campaigns?
We are in deep trouble.
So their hacking bureau targets the US, EU, and Ukraine. Their attacks continue to this day. No doubt they have great plans for 2018 and the next general election. Well, we all know what they say about paybacks…
phx8 writes; “RF, Why would I care about the CPUSA?
To understand Democrats Long Love Affair with Russia which you appear to be unaware of or simply deny.
Just reported- Flynn is offering to testify in exchange for immunity.
Is it offered to him? On the one hand, he can let the IC know what, if any secrets he leaked to the Russians and others. But he can only offer up one person higher on the food chain- Trump. Does Flynn have the goods? If not, they will want to bag him.
There may be enough ammo to put him away without having to cut a deal. This will be interesting.
phx 8 sure gets giddy over his own writings which does not say much, just some hyperbole about what he thinks might happen and the thought that we are in deep do do
He would do better to write a comic book and title it DIMS & THE DOLTS
My history gives Reagan the primary credit for the dismantling of the Soviet Union.
Of course it does Royal, but your history isn’t really history it is conservative propaganda. The primary credit for the dismantling of the Soviet Union belongs to Gorbachev. Reagan and GWHB only prolonged the dismantling of the Soviet Union with their hardline approach to the satellites and the Soviet Union.
Something for conservatives to ponder-
How many times have you parroted Russian propaganda?
If, during the 2016 campaign, you found yourself insisting Hillary Clinton was a liar, the election was rigged, or repeating similar stories aimed at HRC, there is a good chance YOU were a Russian dupe. The Russians call such people “useful fools” or “useful idiots.” The Russians did not invent the tribalism and divisiveness of conservatism. They did not invent Limbaugh or Hannity or Breitbart. They just found a way to turn them into a tool to use against the United States.
Conservatives, they turned your hatred into a tool to undermine the country.
There is nothing wrong with believing in conservative principles and policies. But it is time to recognize the bizarre conspiracy theories about Hillary and Obama for what they are, and turn your backs on them.
That is without a doubt one of the dumbest things you have ever posted on here, Phx8.
People have been calling the Clinton’s liars since at least 92.
Partisans have always claimed elections are rigged. In fact, it was the left who brought the idea into the ‘mainstream’ in 2000, who STILL insist on it 17 freaking years later, AND who are claiming “Russian propaganda” rigged the 2016 election.
Bizarre conspiracy theories always come with being in charge.
For Christ’s sake man, you act like the Russians came up with idea in 2015.
And if the Director of the FBI states that their investigations determined that Hillary Clinton said a lot things that were not true, just how in the he11 does it undermine the country to point that out?
Hmmm…conservatives are “Russian fools” and My Lefty Pals are just plain “fools”.
“The primary credit for the dismantling of the Soviet Union belongs to Gorbachev.”
You bet j2t2, spoken like a true Russia lover.
I will be frank and honest with my Pals on the Left. If it weren’t for the Russians I would have voted for Hillary.
Ooops! I lied.
It is true, conservatives have been attacking the Clintons for a long time. In the last campaign, according to fact checks, Hillary Clinton was the second most honest presidential candidate. But that is not the point. The Russian cyber attack was not limited to creating fake news stories. It worked like advertising, negative advertising. It was intended to saturate social media, and occupy the focus of the MSM. It was also intended to saturate Trump’s perceptions, as well as Flynn.
The focus on Hillary Clinton was around her e-mails. The Russians hacked the DNC, Podesta, and voter databases, and then leaked the information through Wikileaks. The content was almost irrelevant. President “I love Wikileaks” Trump stated just that 164 times in the month of October. Why? Did he really want his followers to look at the e-mails? The point was to create a narrative that ignored policies, and concentrated on a negative perception of her.
One of the Russian’s goal was to undermine our belief in our own elections. There were questions about previous general elections when they were close. In 2016, the validity of the election was questioned before it even happened.
So the Russians found a ready tool in the form of the conservative echo chamber. They flooded it with fake news and hacked information from Wikileaks. They targeted states that were close. And they targeted Trump’s mind by flooding his social media when he was most likely to be looking.
And here’s the thing: there is no reason to think that, once Trump won, the Russians simply patted each other on the shoulder and walked away. They are still attacking Marco Rubio and his staff. Yesterday bots hit Bernie Sanders for denouncing Trump.
The Russians are hard at work trying to win the election in France for a right wing White Nationalist, La Pen.
And they will almost certainly be back around in 2018 and 2020 if we do not find a way to stop them.
We wonder, does phx8 look under his bed for Russians before laying down?
The new Liberal mantra; “the Russians did it”.
Instead of dancing around the issue, why don’t we just say it explicitly? The whole entire ecosystem of conservative “alternative media” is essentially a mouthpiece for Vladimir Putin. If America is to overcome the Russian menace, Republicans need to return to consuming the mainstream media.
Warren, can you define “alternative media” for me. I need to know what not to read or watch.
“The whole entire ecosystem of conservative “alternative media” is essentially a mouthpiece for Vladimir Putin.”
Don’t know if I would put it that way. But no doubt, the Russians found right wing alternative media a useful tool, and they found a way to infiltrate it, saturate it, amplify it, and target it at individuals and states. Like I said, that was evil, but that was also brilliant. And no matter how much Trump refuses to say anything bad about the Russians and Putin, a lot of people in government will be looking for ways to take the Russian kleptocraty down. This will not stand.
It is hard to say what it will take to burst the conservative echo chamber. A large part of the American population believes things that are not true, that are factually false. Breaking this fever while keeping our 1st amendment rights intact will probably require a crisis in the form of a treason conviction, or something equally dramatic. They will need to come to that realization on their own terms.
“But no doubt, the Russians found right wing alternative media a useful tool, and they found a way to infiltrate it, saturate it, amplify it, and target it at individuals and states.”
Help us understand phx8. Was the “right wing” in danger of voting for Hillary without Russian intervention?
You and Warren are making fools of yourselves with this Russian bogyman nonsense.
The senate minority leader hopes to block the vote for Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. The majority leader is threatening to use the “nuclear option” and rescind the filibuster rules.
The Left doesn’t even pretend to be consistent or logical any longer in their frenzy over Republican ascendance in power. Have they forgotten that Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito were confirmed in 1991 and 2006 with 52 and 58 votes, respectively.
Thomas and Alito each earned at least 60 votes for cloture on their nominations. If Gorsuch is to become a Supreme Court Justice, he needs the same.
You bet j2t2, spoken like a true Russia lover.
Royal a new low for you,congratulations. Over the years you have made many a moronic comment but this one is the most moronic of all.
Tell you what instead of going for stupid comment award why not step up your game and present some factual information that rebuts my comment?
If you honestly believe Reagan was deserving of “primary credit” for the dismantling of the Soviet Union make your case, I’ll make mine for Gorby. But realize that using facts involving Russia doesn’t make one a Russia lover as you falsely claim.
“Royal a new low for you,congratulations. Over the years you have made many a moronic comment but this one is the most moronic of all.”
OH, Really? Is j2t2 the same person who is fond of calling some people Fascists and Nazi’s.
j2t2 has fallen for revisionist history with regard to the fall of the Soviet Union. My counsel will fall on deaf ears and blind eyes; nevertheless, I urge j2t2 to read this brief history. He may have an awakening.
“The fall of the [Soviet] empire,” former Czech president Vaclav Havel wrote, “is an event on the same scale of historical importance as the fall of the Roman Empire.” It is true that Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev repudiated the Brezhnev Doctrine—that the Soviet Union will use force if necessary to ensure that a socialist state remains socialist—and in so doing undercut the Communist leaders and regimes of Eastern and Central Europe in the critical year of 1989. But why did Gorbachev abandon the Brezhnev Doctrine? One Western leader above all others forced the Soviets to give up the Brezhnev Doctrine and abandon the arms race, brought down the Berlin Wall, and ended the Cold War at the bargaining table and not on the battlefield: President Ronald Reagan.”
Hardly an unbiased source Royal, no surprise there though.
Here is some interesting reading for you.
BTW your personal attacks on others over the years as well as your exaggerated communist/socialist references leave you no room to complain about my fascist remarks. A reap what you sow thing. But speaking of Fascist have you noticed how this administration has curtailed freedom of expression and freedom of the press lately? Or am I mistaken on the fascist thing is it really conservatism?
While we are at it Royal, I would agree Reagan deserves primary credit for the acceptance of crony capitalism, or as you would say supply side economics, in the USA. I would agree Reagan deserves primary credit for corruption and malfeasance in government in the post WWII era in America.
j2t2, your link to “quora” is a joke…right?
I could not find any reference to back up your contention…“The primary credit for the dismantling of the Soviet Union belongs to Gorbachev.”
Just imagine fellow WB readers. j2t2 uses blogs of fellow Libbies to attempt to prove something. Ridiculous.
Try again Pal…but wait till the meds wear off.
Royal perhaps it was the “interesting reading” that confused you. Perhaps you thought I said “here is the definitive answer to the matter”. Although it may be hard for you to put aside your political biases long enough to read a few educated comments on the subject the responses on this forum are well reasoned and diverse.
“Royal perhaps it was the “interesting reading” that confused you.”
Not really j2t2, I get all the “interesting”, and radical, reading from our home grown Libbies here on WB.
I do appreciate your reveal of where you get your “facts”.
From the quora link;
“I am pleasantly surprised to see no mention of Ronald Reagan as a/the primary cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Although his administration deserves credit for ratchetting up military, political, and economic pressure, these actions were essentially just a continuation and intensification of Truman’s Containment Doctrine.”
Michael LaRosa, engineer and science geek
“The American president’s hostile stance strengthened the hand of Soviet hardliners against the reforms of Gorbachev, and led to a greater Soviet emphasis on nuclear weapons and ballistic missile development. Thus Reagan’s strategy had mixed effects on the Soviet regime, but in no way did Reagan force the Soviets’ hand.”
Andrés Rivas, I know a lot about history of 20th century Russia, from the Tzars, to Putin.
Updated Jul 13, 2016
Gee thanks j2t2. I really appreciate the opinion of your buddies.
Ya know Royal posting a link from Heritage and then calling out the quora link as biased is wrong. You have diverted the discussion into a finger pointing about links. What exactly is the problem with quora and the varied opinions, other than they don’t agree with your narrow perspective on the issue.
Here is another link for your perusal.
If you want to discuss the fall of the USSR, you should become familiar with the history of Team B.
In a nutshell, a group in 1976 claimed the USSR was much stronger militarily than we realized, and its economy was expanding more rapidly than we realized. These people became a part of the Reagan administration. Once in power, they pushed for an explosion in military spending.
They were wrong.
In fact, the USSR was much weaker militarily than we realized, and its economy was collapsing. Ultimately, Reagan merely continued the overarching strategy of containment that had been pursued since Eisenhower.
The War in Afghanistan played a big role in the USSR’s collapse. For better or worse, that was initiated by Carter and his decision to secretly fund the mujahedeen. While it contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union, it came with some long term blowback that we have lived with ever since.
Shoot. That link was supposed to be to the Wikipedia article on Team B.
BTW Royal from your link-
Distinguished Fellow in Conservative Thought
Lee Edwards is a leading historian of American conservatism and the author or editor of 25 books.”
You gotta love the qualifier for this guy, “distinguished fellow in conservative thought”. I admire the honesty of the statement I have to admit but lets face it hardly unbiased or willing to see the bigger picture. Sure when you narrow your perspective to this degree a conservative deity is the answer but then a conservative deity is the answer to everything when the man is distinguished only in conservative thought.
No problem with the historic accuracy of that link j2t2. Do you have a problem with the historic accuracy of my link from Heritage?
The link I refer to is history.state.gov
Royal the US government site represents the US view I’m sure. Unbiased? I doubt it, I would assume it presents the actions of GHWB in a positive light. But even so it doesn’t take the leap and suggest the primary credit for the dismantling of the Soviet was GHWB or Reagan or the USA. Is it as biased as a site that views everything through a conservative lens? I doubt it.
The Heritage link may be historical accurate, despite the typo in the opening paragraph stating 1989-1901, as far as the dates and such. It centers on Reagan as if the “tear down this wall” speech, given from behind bulletproof glass, was instrumental in the wall actually coming down. IMHO had the other more important events, crumbling oil prices, Afghanistan, lack of grain, and the inability to support the satellites, Gorbachevs’ liberalization, amongst other issues not happened Reagan would have had nothing but empty rhetoric to boast about. So to make him a “primary” when he was simply in the right place at the right time is conservative gloating IMHO.
You can’t ignore her proven past and current dishonesty and only use the shared belief of partisan campaign rhetoric to claim her to be Honest Abe.
Now, it is quite probable that highlighting all her negatives did indeed impact the decision of some voters, such tactics have been around forever and they always do.
“The focus on Hillary Clinton was around her e-mails.”
Of course it was, she messed up and she was the dems candidate. Why wouldn’t the those on the right use that against her in the election?
“The point was to create a narrative that ignored policies, and concentrated on a negative perception of her.”
Just as the Bush tapes, tax forms and racist, sexist, bigotry rhetoric were intended to do. It’s all part of the game.
“One of the Russian’s goal was to undermine our belief in our own elections.”
But the lefts antics over the 2000 election weren’t? All the talk of the 2004 election being rigged before it happened? The Ohio was stolen BS afterwards? All this talk about doing away with our electoral college?
Come on man, with all that crap going on for the past 20 years do you really think hackers are going to undermine our beliefs any more than they already have been?
“So the Russians found a ready tool in the form of the conservative echo chamber. They flooded it with fake news and hacked information from Wikileaks.”
Site like InfoWars and Kos have been around for years, but THIS time they were working for the Russians? Come on man.
“And they will almost certainly be back around in 2018 and 2020 if we do not find a way to stop them.”
How are you going to control or even stop people from posting on the internet?
Here’s what’s going to happen in 2018 and 2020: If the left wins, you will declare that you stopped ‘the Russians’. If the left loses, you will claim otherwise.
You don’t just recruit two seconds before you start an operation like this. You go deep, you start compromising and ensnaring people years in advance and then use them to corrupt further.
You’re so myopically focused on winning the political game against us that you don’t realize that you’ve become ensnared in a global game of subversion. You don’t realize that you’ve been compromised by degrees until it’s too late.
As for compromising belief in our own elections? Yes, Trump is so good at leading people to have faith, or the Republicans before, who treated 9 and 5 million vote victories like Obama shoplifted them from the supermarket.
To get people thinking like that, the Republicans had to polder off significant portions of the American people, get them to believe a whole mess of lies. So, they get people that gullible, and what do the Russians do? Exploit them. Trump, too.
The Republicans weakened America with their lies, and America’s enemies exploited them, exploited their unwillingness to think through the news they got critically, to reject their own confirmation bias. The only real solution, I think, is to develop an intellectual immune system, to understand and identify attacks, and deploy the right antibodies. The more the Right primes their own to be gullible, the more they’ll prime their flock to be attacked by the wolves.
The more the Right primes their own to be gullible, the more they’ll prime their flock to be attacked by the wolves.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 3, 2017 11:39 PM
What a sad commentary by a formerly readable and intelligent contributor.
So now the Russians have been recruiting Republicans (for years? decades? centuries?) to prevent Hillary from becoming President in 2016?
And they chose those most hostile to them, the American right-wing, not the American left-wing who have long expressed semi sympathetic rhetoric towards them?
And they chose to recruit from the yet determined staff of the one candidate who was least likely to win?
And then they leaked personal emails and already well known stories in order to brainwash Republicans?
And now Trump is compromised and an American Politburo is next?
You are correct, I am definitely focused on keeping the leftists out of our government. But that has nothing to do with my unwillingness to accept your hair on fire conspiracy theories as fact.
IF it all turns out that you guys are right, you can scream ‘I told you so’ at the top of your lungs.
Partisan politics are what have weakened America. One side is trying desperately to hold on to the country, and one side is striving to transform it.
You can castigate and blame those who resist that transformation if you want, but it’s quite clear they are not who is responsible for the divide.
For God sakes man, you’ve flown right past the birthers straight into truther territory, distrusting and hating anybody who doesn’t believe you.
They are not covering anything.