The Russiagate conspiracy theory

[Sigmetnow]

Americans again first learn from the Kremlin, not the White House, about a Trump-Putin phone call

Rachel Maddow reviews what now makes at least eight times that Americans have learned about Donald Trump interacting with Russian officials from Russian media instead of the White House. Duration: 4:29
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/americans-again-made-to-learn-from-russia-about-trump-putin-call-1160201283584

[Susan Anderson]

Russia is already meddling in the midterm elections this year, the top American intelligence officials said on Tuesday, warning that Moscow is using a digital strategy to worsen the country’s political and social divisions.

Russia is using fake accounts on social media — many of them bots — to spread disinformation, the officials said. European elections are being targeted, too, and the attacks were not likely to end this year, they warned.

“We expect Russia to continue using propaganda, social media, false-flag personas, sympathetic spokespeople and other means of influence to try to exacerbate social and political fissures in the United States,” Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, told the Senate Intelligence Committee at its annual hearing on worldwide threats.

Mr. Coats and the other intelligence chiefs laid out a pair of central challenges for the United States: contending with the flow of Russian misinformation and shoring up the defenses of electoral systems, which are run by individual states and were seen as highly vulnerable in 2016.

“There should be no doubt that Russia perceives its past efforts as successful and views the 2018 U.S. midterm elections as a potential target for Russian influence operations,” said Mr. Coats, testifying alongside Mike Pompeo, the C.I.A. director; Christopher A. Wray, the F.B.I. director; and other leading intelligence officials.
....
Russia appears eager to spread information — real and fake — that deepens political divisions. Bot armies promoted partisan causes on social media, including the recent push to release a Republican congressional memo critical of law enforcement officials.

The bots have also sought to portray the F.B.I. and Justice Department as infected by partisan bias, said Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the intelligence committee.

“Other threats to our institutions come from right here at home,” he said. “There have been some, aided and abetted by Russian internet bots and trolls, who have attacked the basic integrity of the F.B.I. and the Justice Department. This is a dangerous trend.”
....
“The Russians have a strategy that goes well beyond what is happening in the United States,” he said. “While they have historically tried to do these types of things, clearly in 2016 they upped their game. They took advantage, a sophisticated advantage of social media. They are doing that not only in the United States but doing it throughout Europe and perhaps elsewhere.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/13/us/politics/russia-sees-midterm-elections-as-chance-to-sow-fresh-discord-intelligence-chiefs-warn.html

[DrTskoul]

He predicted the 2016 fake news crisis, and now he’s worried about an information apocalypse – “What happens when anyone can make it appear as if anything has happened, regardless of whether or not it did?”

There’s “diplomacy manipulation,” in which a malicious actor uses advanced technology to “create the belief that an event has occurred” to influence geopolitics. Imagine, for example, a machine-learning algorithm (which analyzes gobs of data in order to teach itself to perform a particular function) fed on hundreds of hours of footage of Donald Trump or North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, which could then spit out a near-perfect — and virtually impossible to distinguish from reality — audio or video clip of the leader declaring nuclear or biological war. “It doesn’t have to be perfect — just good enough to make the enemy think something happened that it provokes a knee-jerk and reckless response of retaliation.”

Welcome to a world were everybody will be made to believe anything.....

[Rob Dekker]

Welcome to a world were everybody will be made to believe anything.....

A fully agree. Imagine intelligent robotic propaganda spread through our information networks.

I think this is one of the reasons Elon Musk declared AI to be the biggest risk that we face as a civilization



And Putin understands that.
There is a reason why he declared that the nation that leads in AI 'will be the ruler of the world ...
https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/4/16251226/russia-ai-putin-rule-the-world

[sidd]

Re: "Sidd, none of your links provide any info on which data the Shadow Brokers obtained."

Precisely. And the NSA doesn't know either, except for whatever the Shadow Brokers released themselves.

As I wrote:

"The latest debacle reveals that they don't know what the Shadow Brokers took"

The poor dumb bastards paid out 100K US$ for stuff already released.

So sad.

sidd

[TerryM]

Russia is already meddling in the midterm elections this year, the top American intelligence officials said on Tuesday, warning that Moscow is using a digital strategy to worsen the country’s political and social divisions.

Russia is using fake accounts on social media — many of them bots — to spread disinformation, the officials said. European elections are being targeted, too, and the attacks were not likely to end this year, they warned.

“We expect Russia to continue using propaganda, social media, false-flag personas, sympathetic spokespeople and other means of influence to try to exacerbate social and political fissures in the United States,” Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, told the Senate Intelligence Committee at its annual hearing on worldwide threats.

Mr. Coats and the other intelligence chiefs laid out a pair of central challenges for the United States: contending with the flow of Russian misinformation and shoring up the defenses of electoral systems, which are run by individual states and were seen as highly vulnerable in 2016.

“There should be no doubt that Russia perceives its past efforts as successful and views the 2018 U.S. midterm elections as a potential target for Russian influence operations,” said Mr. Coats, testifying alongside Mike Pompeo, the C.I.A. director; Christopher A. Wray, the F.B.I. director; and other leading intelligence officials.
....
Russia appears eager to spread information — real and fake — that deepens political divisions. Bot armies promoted partisan causes on social media, including the recent push to release a Republican congressional memo critical of law enforcement officials.

The bots have also sought to portray the F.B.I. and Justice Department as infected by partisan bias, said Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the intelligence committee.

“Other threats to our institutions come from right here at home,” he said. “There have been some, aided and abetted by Russian internet bots and trolls, who have attacked the basic integrity of the F.B.I. and the Justice Department. This is a dangerous trend.”
....
“The Russians have a strategy that goes well beyond what is happening in the United States,” he said. “While they have historically tried to do these types of things, clearly in 2016 they upped their game. They took advantage, a sophisticated advantage of social media. They are doing that not only in the United States but doing it throughout Europe and perhaps elsewhere.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/13/us/politics/russia-sees-midterm-elections-as-chance-to-sow-fresh-discord-intelligence-chiefs-warn.html

I'm sure they ended with a pledge that America will never do what they are now accusing others of doing. [/sarc]
Terry

[Jim Pettit]

I have a question for those here who think we should all just shut up about "Russiagate" and talk about something else. To wit: are you guys okay with simply giving Trump a pass? Should we just stop looking into the still-mounting allegations of collusion and conspiracy leveled against both Putin and his puppet Trump? Should we ignore increasingly strong-worded advice from experts in the IC that Russia did indeed interfere at many levels of the 2016 election, and is planning to do so again this year, and in 2020? And if, as it appears, your answer those questions is a resounding "yes", I have a follow-up question:

Why?

That's not rhetorical; I'm seriously wondering why that would be okay with anyone. Is it because you, like Trump, simply disbelieve the evidence and are convinced there's no there there, despite the multitude of evidence? Is it because you think the US should be run by a corrupt and brutal Russian oligarch? Or is it because you're still so angry at Hillary winning the nomination that you're willing to burn down our democracy for a brief feeling of revenge?

[TerryM]

Jim
"Interference" with other countries elections has been going on for as long as there have been other countries.
This is nothing new. What is new is that the losers suddenly chose to blame their loss on the leader of another democracy, rather than their own inadequacy.
You lost, if you run the next campaign with as much hubris you will probably lose again.


Rather than discussing how the big bad wolf ate your homework, perhaps a discussion about how to do your homework properly this time might be more productive?
Terry

[Martin Gisser]

Jim
"Interference" with other countries elections has been going on for as long as there have been other countries.
This is nothing new. What is new is that the losers suddenly chose to blame their loss on the leader of another democracy, rather than their own inadequacy.
You lost, if you run the next campaign with as much hubris you will probably lose again.

Rather than discussing how the big bad wolf ate your homework, perhaps a discussion about how to do your homework properly this time might be more productive?
Terry

You're going in circles. Your excuses are childish. (I have to try hard not to tell of what elderly (meanwhile mostly dead) German folks this reminds me...)

For a change, let's perhaps do some comparative interference studies?

"Shooting other people has been going on for as long as there have been other people. So, don't complain when you get shot."

[Susan Anderson]

You're going in circles. Your excuses are childish. (I have to try hard not to tell of what elderly (meanwhile mostly dead) German folks this reminds me...)

For a change, let's perhaps do some comparative interference studies?

"Shooting other people has been going on for as long as there have been other people. So, don't complain when you get shot."

Exactly. Just like climate denial. Other people are evil, so the whole world is evil, and don't make alliances or accept no stinking help. The elections are already lost due to cheating, so we won't do anything about it. Everybody cheats, so cheating is fine as long as it defeats Democrats. We're screwed, so we might as well give up. All Democrats are evil. There is no left left. Honestly, can you hear yourself?

By the way, I provided a cite of a New York Times article, in the hopes that the content would not be diverted into a personal attack, dismissing the actual content, but apparently that was too much to hope. You complain that I identify this as blaming victims? Then don't do it.

[TerryM]

Martin and Susan


Childish - really!


Your argument can be summarized as "Vlad poked me in the eye.", even as you support your right to poke Vlad in his eye.


Perhaps Vlad and others would be less motivated to poke America in the eye, if America was seen as having poked fewer of her friends in their eyes?


You've accused Putin of interfering with the Brexit vote, while acknowledging that Obama flew to England with the message that should they dare vote to exit, he'd put them at the back of the queue when issues of trade came up.


That my dears is a very childish stance, and one that no adult is liable to accept.
Terry

[Susan Anderson]

Martin and Susan

Perhaps Vlad and others would be less motivated to poke America in the eye, if America was seen as having poked fewer of her friends in their eyes?

You prefer Putin and, by association, Trump?

Brexit is a mess but it's not my mess. Climate denial and the Kochtopus coordinated on that. I know it's too much to ask to abandon personal attacks and pro-Putin Democrat bashing and look up a link, but here for any lurkers and others: https://www.desmogblog.com/2016/06/27/brexiters-climate-deniers-and-trump-small-world

It's not OK to stop cheating because people have cheated, ever? A recipe for disaster, just like blaming everyone who isn't perfect and has had to work with opponents who don't share your high standards.

[Jim Pettit]

Jim
"Interference" with other countries elections has been going on for as long as there have been other countries.
This is nothing new. What is new is that the losers suddenly chose to blame their loss on the leader of another democracy, rather than their own inadequacy.
You lost, if you run the next campaign with as much hubris you will probably lose again.

Incorrect. What's "new" is that this time, the beneficiary of that foreign government's interference conspired with that government in a quid pro quo relationship. That's unacceptable to many people. And that's the reason the whole "Russiagate" thing isn't an investigation of Putin; it's an investigation of Trump.

Rather than discussing how the big bad wolf ate your homework, perhaps a discussion about how to do your homework properly this time might be more productive?

Yes, perhaps. Although if you have piles of evidence to bolster your assertion that the wolf ate your homework, along with confessions to back up that evidence, you'd have to be pretty irresponsible to simply ignore the hungry wolf.

[TerryM]

Martin and Susan

Perhaps Vlad and others would be less motivated to poke America in the eye, if America was seen as having poked fewer of her friends in their eyes?

You prefer Putin and, by association, Trump?

Brexit is a mess but it's not my mess. Climate denial and the Kochtopus coordinated on that. I know it's too much to ask to abandon personal attacks and pro-Putin Democrat bashing and look up a link, but here for any lurkers and others: https://www.desmogblog.com/2016/06/27/brexiters-climate-deniers-and-trump-small-world

It's not OK to stop cheating because people have cheated, ever? A recipe for disaster, just like blaming everyone who isn't perfect and has had to work with opponents who don't share your high standards.

You prefer to put words in my mouth rather than responding to what I wrote.


The above is the closest I've come to a personal attack in a very long time.


The international response to every would be leader's campaign's has been part of the mix as far back as the Althing. Did you really believe that because Hillary was running for president this would suddenly stop?


I'm by no means convinced that Russia took an active part in either the American election or the Brexit vote. Putin's "Brexit will have a long term 'traumatic effect' on UK and Europe" speech doesn't sound as though he was for it, but then haven't we've all accepted that he's devious?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/vladimir-putin-brexit-eu-referendum-long-term-traumatic-effect-on-uk-and-europe-economy-diplomacy-a7113156.html

During the run up I do recall his frequent message that it was an internal British matter and that he wouldn't comment one way or the other.

America told Nicaragua that they would continue the bombing unless their candidate was elected. That really is interfering.
Do you need more examples?

Terry

[Neven]

I have a question for those here who think we should all just shut up about "Russiagate" and talk about something else. To wit: are you guys okay with simply giving Trump a pass? Should we just stop looking into the still-mounting allegations of collusion and conspiracy leveled against both Putin and his puppet Trump? Should we ignore increasingly strong-worded advice from experts in the IC that Russia did indeed interfere at many levels of the 2016 election, and is planning to do so again this year, and in 2020? And if, as it appears, your answer those questions is a resounding "yes", I have a follow-up question:

Why?

Sorry for dropping by. 

I don't think anyone has to shut up about Trump and his financial dealings with Russian oligarchs (and Israel and Saudi Arabia), on the contrary. But I think that the risk of talking too much about the 'collusion' and how Russia swayed the election, is that it will make Trump's position stronger (if it isn't already doing so). Of course, it's good for ratings, good for drawing people's attention away from other things and good for ramping up the war machine (New Cold War, yay). But the danger is that it might be very good for Trump and the GOP.

Somehow, I don't think Trump is all that unhappy about Russiagate. He's good at this game. It might even get him a next term (if he's interested), because if by the next presidential elections there is still no conclusive evidence of 'collusion', we can be pretty much assured there won't be much talk of policies, etc.

I think it's the wrong strategy because of the risks, and that it would be better to emphasize the horrible policies and how Trump is furthering the goals of the Establishment, making the GOP and Trump pay a political price instead of caving conspicuously, and most of all offer alternatives, presented by credible people who mean what they say and aren't compromised by donor money.

It's not too late, but time is running out. Imagine getting a New Cold War and Trump is re-elected...

[AbruptSLR]

Does Trump's liaison with Stormy Daniels increase the likelihood that the pee pee tapes are real?

Title: "Donald Trump's alleged porn star liaisons in Lake Tahoe – and the Russia dossier"

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/01/17/donald-trumps-alleged-porn-star-dalliances-in-lake-tahoe-and-the-steele-dossier/

Congressman Ted Lieu recently tweeted:

"Cohen says Trump campaign was not "a party to the transaction." But that's not the law. If $130k hush money payment to Stormy Daniels was made "in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate’s campaign," it violated fed election law."

It looks like Cohen had better get his own lawyer.

[AbruptSLR]

Schiff says that while there is ample evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians, only Mueller can says whether there is enough for a criminal indictment:

Title: "Adam Schiff: There is 'ample evidence' of collusion between Trump campaign, Russians"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/adam-schiff-there-is-ample-evidence-of-collusion-between-trump-campaign-russians/ar-BBJ8Sdt?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

[sidd]

I also seem to remember Schiff screaming that there would be irreparable harms to national security if the Nunes memo were released

sidd

[sidd]

Yeomans has a take on Trump-Mueller, that Trump will probably refuse interview, but that Mueller should not seek a subpoena because it will slow things down. He ends with an interesting point, that in the event of Trump being forced to testify before a grand jury, that he might simply take the Fifth:

"And, of course, he can assert the Fifth Amendment in refusing to answer any question that might incriminate him. Although taking the Fifth could be politically embarrassing, grand jury secrecy might prevent the public from learning of it."

Although, i don't know that it would hurt him with his base constituency, even if it were leaked.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/12/donald-trump-mueller-subpoena-216967

sidd

[SteveMDFP]

Yeomans has a take on Trump-Mueller, that Trump will probably refuse interview, but that Mueller should not seek a subpoena because it will slow things down. He ends with an interesting point, that in the event of Trump being forced to testify before a grand jury, that he might simply take the Fifth:

"And, of course, he can assert the Fifth Amendment in refusing to answer any question that might incriminate him. Although taking the Fifth could be politically embarrassing, grand jury secrecy might prevent the public from learning of it."

Although, i don't know that it would hurt him with his base constituency, even if it were leaked.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/12/donald-trump-mueller-subpoena-216967

sidd

You might recall I made these points a couple of weeks ago.  It's in both Mueller's and Trump's interest for him to get subpoenaed before a Grand Jury, where he can plead the Fifth in secrecy, and where the Grand Jury  can indict without approval of Justice Department officials.  The only difference in their interests is that Trump wants to slow this down, and Mueller wants to speed it up.

[TerryM]

I also seem to remember Schiff screaming that there would be irreparable harms to national security if the Nunes memo were released

sidd

Lying to the voting public, even about matters as important as National Security, is done with no fear of reprisal.
Lying to the Federal Police, even about insignificant incidents that make no difference to anyone, is a felony that could bring an end to your wealth and your freedom.


Now that Shiff's lack of honesty is on display, perhaps one of the Federal Police should ask him to explain himself, in depth, on the record.
Terry

[AbruptSLR]

Such proposed legislation (if passed) could help the Democrats during the midterm election (and thus the possible impeachment of Trump):

Title: "U.S. Democrats push $1 billion bill for election security"

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-cyber/u-s-democrats-push-1-billion-bill-for-election-security-idUSKCN1FY2S5

Extract: "Congressional Democrats introduced legislation on Wednesday that would provide more than $1 billion to boost cyber security of U.S. voting systems, and Vice President Mike Pence defended the administration’s efforts to protect polls from hackers."

[Buddy]

Title: "U.S. Democrats push $1 billion bill for election security"

I don't think Vladi will let Donnie support that bill....

Wise move by the Dem's....

[TerryM]

Paper ballots marked by a black crayon.
Faster, safer, nothing to hack, no chads to hang, much cheaper.


It works all over the world, even the Exceptional One could do it if they tried real hard.
Terry

[AbruptSLR]

The linked commentary reminds us that the FBI is still investigating whether Russians illegally funneld money through the NRA to help the Trump campaign:

Title: "NRA, Russia and Trump: How 'dark money' is poisoning American democracy"

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/15/nra-russia-and-trump-money-laundering-poisoning-us-democracy-commentary.html

Extract: "The FBI is investigating the National Rifle Association to determine whether Russians illegally funneled money through the organization to help the Trump campaign.

Beyond Russian meddling, this allegation illustrates a problem of even broader scope in our political system."

[TerryM]

The linked commentary reminds us that the FBI is still investigating whether Russians illegally funneld money through the NRA to help the Trump campaign:

Title: "NRA, Russia and Trump: How 'dark money' is poisoning American democracy"

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/15/nra-russia-and-trump-money-laundering-poisoning-us-democracy-commentary.html

Extract: "The FBI is investigating the National Rifle Association to determine whether Russians illegally funneled money through the organization to help the Trump campaign.

Beyond Russian meddling, this allegation illustrates a problem of even broader scope in our political system."

Well we do know that the Ohrs omitted telling the Justice Department about the funds Nelly Ohr was receiving from Fusion GPS. His "failure to disclose" leaves him open to a 5 year stretch in Leavenworth, or some other Federal Prison. His non-disclosure could also have ramifications because of his not having recused himself from the "RussiaGate" file.


Apparently "Circumstances... would cause a reasonable person with knowledge of the facts to question an employee's impartiality require recusal". You might expect a lawyer to be familiar with that.


Google "Ohr Fusion GPS" and take your choice of the write-ups.


Terry
Oh what a tangled web ...

[SteveMDFP]

Well we do know that the Ohrs omitted telling the Justice Department about the funds Nelly Ohr was receiving from Fusion GPS. His "failure to disclose" leaves him open to a 5 year stretch in Leavenworth, or some other Federal Prison. His non-disclosure could also have ramifications because of his not having recused himself from the "RussiaGate" file.


Apparently "Circumstances... would cause a reasonable person with knowledge of the facts to question an employee's impartiality require recusal". You might expect a lawyer to be familiar with that.


Google "Ohr Fusion GPS" and take your choice of the write-ups.


Terry
Oh what a tangled web ...

The WaPo gives a more coherent account of Ohr's actions:
Why the Nunes memo takes aim at a Justice Dept. official specializing in gangs and drugs
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/why-the-nunes-memo-takes-aim-at-a-justice-department-official-specializing-in-gangs-and-drugs/2018/02/02/82e836e8-0847-11e8-94e8-e8b8600ade23_story.html?utm_term=.8d707b5e302d

As Ohr wasn't apparently a part of Mueller's investigation, I can't see that there was anything for him to recuse himself from.

Unless you've seen Ohr's reporting form to the Office of Government Ethics, I can't see how you conclude that he hid anything from the FBI about his wife's role in Steele's work.

The Nunes memo apparently claims that this relationship was not revealed in the FISA application.  I don't think Ohr prepared that FISA application.  In any case, the Nunes memo has been disputed.  The Democratic minority report has been kept classified by Trump.  If any of it is allowed to see the light of day, we might learn something of relevance about Ohr.

I can't see any wrongdoing by Ohr at all here.

[TerryM]

Perhaps Bezos rag isn't the best source for news?


Terry

[SteveMDFP]

Perhaps Bezos rag isn't the best source for news?


Terry

What, the WaPo doesn't meet the high standards of DailyCaller or Breitbart?
Trump likes to imply that the WaPo is biased by Bezos, but Fortune disagrees, rather definitively:
How Jeff Bezos Reacts to 'Negative' Amazon Articles in Washington Post
http://fortune.com/2017/10/27/amazon-jeff-bezos-washington-post/

It was under private control previously, by the Graham family.  I haven't seen a whiff of evidence that it's any more biased than when the WaPo did much of the investigative reporting on Watergate.  Maybe Watergate wasn't about any Presidential wrongdoing at all.  Maybe Watergate was all just fabricated by the Washington Post?  Right.

[Martin Gisser]

Your argument can be summarized as "Vlad poked me in the eye.", even as you support your right to poke Vlad in his eye.

[TerryM]

Perhaps Bezos rag isn't the best source for news?


Terry

What, the WaPo doesn't meet the high standards of DailyCaller or Breitbart?
Trump likes to imply that the WaPo is biased by Bezos, but Fortune disagrees, rather definitively:
How Jeff Bezos Reacts to 'Negative' Amazon Articles in Washington Post
http://fortune.com/2017/10/27/amazon-jeff-bezos-washington-post/

It was under private control previously, by the Graham family.  I haven't seen a whiff of evidence that it's any more biased than when the WaPo did much of the investigative reporting on Watergate.  Maybe Watergate wasn't about any Presidential wrongdoing at all.  Maybe Watergate was all just fabricated by the Washington Post?  Right.

Steve
T'was you who said that by reading the WaPo you couldn't see what the fuss was about. I'd point you in the right direction, but I believe you've complained in the past when I asked you to read that source.


Terry
Don't worry about it. If the WaPo didn't mention it, it most certainly never occured.

[Jim Pettit]

Oh, what to do with those who claim to be western liberals, but who repeatedly express a fondness for Putin's Russia; who are fully supportive of both Russia's manipulation of Western Democracy and Trump's willingness to break the law to allow that to happen; who disparage what is one of the last print bastion's of progressive journalism, the Washington Post, instead seeking validation for their preconceived opinions in various right wing media outlets; who can look at the actions of Nunes and Schiff over the past year or so and somehow conclude that Schiff is the dishonest one in that equation; who constantly repeat talking points heard on Breitbart, Hannity, and Limbaugh, but think Rachel Maddow is the devil incarnate; who on a viscerally personal level absolutely hate the 2016 Democratic nominee and anyone even slightly related to her?

I was raised in an extremely politically conservative family, and spent years confused as to why my own forming opinions on things varied so widely from my family's until one day at the age of 23 I had an epiphany and realized the problem was that I had been a progressive all along. The reverse seems to have happened to some here; methinks they should simply give up all pretense of being liberal-minded, throw on a MAGA cap, and call it a day. It would make for much more honest and productive conversations.

[Buddy]

The reverse seems to have happened to some here; methinks they should simply give up all pretense of being liberal-minded, throw on a MAGA cap, and call it a day. It would make for much more honest and productive conversations.

SPOT ON...

[Susan Anderson]

I promised a few days back to come back and look at Terry's (and others') points, but this is getting to be a waste of time for me and it's almost time to move on. I've tried to say my piece and introduce a bit of cognitive dissonance to lighten things up. I don't know if it was here or elsewhere, but, honestly, Gandhi is awful? I checked with a friend who knows a bit more about that part of the world, and despite India's troubles, it is vastly better off for local efforts to develop sustainable local organizations and resources. The ideas live on. If you bring up Churchill, that too is a complicated story and selective complaints miss the point.

It is not surprising that those abroad, concerned about their own local issues, see us here in the US and are simply disgusted and lump us all in together. My personal nausea (literally) at my country began with Reagan's election, and we've gone badly downhill since then. Bush II was worse, and Trump is king of the midden. Most of the problems with Clinton and Obama and Democrats in office are direct results of trying to redress the awfulness and continuing battle with goalposts that are shifting rightwards (climate denial and buddying up to big fossil and kleptocrats, militarism, dismantling social programs, tax cuts for the rich, more guns) and Republican majorities.

I know it's easier to blame one person or all of us, but it's more complicated than that. Yes, there's a problem with money, but opposing only the side with which you agree more helps those you are ignoring.

I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that our materialism and habits are a problem, that the original sin of Genesis ("dominion over the earth") is a real problem.

In fact, I've been spending a lot of time mulling over the problem of pure evil, where philosophers and theologians dabble, and finding a few useful hints as to the nature of Trump and his kleptocrats. "Evil, be thou my good" (Milton) and "fascilis descensus Averno" (Virgil) have been resonating for me. Yes, we are all sullied, but intolerance misses the difference between sins of custom and omission and sins of commission.

What I think Terry and I agreed on a while back, which he seems to have forgotten, though I haven't, is that what we are hoping for a chance to work toward are the things on Piketty's or Bernie's list:

- All out effort to address climate change and rejigger to clean renewable energy
  (including acceptance of and help with local delivery systems)
- Free and fair elections
- Universal health care
- Living wages for all, a rollback of income inequality
- Universal quality public education for all, not omitting affordable advanced education
- Real gun regulation
- Protection for whistleblowers
I'm sure I've left out a few items, but no doubt you can see the drift.

I don't deny the US's continuing iniquities in the past. You can look up Mossadegh, but our sins go further back than that. But like arguments between old couples, bringing up the list of failures from the past as an excuse for not doing better in the present doesn't help.

As a current resident of the US, it is nonsense to call the Washington Post, which is some of our most honest news ("liberty dies in darkness") "Bezos's rag". This is "not even wrong", it's nonsense. We feared when Bezos bought it that it would change, but it has passed The New York Times (which also comes in for insult from the right) in quality. There is an effort to take over news - for profit - nationwide. The "fake news" people, like climate denialists and Putin, don't like their opponents to have a voice. Freedom of the press is under threat. When the left joins in the insult fest, they are helping Republican and Putin pressure to create conflict and distrust far and wide.


---
Buddy, every time you use large type, all caps, bold - which translates to yelling on the page, you make it less likely that people who need to hear what you're saying will listen. But you're right, this is a waste of energy.

[TerryM]

Thanks Susan
I can't imagine why you think that our views have changed. Mine certainly have not.


Steve, if you will remember, challenged a statement of mine on the grounds that he had read a WaPo piece, and it was in disagreement. I challenged him to widen his search.


If WaPo isn't giving a balanced view, it's not much of a paper of record. Though I'm strictly relying on Steve's narrative as to what the WaPo had written. The original documents that Steve was in doubt of are available all over the internet - though apparently not in the WaPo.



If you wish to spend your day perusing the WaPo, by all means be my guest. But if you bring it into a discussion as representing an absolute truth that can't be challenged, be prepared for the challenge.


Terry
BTW
Reagan wasn't the beginning of the rot. I arrived in California just months before the Kennedy Coup, and everything I've read about Truman leads me to believe that I'd have been very unhappy living in his era.

[Buddy]

Buddy, every time you use large type, all caps, bold - which translates to yelling on the page, you make it less likely that people who need to hear what you're saying will listen.

Email and postings are the WORST type of communication.  In a "face-to-face" communication....we use can use INFLECTION and FACIAL COMMUNICATION...and other ways to emphasize a word or words within a sentence or paragraph.  In postings like this....the only way to emphasize something within a sentence is either in ALL CAPS....or bold....or size....or ALL 3.  Otherwise...people may "miss" what you/I are trying to emphasize. 

Sorry you don't like the way I write...... I do think you have a LOT of company....but this is how I write, and I have explained this before. 

But you're right, this is a waste of energy.

Just to "clear up" what I said to you (via message) was "a waste of energy".....WAS TRYING TO GET TERRY TO CHANGE HIS MIND.

I told you....via message again.... "that if you have the facts, a person argues the facts.  If you don't have the facts....then a person usually "pounds the table."

Attorney's are told:  "If you have the facts, argue the facts.  If you have the law, argue the law.  If you don't have the facts OR the law....POUND THE TABLE.  Terry pounds the table.

When Donnie is finally removed from office....I'm sure Terry will say "he got a raw deal".... no matter HOW MANY PEOPLE TESTIFY OTHERWISE..... no matter how many facts come out against him.  Terry is either (1) getting compensation from Russia (2) has found himself on the "wrong side of the fence in the argument" but can't come to grips with admitting he was wrong or (3) has a bias for Putin/Russia that he just can't seem to shake no matter what the evidence says.

And THAT...is why it is a waste of time trying to discuss/argue/debate with Terry.   

[TerryM]

Then could you please pound your table a little less noisily?
Thanks
Terry

[Susan Anderson]

Buddy, you have put a private communication in public. I meant what I said; I can no more persuade you than I can Terry.

All: I meant what I said. I am going to limit myself to communicating here only when I have new information that adds to the topic. (one exception: when I get around to completing my effort on the subject of the pure path of evil)

[Jim Pettit]

In a related development, a federal grand jury connected with Mueller's office just indicted 13 Russian Nationals of "...violating U.S. criminal laws in order to interfere with U.S. elections and political processes".

Uh-Oh...

[gerontocrat]

Buddy, you have put a private communication in public.

Buddy, your bad. Not good. Respecting privacy is something we need to do when we can.

[gerontocrat]

In a related development, a federal grand jury connected with Mueller's office just indicted 13 Russian Nationals of "...violating U.S. criminal laws in order to interfere with U.S. elections and political processes".

Uh-Oh...

Link https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-16/u-s-charges-13-russians-3-companies-for-hacking-election

Is Mueller coming out of the closet (from investigation to legal action/reports) ?

[Tor Bejnar]

This is probably relevant:
U.S. Charges 13 Russians, 3 Companies for Hacking Election
Mueller Accuses Russians of Aiding Trump, Assailing Clinton
By David Voreacos
February‎ ‎16‎, ‎2018‎ ‎12‎:‎53‎ ‎PM Updated on  ‎February‎ ‎16‎, ‎2018‎ ‎1‎:‎08‎ ‎PM

.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller announced an indictment of 13 Russian nationals and three Russian entities, accusing them of interfering in the 2016 presidential election and operating fake social media accounts.

[Click here to read the indictment]

The indictment announced on Friday was the first criminal case to accuse Russians of seeking to influence the outcome of the U.S. election.

The Internet Research Agency, a Russian organization, and the defendants began working in 2014 to interfere in U.S. elections, according to the indictment in Washington. They used false personas and social media while also staging political rallies and communicating with “unwitting individuals” associated with the Trump campaign, it said.

The goal was to disparage Hillary Clinton and to assist the election of Donald Trump.

Mueller’s office said that none of the defendants was in custody.

[Gosh, two of you beat me while I was formatting quoted material!]

[Susan Anderson]

@Gerontocrat, it's OK. I should have avoided poking the bear! Don't you make it worse

Please everyone, do not get distracted about what in Buddy's response was part of an offline communication (via "my messages" above) and what was not. (Buddy, part of it was what you wrote elsewhere and part not.)

I'm not very interested, just hoped that someone who largely agrees with Buddy (me) could persuade him to tone it down. Apparently not. Will you all, please please, if you are going to respond to me, save it for the last substantive note I put in. I'll be checking back today but after that I'm going to discipline myself not to return unless I have something useful to add.

[Buddy]

Buddy, your bad. Not good. Respecting privacy is something we need to do when we can.

Actually....NO.  Susan was the first one to "publicly" post some of my PRIVATE message TO HER.  She said in a post BEFORE my post:

Buddy, every time you use large type, all caps, bold - which translates to yelling on the page, you make it less likely that people who need to hear what you're saying will listen. But you're right, this is a waste of energy

I only clarified it.  Her public statement made it sound as though posting in this string...or posting on this website about this topic was a "waste of time."  I DON'T THINK THAT.

I had no choice but to clarify it.  I also don't find my PRIVATE message to her to be anything "surprising" or "mean" or anything of that manner....so posting more information in order to clarify what Susan posted is very appropriate.

Terry thinks I am "wrong".  I think Terry is wrong....and he is constantly protecting Putin....and will NEVER...EVER...be convinced even if there were say..... 13 RUSSIANS INDICTED FOR MEDDLING IN THE US ELECTIONS.

 

[TerryM]

Susan
I've always, well almost always, thought your missives added something useful to the debate. Not always something I agreed with, but still something useful.


Terry
Don't be a stranger.

[Buddy]

Looking forward to seeing how Sean Hannity and FOX News spin the 13 indictments of Russians.....

Must be Obama's fault....or Hillary

[Tor Bejnar]

Don't worry, Buddy, it's 'fake news' - just indictments, not convictions. 
(Have I just 'moved the goal posts'?  We've learned a lot about how to practice 'deniership' on these ASIB threads!)

[SteveMDFP]

I scanned over the indictment.  I personally find it all quite plausible.  I trust Mueller has the documents to back up the assertions.

I don't find anything in it to be truly morally outraged about.  Even if every word were true, the activities don't hold a candle to the CIA's coup against the government of Mossadegh in Iran, for example.  I know, there are many other examples of US interference that exceed the severity of what's in this indictment.

What I'm itching for is the main missing piece.  That is, evidence that these activities were undertaken as part of a quid pro quo with the Trump campaign, to remove sanctions.  I'm confident there was such an understanding.  And I'm quite optimistic that Mueller's current cooperating witnesses will corroborate this.  As of yesterday, Mueller seems to have acquired Rick Gates as another cooperating witness.

Given Trump's plain desire to terminate Mueller's work, and given that multiple campaign figures perjured themselves to deny having had contact with Russians, I think it's blindingly obvious that they sought to conceal criminal conduct. 

[Susan Anderson]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-15/kushner-investors-said-to-be-subpoenaed-by-u-s-tax-authorities

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/2/15/1741765/-Jared-Kushner-s-Finances-Are-In-Shambles-And-He-s-A-Threat-To-National-Security

[Susan Anderson]

Nice of you to pick up on my hint about Mossadegh and use it against current Democrats. That was done for the UK to protect BP (of Gulf Oil Spill fame) in 1953. It was ugly and evil, as most Democrats would agree.

By and large, Democrats are not, repeat not, neoliberals, they are liberals. There's a huge difference. And we ex-hippies are not neoliberals either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

Neoliberalism or neo-liberalism refers primarily to the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism. Such ideas include economic liberalization policies such as privatization, austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society. These market-based ideas and the policies they inspired constitute a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus which lasted from 1945 to 1980.