Tag Archives: clinton

Read the US Intelligence Report on Russian Hacking

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Friday released its declassified report on Russia’s efforts to influence the outcome of the 2016 election by hacking Democratic outfits during the campaign.

The report comes a day after top intelligence officials, including Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on the issue. During the hearing, Clapper said the intelligence community has grown more “resolute” in its assessment that Russian intelligence was involved in the hacks aimed at the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. On Friday, Clapper, Rogers, FBI Director Jim Comey, and CIA Director John Brennan briefed President-elect Donald Trump on the classified evidence linking Russia to the hacks and the leaking of the swiped emails. After the briefing, Trump released a statement noting that Russia is one of many actors that try to hack US targets, but the statement did not acknowledge the US intelligence community conclusion that Moscow had mounted the cyberattack against the United States as part of an operation to help elect Trump president.

DV.load(“https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3254229-ICA-2017-01.js”,
width: 630,
height: 550,
sidebar: false,
text: false,
container: “#DV-viewer-3254229-ICA-2017-01”
);

ICA 2017 01 (PDF)

ICA 2017 01 (Text)

Jump to original:  

Read the US Intelligence Report on Russian Hacking

Posted in Cyber, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Read the US Intelligence Report on Russian Hacking

Last-Minute "Scandal" Drove Yet More Defections From Hillary Clinton

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

I had no idea this happened, but apparently there was a last-minute scandal that made the rounds of right-wing circles at the end of the election:

The only U.S. newspaper that reported the story was the New York Post, which ran this print-edition headline: “Bridal $weet for Chelsea; Foundation cash for nups.”…The story also was picked up by British tabloids, Fox News, Russian news agencies and various right-leaning websites….But otherwise the story did not get mentioned on other networks or newspapers, except for reference to it by conservative columnist Hugh Hewitt on MSNBC.

For the record, the scandal was that the Clinton Foundation paid for Chelsea Clinton’s wedding. There’s no evidence for this, of course, though there is an email chain that confirms the fact that Doug Band is a moron. I wonder how much more of this crap was making the rounds completely invisible to the rest of us?

Continue reading here: 

Last-Minute "Scandal" Drove Yet More Defections From Hillary Clinton

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Last-Minute "Scandal" Drove Yet More Defections From Hillary Clinton

The Lesson of 2016: Rabid Congressional Investigations Work

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

So what did we learn this year? That America is more susceptible to authoritarian populism than we thought? Not really. Trump’s victory was a fluke, driven by Russian hacking, James Comey, and some bad polls in a few states.

That racism is on the rise? There’s really no evidence of that.

That Democrats need to pay more attention to the white working class? Maybe, but no matter how many times people say otherwise, that really wasn’t a root cause of Hillary Clinton’s defeat.

I could go on, but instead I want to suggest something the 2016 election does teach us: persistent, obsessive investigations pay off. In the 90s, Republicans started investigating Whitewater. Even Ken Starr knew there was nothing to this after a couple of years, but he was put under pressure to keep at it, and eventually he hit some fluke paydirt: Monica Lewinsky. This had nothing to do with Whitewater, but who cares? Scandal is scandal, and it rubbed off enough on Al Gore that Republicans took back the presidency in 2000.

Fast forward to 2012. Hillary Clinton did nothing wrong related to Benghazi. That was clear pretty quickly, but Republicans kept at it. I laughed at them at the time, but they had the last laugh when they once again hit a fluke bit of paydirt: Clinton’s private email server. Clinton didn’t really do anything seriously wrong here either, but it didn’t matter. Republicans kept at it for the next year and a half, and that was enough to convince a lot of people that Clinton was, somehow, corrupt and untrustworthy. That allowed Republicans to retake the presidency.

There was lots of other stuff going on too, but this is now twice that maniacal dedication to an investigation has paid off for Republicans. It’s basically a way of hacking the media, which feels like it has no choice but to cover congressional investigations on a daily basis. It’s news, after all, no matter how you define news.

So that’s a lesson for sure. I’m just not sure what the solution is.

View original:  

The Lesson of 2016: Rabid Congressional Investigations Work

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Lesson of 2016: Rabid Congressional Investigations Work

Julian Assange Didn’t Say WikiLeaks Gives Russia a Pass Because It’s Already Open and Transparent

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Readers who are extremely long in the tooth will remember a blogger named Steven Den Beste from back in the day. He was a gung-ho warblogger who wrote very long, very nerdy pieces about the urgent need to invade Iraq (with occasional forays into cell phone standards), so one day Daniel Davies decided that what we all needed was Shorter Steven Den Beste. Davies’ version was usually a withering sentence or two.

Today, things have changed. I can think of all too many folks who could stand to cut their word count in half, but for now I’d settle for Shorter Glenn Greenwald. Yesterday he wrote this:

The Guardian’s Summary of Julian Assange’s Interview Went Viral and Was Completely False

According to Microsoft Word, the article clocks in at 2,645 words, so here’s the nickel version. A few days ago Julian Assange gave an interview to Italian reporter Stefania Maurizi. (It is illustrated with the photo on the right, which I hope they don’t mind me re-using since it makes me like Assange a little better than I usually do.) Here are the relevant sections:

Most of WikiLeaks’ biggest revelations concern the US military-industrial complex….Why aren’t human rights abuses producing the same effects in regimes like China or Russia, and what can be done to democratise information in those countries?

In Russia, there are many vibrant publications, online blogs, and Kremlin critics such as Alexey Navalny are part of that spectrum…..In Russia there are competitors to WikiLeaks, and no WikiLeaks staff speak Russian….WikiLeaks is a predominantly English-speaking organisation with a website predominantly in English. We have published more than 800,000 documents about or referencing Russia and president Putin, so we do have quite a bit of coverage, but the majority of our publications come from Western sources….The real determinant is how distant that culture is from English.

….What about Donald Trump?…What do you think he means?

Hillary Clinton’s election would have been a consolidation of power in the existing ruling class of the United States. Donald Trump is not a DC insider, he is part of the wealthy ruling elite of the United States, and he is gathering around him a spectrum of other rich people and several idiosyncratic personalities. They do not by themselves form an existing structure, so it is a weak structure which is displacing and destabilising the pre-existing central power network within DC. It is a new patronage structure which will evolve rapidly, but at the moment its looseness means there are opportunities for change in the United States: change for the worse and change for the better.

The Guardian’s piece, written by Ben Jacobs, made several claims: (1) Assange “long had a close relationship with the Putin regime,” (2) Assange said there was no need for WikiLeaks to undertake a whistleblowing role in Russia “because of the open and competitive debate he claimed exists there,” and (3) Assange gave “guarded praise” of Trump.

The first is unfounded, and the Guardian has now retracted it. The second is false as well. Whether you choose to believe him or not, what Assange said is that WikiLeaks isn’t a local player in Russia and mostly appeals to English-speaking leakers. The third is hazier. Personally, I’d say Assange is wildly naive about Trump not representing an “existing power structure,” and disingenuous in calling part of Trump’s inner circle “idiosyncratic personalities.” That said, “not a DC insider” plus “destabilising the pre-existing central power network within DC” plus “change for the worse and change for the better” could reasonably be described as “guarded praise.” Those are all things that Assange pretty clearly views favorably.

This is a lot more than two sentences, but I’m not as witty as Dan Davies. In any case, I agree with Greenwald about two out of three of these things, and hopefully corrections will go as viral as the initial article. That’s how things usually work in social media, right?

Link: 

Julian Assange Didn’t Say WikiLeaks Gives Russia a Pass Because It’s Already Open and Transparent

Posted in Casio, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Julian Assange Didn’t Say WikiLeaks Gives Russia a Pass Because It’s Already Open and Transparent

Wisconsin’s Department of Natural Resources is now pretending not to know about climate change.

The crisis of affordable housing (after climate change, natch).

It’s not for lack of local media coverage. Follow the news from New York City to Seattle, and you can’t avoid stories about skyrocketing home prices and rent along with record rates of homelessness. The bestseller Evicted followed low-income residents in Milwaukee who were tossed out of their homes for missing a rent payment.

Add up each local crisis, city by city, and it’s clear that the country has a national crisis that requires a national response. Yet affordable housing passed without much notice in the 2016 election. Interviewers and debate moderators never asked about housing. Republican presidential candidates, including President-elect Donald Trump, a high-end real estate developer, ignored it altogether.

To be sure, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders issued modest proposals on housing policy. But they gave housing little attention on the campaign trail.

So will 2017 be the year that our political system wakes up to the housing crisis? The signs aren’t promising. Trump and congressional Republicans want to cut housing aid, which has already been squeezed by cuts from the Budget Control Act of 2011.

But maybe it’s the year that progressives in Congress propose a national strategy to provide high-quality, affordable housing to all Americans. It’s a political cause in dire need of a champion.

Continued here – 

Wisconsin’s Department of Natural Resources is now pretending not to know about climate change.

Posted in alo, Anchor, ATTRA, Casio, Citadel, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Ringer, solar, solar power, Uncategorized, wind energy | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Wisconsin’s Department of Natural Resources is now pretending not to know about climate change.

Vladimir Putin Is a Happy Camper These Days

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

In his annual press conference, Vladimir Putin took a victory lap:

“Democrats are losing on every front and looking for people to blame everywhere,” Putin said in answer to a Russian TV host, one of 1,400 journalists accredited to the marathon session. “They need to learn to lose with dignity.”

….“Trump understood the mood of the people and kept going until the end, when nobody believed in him,” Putin said, adding with a grin. “Except for you and me.”

Putin has repeatedly denied involvement despite the accusations coming from the White House, and the Kremlin has repeatedly questioned the evidence for the U.S. claims. On Friday he borrowed from Trump’s dismissal of the accusations, remarking “maybe it was someone lying on the couch who did it.”

“And it’s not important who did the hacking, it’s important that the information that was revealed was true, that is important,” Putin said, referring to the emails that showed that party leaders had favored Hillary Clinton.

That last line is almost word-for-word what Republican apologists say. As near as I can tell, Putin is basically just admitting that Russia was behind the hacks and then smirking about it. He must be having a good old time these days. I wonder how Republicans are going to feel about this when Putin decides it’s time to get rid of Trump and help the other side?

Visit site:

Vladimir Putin Is a Happy Camper These Days

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Vladimir Putin Is a Happy Camper These Days

This May Be Trump’s Most Frightening and Dangerous Tweet Yet

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

With one tweet on Thursday, Donald Trump proved how dangerous and unstable his presidency could be.

Out of the blue, Trump weighed in on one of America’s most important national security issues: nuclear weapons. He tweeted:

In just 118 characters, Trump seemed to be reversing decades of bipartisan policy aimed at stopping the spread of nuclear weapons around the world. For decades, the United States has worked with Russia, the other major nuclear power, to reduce both nations’ nuclear arsenals. Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama have each negotiated treaties with Russia reducing nuclear stockpiles. Today, the United States and Russia each possess about 7,000 nuclear weapons, and there continue to be efforts to shrink these stockpiles.

Yet with a single tweet, Trump suggested he would move in the opposite direction and expand the US nuclear arsenal. To what end? Trump did not follow up with any other thoughts. But many experts contend that nuclear weapons will not bring greater security to the United States, given that the greatest risks these days come from nonstate actors, crises in the Middle East, and cyberwarfare.

Moreover, global efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons—as enshrined in the international Non-Proliferation Treaty—are predicated on Washington and Moscow collaborating to downsize their nuclear arsenals. By declaring that the United States would enlarge its nuclear arms collection, Trump was undermining the attempts to stop the spread of these weapons throughout the world.

The Trump team’s response did not make the situation any better. Spokesman Jason Miller issued a statement saying Trump was referring to “the threat of nuclear proliferation and the critical need to prevent it—particularly to and among terrorist organizations and unstable and rogue regimes.”

Uh, no, he wasn’t. And, still, this was an illogical point. Adding more nukes to the US stockpile will hardly stop terrorists or rogue regimes from seeking to acquire nuclear weapons. Miller was replying with a non sequitur.

Joe Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund and a nuclear arms expert, says, “Can a tweet start and arms race? This one just might have.” He adds, “There are groups like Heritage Foundation arguing to expand our nuclear arsenal. If Trump was reflecting their thinking for not just new weapons but more weapons and new missions, we are entering new and very dangerous territory.”

With this tweet, Trump gave new fuel to two questions: whether he intends to drastically change US policy on nuclear arms control, and whether he and his team are capable of handling serious matters. It doesn’t get much more serious than nuclear weapons, and here was Trump seemingly shooting from the hip, without any apparent deliberation, on a critical national security matter—and with his staffers then forced to issue a nonsensical statement to back him up. It was clown time…with nuclear weapons.

Trump has suggested in years past that he believes a nuclear war is inevitable. So any tweet from him on this subject deserves great scrutiny—at least as much as his tweets about Alec Baldwin, SNL, and the musical Hamilton. The posting of this tweet, and his staff’s inability to explain it, are frightening signs that Trump is not ready for the task of controlling weapons that can destroy the world.

View original article: 

This May Be Trump’s Most Frightening and Dangerous Tweet Yet

Posted in Cyber, FF, GE, Jason, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Thayer, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This May Be Trump’s Most Frightening and Dangerous Tweet Yet

America’s Biggest Labor Group Has a Fascinating Relationship With Trump’s New Anti-China Staffer

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On Wednesday, President-elect Donald Trump appointed economics professor and outspoken China critic Peter Navarro to a new White House position that will oversee trade and industrial policy. Navarro, a Trump campaign adviser, advocates a more adversarial approach to China, including a controversial 40-plus percent tariff on Chinese imports. He’s also the author of numerous books about what he sees as China’s existential threat to global order, including The Coming China Wars (one of Trump’s favorite China books.)

Navarro’s appointment was met with something akin to optimism by the country’s biggest labor organization. In a statement to Mother Jones Thursday, AFL-CIO spokesman Josh Goldstein said Navarro “has raised some important critiques of American trade policy and we look forward to working with him to translate that into real policies that benefit America’s workers.”

The 12.5 million-member federation of labor unions opposed Trump during the campaign, painting him as a fraud. “Look at what he does, not what he says,” warned AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka in June, labeling Trump the “king” of outsourced labor. “When you give working-class people the facts, I think Trump falls apart,” Trumka said in a March interview with the Washington Post. “He’s a house of cards.” The AFL-CIO actively campaigned for Hillary Clinton; in its endorsement of her, the union called Trump an “unstable charlatan who made his fortune scamming” working families.

The AFL-CIO even released a YouTube video using Navarro’s own words to attack Trump:

Navarro is a University of California-Irvine a professor of economics and public policy who became an economics adviser to Trump during the campaign. In October, The New Yorker referred to him as “Trump’s muse” on trade with China and said he was poised to become “the single most powerful economic adviser in the United States” should Trump win the presidency.

Navarro’s relationship with the AFL-CIO is a bit complicated. During the campaign, he routinely claimed that union workers in states like Ohio would line up behind the Republican real estate mogul, despite opposition from top brass at the labor group. “Donald Trump is going to run the table with organized labor and with non-union labor,” he told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews in June, arguing that union leaders had contradicted themselves by supporting Clinton. “AFL-CIO opposed China’s World Trade Organization entry,” he said. “AFL-CIO opposed the South Korea trade deal. Hillary Clinton supported all those.” (He was right: According to exit polls, 54 percent of Ohio voters from union households voted for Trump. In 2012, just 37 percent voted for Mitt Romney.)

But it wasn’t long ago when the AFL-CIO leadership was very much behind Navarro’s work. In 2012, the union group sponsored several screenings of Navarro’s film Death by China in towns across Ohio. The film is a polemic documentary, narrated by Martin Sheen of The West Wing, that traces the loss of American manufacturing jobs to the rise of China. In particular, Navarro points to China’s admission to the World Trade Organization in 2001 and to what he sees as dangerous concessions that US officials have made to a dictatorial, unaccountable country waging a trade war with America.

The film casts China as a trade cheat that uses currency manipulation, illegal export subsidies, intellectual property theft, poor worker safety, and lax environmental regulations to steal American jobs.

In a way, Navarro’s film foreshadowed the 2016 contest between Clinton and Trump—especially in the Rust Belt states of the upper Midwest. His goal at the time, however, was to make trade with China the No. 1 issue for Ohio voters in the 2012 election between Romney and President Barack Obama. “My view is that whoever wins Ohio will win the presidential race,” Navarro said in August 2012. “Our objective going into Ohio is to elevate the issue of trade reform with China to the top of the checklist of presidential campaign issues.” (Navarro did not respond to a request for comment.)

The film screenings may have been aimed at union members in the Rust Belt, but Navarro’s documentary attracted another a big fan, as well. “Death by China is right on,” Trump wrote in a short blurb for the film on its website. “This important documentary depicts our problem with China with facts, figures and insight. I urge you to see it.”

Trumka, the AFL-CIO president, actually appeared in the film, as a vocal critic of US-China trade policy. “This is an economy that has been made by policy choices, policy choices that really do benefit the rich and the multinationals,” he tells viewers. “Their interests no longer coincide with the interests of this country, so we have to do what’s best for this country.” (The film also features Rep. Tim Ryan, the Ohio Democrat who recently challenged Nancy Pelosi for the House minority leader post.)

Trump’s Navarro appointment comes as tensions between the United States and China appear to be ratcheting up. Earlier this month, the Chinese Defense Ministry confirmed photos showing the country had installed military weapons, including anti-aircraft guns, on contested islands in the South China Sea, something the Obama administration regards as an act of territorial aggression. In November, China flew a nuclear-capable bomber over the South China Sea, according to Fox News. That action came after Trump spoke with Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen, breaking decades of US protocol. Last week, China seized an unmanned underwater research drone from a US Navy operation near the Philippines, prompting strong protests from Washington. (China has since given it back, though Trump suggested on Twitter that China should keep it.)

Trump’s new trade staffer seems likely to raise the stakes. Navarro calls Taiwan a “beacon of democracy” and argues that the US should “stop sacrificing friends like Taiwan to placate what is increasingly morphing from a trading partner and strategic rival into a hostile enemy.” China, for its part, is cautiously weighing its response to the appointment, at least for the moment. But something more forceful might be just over the horizon, according to a Wall Street Journal interview with Gary Hufbauer, a former Treasury official and fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “Their objective will be to parry what Trump does with targeted reprisals in areas of US vulnerability,” he said. There are a number of potential ways in which China could use its own trade policies to impede Trump’s quest to make America great again, Hudbauer argues, including placing sanctions on American farm exports or canceling big deals with Boeing.

View original article: 

America’s Biggest Labor Group Has a Fascinating Relationship With Trump’s New Anti-China Staffer

Posted in ATTRA, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Pines, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on America’s Biggest Labor Group Has a Fascinating Relationship With Trump’s New Anti-China Staffer

Panel Survey Shows Huge Movement to Trump After Comey Letter

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The November edition of the panel survey done by the Institute for the Study of Citizens and Politics is out. Dan Hopkins tells us that it shows something interesting. A lot of people really did switch to Donald Trump at the last minute:

While no one moved from Trump to Clinton, 0.9 percent of our respondents moved from Clinton to Trump….Trump also outpaced Clinton among people who were previously undecided or third-party backers, with 3.1 percent of respondents moving from those categories to Trump while just 2.3 percent did the same for Clinton. Clinton also saw 3.1 percent of her October supporters defecting to third-party candidates or becoming undecided. Trump lost just 1.7 percent.

Let’s add this up:

Trump gained 0.9 + 3.1 – 1.7 = +2.3 percent
Clinton gained -0.9 + 2.3 – 3.1 = -1.7 percent

The October poll ended on the 24th. FBI Director James Comey released his infamous letter on the 28th. The November poll then showed Hillary Clinton with a net loss of 4 percent compared to Trump. This compares to net movement of only a few tenths of a point in the final days of the 2012 election.

I wonder if there’s any relationship there?

See the original post – 

Panel Survey Shows Huge Movement to Trump After Comey Letter

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Panel Survey Shows Huge Movement to Trump After Comey Letter

Suddenly, Conservatives Are No Longer Quite So Colorblind

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Bill O’Reilly is suddenly a big defender of the Electoral College:

Abolishing the Electoral College, that is the subject of tonight’s Talking Points Memo. After Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, the left in America is demanding that the Electoral College system put into place in 1787 be scrapped. But there’s a hidden reason for this.

….Talking Points believes this is all about race. The left sees white privilege in America as an oppressive force that must be done away with. Therefore white working class voters must be marginalized and what better way to do that than center the voting power in the cities….White men have largely abandoned the Democrats, and the left believes it’s because of racism that they want to punish minorities, keep them down. So that’s what’s really going on when you hear about the Electoral College and how unfair it allegedly is.

It’s a funny thing. Conservatives tell us endlessly that the best way to build a colorblind society is to be colorblind. No more special favors, no more affirmative action, no more quotas. But whenever someone suggests a change that happens to disadvantage white people even slightly, suddenly they see color everywhere.

Of course, O’Reilly is right that race is relevant to the Electoral College. The American presidential voting system was designed by the framers both to give more influence to smaller states and to give more influence to states with lots of slaves. It was pretty explicitly racist. Defending it on the grounds of its benevolence toward the “white establishment” seems like it ought to be a bridge too far even for the likes of O’Reilly.

In any case, Democrats have now lost two presidential contests in the 21st century in which they won the popular vote. You really don’t have to look much further to understand why liberals are a little gun-shy of the Electoral College these days.

View original: 

Suddenly, Conservatives Are No Longer Quite So Colorblind

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Suddenly, Conservatives Are No Longer Quite So Colorblind