“You gotta walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. Russian intervention into an American election is of some significance.”
–Bernie Sanders
Three days ago, The Hill published the story Dems Push Leaders to Talk Less About Russia triggering a spate of stories in The New York Post, Breitbart, and Fox News claiming that Democrats were seriously divided. It wouldn’t be the first time the right wing seized on left wing criticism to damage the Democratic Party, but there was enough commentary to warrant some discussion. The Washington Post followed up on the Hill’s story focusing on Glenn Greenwald and writers from Jacobin, Counterpunch, and the Young Turks—who, in spite of the Right’s contention, are not exactly representative of the Democratic Party. The question is, is the Democratic Party divided?
Had I not had some spirited discussions with BMG’s James Conway on the apparent conflict between the Russia scandal and the Democrats’ domestic agenda, I might have answer this question in the affirmative. James, who is half my age, is part of the next generation, the generation that supports Congressman Tim Ryan’s insurgency against Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. The generation that enthusiastically supported Bernie Sanders. Regardless of his generation, James had little difficulty reconcile the Trump Russia Scandal with a focus on domestic issues. More importantly, he impressed on me the fact that Democrats can’t win without telling voters, who are, after all, concerned about their declining quality of life, what we are going to do to help them. In spite of The Hill’s article and the right wing distortion chamber, James and I are both walk and chew gum at the same time.
Domestic issues are important, but so is national security. Democrats must address both, not one or the other, unlike the Republicans who have neglected both. One way to tie these issues together is a clear, simple narrative: Democrats want to improve people’s lives through government; the GOP, nationally, at least, seeks to further enrich the wealthy by weakening government and lowering taxes. To accomplish this goal, the GOP diverts attention from concrete policies that improve the average person’s life.
What’s missing from the Democrats’ current talk about the GOP wealthcare bills is this narrative, without which Democrats gain no rhetorical ground. We may win the battle on Obamacare, but we gain little ground in the war of self-definition. Neither party will win every battle, but over time we can improve our fighting position. That’s what the Republicans have accomplished in the last 50 years. Present the contrasts between President Obama and the Democrats transparent and democratic work to enact the Affordable Care Act and the Republicans opaque process directed at eliminating benefits that the vast majority of Americans want to keep. That’s the difference between us and them: we improve peoples lives; they are willing to effect the deaths of thousands of people, so they can cut taxes for the rich. The GOP is now trying to figure out a way to convince the American public that their best interest is in being unable to afford health care.
Government isn’t perfect, particularly when one party is intent on making sure it doesn’t work, but when we don’t reinforce our messages as part of a larger narrative, we fail our mission and the voters that depend on us. The best part of our narrative is that we can demonstrate it by telling the truth. As an example, here’s an economic message tested by Democracy Corps:
We need to make our economy work for everyone, not just the rich and well-connected. Too many CEOs move jobs overseas and use lobbyists to win the day. Democrats have a plan to rewrite the rules of the economy that limits the role of big money in politics. The wealthy must pay their fair share of taxes. And it provides affordable childcare, equal pay for women, making college affordable, and large infrastructure investments to create jobs. But if we want to get these things done, we need a Democratic majority in Congress.
This is what we believe. It may take time, but we care about these things. We are working for them wherever the GOP doesn’t interfere.
The key to Democratic success is not switching issues. It’s creating a narrative that ties the issues together. The overall narrative is simple: Democrats try to improve people’s lives through government; Republicans try to weaken government on behalf of the wealthy. The current healthcare battle is the starkest example of this narrative.
The Trump Russia Scandal reflects this narrative. The problem with it is at least three-fold: 1) it is extremely complicated, 2) people don’t know why they should care about it, and 3) much of the evidence is classified and not accessible by the the public. People understand war because it’s easy to (over)simplify. The enemy is clear and defined. The damage, at least to our troops, is clear. Average people don’t understand why entertaining Russian diplomat/spymaster Sergey Kislyak and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in the Oval Office would be a security issue or a propaganda bonanza or why the Trump campaign’s (alleged) collusion with the Russians reduce Americans’ influence on their government. Democrats need a message on the Trump Russia Scandal (not to mention the scandal’s need for a name), but it also can and should be tied to the overarching Democratic narrative.
Developing a message on the scandal needs more than a blog post by a teacher on summer vacation, but I think the Trump Russia Scandal can be simplified by characterizing it as political corruption, bribery, and influence peddling. The public evidence is circumstantial and extremely compelling. It’s just not possible for Democrats to accuse Trump of crimes with circumstantial evidence; it’s hard enough for the courts to do so. It is easy enough for Democrats to start talking about the crimes that he and his coterie may have committed. The average person can understand the charge that the President and his political campaign bought electorally useful information and favors from the Russians in exchange for lifting sanctions on Russia. The average person can also understand the accusation that Trump sold his presidential influence on sanctions for consideration on loans from banks known for Russian money-laundering.
People can understand the Trump Russia Scandal, if Democrats start connecting events to underlying crimes. From there, it’s not hard to argue that Trump’s self-interest is not the same as the American people, or that the GOP, which has aided and abetted Trump every step of the way, care more about their agenda than governing or protecting America.
Democrats can walk and chew gum at the same time. I’m offering a strategy here, not a script. There are more ways that the Trump Russia scandal can reinforce the Democratic domestic agenda, the key is tying everything together with a simple, credible narrative that can help voters understand political events.
I’m flabbergasted by the downrate on this eminently reasonable post.
I enthusiastically agree with the following summary of a winning posture:
A case study in the failure of Republican ideology is playing out in the UK in the aftermatch of the Grenfell Tower tragedy.
That tragedy reveals several talking-points for our party:
1. Government officials knowingly approved the use of flagrantly dangerous cladding material, driven by an “austerity” narrative that assigned essentially zero value to the lives of the working-class people who live in these buildings.
2. At least two key components of the tragedy are the DIRECT result of obscenely weak government regulations:
a: The cladding is known to be flammable, is illegal in most of the first world (including the US) and is nevertheless legal under UK law.
b. The Hotpoint/Whirlpool refrigerator that ignited the inferno has a plastic, rather than metal, back. This, too, is illegal in most of the first world (including the US). The inferno started because the compressor overheated and caught fire — the fire immediately burned through the plastic back of the refrigerator and ignited the highly-flammable foam insulation of the refrigerator. That acted as an igniter that ensured that the fire was hot enough to melt the thin aluminum covering of the cladding outside the window of the burning apartment.
3, Alcoa and Whirlpool each knew that the product they sold was dangerously hazardous and they sold it anyway. Their only concern was whether or not the product was legal to sell in the UK. This is the true value system that directs the “invisible hand of the free market”.
Our GOP is using identical dogma to drive legislation that will literally kill people. Not just in health care — they are doing the same in the EPA for water pollution, for climate change, for transportation funding, and for the upcoming tax bill.
The GOP explicitly values increased wealth for the already wealthy above the very LIVES of the rest of us.
I’m not surprised. I don’t know where the downrate came from. It could be from one of our resident conservative or trolls (the two aren’t mutually exclusive) or one of the people who object to Trump Russia Scandal being a story.
Thanks for the kind words Mark and I appreciate your thoughtful take on how to link these seemlingly disparate issues. And I appreciate you read the Greenberg memo! Recent data demonstrate that the majority of voters are big government populists. 70% to be precise. 40% of them are cultural liberals and 30% of them are culturally conservative (defined as identity rather than social issues).
If we win just a third of them back, we have a majority. I think calling out Trump as a stooge for the unpopular Ryan McConnell Mulvaney led evisceration of safety nets they rely on is critical. Pointing out how Trumps family is corrupt and benefits from his corruption. Make Kushner the villain. Proposing our own forward thinking agenda while pointing out at the end of the day it’s the money Manfort got, the money and tax breaks Russia gave Trump in the past, and the fact that they are getting away with it that’s outrageous. No need to make this a Le Care novel. Follow the money and see that it’s bad, and see that its bad money nearly every American couldn’t dream of having.
Fortunately, the tinderbox that was built by Ashmont Station was not yet occupied. I hope that people can pay attention long enough to find out who was responsible for cutting corners.
Not sure what this has to do with my post, but “Officials said the construction of the building is all within the building code and added buildings across Boston are constructed just like this structure.”
I was replying to Tom’s comment, which talked about the Grenfell Tower fire. It’s not obvious from where my comment ended up. Strange glitch that downrates of posts are anonymous, but not downrates of comments. I’ve downrated you plenty , but it wasn’t me this time.
@ MarkBail: The fact these buildings are “all within the building code” is my point. The cladding in Grenfell tower was within the building code as well. That’s little comfort to the 80+ people who were killed in the resulting fire.
Wood burns, metal does not. In a modern, well-built concrete and metal building, a fire in one location will not spread to others. The flammability of wood and plywood remains true whatever the building code says.
In a little over two weeks, that building in Ashmont would have been fully occupied. Instead of a financial loss to its investors, we would have seen our own Grenfell tower.
My understanding was that the building in question, near Ashmont, had not yet been certified nor, indeed, fully inspected and that the fire suppression system (i.e. “sprinklers”) may have been ‘offline’ at the time of the fire. So, it may not have been, in fact, “within the building code.”
I think that if the details of the Grenfell tower disaster matter… and they do…. then the details of the Ashmont fire matter also.
Although I very much agree with you in general that the lessening of regulations will inevitably lead to more and more of these type of situations.
Yes, the sprinklers had not yet been turned on.
Still, sprinklers fail. Sprinklers get turned off. Sprinklers get disabled. If we care about public safety, then we do not allow builders to construct a firetrap while relying on active systems like sprinklers to avoid catastrophe.
In any case, I think the point is that such measures — here and in London — are a case study in why effective government regulation is, in fact, a matter of life and death.
The GOP narrative that “government is bad” is a prescription for unnecessary death, suffering, and trauma.
@ bob-gardner: I enthusiastically agree about the Ashmont fire.
We are building brand-new multistory stick-built firetraps — I have no clue how or why these are allowed under our building codes, but they are disasters waiting to happen. It seems to me that the concrete decks and floors only serve to prolong and intensify the inferno that will result when these HUGE expanses of wooden studs and plywood catch fire.
We have a very similar building just being finished in Ball Square. Six stories, maybe eight — large footprint — and EVERYTHING inside is stick-built.
I didn’t know we could downrate diaries. That could be useful for spammers.
I’m not sure there’s any consequence though, such as a certain number of downrates deletes the diary. I wish we could see who uprated/downrated like we can for comments, however.
I would say — yes, but we have to walk before we chew gum.
The Russia issue is largely out of our hands. Bob Muehler is on it, and the press. We have to focus on what we can control, which is (hopefully) gaining some seats, especially places where we used to win, like Wisconsin.
Which is not to say we ignore Russia, but we don’t drive it, we just react to the news as it unfolds, keep up the pressure on the GOP to do something, etc.
Not to be grim, but we have VERY little power right now. I think the collusion helps us politically, in the end, but we can’t overplay it either. It’s truly a bipartisan issue, and that’s how we should treat it (I know they won’t do that, but that will catch up to them, I hope).
Messaging does not require power. The rhetorical groundwork has to be laid to build the other messages. When it comes down to processing information, The GOP relies on dislike/fear of others and dislike/fear of someone getting something they don’t deserve to frame issues. On top of those motivations come the ideologies of freedom and self-reliance. Democrats, quite frankly, are working on a less reflexive set of emotion and a more rational ideology. We need to spread information and understanding to make our message understood.
Agreed. But we also need to increase our power.
The Ashmont fire deserves its own post and comment thread.
Done.
I included yesterday’s inferno in Oakland, CA.
You will get the new Cold War, more entangling regime change in the Middle East, lots more dead, and your concern over corruption etc, forget about that. The most corrupt elements in our politics are those who will thrive in a new Cold War! They will use your desperation for power to get their trillions.
I’m surprised anyone can connect War and improving people’s lives. What a laugh! Here we have 16 years of the country spending trillions on war while somehow we can’t find the money to shore up middle class entitlements.
Tactically, although I do not care about the democrats winning seats, I can tell you it’s a loser. This is the Scott Walker recall all over again. Trump is secretly happy to be rerunning the 2016 campaign, which he won. He is happy to keep Russia going because he knows there is nothing to it, and when the furor fizzles out, he will emerge stronger.
We already have a new Cold War; we just aren’t fighting back at this point. Russia sees the world as permanent war, not necessarily combat. What we’ve seen in the 2016 cycle is war by other means. One term for it is “hybrid warfare.”
Nationally and globally, we’re in an extremely turbulent political period, and any predictions are made in deep uncertainty. Interesting things, however, are happening, including a potential polar reversal on national security and America. Our two respective parties offered stark, contrasting visions at our conventions with the Democrats chanting “USA! USA!”
The Republicans have already given up on Trump’s relevance. He knows nothing, learns nothing, and damages the GOP brand for Independents and sane Republicans.
“We already have a new Cold War; we just aren’t fighting back at this point.”
That sentence pretty much validates all the ridicule I have been pointing in your direction recently. How naive can you get? We spend $80 billion a year on intelligence and covert actions. Do you think none of that is spent “fighting back” at Russia.?
We have been involved in cyber warfare going back at least to stuxnet. Whoever committed the massive cyberattack in Europe last week used software that we developed. Why do you think it was developed, if not to “fight back”.?
It’s always possible to proclaim that it’s time to take the gloves off and get tough, and to hint darkly that the reason we don’t is because we have been infiltrated by disloyal foreign actors. It’s been done before, most notably in the early ’50’s.
How ignorant can
you get? Or dull? Or predictable?
(At least you’re writing comments instead of just down rating).
Obama had largely taken his eye off of the Russians. Were there no resources focused on them? Of course not. Were we prepared for their hybrid warfare? No. We were caught with our pants down, and we didn’t know how to respond. The issue wasn’t that we invented Stuxnet. The issue wasn’t that we don’t have cyberweapons. What the Russians did wasn’t all that different than what they’ve been doing for 75 or 80 years. What has changed was primarily the use of the internet.
https://20committee.com/2016/09/01/why-obama-is-to-blame-for-russias-spywar-on-america/
https://20committee.com/2017/06/27/why-is-donald-trump-enabling-russian-espionage-in-america/
Thanks for playing, but you might want to show up with something besides your ignorance and outdated biases.
Besides your galloping paranoia, Mark, what would make you choose John Schindler, of all people, as your reference on the Russian spy scandal? Schindler is an apologist for domestic snooping who has called the FBI investigation of Hilary Clinton a sham. He is an all around right wing crank who is only well regarded by the likes of Hugh Hewitt and the National Review.
I think journalists like Seymour Hersh and Mike Taibbi have a lot more credibility and less of a demonstrable ax to grind than does Schindler. You’re reliance on him is telling, to put it politely.
My point is that the US has an $80 Billion budget for intelligence and covert operations, as well as a long-standing, well-developed cyber warfare capability. The idea that we are not “fighting back” against the Russians is laughable. Your point seems to be that none of these facts matter–there are Russians infiltrating everywhere. It is an idea that is being pushed by people who would like America to fight a war with someone, and not just a cyber war.
But by all means, Mark, enjoy your superior knowledge–that the Russians not only own Trump but also Obama, and that anyone who does not believe you is ignorant.
I’ve been trying to think up a reply, but there’s no point. You add nothing to the conversation for me. You don’t add information, you merely contradict it. You dismiss evidence I provide rather provide counter-evidence. You typically throw in some sort of trollish line and lose your temper when I respond in kind. You remind me of the old Monty Python argument skit in which John Cleese merely contradicts what the customer says. In short, you’re neither enlightening, interesting, or amusing.
Strange “progressive” blog where defending Obama from John Schindler is labeled “trollish”.
Oh, Bob, please.
You are not labelled “trollish” because you defend Obama from John Schindler.
For me, it is instead phrases like the following directed at one of our most level-headed and even-handed contributors:
– “your galloping paranoia”
– “… by all means, Mark, enjoy your superior knowledge–”
– “That sentence pretty much validates all the ridicule I have been pointing in your direction recently. How naive can you get?”
Meanwhile, you skipped right over the meat of his response: “The issue wasn’t that we don’t have cyberweapons. What the Russians did wasn’t all that different than what they’ve been doing for 75 or 80 years. What has changed was primarily the use of the internet.”
In fact, the Russian exploitation of the internet — through bots, sock-puppets, and false-information, coordinated and targeted at susceptible populations using information stolen from vulnerable servers — WAS unprecedented. That is, in fact, what changed.
Your refusal to acknowledge the plain truth that is emerging all around us is, well, trollish.
Perhaps if we spent less time flaming and more time listening we might have more constructive interactions.
Tom, before you come down too hard on me please review the thread. What I objected to what Mark Bail’s statement that we are not fighting back against the Russians in this “cyber war”. I think that the existence of an intelligence and covert action budget of around $80 billion, and our previous experience in cyber attacks makes it unlikely that we are not “fighting back.”.
That $80 billion budget is mainly secret.. How can anyone blithely say what we’re not doing with it?
My understanding of Mark Bail’s response is that the internet makes everything different, which seems like a non sequitur. He accuses me of not acknowledging the Russian cyber war. That accusation seems more like a loyalty test than an argument. I never said anything one way or the other about what Russia is doing. All I said was that it was likely that we were fighting back.
Finally, Mark linked two articles by John Schindler–one accusing Trump of being soft on Russia, and one accusing Obama of also being soft on Russia. We’ll see about Trump, but whatever case Schindler makes against Obama seems to be mostly based on right-wing stereotypes of Democrats being weaklings.
Mark Bail should be embarrassed to cite John Schindler on this blog. Check him out, Tom, and see how much you can stomach.
Fair enough.
I don’t see Mark staying attached to Mr. Schindler’s commentary. I appreciate Mark’s diligence in exploring a great many sources of this issue, and he’s freely admitted that not all of those sources are reliable.
I don’t find highlighting the Russian use of the internet a non-sequitur. My own current experience in a related security field supports the thesis that the Russian use of the internet is novel (at least for governments) and disturbing. It should be noted that there is strong evidence that a growing portion of this activity is being done by organized crime — for profit — with the implicit or even explicit knowledge and approval of the Kremlin.
I certainly agree with you that our government is doing something in cyber-space. I remind you that the original comment, by seascraper, that initiated this thread is an explicit claim denying Russian involvement:
“[Donald Trump] is happy to keep Russia going because he knows there is nothing to it, and when the furor fizzles out, he will emerge stronger.”
I, perhaps incorrectly, read your responses as supporting that ridiculous claim. I found your comments towards Mark overly hostile and insulting.
Thanks, Tom. “Overly hostile and insulting “is almost a compliment after being called “idiot lefty” twice in the same comment by the not overly hostile Mark Bail.
I don’t see the phrase “idi9t lefty” anywhere on this entire exchange except from you.
This was from Mark Bail’s comment on your post “Trump Team Busted …” in May.
Well, here’s the context of the phrase (sorry, the new site makes it hard to find the link for a specific comment)::
It seems to me that each of you has been directing fairly harsh invective towards the other. This exchange happened a long time ago. You’ve each tossed harsher insults than “idiot lefty”. I just don’t find this commentary particularly offensive — I’ve been called much worse than “idiot lefty” here.
Perhaps you might grow a thicker skin, and even dial back your rhetoric. It’s much easier for you to control your own comments than those of anybody else.
I guess it’s progress that you recognize Mark Bail’s “fairly harsh invective “. You just got through describing him as “one of our most level headed and even handed contributors. “
Like I said, perhaps you might grow a thicker skin.
I stand by my characterization of Mark.
Me too.
I guess it depends on how you interpret “corrupt”.
It appears to me that the most corrupt elements in our politics today are those who rely on mob rule, tyranny of the majority, intimidation, racism, misogyny, and xenophobia (instead of engaging with actual facts, logic and reason) and the GOP cowards and Collaborators who pander to those elements.
Donald Trump is far and away the most corrupt person to ever occupy the Oval Office. He is running away from the Russia investigation as fast as he can.
Most of us are able to differentiate full-blown fifties-style cold war and what is being contemplated here, even if you are not. I might add that we did not prevail in the cold war by ignoring Russian provocations and outright attacks.
I agree that we have squandered obscene amounts of public funding on senseless debacles in the Middle East. I agree that we should stop doing that.
Acknowledging and then immediately and effectively responding to Russian, North Korean, and Chinese cyber warfare is an essential part of that strategy.
Unfortunately, nuance is lost of some people here, Tom.
Interesting to see edgarthearmenian at least rating if not posting.
I remember his rather vigorous defense of my criticism of RT as an arm of the Kremlin. As we learn more about this whole affair, that claim (that RT is anything but a mouthpiece for the Kremlin) becomes more and more specious.
So what is your claim, edgar? Do you join Mr. Trump in dismissing the Russian intervention as “fake news” and a “witch hunt”?
The data about the Russian intervention continues to amass into rock-hard edifice. Are you standing by your claim that it is an invention of our “so-called intelligence agencies”?
And just would that evidence be? The “dossier” based on the 2003 visit of Trump to Piter is such an obvious fiction to anyone with even a limited knowledge of the Russian mentalitet. And yet it was used as an excuse to start all of these phony investigations by the so-called security agences, all 17 of them)))) I wonder who in the previous administration encouraged that? Comey is not a stupid man, so why would he have used this false dossier as an excuse to involve the FBI in the manufactured lament of the Democrats?
Tom, both Russians and Americans have been trying to influence elections in the other guy’s country for years. I suggest that you google Michael McFaul, Russian ambassador under Obama, to see how he made a com;plete mess of our attempts to influence the last election of Putin. He was so inept that there were no Russians who would have anything to do with him, so we had to recall him.)))),
I know that it has been a very difficult psychological time for you and your colleages in this bubble because Hillary lost the election.. and maybe this phony collusion business makes you all feel better. But the hard truth is that she was a terribly flawed candidate, disliked especially by lthe working class. As i said befofe, either Joe Biden or Bernie would have won that election. A lot of people like me voted for Trump. That is a fact that all of your dreams will not change. I know that Trump is a blowhard; I know that he exaggerates and stretches the truth; but he is still a better alternative to the wicked witch of the West)))))
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4120956/British-spy-s-dirty-dossier-claims-Trump-cavorted-prostitutes-Russia-garbage-says-former-intelligence-chief.html
I share Tom’s surprise at your attitude. Given your history I would have thought you would be first in line to blame Russia, even while the rest of us were still considering the evidence.
Christopher, I use this handle out of respect for the Armenian family who cared for me when I was living in Kislovodsk, Caucasian Region of the then Soviet Untion in 1989.
. Russia is and has been guilty of many sins, including today’s nasty business with Ukraine, as well as menacing behavior in the Baltics. .
I am not blind to the misdeeds perpetrated by them or by us.
So sorry. Not true. The so-called ‘dossier’ is completely superfluous. The proximate cause of “all these phony investigations” (sic) appears to be, first, Paul Manaforts extreme cupidity (Manafort just recently, and ‘retroactively,’ registered as an agent of a foreign power) and Michael Flynn’s egregious stupidity during the campaign… followed hard upon it by Flynn’s lies about his actions during his short tenure in the Administration. (Flynn also, and also ‘retroactively’ registered as an agent of a foreign power…) Trump isn’t do himself any favors either by firing Comey or by his inability to adequately explain what ties he, or his family business, has with Russia…
There’s a lot of smoke here and where there’s smoke there’s fire. Some of the smoke isn’t fire… it’s Russia and friends madly chain smoking hoping to distract from that smoke which comes with fire…. but there’s fire there too…
You put up a very impressive smokescreen, surrounding a well-chosen strawman (the dossier).
Let me be very specific: do you dispute the assertion that RT is a propaganda tool of the Kremlin?
Oh, and I am not surprised that you voted for Mr. Trump. That vote is entirely consistent with your commentary here.
At least we agree on Obama and the Russians.
The Daily Mail is a joke, but you’re one up on Bob Gardner whose bases his judgements on his own ignorance.
I know it’s hard for the Right Wing to understand, but Trump being in bed with the Russians isn’t about Clinton. There’s enough blame to go around for the election results, and that includes Hillary Clinton. Trump was a criminal before, during, and after the campaign. He’s been doing business with their mafia for decades now. Nothing’s changed, except he’s now got a mess of attention he didn’t need.
And Christopher Steele’s “dossier” has turned out to be much more accurate than the media anticipated.
I truly don’t understand where you are coming from on Russia, Edgar, but I’m glad you’re back.
Thanks, Mark. I think that you know me well enough to understand that I do not come here to cause trouble. And, as I have said before, I actually agree with many progressive ideas.
Edgar, you are again responding in much more general terms than you used in defending RT.
I agree with you that Russians and Americans have been trying to influence elections in the other’s countries for years. That isn’t what any of this is about.
This is, instead, about using sophisticated and automated tools to:
1. Penetrate and install malware on millions of US internet devices (phones, tablets, pcs, etc) — malware that allows the compromised machine to be remotely controlled from central sources without knowledge of the owner of the compromised machine.
2. Acquire, through legal and illegal means, personally identifiable information about tens of millions of Americans — carefully and methodically organized by geographical, demographic, and political category.
3. Using the data from (2), plant false stories and misinformation on tens of thousands of social media and alt-news sites using the network assembled in (1).
This is not fiction and it is novel. We have never before seen tens of thousands of compromised machines sending fake news postings to facebook, twitter, and various blogs without the knowledge of their owners.
That has nothing to do with my feelings about Hillary Clinton. We have had “blowhards” in the Oval Office before. We have never had a president who betrays Israeli intelligence to Russian government officials in the Oval Office.
In the piece I cited, you attacked my criticism of RT. I have asked you, specifically, whether you stand by that attack. You still duck my question.
We know that Michael Flynn, soon to be National Security Advisor, attended a gala celebration of the 10th birthday of RT. We know that sat next to Vladimir Putin. We know that he lied about that meeting.
Do you REALLY think that Mr. Putin and Mr. Flynn attended this dinner in order to celebrate the “vibrant newpaper and media community in Russia”? Is it ok with you that Mr. Flynn lied about this meeting? How about the request of Mr. Kushner et al for the Russians to establish a secret communication channel to the Kremlin at the Russian Embassy during the fall of 2016 (when the transition team were all private citizens) explicitly to avoid NSA/CIA surveillance — you have no concerns about that?
It seems to me that your commentary here suggests that at least regarding these interventions by Russia, you are at least covering your eyes with your hands even if you are not blind to them.
Tom, let me try to adress each of your points one at a time.
First of all, there is no difference in terms of goals and methods between the VOA and RT. RT is subsidized by the Russian government, just as VOA is funded here, They both want to promote their own or their country’s points of view. I think the problem for you and most Americans is that you do not realize that there are independent media in Russia, radio outlets like Echo Moscow and TV stations like Rain.ru. Also, there are many, many independent thinkers who post regularly on Youtube. They show recent demonstrations on National Day, June 12. Even RT had to show what happened,))))))))) To tell the truth, I was surprised that RT even mentioned Navalny’s name. This openess is thanks to the internet and all the videos of this rally posted by Russians on Youtube)))https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFuuWfnfKTY
Now, i do not disagree with what you say about computers. In fact, it is general knowledge that in Piter there is an entire building filled with users who have fake American names and internet adresses who post daily on Yahoo, Facebook and other media. I think that their agenda varies from day to day, from week to week. That is why, if you go to an anti Trump article on Yahoo you will see hundreds of rebuttals appearing unexpectedly, But I believe that we are doing the same things to them both there and on Russian sites like VKontakt.ru.
Now, for actually taking over voting machines, I do not know. Most secretaries of State have said that the voting was secure here, at least for now.
Now for contact with Russians, you and the media conveniently overlook the fact that new administrations have done this forever, and not just with Russia. There are always informal contacts between incoming adminstrations with allies as well. Flynn, of course, showed disdain and ignorance by lying. The sad part is that there was no need to lie, unless of course he was hiding something that we do not know. As for back channels, I personally do not like the idea of being monitored and for that reason my friends and I sometimes use code language to communicate, and I think that you would, too.
I want to add something, here, too. I do not understand your new found blind faith in our security agencies. I lived in Soviet Russia for four months in 1989. It was perfecly obvious to me that the system was crumbling, both materially and attitudinally. All one had to do was talk with average Russians to know that they had completely lost faith in the system. Yet our sleuths in the CIA had no idea of what what going on.)))) And let’s not forget Vietnam, Iran, Irag, etc. The list of failures goes on and on. You can take their word; i refuse. Thank God we live in a free country!!
I appreciate your reply. A few points.
I agree with your comparison of RT and VOA. I think it is fair to characterize the VOA as a propaganda arm of the US government. I never meant to imply anything about Russian media in general. We were, in October, discussing RT — in particular, Mr. Flynn’s appearance there.
In my view, there is a world of difference between “contact with Russians” that new administrations have done forever and:
– Meetings with Russian diplomats that are first denied, then admitted while saying that nothing was discussed, when in fact relaxation of on-going economic sanctions were talked about.
– Ties to corrupt political activities in Ukraine by senior campaign officials, with handwritten ledgers showing millions of dollars changing hands
– Sweetheart real-estate deals between the incoming president and Kremlin-controlled banks, especially when that Russian bank is led by an executive fired by Deutsche Bank because if his leading role in a $20B money-laundering operation for Russian organized crime.
Regarding back channels, what you or I like or dislike is irrelevant. We are talking about key players in an incoming administration explicitly avoiding surveillance designed to protect against just such situations. When private citizens (which these people were) request secret communications facilities at the Russian (or Chinese) embassy explicitly in order to avoid US surveillance, those private citizens can reasonably and rightly expect to be investigated and even prosecuted.
I’m very glad to live in a free country. America has never before seen the kind of flagrant corruption, dishonesty, and contempt for bedrock American values that we see in this administration. It is BECAUSE I join you in valuing our many freedoms that I think it is crucial that these investigations continue.
America is and always has been a nation governed by the rule of law. Donald Trump and his Collaborators attack that rule of law each and every day.
I find the flagrant efforts of this administration to obstruct, delay, obfuscate, and simply LIE about this vital investigation to be a HUGE red-flag.
I do not take anybody’s word for any of this. I instead look at the evidence that I see, I encourage you to do the same.
Democrats need to take control of the lexicon and call “regulations” what they really are: “Protections”.