A blockbuster report in the Washington Post says that Trump adamantly refuses to acknowledge Russian hacking into our elections and will not discuss ways to protect against recurrences. Meanwhile, the Kremlin is laughing about what they accomplished with an expenditure of only $500,000.
There are many reasons to worry about Trump’s presidency. This may be the biggest. He is violating the oath he took to protect our country.
The story begins:
In the final days before Donald Trump was sworn in as president, members of his inner circle pleaded with him to acknowledge publicly what U.S. intelligence agencies had already concluded — that Russia’s interference in the 2016 election was real.
Holding impromptu interventions in Trump’s 26th-floor corner office at Trump Tower, advisers — including Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and designated chief of staff, Reince Priebus — prodded the president-elect to accept the findings that the nation’s spy chiefs had personally presented to him on Jan. 6.
They sought to convince Trump that he could affirm the validity of the intelligence without diminishing his electoral win, according to three officials involved in the sessions. More important, they said that doing so was the only way to put the matter behind him politically and free him to pursue his goal of closer ties with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
“This was part of the normalization process,” one participant said. “There was a big effort to get him to be a standard president.”
But as aides persisted, Trump became agitated. He railed that the intelligence couldn’t be trusted and scoffed at the suggestion that his candidacy had been propelled by forces other than his own strategy, message and charisma.
Told that members of his incoming Cabinet had already publicly backed the intelligence report on Russia, Trump shot back, “So what?” Admitting that the Kremlin had hacked Democratic Party emails, he said, was a “trap.”
As Trump addressed journalists on Jan. 11 in the lobby of Trump Tower, he came as close as he ever would to grudging acceptance. “As far as hacking, I think it was Russia,” he said, adding that “we also get hacked by other countries and other people.”
As hedged as those words were, Trump regretted them almost immediately. “It’s not me,” he said to aides afterward. “It wasn’t right.”
Nearly a year into his presidency, Trump continues to reject the evidence that Russia waged an assault on a pillar of American democracy and supported his run for the White House.
The result is without obvious parallel in U.S. history, a situation in which the personal insecurities of the president — and his refusal to accept what even many in his administration regard as objective reality — have impaired the government’s response to a national security threat. The repercussions radiate across the government.
Rather than search for ways to deter Kremlin attacks or safeguard U.S. elections, Trump has waged his own campaign to discredit the case that Russia poses any threat and he has resisted or attempted to roll back efforts to hold Moscow to account.
His administration has moved to undo at least some of the sanctions the previous administration imposed on Russia for its election interference, exploring the return of two Russian compounds in the United States that President Barack Obama had seized — the measure that had most galled Moscow. Months later, when Congress moved to impose additional penalties on Moscow, Trump opposed the measures fiercely.
Trump has never convened a Cabinet-level meeting on Russian interference or what to do about it, administration officials said. Although the issue has been discussed at lower levels at the National Security Council, one former high-ranking Trump administration official said there is an unspoken understanding within the NSC that to raise the matter is to acknowledge its validity, which the president would see as an affront.
Trump’s stance on the election is part of a broader entanglement with Moscow that has defined the first year of his presidency. He continues to pursue an elusive bond with Putin, which he sees as critical to dealing with North Korea, Iran and other issues. “Having Russia in a friendly posture,” he said last month, “is an asset to the world and an asset to our country.”
His position has alienated close American allies and often undercut members of his Cabinet — all against the backdrop of a criminal probe into possible ties between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.
This account of the Trump administration’s reaction to Russia’s interference and policies toward Moscow is based on interviews with more than 50 current and former U.S. officials, many of whom had senior roles in the Trump campaign and transition team or have been in high-level positions at the White House or at national security agencies. Most agreed to speak only on the condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the subject.
Trump administration officials defended the approach with Russia, insisting that their policies and actions have been tougher than those pursued by Obama but without unnecessarily combative language or posture. “Our approach is that we don’t irritate Russia, we deter Russia,” a senior administration official said. “The last administration had it exactly backwards.”
Others questioned how such an effort could succeed when the rationale for that objective is routinely rejected by the president. Michael V. Hayden, who served as CIA director under President George W. Bush, has described the Russian interference as the political equivalent of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, an event that exposed a previously unimagined vulnerability and required a unified American response.
“What the president has to say is, ‘We know the Russians did it, they know they did it, I know they did it, and we will not rest until we learn everything there is to know about how and do everything possible to prevent it from happening again,’ ” Hayden said in an interview. Trump “has never said anything close to that and will never say anything close to that.”
‘More than worth the effort’
The feeble American response has registered with the Kremlin.
U.S. officials said that a stream of intelligence from sources inside the Russian government indicates that Putin and his lieutenants regard the 2016 “active measures” campaign — as the Russians describe such covert propaganda operations — as a resounding, if incomplete, success.
Moscow has not achieved some its most narrow and immediate goals. The annexation of Crimea from Ukraine has not been recognized. Sanctions imposed for Russian intervention in Ukraine remain in place. Additional penalties have been mandated by Congress. And a wave of diplomatic retaliation has cost Russia access to additional diplomatic facilities, including its San Francisco consulate.
But overall, U.S. officials said, the Kremlin believes it got a staggering return on an operation that by some estimates cost less than $500,000 to execute and was organized around two main objectives — destabilizing U.S. democracy and preventing Hillary Clinton, who is despised by Putin, from reaching the White House.
The bottom line for Putin, said one U.S. official briefed on the stream of post-election intelligence, is that the operation was “more than worth the effort.”

Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Education.
LikeLike
An acknowledgment of a Russian interference in the election ,would be admitting that a hostile action was committed against the US. Those that partook in that action would be guilty of what is tantamount to treason . Especially when all indications are it was for monetary gain.
No attack = no treason .
LikeLike
“There are many reasons to worry about Trump’s presidency. This may be the biggest.”
Really? The possibility (still not proven I have to say, yet again) of criminal collusion with Russia is a bigger reason to worry about Trump than his actual policies on immigration, taxes, education, banking, foreign policy, etc., etc., etc.??? You know Trump dances with glee every time the “loyal opposition” gets sidetracked with “da Russkies did it”.
LikeLike
Dienne, you and Glenn G will never acknowledge the Russian hacking until you get a personal phone call from Putin. And you won’t believe him either.
LikeLike
Not at all. Evidence would do the trick. There just hasn’t been a whole lot so far. All those breathless stories seem to get debunked (or at least greatly reduced) very quickly. What’s left is – so far – a giant nothingburger that is distracting us from what we need to be focused on (i.e., stopping Trump’s actual policies).
LikeLike
No evidence of Russian interference in our election!!! Dienne77 is clearly a Trump troll or works for Putin who relies on the same media that Trump follows for their alternative facts (lies).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/07/06/heres-the-public-evidence-that-supports-the-idea-that-russia-interfered-in-the-2016-election/?utm_term=.1c6778a0a0c8
LikeLike
Nothing urgent is the term favored by the Trump team.
LikeLike
You and Dienne are talking about two different things. Dienne refers to “criminal collusion” between the Trump campaign and Russia. You (and this post generally) are talking about Russia’s attempts to interfere with the election. Dienne’s correct (in my view) that the case for collusion has not yet been made. But there appears to be enormous evidence of Russia’s attempts to interfere with the election through various means (although much of the technical evidence is classified and probably won’t see the light of day for a long time).
LikeLike
I have voted since 1960. That’s a lot of elections. I have never seen one where the candidate’s staff and family were so deeply involved in meeting emissaries from a foreign power. In June 2016, Don Jr met with a gaggle of Russians in hopes of getting “dirt” on Hillary. They didn’t give him dirt, they wanted to talk about the Magnitsky Act, which imposed sanctions on Russia. Russia responded by ending adoptions to the US. So “adoptions” is the code word for lifting sanctions.
Let’s see what Mueller finds or doesn’t. Unless Trump fires him first.
LikeLike
Collusion is a pretty high bar, though. I tend to think Mueller is building an obstruction of justice case.
LikeLike
If Mueller sees Trump’s tax returns, he would get insight into who owns Trump’s debt. And Trump.
LikeLike
I’d like to start a twitter account with the handle “Mueller’s Whiteboard”
LikeLike
How many years did the GOP repeatedly investigate Benghazi?
The answer to that question is the reason we should not be in a rush to wrap up this investigation into alleged collusion between Trump, his administration, and the Russians. There are times when the wheels of justice turn slowly.
And I admit that I’d like this one to not take its time. If Trump is the Kremlin’s Agent Orange, there is too much at risk to not get rid of him as soon as possible.
LikeLike
The NY Times refers to hacking evidence frequently. yet rarely presents any. It was essentially forced to print a retraction of the seventeen intelligence agencies story. And there are plenty of tech and former intelligence experts who have found these claims to be doubtful.
LikeLike
Incidentally, those over-hyped Russian stories Glenn Greenwald listed that turned out to be fake? ( https://theintercept.com/2017/12/09/the-u-s-media-yesterday-suffered-its-most-humiliating-debacle-in-ages-now-refuses-all-transparency-over-what-happened/ ) WaPo was involved in quite a few of them. Perhaps they should dial down their tone on Russia, no?
LikeLike
I am impressed CNN followed a false story which then spread to other networks and was retracted within hours of the release.
Sounds like a rt wing hit job the only difference is that when they invent a story it circulates for weeks is continually repeated and even when thoroughly debunked is never admitted to and we hear it Ad nauseam for years , ie uranium 1 .
Seriously Greenwald spends 3/4 of the link hyperventilating about this . Slice it, dice it anyway you want . It is a nothing story it broke at 11AM it was discredited by WAPO before the evening news cycle . So unless you were a cable news junkie you missed it . I heard it, my reaction was great if its true and where did they get it from . . Then I heard of the retraction and my reaction was who set them up.
The solid evidence is simple it involves the actions of the characters . The number of contacts that have been denied from the start and the constant lies and omissions that have to be corrected . Then there is the actions of Americas Chief ass who can only lavish praise on Putin . It is like a movie script where the incompetent servant is lavishing praise on the King . This from a narcissist who takes credit for creating the Universe .
I assure you that Mueller did not give Flynn a sweet deal in exchange for a promise to cooperate. It was given after Flynn was shown how a Presidential pardon would not prevent him and his son from spending possibly the better part of his life in a NY prison with his son . The cooperation happened before Flynn entered the Court room. And after other key witnesses had testified to the investigation . So the rt wing noise machine and the dirt-bags in congress go wild this week. .
Expect film of water sports as soon as Putin is through with Trump.
LikeLike
https://www.alternet.org/7-times-trump-man-crushed-putin
LikeLike
Seriously Joel, you’re better than this. Implying that Trump and Putin are in a gay relationship? What year is this? Hell, what century? Regardless of your opinion of either man (and, despite constant accusation to the contrary, I can’t stand either one), since when is gay bashing okay?
LikeLike
I didn’t consider it gay bashing, and I’m gay.
LikeLike
But it is, Diane. The implication is of a sexual relationship between two men, when that couldn’t be further from the issue. If you have concerns that Trump and Putin are too close politically, that Putin may be “controlling” Trump (which is laughable – who the hell can control Trump? – but I digress), then state your concerns in those terms. There is no need to imply that the two of them are in lust or doing naughty things under the bedsheets, which such things are none of anyone’s business regardless of who’s doing them.
I’ll give you a bit of free advice, worth every penny. Since Democrats have long since abandoned the poor, working class and even middle class and their economic bona fides are in tatters, the least they should do is work to keep their social bona fides intact. But when Democrats gleefully throw their alleged anti-gay stance to the wind and engage in gay bashing because, well, because it’s Trump, there’s not much left. Remember, the question is not “Who is Trump?” or “Who are the Republicans?” We know the answers to those questions – they couldn’t be more blatant. The question is “Who are we?”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dienne,
I don’t see that image as gay bashing. I know gay bashing. I have experienced it. Have you?
LikeLike
You do not speak for all gay people. Regardless of your opinion, alleging a gay relationship/gay orientation in order to cast aspersions on someone is gay bashing. In fact, it’s almost the definition.
Incidentally, if the same article had been written about Obama and, say, Hugo Chavez, would you be saying the same thing? I think not.
LikeLike
Dienne, your remarks above do not deserve to be characterized as offensive. They are much worse. If you do not apologize or are not ashamed for what you wrote, you are truly no better than that—whatever that may mean. Offensive is too tame a description.
LikeLike
Greg, what the heck happened between you and Dienne? We need to dial it down a few notches. I really like you (“you” being the persona that is the sum of your comments) and Dienne. As Rodney King said . . . .
LikeLike
What is offensive about what I wrote? So calling out offensiveness is now offensive? Isn’t it the right wing that is always demanding that we tolerate their intolerance? What makes it okay to paint Trump and Putin as gay lovers? Whatever problems you have with either or both of them – and there are many problems to be had – why make it a gay issue? Especially coming from liberals/Democrats. We wouldn’t find it acceptable if similar things were said about Obama and any man, so why is it acceptable to say it about Trump and Putin? Even if Trump and/or Putin were gay (and I don’t believe either is), would that be a problem? Would that be something to mock them for, especially considering how much else both offer to be mocked for? I’m just really, really baffled why this is even contentious. I never thought I’d see the day when Democrats would be defending gay bashing.
I have respect for Diane (and even you, GregB), which is why I call out things like this. We can be better. In fact, we have to be better. If you roll in the mud with a pig, no one can tell who’s who. And the pig likes it. Let’s try to stay out of the mud.
LikeLike
Dienne,
I respectfully disagree. The cartoon was political humor. You think it is gay-bashing. I don’t. I think it is pointed satire. I am more sensitive to such issues than most people, and I thought it was funny. I also enjoyed the fake cover of TIME showing Trump and his family in orange jumpsuits. As one of my heroes Harry S Truman said, “if you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.” Trump is thin-skinned, can’t stand any criticism, ridicules others, belittles others. He will have to take it. It goes with the job.
LikeLike
I don’t believe Dienne understands the meaning of the word “man crush”.
It has nothing to do with having a sexual relationship.
There is a type of trolling the Republicans do in which they take faux offense at something that doesn’t really bother them but that they believe will help them politically. A prime example is during the funeral of Paul Wellstone. The manufactured outrage the right wing directed toward the emotional speakers – who included Wellstone’s closest family and friends — was beyond offensive.
But hey, it worked.
LikeLike
Right-wing hate propaganda doesn’t work on everyone. Just other right-wing haters. The Alt-Right psyops campaign is designed to keep the deplorable extreme right stirred up and filled with fear and/or hate. I wonder what it is like to be angry all the time at everyone that refuses to think like them. I’d hate to be stuck inside Trump or Bannon’s head.
LikeLike
Oh FFS, can the right wing bullsh*t. How many right-wingers support universal single payer health care? How many support drawing down the American empire and ending our drone bombing and other military engagements? How many support breaking up the “too big to fail” banks and other overly large and powerful corporations? How many support massive tax hikes on the rich and large corporations? How many support tuition-free higher education? How many oppose privatization of the Commons, including and especially public education? How many support LGBTQ rights and women’s reproductive rights?
The answer is none. Those are all strongly left-wing positions. Yet I’ve been on this blog practically since Day One (much longer than most of you, with the exception, of course, of Diane herself) advocating for every one of those positions. In fact, some of you have actually argued against some of those positions. Some of you have defended our endless military engagements, particularly if a Democrat does it. You’ve defended Obama’s and Hillary’s support for the big banks and corporations. I am far to the left of most of you.
The only thing is, I’m consistent about it. My principles don’t change based on who we’re talking about. If devastating wars are wrong when Republicans do it (and they are), then they’re wrong when Democrats do it too. If economic policies that favor the rich at the expense of the poor are wrong when Republicans do it (and they are), then they’re wrong when the Democrats do it too. If it’s wrong when Republicans call people fags (and it is), then it’s wrong when Democrats do it too.
Of course you find that article funny. It’s Trump. You found it funny when Colbert called Trump’s mouth “Putin’s cock holster” too, didn’t you? Anything that ridicules Trump is funny, isn’t it? But – and you don’t have to admit this to me, but at least be honest with yourself – your reaction would be completely different if the exact same thing were said/depicted about Obama or de Blasio or Hillary or take your pick Democrat.
So, I dunno, maybe calling me a right-winger makes you feel better about yourself, but it doesn’t change the facts. If your “principles” change based on who you’re talking about, those aren’t principles, that’s just partisanship. Just because I don’t engage in partisanship doesn’t mean I support Trump, the Republicans or the right-wing generally. It shouldn’t, however, make you feel better that you’re trying to stifle dissent and debate by calling names rather than engaging on the merits of the discussion. If you have complaints about Trump (and there are, as I’ve said over and over and over and over, plenty of complaints to be made), make them on the merits. Implying that Trump is gay advances neither the argument nor the best interests of the left wing or our country. If you want Trump out of power and, more importantly, if you want to get rid of Trumpism, we have to be better. Most people don’t find it convincing when Democrats say “we’re not Trump”, but then engage in exactly the same kinds of mean-spirited policies and discussions.
LikeLike
Dienne,
I have not called you names. I think Trump is a nightmare. Words cannot describe my contempt for this ignorant, narcissistic bully.
I don’t think any Trump supporter will be moved if “we” are “better”than them, more high minded.
The Democrats tried that by forcing Al Franken out of the Senate without a single meeting of the Ethics Committee, with no chance to have due process. They wanted to show they were more ethical than the Republicans, who ignore Trump’s far more flagrant history of sexual assaults. I don’t know of a single woman who changed her vote by that empty demonstration of high mindedness.
I am generally a high minded person. But I don’t understand the double standard: Democrats admit error and are punished. Republicans deny error and go scotfree.
The tax plan that will pass next week takes health insurance from 13 Million people. The death of the CHIP program left millions of children uninsured. The richest will get a handsome tax cut. Corporations will increase their profits. How can anyone with a conscience not be disgusted and angry and even frightened? The Republican Party has become monstrous. Evil. Mean. It is time to be very angry indeed.
LikeLike
Can you please look up the definition of “man crush” already?
“Implying that Trump is gay advances neither the argument nor the best interests of the left wing or our country.”
A man-crush doesn’t imply that a man is gay.
“you’re trying to stifle dissent and debate by calling names rather than engaging on the merits of the discussion. If you have complaints about Trump (and there are, as I’ve said over and over and over and over, plenty of complaints to be made), make them on the merits.”
Pot Kettle Black.
LikeLike
You too have called me a Trump lover, Diane, albeit not lately, for which, thank you. But you do continue to let several commenters on this blog – several examples right here above – call me all sorts of things along the lines of Trump lover and Putin operative, etc. without saying anything.
“I don’t think any Trump supporter will be moved if “we” are “better”than them, more high minded.”
Sigh. It’s not about Trump supporters, Diane. Anyone who still thinks that Trump – who openly brags about grabbing women “by the p*ssy” – is presidential material is beyond our reach. But it is about the millions of disaffected, suffering Americans who, while they may not like Trump, also don’t see a reason to vote for the Democrats. They are reachable if they are given reason. It’s also about ourselves. What kind of person do you want to be? Do you want to lower yourself in response to Trump? Do you want him to have that kind of control over what kind of person you are?
As for Franken, he has been accused by eight women. Those women have accused him of grabbing their butts and forcing kisses on him. Is this the kind of man you want representing the Democrats in Congress? If we were talking about locking him up, then I would absolutely say he deserves an investigation and a trial – that’s the American justice system. But there is no right to be a U.S. Senator. Kevin Spacey did not get a hearing, yet he has been virtually erased from Hollywood – is that okay with you? It’s okay with me – it’s what should happen when someone proves himself to be sleazy. The reality is that when your behavior crosses ethical lines, you tend to be relieved of your employment – your employer tends to consider your behavior to be not representative of what they expect of their employees. Franken wasn’t really in a position to be fired, but I’m glad he (finally) had the decency to step down. As for Trump and Moore, that’s up to the Republicans. If they want to be the party of predators, that’s their business. It’s not a double standard, it’s just that I can only deal with my own side, the same as I can only deal with my own children. How other people decide to raise their children is up to them.
As for your last paragraph, yes, exactly. Those are exactly the things we need to be focused on. Every time we get distracted by Trump’s circus performance, we lose sight of his actual egregious policies. It’s his policies that we need to stop. But howling in outrage when he’s intentionally being outrageous isn’t going to stop those policies, much less lowering ourselves to their level. The only thing that will stop those policies is wide-spread outcry, but that means we need to convince people – people on all sides of the political spectrum – to join us. That means working with them, not looking down at them and calling them “deplorable” and telling them they’re too stupid to understand their own interests.
LikeLike
Sadly many are indeed too stupid to understand their own interests. They believe the lies of Trump, McCennell, Ryan, and the rest. They think coal is coming back. They think Trump will give everyone coverage and lower their premiums.sad.
LikeLike
Sorry, I meant, of course, “…forcing kissed on them“.
LikeLike
The Russian interference is quite real and also a welcome distraction from the very same and worse activities being perpetrated for the same kind of reasons by American companies like Cambridge Analytica, Palantir, and paid liars like Rick Berman, among many others. It would be nice if all that was discussed along side Russia, but don’t hold your breath.
LikeLike
From what I’ve read, the Russians did the same thing to the UK to cause Brexit to break up NATO but after the UK left NATO, the rest of NATO’s countries’ citizens voted to reject what Russia was trying to do throughout Europe, and NATO has survived so far with France and Germany signing self-defense packs that include increasing and improving their military.
In fact, I read a few days ago that the President of France has stepped on the world stage to replace the President of the United States as a world leader since Trump has revealed to the world that he can’t lead a half dozen mice to raid a cheese factory.
LikeLike
I think the Republicans had seven investigations of Benghazi and came up empty.
I wish they had the same interest in investigating Trump’s daily violation of the emoluments clause.
LikeLike
“The GOP spent over $82 million tax payer dollars on four Clinton related scandals pushed by the Republicans lawmakers leading up to a much anticipated report from Star the Independent Council. Finally the findings of the Star report were released in September 2000, with the following conclusion. “This office determined that the evidence was insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that either President or Mrs. Clinton knowingly participated in any criminal conduct.”
And this was before the Benghazi witch hunt.
“Pay Us Back! Republicans Have Spent $20.5 Million Of Your Money On Benghazi Probe” and the GOP found no Democrat to blame.
“House Republicans are spending $8,000 a day investigating Benghazi. The State Department has spent $14 million on answering requests from Republicans that are related to the Benghazi investigations. The current House Select Committee on Benghazi has spent $6.5 million. The result of all the Republican spending binge has been that no evidence of wrongdoing has been found.”
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/04/09/pay-back-republicans-spent-20-5-million-money-benghazi-probe.html
LikeLike
Propaganda is different than hacking. I think efforts to open our democracy, take money out of politics, and put honest journalism back into the news should be step one in the “Russiaphobia” treatment. Then follow up with preventing the parties (especially the Dems)from acting like self-protective corporations-serving donors who buy policy instead of responding to the will and needs of the masses. Finally, open primaries, make registration easier…these things might make people less susceptible the low-rent type of Russia hacking that forced the Dems to make such a colossal blunder and Hillary to allow Trump to run a campaign to the left of her.
LikeLike
Yes, yes and yes, but be prepared to be called a “Trump troll” or a Putin lover.
LikeLike
Just saw a video on The Jimmy Dore show, guest was Nomiki Konst, former Sanders delegate, now participating in DNC reform commission. “Revelations” (not really): Hillary ran the DNC during the campaign; hundreds of millions disappeared to 5 (appointed, not elected) consultants while state level leaders were cashed strapped… I am no Putin fan, but the real enemies of democracy are within.
LikeLike
Trump ran a campaign to the left of HRC? Trump started his campaign by demonizing Mexicans and talking about building a wall. He’s a climate change denier and claims that it’s a hoax. For years Trump pushed the birther nonsense about Obama. Trump ran as a Republican, the party of far right wingerism gone wild.The Hillary haters just will not admit that a lot of the antipathy for her was good old fashioned misogyny.
LikeLike
Trump acknowledged the plight of the working class, the rigging of the system against Sanders, had spoken publicly about our over- involvement in the middle east, promised to drain the swamp… All Clinton had was more war, more Wall St. and I’m not him. Yeah, crazy populist douchebaggery ended up left of corporatist elite warmongering.
LikeLike
Everything Trump said about the plight of the working class was a lie. See the tax bill.
LikeLike
I agree 100%. The man is pathological, a sociopath that likely puts himself and his brand ahead of everything. ..likely even his own children. BUT he was smart enough to know that the Democrats and Hillary weren’t even willing to pretend they were representing the working class and ready to reign in Wall St, back workers, protect the environment, flip allegiance from war budget to education and infrastructure…
LikeLike
And PS: Trump was and is full of it, a puffer-fish showboat and PT Barnum carnival barker clown with a buncha empty suit kids and tag along eager to fatten themselves in the wake of his waste-trail…isn’t it sad how Hillary offered so little in terms of a better path forward? She lost to the most beatable Dufus in the world because she stubbornly refuses to represent the working class of this country and reign in the banker/donor class buying policy and polticians. That ain’t misogyny because the boys do it too.
LikeLike
Trump’s base is the fundamentalist evangelicals. They are fueled by racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia. He played to resentment and hatred of the Other. Nothing left about that.
LikeLike
I am happy to hear specicifics about how Hillary Clinton hit the ground with a platform that reigned in military spending and drone wars (as senator she voted for war, as SOS she approved the spread of war and drone strikes…), her plans regarding college costs and debt or the avarice of wall street, entitlements for the wealthy, health care…How she beat Sanders is another matter. She ran the DNC as she ran her campaign that got full cooperation from the DNC. The revelation led to the exit of DWS and dropped that stink bomb in “feed me the question Donna”‘s lap when she took over as DNC chair. The establishment, funded by rich donors, actively resisted the will of its base and Independents like me who once were reliable Dem voters. I am currently watching an interview with a former NSA analyst who invented some of that data analysis methods that might have been used to help the DNC figure out what happened…if the DNC had been willing to share it’s servers.
LikeLike
Thank you for pointing out a distinction that people who should know better refuse to make.
And thank you also for pointing out another fact people refuse to acknowledge, which is that, lying though he was, Trump did run to Hillary’s Left on trade and foreign intervention issues, and was able to peel away support from her on that basis.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for thanking me. Hope your holidays find you well, but just so you know: Because of Donald Trump, we are saying “Merry Christmas” again. We’re saying better than we have, in a long time. Ever, maybe. We’re winning at Christmas again. BIGLY!
LikeLike
If the only question is “Did the Russians try to influence the U.S. election?” the obvious answer is of course they did. Why wouldn’t they? First, we’ve been doing it for decades all over the globe. We’re hardly in a position to get indignant when other countries do it back to us. Second, the way Hillary was rattling her saber and threatening Russia, they’d have to be idiots not to prefer Trump.
But the real questions are, were Russian efforts influential enough to matter or were there other, far more important factors (like Hillary herself, for instance)? And, was there any criminal collusion with the Russians on the part of the Trump campaign? It’s that latter question that everyone is assuming is yes, based largely on numerous extremely over-hyped media stories that have mostly all but fallen apart. To date, there is no evidence of criminal collusion between the Trump administration and Russia (with or without Wikileaks’ help). A couple intelligence agencies (pretending to be 17 intelligence agencies) saying “trust us” does not constitute evidence.
Incidentally, Lloyd, the “Trump troll” and “works for Putin” shticks are very old, very lame and, frankly, very boring. Find a new way to silence your opposition.
LikeLike
You are correct in asserting that Russia acting in what it believes to be it’s National interest is to be expected all nations do . And that national interest is the interest of whoever the ruling elite would be . In our case it is a Corporatocracy. In Russia’s case a crime syndicate . One as morally debase as the other . But that is simply Foreign Affairs 101.
You are also correct that there were far more significant reasons that Hillary lost the election than the Russian interference .
However that does not imply that in an election as close as this was where the two candidates were separated by 70 thousand votes over three states swing states and a few hundred thousand votes over several more states . You would have to be born without a brain stem to believe that the constant drip, drip, drip, of negative stories did not influence a tiny percentage of the population to vote for someone other than Clinton . That by the time the Comey letter came out it cascaded into a loss . One that may not have happened had the Comey letter just been isolated.
How you could prove that post facto is another story . But the vote spread was less than that in the CD next to mine. So on what basis do voters make their determination . Because none of them actually read the emails . It just confirmed the negative image of the candidate . And it had the advantage of being reported on the front pages and on the evening News rather than in a negative add which everyone assumes is politics as usual. Even the internet crap was not seen as coming from an opponents campaign .
As for Trump . If the amount of smoke ,lies ,denial, cover up , meeting and guilty pleas ….. against Trump were against Clinton . Even NYCPSP who I am convinced is a bot out of Chappaqua NY . Would have Hillary hanging from the pole in front of the White House .
The only reason Trump would be interested in adoptions would be to cultivate a Harem of young teen girls . Okay so that turned out to be BULL SHIT (sorry ) . One does not lie constantly if one does not have a reason to lie . It is to clever by far to portray Trump as having a fragile ego that can not accept that his victory was influenced by Russia when he never thought he would win in the first place .
The Flynn guilty plea was in exchange for a lifetime sentence for conspiracy to commit kidnapping . A plot that he can still be prosecuted for in NY . But Flynn has probably implicated more than a few people who will not be able to escape prosecution in NY.
We have the specter of the Republican FBI being discredited by the Republican party and the right wing media . It is almost laughable .
When the next round of pleas and indictments come will you still be questioning .
LikeLike
NYC Public School Parent,
I tried once before to stop the Hillary Hysteria, and I didn’t succeed. Even I broke the ban.
FROM THIS MOMENT ON, ALL COMMENTS ABOUT HILLARY AND THE 2016 ELECTION ARE BANNED. TAKE THEM TO ANOTHER BLOG. I WILL DELETE THEM AS SOON AS I SEE THEM.
LikeLike
I’m not silencing anyone. You are still here blabbering away with your trollish trash designed to cast doubt. Now, if this was my Blog, I would have blocked you a long time ago since we can legally censor trolls in the private sector.
And publicly revealed your IP address and location as I blocked you.
In fact, if anyone is silencing debate, it is you as you blab on repeatedly using similar PSYOPs tactics the Alt-Right mob spews out.
LikeLike
“And publicly revealed your IP address and location as I blocked you.”
Wow. Just, well, wow. Says a lot about you.
LikeLike
Good to know, though.
LikeLike
I believe in the right as a private citizen to reveal who an anonymous troll/bully is or at least reveal the area where they are located.
If I had your IP address, I would ping it and have an 80-percent chance of discovering the region where you live within 30 miles of where your device’s signal originated. I would not be able to get your actual address, name or phone number.
In fact, I had someone once accuse me of being a communist on my iLookChina blog because of a post I wrote, and I pinged their IP address only to discover they were operating out of a remote area of Northwest China where Islamic insurgents and terrorists are operating close to China’s border with Afghanistan and Pakistan. I updated that post reporting the location of that IP address. The post was about the conflict China was having with the same insurgent groups that the U.S. is fighting in Afghanistan. These groups cross China’s borders to fight on both sides against the U.S. and China.
There was another troll/bully who was attacking me on the same site with profanity, insults, and threats and when I pinged his IP address, I discovered he lived in a far eastern province in Canada where the law will put people like him in prison, if found guilty, for up to twenty years. I reported that information to the authorities in Canada and the harassment, threats, and bullying stopped. I have no idea if he was warned or the Canadian authorities ended up arresting him and eventually put him in prison. I hope so.
LikeLike
“To date, there is no evidence of criminal collusion between the Trump administration and Russia (with or without Wikileaks’ help). A couple intelligence agencies (pretending to be 17 intelligence agencies) saying “trust us” does not constitute evidence.”
I’m not aware of any intelligence agencies having concluded that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone claim the agencies reached that conclusion, either.
LikeLike
“Find a new way to silence your opposition.”
I’d recommend they try using facts and evidence for that, but they’re both in short supply when it comes to this issue.
LikeLike
I rely on America’s intelligence agencies to do what is in our national self interest. That’s their job
LikeLike
Perhaps you do, Diane, but how has that worked out for us?
The Red Scares? The harassment of Martin Luther King? The overthrow of Allende? Bogus intelligence about Saddam’s WMDs and Ghaddafi’s “mass murder” of Libyans? The domestic spying on everyone, and especially of political dissidents?
The list of intelligence agency wrongdoing is endless – they’re called “spooks” for a good reason – and that people on the liberal/Left see them, given their documented behavior over many decades, as the saviors of the Republic is just unfathomable to me, and extremely dangerous.
Let’s put the shoe on another foot for a moment: what do you plan to say, if and when a left Democrat is elected president, and these same agencies – the FBI in particular, given its unconstitutional actions in the past – undermine them?
“Defending the national interest” will be the excuse then, too.
LikeLike
Michael, you can trust the KGB.
LikeLike
A textbook example of what-aboutism/ a red herring, that.
LikeLike
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-russia-hack-evidence/
LikeLike
OK some times you do have to check your sources.. Now here is the most prominent name on the list of authors of that memo.. What I am about to post is not proof that he has a vendetta but it certainly might sway a jury to question his testimony.
“After he left the NSA in 2001, Binney was one of several people investigated as part of an inquiry into a 2005 The New York Times exposé on the agency’s warrantless eavesdropping program.[citation needed] Binney was cleared of wrongdoing after three interviews with FBI agents beginning in March 2007, but in early July 2007, in an unannounced, armed, early morning raid, a dozen agents armed with rifles appeared at his house, one of whom entered the bathroom and pointed his gun at Binney, who was taking a shower. The FBI confiscated a desktop computer, disks, and personal and business records.[12] The NSA revoked his security clearance, forcing him to close a business he ran with former colleagues at a loss of a reported $300,000 in annual income.”
LikeLike
true. Knowing his own government is willing to trample the constitution, repeal habeas corpus, and hunt down any who reveal their corruption and criminality, Binn bypassed his lawyers to give a former higher-up a call to let them know he had multiple copies of files and info that would be revealed in court. A short time after Binns lawyer contacted him surprised that immunity had been offered.
LikeLike
Not disputing his motives for talking to the Times . But like Greenwald who also is a skeptic they have motive that may be questionable as did Flynn.
Fact two Guilty pleas for lesser crimes in return for cooperation that has in all probability already happened . Two indictments that will put Manaford and company away for many years .
Fact there is no innocent explanation for the actions of Trump and his close associates. Next round of indictments will blow the dam.
That is why the right wing fake news machine and the Benghazi crew are discrediting and trying to shut down the investigation. Benghazi was over 4 years of bs .
LikeLike
Fact: Flynn was indicted for lying to FBI agents about meeting with the Russian ambassador after Trump was elected (a common practice for incoming administrations), and not “colluding with Russia to elect Trump,” and which has yet to be proven, despite the magical thinking on this blog and elsewhere.
Think about it: if it wants to, the “intelligence community” can provide us with high-resolution photographs from outer space showing us picking our noses on the street; do you really think that if Trump and his people were actively colluding with the Russians to “hack” the election, that the NSA wouldn’t know, and wouldn’t have already leaked that information?
Fact: it was the DNC, through its own counsel, that paid a former British MI-5 agent to engage with “sources inside the Russian government” in order to discredit Trump.
Fact: the investigation into Flynn revealed that it was in fact Israel, not Russia, that was interfering with US government policy, over the US’ abstention on a UN vote – props to President Obama on that one, since previous Presidents would have vetoed it – condemning Israeli settlements in Palestine.
Trump and many of his supporters are almost cartoonishly evil, but it’s a delusion to think that he’s our President because of the near-occult machinations of a foreign power. No, he’s President because we’ve permitted the conditions that made for his election.
The fault lies not with the stars, or an all-powerful/evil Putin, but with ourselves, and the sooner we admit and address that, the sooner we defeat Trumpismo.
LikeLike
If it was “common practice” for the incoming National Security Advisor to meet with Russians, whydid Flynn lie about it?
LikeLike
I assume he lied about it because he’s a sleaze, and not as smart as he thinks he is. However, that doesn’t automatically make him a traitor. He should have done what any intelligent person called before the FBI should do: get a lawyer and refuse to say anything without their advice.
However, if you ask the question in order to cast doubt on whether officials of an incoming government meet with diplomatic representatives of other countries, then you’re questioning basic government and diplomatic practice.
When the Flynn story first broke, virtually every newspaper article mentioned, even if they buried it deep in later paragraphs, that it is common practice for State Department and national security officials to meet with foreign diplomats and their government counterparts. To suggest otherwise defies common sense. It’s in the national interest for them to meet, however loathsome we may find either or both parties.
LikeLike
Michael,
Does that explain the many meetings with Russian officials before the election? Does that explain Don Jr.’s meeting with a bunch of Russians in June 2016?
LikeLike
Michael Fiorillo
Flynn was not indicted he copped a plea .,big difference . Don’t worry Mueller already had everything he needed from him before he agreed to that plea . As for NSA surveillance, he probably has that too.
This is a classic crime syndicate investigation . Notice how Flynn’s son went dead silent , in contrast to three weeks ago when he was taunting the Feds thinking a pardon would always be forth coming .. This is not about obstruction or lying to the FBI
This is about obstructing to cover up serious felonies and Flynn knows that the Feds are the least of his problems as that the crimes were committed in NY . I think he would prefer doing a few years in a federal detention center than the Tombs . A presidential pardon would not help him or his son. As that the crimes were also state crimes .
If Mueller didn’t have the goods it would have been an indictment .
If this posted twice ?????
LikeLike
I find it very odd that there are posters on here this desperate to defend the Trump administration to the extent that they keep shouting “no evidence of wrongdoing, no evidence of wrongdoing”.
Hello?? Trump FIRED his FBI director after the FBI director refused to follow Trump’s order (or as Trump’s defenders like to say “a suggestion” that was a firing offense not to obey) to drop the Flynn investigation stat.
Trump fired Comey. Trump fired Comey after making the unprecedented move to speak directly to Comey and directly “suggest” Comey drop the Flynn investigation. Trump fired Comey after Comey’s grand jury continuation made it clear that he would not obey Trump’s “suggestion” to stop investigation would could be a major crime.
Has an attempt by a President to stop an investigation into his campaign’s contacts with Russia ever been more evident? That is not the action of an innocent man. The actions of an innocent man are the Clintons sitting quietly while two different right wing special prosecutors extended their investigation years and years and years to look for any possible wrong doing. The actions of a guilty man is Nixon firing Archibald Cox to try to shut down an investigation.
I think what sickens me most about this is that the same people who use innuendo to attack one of the most investigated politicians in history (HRC) are willing to bend over backward to pretend that what Trump does are the normal actions of a completely innocent President. It is NOT normal to make special requests to FBI Directors to shut down investigations of close campaign advisors and fire them when they won’t. It is NOT normal to send very top campaign aides, advisors, and family to meet with Russians offering dirt on Hillary Clinton and then change the RNC platform statement on the Ukraine to what Putin wants. It is NOT normal to own a large corporation bankrupted so many times that no American bank would lend to it that suddenly found themselves with large infusions of cash while their son talks about how they don’t need American banks anymore because they can get their financing from Russia. It is NOT normal to promise to release tax returns to clear it up and then don’t. It is NOT normal to claim you have copies of Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate which you will reveal at a later date. It is NOT normal to claim that Ted Cruz’ dad conspired to assassinate JFK. (Sorry…got carried away with those last 2.)
The fact that anyone on this blog is still insisting that Trump’s actions are perfectly explainable suggests there are trolls on this blog.
LikeLike
You don’t get it NYCpsp, and I doubt you ever will, but I’ll respond for the benefit of other readers of the blog:
It’s not about “defending” Trump (which is exactly the kind of smear you’ve recently accused me of); I personally look forward to the news reports telling us that he’s keeled over dead while sitting on the toilet, tweeting and eating a Big Mac (sorry for the gross imagery, but I couldn’t help myself). The satisfaction of that might almost override the reality of a Pence presidency.
No, it’s about defending facts, reason and sound journalistic practices against propaganda, hysteria and self-serving excuses by Clinton, Inc. It’s also about having some knowledge of history and the behavior of the FBI and other US intelligence agencies. That’s why expecting them to be saviors of the Republic is utter folly and madness.
It’s basic psychology and politics: every time Rachel Maddow, et. al. starts hyperventilating about some eureka discovery against Trump, discoveries that so far have a consistent pattern of later being refuted or walked way back, Trump is a little better inoculated against the next Shock Horror headline, and his rants about “Fake News” become a little more credible in the eyes of people.
People on the liberal/left have decades of experience, and an endless list of examples, of the FBI functioning as a vehicle for political repression, yet you would trust this institution to save us, when we can only save ourselves?
It’s a delusion, a complete and utter delusion, and a sign of the profound political weakness, nay, bankruptcy, of the liberal class.
LikeLike
This is in response to Diane’s comment about Donnie, Jr. meeting with (alleged) Russian government figures: it’s also true that the DNC paid former MI-6 spook Christopher Steele to milk “Russian government sources” for dirt on Trump. Does that mean that Hillary was “colluding” with Putin?
LikeLike
No praellrl. Christopher Steele’s initial client was GOP. Putin’s interest was disrupting our election. Putin won and so did his candidate. Yesterday Putib said something positive about Putin. Trump called to thank him for his flattery. Did you ever see a US president so eager to be praised by tyrants and murderers? Humiliating for us all. When you see a clip of Trump criticizing Putin as he has criticized our allies, let me know. He is Putin’s puppy
LikeLike
Trump has also criticized all of the US intelligence agencies and refused to accept their findings that Russia/Putin meddled in our election. Trump supports Putin and rejects the findings of all SEVENTEEN of U.S. intelligence agencies. Trump has gone out of his way to demean and criticize and attack the FBI, one of thsoe 17 agencies while continuing to praise and support Putin.
LikeLike
If it was the Republicans who financed the Steele dossier, then what are we to make of the following October 24,2017 New York Times headline and accompanying article: “Clinton Campaign and Democratic Party Helped Pay for Russia Trump Dossier?”
Just as with the old adage, “Sleep With Dogs, Wake Up With Fleas, ” it can accurately be said, “Sleep With Spies, Wake Up With Disinformation.”
The moment you become involved with any intelligence/spy agency of any country, you are trapped in a hall of mirrors, where reality and its appearance are being manipulated on too many levels to perceive… Wheels within wheels.
To think that these agencies are going to save the Republic, by proving that Trump and Putin conspired to “hack”the election, and the virulence with skeptics are attacked, shows some resemblance to 9/11 “Truthers,” who were convinced that if they could just show the world that the attacks were a Giant Conspiracy by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, then the entire edifice of the National Security State and criminal government behavior would come tumbling down, with The People rising up in righteous anger.
That never worked out, and neither will the magical thinking that the Republic will be saved from Trumpismo by allowing factions within the National Security State to bring down Trump.
That their claims were preposterous and easily refuted did not quiet them, it just made them more aggressive in their attacks on skeptics; it also did nothing to stop or slow the real destruction of our liberties or the loss of control over the National Security State after 9/11,which now is better funded,more powerful, and has an even stronger choke-hold over the nation.
And you really expect these agencies to deliver us?
LikeLike
The initial commission of the Steele dossier was by Republicans who wanted to stop Trump
LikeLike
Who paid for the Steele dossier?
The Trump Dossier: What We Know and Who Paid for It https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/us/politics/steele-dossier-trump-expained.html
It’s like Murder on the Orient Express. Both sides did.
Who paid for it mattersless than its credibility. Apparently Steele is a very experienced British spy.
LikeLike
Wait, the Democrats involvement with “Russian government sources” on the Steele dossier was garden variety opposition research, but Trump’s interaction with same (though carried out much more ham-handedly) is “treason?” That’s going to lead to impeachment? Good luck.
You see, that’s why no one outside of True Believers in the Democratic Party and liberal media bubbles thinks this is going anywhere, and based on what we know so far, rightly so; it’s 9/11 Trutherism, but this time propelled and validated by powerful institutions, in the interest of their maintaining control of a campaign donor-dominated Democratic Party. It’s related to their explicit refusal, nay deathly fear of, following the proven success of the Sanders’ campaign finance model, which relies on millions of small donors, rather than a incestuous network of centi-millionaires and billionaires.
There are so many awful things Trump and his ilk have done and are doing, and by diverting attention away from what should be the sole focus on that, it makes Trump stronger than he’d otherwise be.
LikeLike
Michael, I think you are under reaching. If Trump is deeply in debt to the Russian oligarchs, who are controlled by Putin, we are in big trouble. I don’t know how you equate the Steele dossier with being in Putin’s hands. He is a very very bad man. He is not Uncle Joe.
LikeLike
Uncle Joe was a bad man, too, far worse than Putin, who mostly just jails his enemies, instead of killing them. But that’s all irrelevant.
What is relevant is that, after Trump secured the Republican nomination and GOP sources stopped funding Fusion GPS/Steele’s research (aided by “Russian government sources”), it continued to be funded by the Clinton campaign/DNC.
That is not in dispute, as it has been reported by the Washington Post and New York Times, and has never been denied or rebutted by any of the principals involved.
Does that make Hillary Putin’s lap dog? By your logic, it might.
The point is that there is so much to oppose/block Trump on, rather than trying to nail him on what is essentially common behavior (opposition research and pre-inaugural contacts with foreign dilplomats), but doing that would involve going against the Dems donor class, and they’d rather lose everything, and that we lose everything, than do that.
LikeLike
It is irrelevant who funded Steele dossier. Both parties did. Putin is Trump’s best friend.
LikeLike
With the failures of the intelligence community (CIA etc) I do not blame Trump for not trusting this intelligence.
LikeLike
First: Democrats are diverse. They do not all think the same.
Second: I don’t think you are an Amercian citizen because it is obvious that you are totally ignorant of the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Private sector websites and blogs in the United States often censor citizens that CEO’s and managers do not agree with and in the private sector, employees can lose their jobs for expressing what they think if the management doesn’t like it. For instance, recently, it was pointed out on this blog that a teacher’s opinion was censored and removed from Facebook.
The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (written in 1789) says:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Nowhere in the 1st Amendment does it say I can’t censor someone on my private sector blog. I am not the U.S. Congress or the Government.
Third: This isn’t my blog. I’m just someone that follows this blog and leaves comments and if Diane Ravitch doesn’t like what I say in my comments, she can censor me by not allowing my comments to appear and that has nothing to do with what you allege is “Blocking someone’s opinion in a forum because it differs from yours is contrary to what the word democracy is supposed to entail.”
And what does the word “Democracy” really mean? a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
Where in that definition does it say private citizens can not censor or block an opinion on their private sector Blog/website that they do not agree with? In fact, the more freedom we have, the more power we have to tune out and censor tyrants and idiots like Betsy Devos, Putin, or Trump.
I have blocked comments on my blogs in the past. I will do it again in the future, and my comments have been blocked by far-right extremist blogs.
LikeLike
Thank you, Lloyd.
Some very nasty anonymous commenters think they have a First Amendment right to post j my private blog. They don’t.
LikeLike
TRO, why are you still here? Why do you deign to share your garbage with us? Did you really just tell Diane to “shut up”? Honestly? “[B]ootlicker”? If that’s how you feel, why are you still here? What do you think you are accomplishing? What respect have you earned?
LikeLike
TRO left and is not coming back. Very bad manners.
LikeLike
Easy there, Tiger.
LikeLike
This person has been writing increasingly vicious comments. He or she will not return
LikeLike