Our occasional commenter, who uses the sobriquet “Democracy” posted the following analysis of Putin’s involvement in the 2016 election. Russia and Wikileaks crippled Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and at least eight Republican Senators knew it. They endorsed a report which reached that conclusion. Yet they continued to defend Trump.
Democracy posted:
Volume V of the Senate Intelligence Committee investigative report on the 2016 election:
“the Russian government engaged in an aggressive, multifaceted effort to influence, or attempt to influence, the outcome of the 2016 presidential election…Manafort’s presence on the Campaign and proximity to Trump created opportunities for Russian intelligence services to exert influence over, and acquire confidential information on, the Trump Campaign. Taken as a whole, Manafort’s highlevel access and willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services, particularly Kilimnik and associates of Oleg Deripaska, represented a grave counterintelligence threat…”
“Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian effort to hack computer networks and accounts affiliated with the Democratic Party and leak information damaging to Hillary Clinton and her campaign for president. Moscow’s intent was to harm the Clinton Campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, help the Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and undermine the U.S. democratic process…While the GRU and WikiLeaks were releasing hacked documents, the Trump Campaign sought to maximize the impact of those leaks to aid Trump’s electoral prospects. Staff on the Trump Campaign sought advance notice about WikiLeaks releases, created messaging strategies to promote and share the materials in anticipation of and following their release, and encouraged further leaks. The Trump Campaign publicly undermined the attribution of the hack-and-leak campaign to Russia and was indifferent to whether it and WikiLeaks were furthering a Russian election interference effort.”
Click to access report_volume5.pdf
And if you’ve not read it before, here’s Adam Silverman, a national security expert, on that investigative report:
It’s quite clear…Trump and Republicans (and the NRA) are enthralled by and beholden to Putin.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
There is frightening and horrible truth here — that the GOP knew about Russia’s interference with our elections and wouldn’t do anything about it. A very good follow up today is from Timothy Snyder, “The Apocalypse We Choose: Mike Johnson’s record as Speaker of the House.”
https://snyder.substack.com/p/the-apocalypse-we-choose?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=310897&post_id=142214498&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=e3h0o&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
LikeLike
It’s clear that the U.S., in its coma of MAGA ignorance- fueled by our undermining of public education- is ripe for a takeover.
LikeLike
The question I have is why. Why does a party — which has steered its ship since 1917 when the Bolshevik Revolution transformed Russia around the threat of that group and the territory it inhabits— suddenly give shelter to its leader? Is it money? Can’t be. Republicans are not hurting for money. Is it philosophy? Do Republicans at the apex of leadership see Putin and Alexander Duggin as similar to them? Perhaps. Maybe they see Russia as help they cannot get here without risking prosecution.
One way or another it concerns power. Everything in politics is about power.
LikeLike
One depressing contribution to the question comes from Anne Applebaum in her 2020 “Twilight of Democracy: The Seductive Lure of Authoritarianism.”
LikeLike
“Is it money?”
Yes, it is about money in the sense that money buys power. And the xtian theofascists need that power to try to turn this country into an xtian theofascist version on the model of Iran.
“Is it philosophy?”
No, xtian theofascists don’t philosophize. They theologize. Two totally different modes of thinking/being.
The current xtian theofascism in this country has just about worn out its welcome. Many are starting to realize that these xtian reactionaries, revanchists are serious about destroying the diversity that makes this country what it is. . . and should be.
“One way or another it concerns power. Everything in politics is about power.”
Exactly and in the U.S. power = money. . . which is the answer to your first question.
LikeLike
Iran has the only theocratic government in the world. There’s a reason for that.
These god-botherers are aiming to destroy the Constitution and democracy. Madison and Jefferson knew better than to let religion sneak its nose under the tent. They knew the carnage that had been a hallmark of theocratic governments.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What’s the reason for the Iranian Theocracy? Look up the Coup of Mossedegh on google. In the 50’s Iran had a western style democracy with a prime minister. Their prime minister was going to nationalize Iran’s oil, giving it’s profits to it’s citizens. British Petroleum didn’t want that to happen so British and US intelligence engineered a coup and put the Shaw of Iran in power, establishing a monarchy. Mossedegh was sent to prison and all of his staff was executed. The 1978 Iranian revolution that established their theocracy was an overthrow of our the puppet monarchy that the US and Britain installed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t get your theory. Are you saying that the Republican Party – when it controlled the White House – directed the CIA to help a BRITISH oil company have an advantage over all the American oil companies?
LikeLike
I have absolutely no faith in the intelligence community at all. I believe that their assessments have an agenda and it’s not the truth. I came to that conclusion after the invasion of Iraq. Speaking of Julian Assange and wikileaks, what’s your position on him Diane? You’ve been silent regarding his extradition trial. Should he be found guilty of hacking and put in a US prison for life or executed for hacking under the US espionage act or is he another Daniel Ellsberg, being persecuted by the military industrial complex for exposing US war crimes?
LikeLike
We would need to see the evidence, of course. So far he looks more like a spy than a journalist
LikeLike
In case you don’t know Roy, he’s being prosecuted for the Chelsea Manning leaks that exposed war crimes in Afghanistan. “The U.S. government unsealed an indictment charging Assange with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion related to the leaks provided by Manning” From what I’ve read of the “hacking” charges, they’re very weak. Many other journalists, academics, and lawyers have said that Assange’s interactions with Manning are what is normally done in investigative journalism and that the charges against him are designed to scare other journalists from exposing war crimes.
LikeLike
Assange was also instrumental in disseminating Hillary’s hacked emails and tilting the 2016 election to Trump
LikeLike
Hi Diane, Yes, Assange did publish Hillary’s emails. He has always said that they did not come from a state actor. I’m sure that publishing her emails was helpful to Trump, but that’s not what Assange is being prosecuted for. I prefer truth over tribe, so I say he should not be extradited and prosecuted because the case against him is not unlawful and sets up a dangerous precedent for journalism.
LikeLike
ArtsSmart,
Chelsea Manning’s sentence was commuted by Obama. She paid a price.
Daniel Ellsberg didn’t insist he was above the law. He had a trial.
The knee jerk defense of Assange sounds like the knee jerk defense of Trump. We must assume they are so innocent that they should be immune from even having a trial. I assume – if they aren’t hypocrites – the neo-fascist Putin defenders would want Assange to have a trial and punishment modeled on what their hero Putin gave to Navalny. But lucky for Assange, our courts have not yet been completely taken over by the right wing (although that might happen soon.) If there isn’t a biased Federalist Society Republican judge who has his marching orders to either bend over backward for or against Assange, Assange will have his day in court. Just like Daniel Ellsberg did.
Assange is a “journalist” the way Tucker Carlson is a “journalist”. Both of them report the news that mother Russia approves of, and they aren’t searching for truth.
Does any really believe that Wikileaks just happened to get dirt on Democrats but not Republicans? If Bernie had been the nominee, they were waiting with selectively edited hacks of Bernie’s campaign to make him look bad. They hacked Macron in France, but the media didn’t play along.
I hope you wouldn’t defend Tucker Carlson as a “journalist”, but perhaps you would. Putin certain considers him a very fine one.
LikeLike
He is no Ellsberg.
LikeLike
Ellsberg strongly disagrees with you. He actually had possession of the leaked Manning documents and has made the case that he should also be prosecuted under the espionage act. https://www.newsweek.com/i-am-assange-daniel-ellsberg-other-allies-demand-us-prosecute-them-too-1766616
LikeLike
Too late. Ellsberg is dead.
The Hillary emails were a nothing burger but enough for the FBI to open an investigation and reinforce Trump’s claims about her.
LikeLike
Daniel Ellsberg: “I did this clearly at my own jeopardy and I am prepared to answer to all the consequences of this decision.”
Assange/Trump and their supporters: Some people are above the law so how dare you make us defend ourselves in trials. That’s for the little people. We are innocent folks being victimized and should be immune from having to stand trial, forever.
LikeLike
Assange is a traitor not a journalist. He should spend the rest of his life in prison.
LikeLike
A US traitor? He’s an Australian citizen.
LikeLike
I don’t think you can call Assange a “traitor”, seeing as he’s not an American citizen.
But he certainly is a felon and deserves pen time. LOTS of pen time.
LikeLike
No doubt the commenters here have little knowledge of the Assange case other than what they’ve been told by the main street media. He is a true hero who has endured hell for exposing the crimes and corruptions of the American Imperial project.
LikeLike
Sure. And Stalin was a pacifist.
LikeLike
That’s what I’ve found Duane. Most Assange haters that I’ve talked to think he’s being prosecuted for publishing Hillary’s emails.
LikeLike
Duane,
Chelsea Manning is the true hero. Not Assange.
Assange is Tucker Carlson.
Assange will have his day in court. Assange SHOULD have his day in court.
LikeLike
I guess the Kyiv post is now Russian propaganda? Navalny’s death was a blood clot, not poisoning, not murder.
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/28630
LikeLike
Navalny died of being imprisoned in the Arctic with a 19-year sentence for the crime of opposing Putin. No one knows but Putin and the prison officials what happened at the end.
His prison sentence, after his voluntary return from a failed effort to poison him, was a death sentence.
Anyone who poses a threat to Putin dies.
Navalny should have been a free man.
LikeLike
So typical. I proved that there is no evidence that Navalny was murdered, so you just move the goalposts. Remember this when you claim I’m the unhinged one.
LikeLike
Dienne,
No one but Putin and the prison workers knows the specifics of Navalny’s murder.
Not the Kyiv Post, not The Intercept, certainly not you.
I’ll say it again: Navalny was murdered by Putin, who first tried to murder him by putting a deadly poison on his underwear. That poison, Novochik, is manufactured only in Russia and has been used in other political murders.
Navalny survived the effort to murder him and returned to Moscow. When he landed, he was immediately arrested, put on trial for leaving the country and sentenced to prison. While in prison, additional years were added to his sentence. His crime? Opposing Putin and laughing at him.
He was sent to different penal colonies, eventually to the one in the harshest climate. He was kept in solitary for long stretches and not allowed to communicate with his family or lawyers.
He was murdered. His imprisonment was phony. His treatment was cruel. He should have been a free man.
I have no intention of explaining this to you again. Please don’t comment further. Navalny was murdered by Putin as surely as were journalists, Russian business men, and a helicopter pilot who fled to Ukraine, as well as the head of the Wagner Group, Proghozin. All murdered by Putin.
LikeLike
Believe whatever you will, Diane, but the Novichok story has been baloney from the get get. First it was allegedly in his tea, then his underwear, all without the slightest explanation of how it was pulled off or why, if it was in his underwear he was fine for hours in the hotel, on his way to the airport, boarding the flight and for plenty of time in the air and then all the sudden he got sick. How exactly does Novichok work? Supposedly it’s deadly on contact, but on the other hand both Navalny and the Skripals both had it on them for a significant period of time before succumbing (and in the Skripals’ case, they apparently succumbed simultaneously even though they have significantly different body masses).
But be that as it may, Navalny’s mother has been in custody of his body for over a week, yet she just buried him without an autopsy or investigation? Doesn’t sound to me like the actions of a mother who believed her son was murdered. And why didn’t Ukrainian officials pursue further investigation?
The thing about murder is burden of proof. I was taught innocence until proven guilty no matter how odious the accused may be and there is no evidence of guilt here beyond conspiracy theories.
Frankly sounds like a Tom Clancy reject novel, but I worked in mental health long enough to know I won’t be able to talk you out of it, so just go on living in fear of a guy on the other side of the planet who doesn’t know, or care, that you exist
LikeLike
After a few days, novichok cannot be detected.
You refuse to understand my careful explanation to you. You want to believe that the rule of law exists in Russia. It does not. You imagine that Putin is obedient to a system of justice. Whatever system exists is obedient to Putin.
No one debunked the story of Navalny’s poisoning. It was confirmed by doctors in Germany who saved his life.
Putin murdered Navalny by arresting him and imprisoning him. On what charges? Opposing Putin.
He was murdered as surely was Boris Nemtsov in 2015, shot on a bridge near the Kremlin. Murderer unidentified. Putin took “personal charge” of finding the killer. No luck.
And what a surprise that the Wagner Group’s Prigozhin boarded a plane exactly two months after he marched on Moscow and the plane exploded shortly after takeoff.
It really doesn’t matter what method Putin used. He murdered Navalny because Navalny was popular and threatened Putin’s dictatorship. Please stop writing to me.
LikeLike
Was he at the prison? How would he know when Navalny’s family doesn’t know?
Navalny was murdered by Putin. He was murdered by a jail sentence of 19 years in an Arcticcprison for the crime of opposing Putin. The method is a detail.
LikeLike
Be glad you don’t live in Indiana. Attorney General Rokita is the Attorney General for Indiana.
Attorney General Todd Rokita co-leads 27 states to victory, SCOTUS finds Trump eligible to appear on ballot
As AG Rokita previously and publicly predicted, the US Supreme Court unanimously sides with top Republican presidential candidate in 9-0 decision
Attorney General Todd Rokita co-led the charge in support of former President Donald Trump’s right to appear on the Colorado ballot, and today, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously agreed.
“I predicted this unanimous decision since the beginning,” Attorney General Rokita said. “This was a clear attempt to disenfranchise and dilute the voices of millions of voters who benefited from former President Donald Trump’s time as Commander in Chief.”
The U.S. Supreme Court opinion embraced the central argument put forward in two amicus briefs—one with 25 states, another with 27 states—led by Indiana and West Virginia. In this rare instance, the Constitution rightly gives Congress, not individual states, authority to decide who is eligible to run for federal office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
“With a 9-0 decision, I hope we can all now finally agree that Trump has a right to appear on the ballot,” Attorney General Rokita said. “This is a huge win for liberty and preserves confidence in the integrity of our elections.”
As a result of the Supreme Court’s decision, individual states cannot wield Section 3 to deny a candidate for federal office from the ballot—this resolves the issue nationwide.
LikeLike
Now the women of Indiana must lead the way and turn out to vote!
LikeLike
“This resolves the issue nationwide”.
Hah!
LikeLike