FBI Agrees with CIA: Russia Goal Was to Help Trump

The FBI agrees with the CIA that Russia's goal in interfering with the election was to help Donald Trump win.

James Comey should still resign. His own behavior during the weeks before the election permanently tarnished the FBI's integrity and reputation.

Donald Trump lost the popular vote by a margin greater than any U.S. President in history.

That (2.8 million) deficit is more than five times bigger than the 544,000 by which George W. Bush lost to Al Gore in 2000 - the second biggest popular vote deficit in history for a candidate who has still gone on to become President.

#Boycott Trump. Get the Free App. #GrabYourWallet.

Praise to Hulu, which pulled its ads from running on Breitbart News.

< Friday Open Thread | UnPresident Sunday >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Call me when they name the sources (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2016 at 10:17:22 AM EST
    From the NPR articled linked to in the post.

    Two intelligence sources say the FBI agrees with the CIA assessment that Russia interfered in the U.S. election, in part to help Donald Trump, clearing up any confusion and other reporting that the agencies weren't in sync.

    And when "they" omit such qualifiers as "in part."

    "in part...?" What does that mean? 99%? 20%? 3%?

    And then we have this:

    Wikileaks founder Julian Assange denied Thursday that hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta were stolen and passed to his organization by Russian state actors.


    Assange also said:

    In addition to the hacked emails from the DNC and Podesta, Assange admitted that Wikileaks received about three pages of information to do with the [Republican National Committee]  and Trump [during the campaign], but it was already public somewhere else."

    No doubt it was difficult to find anything bad about Trump that wasn't full blown in the media.

    But what's interesting here is that Assange says they received "about three pages." He didn't say emails. This lends credence to the FBI saying that the RNC's system was attacked but the hacker's failed.

    So we have Assange saying the Demo info didn't come from the Russians, admitting someone gave them three pages of Repub stuff and the NPR using unnamed sources who claim helping Trump was an "in part" affair and that this is all  based on "consensus."

    Say what????????????????

    Would you buy a used car with this type of info....much less launch attacks that tear at the very foundation of our country???

    Well, based on what has transpired the answer is yes,

    And not only this we have notable Gollywood types urging the Electors to disregard who elected them and not vote for Trump.

    Of course what that would do is throw the election into the House where the Repubs, after some blow hard sound and fury from the Demos, would elect Trump.

    But think maybe the markets might crash, businesses pull back expansion and hiring plans, bad actors such as Russia and China might take advantage of our confusion??

    China just seized a US Navy drone in the open sea. That, just in case you missed what Iran did in '79 and China did in '01, is an act of war.

    Is that what you want? I think not. But have you even considered all of the consequences of your actions?

    Call me when you call out Trump (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 17, 2016 at 10:37:52 AM EST
    Would you buy a used car with this type of info....much less launch attacks that tear at the very foundation of our country???

    But think maybe the markets might crash, businesses pull back expansion and hiring plans, bad actors such as Russia and China might take advantage of our confusion??


    Is that what you want? I think not. But have you even considered all of the consequences of your actions?

    Whoah!  That's sounds so ominous!  You must be absolutely horrified by Trump, since he - a candidate for President of the United States and now a President-elect - has done the very things you are complaining about.  Actually, that's not correct - he did far more, explicitly calling for a "revolution" when he thought that Obama won the election in 2012 while losing the popular vote.  Explicitly calling the election "rigged" and claiming voter fraud - both in 2012 and now - with no evidence.

    Trump calls for revolution, blasts Electoral College

    Explicitly calling for a revolution
    , something you claimed was "treason".  

    I look forward to your posts supporting his impeachment.  :)

    BTW - Your new requirement for using only named sources and unqualified conclusions (in an intelligence assessment, no less) is amusing - but  will be remembered.


    Well (none / 0) (#25)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Dec 17, 2016 at 11:00:35 AM EST
    The part I do find odd, is the refusal to testify before the Intelligence Committee, and then leak information to the press.

    So what is out there now is clear as mud.


    Frankly (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by FlJoe on Sat Dec 17, 2016 at 12:03:15 PM EST
    I don't see why the intel agencies should trust the Republicans at this time.

    There is nothing muddy about these statements from the horses mouth U.S. Says Russia Directed Hacks to Influence Elections

    In a statement from the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., and the Department of Homeland Security, the government said the leaked emails that have appeared on a variety of websites "are intended to interfere with the U.S. election process.".............
    "We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities," the statement said.
    Which all but names Putin.

    It is abundantly clear that the entire intelligence community and outside analysts have proof that Russian groups with close ties to the Russian government have commuted crimes in this country with the full intent of using the fruit of those crimes to further harm us.

    If you want to defend those crimes, go ahead but don't insult our intellegence by claiming the facts are muddy.


    You mean refusal lto brief them? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 17, 2016 at 12:27:31 PM EST
    Not sure why you find that odd - or why you're suggesting it's the same office/person refusing to testify that leaked the information, when you don't know who it was.

    Given the political nature of the House committee (not to mention their history), it's entirely understandable that the ODNI would want to make sure their information was as complete as possible before providing it to them.  They'll still try to attack the information and the credibility of the assessments, but it'll make their job a lot harder.


    Unnamed sources (3.00 / 4) (#38)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Dec 18, 2016 at 09:24:01 AM EST
    Unnamed sources are not much different than rumors.

    Where is the documentation for these claims?


    The intelligence agencies have it (2.33 / 3) (#44)
    by Yman on Sun Dec 18, 2016 at 12:16:11 PM EST
    ... and they're not going to reveal their sources and methods simply to satisfy the Putin/Trump defenders.



    Aren't the same agencies (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 18, 2016 at 02:34:05 PM EST
    who claimed that Saddam had WMD's?

    Why yes. Yes they are.


    Hah, ha, hah ... (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Yman on Sun Dec 18, 2016 at 02:58:06 PM EST
    This is rich.  The guy who maintained for years that Iraq had WMDs is suddenly reversing course in order to try to attack the intelligence community to defend the Big Cheetoh!

    Hahahahahahahahahahaha ....

    But not much of a surprise, given that you called challenging the election results "treason" just a week ago, while ignoring the fact that Trump called for a "revolution" and "march on Washington" in 2012.  You never answered the question - when will you be supporting Trump's impeachment for his "treason" under your definition.

    (cue crickets chirping)

    BTW - I'll take the intelligence community's analysis and facts over your baseless CTs every day of the week.


    As I recall, You claimed (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 18, 2016 at 03:02:25 PM EST
    and Still claim Saddam had WMDS.

    Isn't that what your many-times-repeated "he moved them to Syria" talking point was all about?

    Why yes. Yes it was.


    Someone secretly snuck into Syria (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 18, 2016 at 04:59:36 PM EST
    Jim's talking points from two months ago.

    Uh, no, they're not. (5.00 / 7) (#50)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Dec 18, 2016 at 03:35:05 PM EST
    JimAkaPPJ: "Aren't [these] the same agencies who claimed that Saddam had WMD's? Yhy yes. Yes they are."

    In fact, CIA analysts had never confirmed that Saddam Hussein regime still possessed WMD in 2002. Rather, then-CIA Director George Tenet had instead offered to President George W. Bush -- in a moment of braggadocio he came to dearly regret -- that such a confirmation would be a "slam dunk."

    When the WMD issue turned out to not be the "slam dunk" Tenet had promised, the Bush administration then resorted to manipulating what existing intelligence there was -- which then-British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw contemporaneously had admitted to Prime Minister Tony Blair "was thin," per the infamous "Downing Street Memo" of July 23, 2002 -- to make its case for war with Iraq:

    "[SIS Director Sir Richard Dearlove] reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."


    "The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force." (Emphasis is mine.)
    - Foreign Ministry Memorandum to Prime Minister Tony Blair (July 23, 2002)

    So, Jim, the historical record, as evidenced by the proverbial "smoking gun" that was the Downing Street Memo, doesn't support your contention that the CIA got it wrong regarding the existence of Iraqi WMD. That responsibility instead rests solely with the Bush administration itself, which first manufactured a deliberately misleading case for war in Iraq in support of a prematurely determined policy, and then sold that grievously misguided policy to the American people under patently false pretenses.

    And afterward, when the house of cards that was their policy subsequently fell apart in the court of public opinion as the situation on the ground in Iraq deteriorated, many of those same administration officials then sought to scapegoat CIA intelligence analysts as having gotten it wrong. But in fact, Bush officials themselves were the ones who had knowingly and intentionally misstated the CIA's actual findings for their own ends.

    That particular buck stops with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.



    et al (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 10:21:19 AM EST
    Biological weapons. The intelligence community consistently stated between the late 1990s and 2003 that Iraq retained biological warfare agents and the capability to produce more. However, there were intelligence gaps in Iraq's biological weapons programs, made explicit in the October 2002 NIE, which policymakers did not discuss.



    ... to stay in Iraq and finish the job, to confirm the status of any Iraqi weapons program one way or another. As it stands, those inspectors had by March 2003 pretty much determined that there were no existing WMD in Iraq, just residual traces of such from long-since terminated programs. Whatever evidence as it existed at the time was clearly overhyped and overstated by the Bush administration, for what were clearly domestic political purposes.

    Further, those UN inspections were the Bush administration's stated premise for seeking the congressional AUMF vote in October 2002 in the first place. But alas, your boy Dubya obviously had his fingers crossed at the time and was busy making other plans, in concert with the Anglo-American oil lobby. That's why UN inspectors were summarily ordered out of Iraq just prior to the U.S.-British invasion, before they could complete their work.

    Despite your longstanding insistence to the contrary on this and other issues of import, Jim, facts DO matter. 4,742 American military personnel and contractors lost their lives in Iraq, and another 34,877 were wounded, all on behalf of a quasi-colonial war of choice that was waged on behalf of Anglo-American oil interests for Iraq's petroleum reserves -- a war which we now know in bitter retrospect was predicated entirely upon gross exaggerations, misleading analogies and outright falsehoods.

    That's a hard truth with which we're going to have to live, rather than live down. Eventually, you and I and others here will pass from the scene. But our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren are going to have to live with the results and consequences of our presence on this planet. And they won't necessarily have the luxury of inhabiting a cozy parallel universe of self-deluding faerie tales, as you appear so often wont to do here.



    This is seriously funny (none / 0) (#76)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 08:18:20 PM EST
    The guy who claimed Iraq had WMDs as recently as 2 months ago is now claiming the intelligence agencies were wrong when they made the same claim.

    Heh, heh, heh ...

    Let us know which of you wins that argument you're having with yourself.


    Is that your wet dream? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Chuck0 on Sat Dec 17, 2016 at 10:23:34 AM EST
    War with China?

    Drones. Maybe (none / 0) (#19)
    by KeysDan on Sat Dec 17, 2016 at 10:36:06 AM EST
    a return call from China about that nice call Trump took from Taiwan.  Trump and that 93-year old foreign agent lobbyist/advisor can get together again and think it all through.

    Stay calm (none / 0) (#18)
    by FlJoe on Sat Dec 17, 2016 at 10:26:39 AM EST
    Jim, just try to relax, if you are lucky Putin and Trump will use a little KY jelly on your credulous butt (metaphorically speaking of course).

    Jim's comments always bring (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by vml68 on Sat Dec 17, 2016 at 10:43:02 AM EST
    Also holds true for our new Dear Leader. (none / 0) (#23)
    by vml68 on Sat Dec 17, 2016 at 10:53:39 AM EST
    There's been some (none / 0) (#36)
    by Nemi on Sun Dec 18, 2016 at 07:17:45 AM EST
    really funny comments on Twitter 'messing' with this misspelling. ;)

    But what I don't understand is, why media describe Donald Tr*mp's tweets as if he types them himself? As in the headline: Spelling-challenged Donald Trump. He's explained how he yells(!) the text out to an assistent who then types them up for him. In this one instanse I believe him, if for no other reason than I wouldn't really expect him, himself, to be anything but 'spelling-challenged'. Contrary to his assistents.


    I always (none / 0) (#24)
    by FlJoe on Sat Dec 17, 2016 at 10:57:18 AM EST
    flash on this

    Idiot wind
    Blowing like a circle around my skull,
    From the Grand Coulee Dam to the Capitol
    Idiot wind
    Blowing every time you move your teeth

    and unfortunately early last month the wind really began to howl and a hard rain is going to fall.


    You can (none / 0) (#22)
    by FlJoe on Sat Dec 17, 2016 at 10:45:26 AM EST
    also take solace in the fact you are not alone.

    Make America great again....and pucker up for Putin.  


    Well, I dodged (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2016 at 05:17:04 PM EST
    all the rocks and dirt. And I kept on looking and looking for some response to my points. But I didn't find any.  Oh well, no surprise.

    ChuckO: I see that you did miss it. Seizing our property on the high seas is an act of war. Obama will ignore it. But at some point China will decide that Guam, or Midway is theirs.

    KeysDan....so what was the reason China took down one our P3 patrol planes in spring of 2001... They were testing Bush...Who did nothing. Of course they didn't have to test Obama. They knew he was weak.


    Putin and Trump will use a little KY jelly on your credulous butt.

    Hate to tell you but projecting is all you're going to get. ;-)


    I don't see why the intel agencies should trust the Republicans at this time

    Uh, maybe it is because the Repubs have the right to oversee their activities??

    "...We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia'....."

    We believe is a qualifier. Let me know when he says,, "Assange is lying when he said the emails didn't come from Russia. We know that they did."

    Yman, I'm complaining that the Demos complaints are unproven and harmful to the country. The last time I checked Trump didn't try to cancel Obama's election in 2012.

    And you do remember all the grief Bush took for using his unnamed sources...???


    Trump did try to cancel (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by MKS on Sat Dec 17, 2016 at 05:37:24 PM EST
    the election.  That is point of birtherism.

    Why do post here on a site of the Left? It appears you are merely here to antagonize. That is why I would ban you.


    Why are you trying to pick a fight? (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2016 at 08:45:08 PM EST
    I'm here because I love an exchange of ideas. I even learn something every now and then.

    That's what liberals do.


    Funny (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by jondee on Sat Dec 17, 2016 at 10:16:11 PM EST
    Up until recently, you had a cartoon on your blog of Uncle Sam with a pistol marked "liberalism" in his mouth.

    That sort of thing might lead some to believe you're being somewhat fraudulent in describing yourself as liberal.


    jondee, you are totally off subject (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 18, 2016 at 10:57:27 AM EST
    ask the question on the open thread and I will respond.

    You are only here to (none / 0) (#39)
    by MKS on Sun Dec 18, 2016 at 10:05:42 AM EST
    what you term "pick a fight."  Or, be a troll.  

    An exchange of ideas presupposes you actually have ideas, and facts and reasoned arguments.  Not drive-by bullet points of conservative apologia.


    I have responded in the open thread. (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 18, 2016 at 10:58:24 AM EST
    You have tried to change the subject (none / 0) (#54)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 18, 2016 at 05:26:59 PM EST
    in the open thread.

    The topic under discussion was whether or not Trump had done in the past the very same thing you're accusing Democrats of doing.


    jondee, I didn't respond to you (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 18, 2016 at 07:03:38 PM EST
    My response was to MKS #39.

    Please try to keep up.


    I'm keeping up with your (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 18, 2016 at 07:48:35 PM EST
    typically hypocritical hiding and ducking away from the fact that Trump did the exact same thing you accused Democrats of.

    Maybe if you actually thought these things through, rather than just posting what the angry swarm at Breitbart are all saying, you'd have less problems.


    Hmmmmm (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 10:11:39 AM EST
    So are you ignoring that Hillary, via her supporters, tried to prevent Obama from being nominated in 2008?

    Yes you are in an obvious attempt at what....??

    Look, neither Trump or Hillary was trying to negate an election. They were trying to prevent a candidate from being nominated.

    Hillary in 2008 and Trump in 2012.

    There is a big difference between trying to block a candidate and over turning an election. I mean the DNC was even helping Hillary and opposing Sanders. Nasty, but that's politics.

    But the Demos are trying to change an election. The TV is awash in Gollywooders and other Lefties telling electors to disregard the directions given them by the voters and not vote for Trump.

    That's Third World Country stuff.


    You called it "treason" ... (none / 0) (#68)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 12:43:43 PM EST
    ... just a week ago.   Leaving your false claim about Hillary (one of many) aside, you said that seekng to overturn election results was tantamount to calling for a revolution,  which you said was treason.  Your candidate explicitly called for a revolution when Obama won in 2012 - by YOUR definition - an act if treason.   Yet you remain silent.

    It's the hypocrisy.


    I called GA's comments (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 03:51:00 PM EST
    treason because she was calling for the election to be over turned.

    Trump may have, probably has, called for Obama's impeachment.

    That's a constitutionally approved method of replacing a setting President.

    If Trump called for either a popular vote winner or a revolution he was wrong to do so.


    it's not treason (none / 0) (#72)
    by CST on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 04:24:15 PM EST
    It's how the election system was designed.  Some might even say it's why it was designed that way.  One of those people was a guy responsible for designing it.

    Nope (none / 0) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 08:28:15 PM EST
    The system was not designed to have people NOT accept the results.

    No - that's NOT what Trump did (none / 0) (#74)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 08:11:51 PM EST
    He didn't call for Obama's "impeachment".  He called for the 2012 election to be overturned.  Trump - your candidate and now president-elect - called for a march on Washington and a revolution when Obama won in 2012.  Ironically, it's because he said the electoral college was a "sham" and thought that Obama lost the popular vot but won the election.  But you already know this, because it's been explained to you several times with links.

    Donald Trump loses it, calls for "revolution"

    So now that we're very clear on what Trump said and what your definition is for "treason", can we assume you'll be holding Trump to your standard and demanding his impeachment and charging him with treason?

    Heh.  No need to answer, since it's a rhetorical question.  To be consistent and avoid hypocrisy, you'd have to do so, which mean, of course ...

    ... you won't.


    So let me understand (none / 0) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 08:34:40 PM EST
    You are claiming what the Demos are doing is okay because Trump lipped of.

    IOW you say two wrongs make one right. Of course I said:

    If Trump called for either a popular vote winner or a revolution he was wrong to do so.

    But a funny thing. I don't remember weeks and days of the media supporting him or getting lectures from ex-TV Presidents.


    Misstating is not "understanding" (none / 0) (#82)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 08:50:52 PM EST
    You seem to be having trouble understanding my very clear words, so I'll spell it out even more simply.

    You are claiming that advocating for the overturning of the election results is advocating revolution.  When someone on a blog does this, you tell them they are engaging in "treason".  Trump explicitly called for revolution to overturn the 2012 election.  But when your candidate - the President-elect does it, you stop calling it "treason", because to be consistent, you would have to call for his impeachment and prosecution for what you call "treason".  Suddenly, you no longer claim "treason".  When Trump explicitly calls for the overturning of an election by revolution, you simply say he was "wrong" for "mouthing off".

    The blatant hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty is seriously, seriously ... funny.


    Hmmmmmmm (none / 0) (#69)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 03:42:57 PM EST
    Ok. I see.

    So Trump never, at any time, publicly called into question the legitimacy of the 2012 election AFTER the election; he was only trying to block the "nomination" of a sitting President.

    Is that what happened?


    This is where I have to agree with MKS: a person like you, who's more at home in the fact-free and fact-resistent realm of Grimm's (Jimm's?) Fairytales should be posting at a Fantasy/Sci-fi site and not here.


    When a first term sitting president (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 04:00:00 PM EST
    runs for a second term he FIRST is a candidate to be nominated.

    BION they all have not been nominated for a second term.

    If Trump called for Obama's election for a second term to be disavowed by the electors he was dead wrong.

    If he, as his want, flipped out and made some wild statements in wake of Obama's re-election he was wrong to do so.

    However, I don't remember any Right Wing Gollywooders or Romney supporters, funded by Trump, trying to get the electors to change their vote.


    That's not how the American reich-wing (none / 0) (#73)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 04:30:57 PM EST
    does it, as you of all people should know.

    They have their own Gollywood.

    What they do is provide virtually the EXACT same script to a thousand (I won't say different) talk radio stations across the country, and send out scores of their little brownshirt foot soldiers to troll the internet 24-7.

    And if all that doesn't accomplish the task, well, there's the extreme measure of specifically targeting the well-armed, paranoid, shut-in, Alex Jones demograph with Fake News about FEMA Camps and false flag gun grabs.

    But you know all this.  


    You got me ;-) (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 08:44:25 PM EST
    Yes, the Right has talk radio...and Fox News.

    OTOH you only have NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, NPR, PBS, Facebook,Washington Post, New York Times....and all the rest of the Gannett chain plus the LA Times....

    You've got me surrounded.


    Ok now you're a paranoid (none / 0) (#86)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 01:50:41 PM EST
    conspiracy theorist.

    The major networks and PBS have a Democrat-bias because why? Because they're not Fox?

    You exhibit pure Far-Right, "if you ain't with us, you're against us" thinking.

    A lot of the progressive Left thinks NBC, ABC, CBS, and PBS have a conservative bias.


    What you "remember" is irrelevant (none / 0) (#75)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 08:15:30 PM EST
    Trump did far worse that trying to persuade electors.  He called for a revolution, something you called "treason" just a week ago.

    Keep trying to backpedal and pretend you don't know exactly what he did.  It's fun to watch.


    It was terrible!! (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 08:49:47 PM EST
    He was so persuasive that the Justice Department charged him.....

    Oh, wait....my memory failed again..that didn't happen.


    Your standard (none / 0) (#84)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 08:54:00 PM EST
    You're the one who claimed advocating the overturning of an election was equivalent to calling for a revolution, which according to you, is "treason".

    But when it's pointed out that Trump did the very thing you call "treason", you backpedal furiously.

    Heh, heh, heh ...


    What you're doing ... (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 17, 2016 at 05:38:16 PM EST
    Yman, I'm complaining that the Demos complaints are unproven and harmful to the country. The last time I checked Trump didn't try to cancel Obama's election in 2012

    ... is complaining about the same thing that Trump did in 2012 ... and this year.  His claims about a "rigged election" and baseless allegations of voter fraud - echoed by supporters like you - go to the validity of our electoral process which is the core of our democracy.  The difference is his claims were tinfoil conspiracy theories, while the Russia hacking allegations are based on facts and intelligence assessments.  Yet you dismiss them as "unproven" while you defended Trump's tinfoil claims.

    BTW - You may want to actually read my link.  Trump DID in fact try to "cancel Obama's election in 2012" by urging his followers to march on Washington and to revolt.  When someone on a blog suggests Trump's election should be challenged, you call it "treason".  When your candidate for POTUS does it - the President-elect of the US - you ignore it and pretend it never happened.

    And you do remember all the grief Bush took for using his unnamed sources...???

    Not my point.  My point as that you often cite unnamed sources and have no problem with the use of qualifiers when you like what they're saying.  Suddenly, you don't like them.

    Seriously, seriously ... funny.


    If you can escalate from (none / 0) (#55)
    by Chuck0 on Sun Dec 18, 2016 at 05:32:25 PM EST
    taking a drone out of the water to taking Guam, you really are a loon. The Chinese have no interest in war with the US, only right wing Americans want war with the rest of the world. And trust me, I have better insight into what the average Chinese wants. My sister (who incidentally born on Guam) lives in China. She has been there over 10 years, intends to stay. I have asked her specifically about what the Chinese think of the US, and of course Trump. They want economic prosperity and believe Donald Trump is dangerous clown.

    What a coincidence! (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Dec 18, 2016 at 07:13:12 PM EST
    Chuck0: "I have asked her specifically about what the Chinese think of the US, and of course Trump. They want economic prosperity and believe Donald Trump is dangerous clown."

    So do most of us here.


    My concern with China is (none / 0) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 03:06:09 AM EST
    The attack of Taiwan. Which would be somewhat on our hands now thanks to the Donald.

    And the crazy thing about that, MT, ... (none / 0) (#85)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 09:08:40 PM EST
    ... is that thanks to us, Taiwan is literally armed to the teeth. My fear in that respect is that if Beijing decides for whatever reason to mobilize for an invasion of that defiant island (which would be an infinitely foolish decision on their part in any respect), the Taiwanese military in Taipei will simply emulate Israel's example in the June 1967 Six-Day War, by launching a pre-emptive attack that pounds Chinese air, naval and ground forces while they're still gathering in their ports of embarkation along the south China coast.

    At present, Taipei quite obviously does not have any capacity to defeat the People's Liberation Army on the Chinese mainland without also receiving substantial material help from the United States and Japan, (which for readily apparent reasons would likely not be forthcoming.

    However, the Taiwanese military does retain an enormous potential to inflict some very serious and even crippling losses on Chinese forces, should they perceive an imminent threat of attack from Beijing and decide instead to strike first.

    And for that, Taiwan is loaded for bear with ground attack aircraft, land attack cruise missiles (LACM), naval suppression kits, and standoff air-to-ground missiles (cluster bombs, anti-radiation) which are fully capable of disabling airfields throughout the Chinese mainland, as well as any attendant missile and radar sites.

    And were that nightmare scenario to ever unfold, then what do we do?


    listen to Gary Kasparov's take (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by leap on Sun Dec 18, 2016 at 12:02:50 PM EST
    on Putin and Trump. Obama did/does not know how to play Putin's game. And Trump is Putin's puppet. Kasparov notes that for someone (Trump) who is inconsistent in almost everything--a figure of chaos--, has been/is remarkably consistent in defending Putin while dismissing US intelligence reports, raises Kasparov's suspicions to say the least. What a frightening environment.

    We have good reason to be concerned. (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Dec 18, 2016 at 04:43:47 PM EST
    Let's not forget that the Russian Foreign Ministry itself confirmed its contacts with Trump's campaign prior to our Nov. 8 general election.

    Therefore, if Trump's people knew what the Russian government was doing on their behalf and / or further, had in any way condoned the actions of that government or requested its assistance, then that presents a very real and extraordinarily serious problem not just for President-elect Trump, but for our entire country as well.

    The rhetorical question which Sen. Howard Baker (R-TN) once posed to the American people about President Nixon during the 1973 Watergate committee hearings, resounds just as loudly today for Trump and his team: What did they know, and when did they know it?



    The possibility of more analogies (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Peter G on Sun Dec 18, 2016 at 07:00:09 PM EST
    to Watergate developing out of this story seems very real to me. But that both began with a secret break-in at the DNC, with an intent to influence a presidential election unlawfully, is, to say the least, startling. Too early to say whether this one could end the same way.

    But the modern GOP has no (none / 0) (#60)
    by Erehwon on Sun Dec 18, 2016 at 11:55:11 PM EST
    men or women of integrity left! No Howard Bakers left in the GOP!

    Chairman Ervin requested access to the tapes, believing that they would either corroborate or repudiate testimony that the president had knowledge of, and approved efforts to cover up, the Watergate break-in. Senate Resolution 194 authorized the committee to "issue subpoenas for documents, tapes and other material to any officer of the executive branch," and the committee subpoenaed the tapes and documents. Nixon refused to comply, citing executive privilege and separation of powers. Senator Ervin rebutted that "the select committee is exercising the constitutional power of the Senate to conduct the investigation, and the doctrine of the separation of powers of Government requires the President to recognize this and to refrain from obstructing the committee." Vice Chairman Howard Baker (R-TN) proposed that the committee take the president to court. On August 9, 1973, the committee took the unprecedented step of suing the president in federal district court for access to the tapes and other documents. The court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction and appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling.

    Read the Senate's Watergate record for more, and weep for the country ...


    I'm through weeping for the country. (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 02:36:02 AM EST
    Feeling sorry for oneself serves no useful purpose at this point, because the situation is what it is. Rather, we now have a challenge before us collectively. What are we as individuals prepared to do about it?

    Jon Chait (4.80 / 5) (#28)
    by smott on Sat Dec 17, 2016 at 02:14:52 PM EST
    Had an interesting article on NYMag re Chuck Schumer and how is setting up Dems to fail by wanting to "work with" Trump.

    My God. Has he learned nothing from the last 8 yrs? McConnel set up the strategy of NO, and it worked. When the Prez cannot get much done due to intractable opposition, that HURTS THE PRESIDENT, not the opposition.
    THAT is the new game plan. Cos it works.

    Dems have to oppose every.single.thing proposed.
    Force GOP to nuke the filibuster.

    Bottom line, for political policy-making purposes, it's over. We no longer have ANY ground upon which to even discuss,  much less negotiate or compromise with the fascists that have taken over.

    Not only do we not share a basic set of common human values with GOP (hey, mocking the disabled is just fine! Sexually assaulting women? Cool!) we don't even have a shared set of f-cking FACTS we can agree upon. (global warming? Doesn't exist! The Chinese made it up! or if it does exist, it's totes NOT cos of man made input!)

    Look, it's OVER. We cannot agree on either values or even freakin FACTS.

    There is NO negotiating with the GOP.

    Our country as we knew it is over. All we can do is resist.

    I realize (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by smott on Sat Dec 17, 2016 at 02:32:06 PM EST
    This is hard for people to accept. As it was hard to accept in Europe the 1930s when people said "it can't really be happening" and our own beloved NY Times wrote articles about how the Nazi Party really won't be that bad, now that they are in power....and so on...until you're on a train or lined up in front of a wall. Maybe that is what it will take for Liz Spayd to get a clue.
    But it IS happening.
    Like it or not.

    I am making plans to move. I have a UK passport and can possibly move to CAN fairly easily if I am still working. (Harder if you're already retired.)

    Bottom line, if Medicare is privatized,  I will not be insurable once I retire anyway, so I have to leave.   And it's better to move prior to retiring as I mentioned,  so in next year or two I have to get going.

    Of course,who knows, all that could be stopped in a moment.

    Every Trump property worldwide is now a terrorist target. What happens when Trump Tower in Islamabad is blown up and Paki blames India and nukes Delhi? Trump's tiny fingers get pretty twitchy with that button.

    Or God forbid there is a domestic attack with large loss of life, and if so, anybody think we won't have Martial Law next day?
    No border movement. Heck, no silly details like elections. What a "quaint notion", as we've heard before.

    It is over, our country as we knew it no longer exists. Go check NC if you don't believe me.

    Anybody thinking of moving should GO. NOW.


    Maybe Donald (4.50 / 2) (#1)
    by Green26 on Fri Dec 16, 2016 at 07:36:12 PM EST
    should attend more intelligence briefings. I know he thinks he's incredibly smart, but ....

    Look at Trump's appointees so far (4.50 / 2) (#5)
    by jondee on Fri Dec 16, 2016 at 10:54:40 PM EST
    where the hell are the mythic "populists"?

    Unless you're talking about right-wing populists, who are just conservative ideologues trying to sound like they just drank a sixpack.

    My money is on Trump's campaign trail "populism" being 99.999 % cynical shuck and jive act tailored to pull Rust Belt votes and not much else.


    His appointees (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 17, 2016 at 06:11:27 AM EST
    are either Putin stooges or alt-right sympathizers. It was all a con from the beginning so no one should be surprised at that.

    The populist Trump Administration. (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by KeysDan on Sun Dec 18, 2016 at 01:50:56 PM EST
    By law, the secretaries of labor (Puzder, the fast food executive), Treasury (Mnuchiin, Wall Street/hedge fund), and health and human services (Tom Price, enemy of social programs) are trustees of Social Security.

     Price, has recently put forward  a proposal that will impose automatic spending cuts on most programs if the national debt exceeds specified levels in a given year.  

    If Congress passed Trump's proposed tax cuts (benefiting the richest), the rise in debt would trigger automatic spending cuts that would cut Social Security by $l.7 Trillion, and $l.1 Trillion in Medicare over 10 years.

    According to the NYTimes, this works out to a cut of $168/month on the average monthly benefit of $1,240.  And, if infrastructure, tax credits of private real estate development and increases in military spending are enacted and cause an increase in the debt, the cuts in social security will be slashed all the more.

    The "populist" Trump administration would work to rig the budget process so as to slash social security and Medicare. Those middle class white voters that supposedly helped elect Trump may not get those economic benefits they allege to have voted for, but, hey, they may get what they were looking for on all that political correctness-- OK now to use the n word, and call gays, f*gs, Muslims, terrorists,  till their heart's content.  Hope it will be worth it to them in their, and their parents, old age.


    Automatic cuts (none / 0) (#46)
    by KeysDan on Sun Dec 18, 2016 at 01:52:51 PM EST
    to social programs.  (Forbes).

    So there (none / 0) (#8)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Dec 17, 2016 at 06:08:55 AM EST
    Will not be any infrastructure spending bill?

    Because I know that is not a Republican position, a trillion dollar infrastructure bill.

    I actually thought that was a Democratic wish.


    Well, yeah (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 16, 2016 at 08:03:08 PM EST
    but what is going to be done about it? Are we going to let a Putin stooge make decisions for the country? Certainly the Vichy Republicans are all okay with the help from Putin.

    Trump will likley become (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 16, 2016 at 08:37:05 PM EST
    a right wing puppet.

    That appears to be the case with his Cabinet picks.


    Have you seen (2.00 / 1) (#4)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Dec 16, 2016 at 09:30:10 PM EST
    His spending plans?
    Infrastructure spending...

    Weeeeeee, there goes the deficit, His spending plans are a liberals dream.

    The Donald is not a Republican.  He is a populist.


    Infrastructure is bipartisan (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 17, 2016 at 07:19:26 AM EST
    Have you seen his tax plan?  Slash taxes - a little for the middle class and a LOT for the wealthy - while pretending that benefits will  trickle down to the poor/middle class.  Throw in massive increases in defense spending and you'll have years of YOOOOOGE deficit spending with the bill left to our children/grandchildren.  Then you have the added bonus that - in 5-10 years - you can claim we have no money for social spending and we have to cut SS and Medicare, amongst other programs.

    THAT'S a Republican plan.


    Common fallacy (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Dec 18, 2016 at 08:56:40 AM EST
    You seem to be making the common mistake that republicans are against spending and are deficit hawks. They are not against spending per se, or deficits per se.

    They are only against deficits and spending not inline with their agenda.

    Check the record of the last 3 republican presidents with or without republican controlled congresses.


    we dont know that yet (none / 0) (#6)
    by linea on Fri Dec 16, 2016 at 11:03:38 PM EST
    we dont know what parts of the platform that was created for him by advisors and experts he will bother to uphold or pretend to uphold or simply abandon.

    90% of (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 17, 2016 at 06:09:23 AM EST
    his spending plan is making sure that millionaires pay zero taxes. It costs 9 trillion and no, his infrastructure plan is not a "liberals dream". LOL. It's a return to the Bush era of crony capitalism.

    I guess you are right (2.00 / 1) (#11)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Dec 17, 2016 at 06:13:45 AM EST
    Labor trade unions, blue collar workers, have left the democratic Party, at least for this election. So the jobs they will reap from this massive bill will further push them into Trumps camp.

    You should be in charge of Democratic voter outreach programs


    Nope (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 17, 2016 at 08:22:05 AM EST
    But labor unions are not going to get any work from trump. He is against unions. Examine facts and quit being a Putin apologist

    Check out Kurt Eichenwald (none / 0) (#15)
    by smott on Sat Dec 17, 2016 at 08:35:17 AM EST
    Of Newsweek's Twitter.
    He is an epileptic and some azzhole tweeted him a strobe which caused him to have a seizure.
    He's actually going through law enforcement to charge the guy. The Twitter acct of the offender appears suspended, wonder if that was Twitter doing it.

    Anyway I hope this draws attention to Twitter and how it's been a megaphone for online abuse.

    I had some interesting discussions w some of my IT contacts re how to better manage it, basically allowing anonymity is a huge part of the issue but there are also good reasons for anonymity.

    JOsh Marshall had a great take on it too....how the all white male bosses at Twitter have no idea what it's like to suffer persecution/abuse. Interesting stuff.

    For me I might separate accounts into Anon vs not Anon. And you could tweet subject only to Public respondents,

    People are horribly emboldened when they can hide behind an anon nym.

    Twiitter has its good points. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Dec 18, 2016 at 03:50:20 PM EST
    But at its worst, which I'm afraid is most of the time, the online debate on Twitter quickly degenerates into mindless tirades with lots of flamethrowing and sniper fire.

    With regard to Kurt Eichenwald, what his online tormenter did by tweeting that strobelight -- obviously knowing beforehand that the reporter was epileptic -- is tantamount to a physical assault. I hope the investigating authorities treat this matter seriously a such.



    nytimes.com (none / 0) (#33)
    by linea on Sat Dec 17, 2016 at 06:26:28 PM EST
    Russia's Hacks Followed Years of Paranoia Toward Hillary Clinton

    Mrs. Clinton is viewed in Moscow as innately hostile to Russia. Widely held conspiracy theories portray her as seeking to foment unrest that will return Russia to the chaos and depression of the 1990s. Even many government technocrats view her with suspicion that at times verges on paranoia.

    She referred to these views at an event on Thursday, telling donors that Mr. Putin's "personal beef" with her had driven Russia's intervention in the American election.

    [MAX FISHER DEC. 16, 2016]

    might one assume putin would have (allegedly) funneled emails, embarrassing to hillary clinton, to wikileaks irrespective^ of who was the republican candidate?

    ^ without a second look or thought.

    So what? (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by Towanda on Sun Dec 18, 2016 at 10:31:09 AM EST
    Do you understand the reason for concern?

    The reason is not Clinton.


    I'm not so sure you're a feminist (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 11:58:57 AM EST
    Oops, my response about being a (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 12:00:11 PM EST
    Feminist is to linea. I know you're a feminist Towanda. There can be no doubt there.

    Come now Towanda (4.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 11:57:37 AM EST
    It's Hillary's fault someone hacked her. If you're going to dress like that what do you expect?

    did you read my post? (none / 0) (#83)
    by linea on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 08:52:11 PM EST
    1. i quoted the nytimes.

    i didnt author it; i quoted it. is the nytimes on your list of conservative disinformation sites?

    2. i asked a question.

    isnt it likely putin would have given wikileaks emails to damage hillary's candidacy irrespective of who was the republican candidate?


    Speaking of James Comey, ... (none / 0) (#87)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 04:41:24 PM EST
    Jeralyn: "James Comey should still resign. His own behavior during the weeks before the election permanently tarnished the FBI's integrity and reputation."

    ... the warrant that the FBI obtained to search the laptop belonging to Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner has been ordered unsealed by U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel, pursuant to a FOIA request by E. Randol "Randy" Schoenberg, an attorney from Los Angeles who first became to public attention as the lawyer for Maria Altmann, the Jewish-American woman who sued the Austrian National Museum over a painting once belonging to her once-prominent Viennese family, which had been seized by the Nazis in 1938. (This case served as the basis for the 2016 "The Woman in Gold.")

    Schoenberg was seeking to determine what probable cause the agency provided to suspect that material on said laptop might be incriminating to Hillary Clinton. And just as most of us suspected, the probable cause provided for the warrant was specious at best, further undermining Comey's decision to interfere in the presidential campaign.

    Basically, Comey's FBI was operating under an assumption that the mere existence of emails from or to Hillary Clinton constitutes probable cause that a crime may have occurred, and further feared -- baselessly, as it turns out -- that Abedin's laptop may have been hacked. Per an unnamed former federal prosecutor, who corresponded with Josh Marshall at TPM:

    "It confirms what we assumed all along: (1) prior to seeking the warrant and to Comey issuing his letter, the FBI had no idea whether these were new emails, or duplicates of emails they previously reviewed--all they could see was non-content header information (to and from); (2) the FBI had no information to suggest that the emails were improperly withheld from them previously; and (3) the FBI had no facts to justify the urgency in seeking a review of the emails prior to the election. This latter point is key. Generally, DOJ policy commands that prosecutors and agents refrain from taking investigative steps (even non-public steps like seeking search warrants) within 60 days of an election in a politically sensitive matter.

    "Bottom line: nothing new, no urgency, no obstruction, no reason to defy longstanding DOJ policy and risk affecting the election. And there was simply no basis for Comey's decision to make matters worse by issuing a public letter to Congress."

    Mr. Schoenberg, who filed the FOIA request, further weighs in on the matter:

    "I see nothing at all in the search warrant application that would give rise to probable cause, nothing that would make anyone suspect that there was anything on the laptop beyond what the FBI had already searched and determined not to be evidence of a crime, nothing to suggest that there would be anything other than routine correspondence between [Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin]. ... [I don't know] why they thought they might find evidence of a crime, why they felt it necessary to inform Congress, and why they even sought this search warrant. I am appalled."

    I'll let Josh Marshall sum it up nicely:

    "Comey should be out of a job. It's that bad. But I would argue that it would actually be a disaster if he didn't serve at least through the next four years. Everything we've seen about the incoming Trump administration suggests they'd appoint someone to run the FBI who would approach the job as the president's personal and political enforcer. Comey made a terrible decision. I'm quite open to the idea that he did it because of his personal bias against Hillary Clinton. I think it's even more clear that he did it because he could not control politicized elements within the FBI.

    "For all that, the alternative would likely be much worse. I don't believe Comey is a crook and I think he believes in the rule of law. So he becomes the paradoxical beneficiary of his own shameful decision."