Obama Expels Alleged Russian Spies, Imposes Sanctions

President Obama today expelled 35 Russian alleged spies and imposed sanctions on two Russian intelligence agencies for meddling in the 2016 Presidential election by hacking political groups.

The FBI and Homeland Security blame Russia both for hacking and meddling in the U.S. election. Here is the report by Homeland Security and the FBI on the Russian hacking

This Joint Analysis Report (JAR) is the result of analytic efforts between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). This document provides technical details regarding the tools and infrastructure used by the Russian civilian and military intelligence Services (RIS) to compromise and exploit networks and endpoints associated with the U.S. election, as well as a range of U.S. Government, political, and private sector entities. The U.S. Government is referring to this malicious cyber activity by RIS as GRIZZLY STEPPE.

The Report confirms: [More]

The U.S. Government confirms that two different RIS actors participated in the intrusion into a U.S. political party. The first actor group, known as Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) 29, entered into the party’s systems in summer 2015, while the second, known as APT28, entered in spring 2016.

UnPresident Elect Donald Trump said it's time to move on. Memo to Donald Trump: No one cares what you think. Your opinion is immediately disregarded by millions the second you utter it.

< R.I.P. Debbie Reynolds | CT Supreme Court Reinstate's Michael Skakel's Conviction >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The specter of treason? (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 29, 2016 at 07:42:25 PM EST
    seems to be hanging over Trump and McConnell over this. Apparently McConnell knew about Putin attempting to help Trump too but he attacked the intelligence community much like Trump did.

    And I don't why the majority (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 29, 2016 at 07:45:07 PM EST
    of Republicans are either siding with Putin or wanting to stymie an investigation since I'm willing to bet Putin has some pretty good stuff on them too. Putin possibly could have enough stuff on Trump to blackmail him into doing what he wants. So far Trump seems to be very compliant to the wishes of Putin.

    These are oligarchs, Ga. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Dec 29, 2016 at 09:34:22 PM EST
    And as oligarchs, they have an entirely different perspective and outlook on things. In an oligarchy, politics generally takes a back seat to business interests and concerns, unless it can be harnessed as a means to a business-friendly end.

    You mean like this?? (none / 0) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 30, 2016 at 12:04:49 AM EST
    No. Not remotely "like this" (none / 0) (#15)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 30, 2016 at 08:46:14 AM EST
    You mean the missile defense system Obama enacted over Russia's objections?  Seems like a poor example.  But for those who might be confused,  what Obama was talking about was the difficulty of getting bipartisan support during an election year - "The only way I get this stuff done is if I'm consulting with the Pentagon, if I'm consulting with Congress, if I've got bipartisan support, and the current environment is not conducive to those kinds of thoughtful consultations."

    And he removed the missile shield (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 30, 2016 at 08:03:13 PM EST
    He did?!? (none / 0) (#79)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 31, 2016 at 02:41:19 PM EST
    In 2009 (none / 0) (#80)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Dec 31, 2016 at 09:11:22 PM EST
    Bush had agreements to place missile defense systems in Eastern Europe,
    But Obama, as Putins puppet, caved and stopped the installations, making Putin proud.

    Actually, he didn't (none / 0) (#111)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 02, 2017 at 07:07:13 PM EST
    As demonstrated by my link, which point out that his deployment of the systemt made Russia very angry.  Odd thing for a "puppet" to do..  But maybe you mean the changes he made to the system (i.e. using Aegis warship based missiles).

    Facts are so much harder than winger fairy tales.


    Putins puppet (none / 0) (#114)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Jan 02, 2017 at 07:50:15 PM EST
    From your article

    President Barack Obama scrapped the George W. Bush administration's planned bilateral deployment of a different system to Poland and the Czech Republic and has instead pursued a NATO-centric approach using alternate technology.

    Scraps 2 missile defense systems, to pacify Putin

    And lets a installation 10 years in the making go forward.    

    The system, to be operated by NATO, is getting up and running nearly a decade after the U.S. first announced plans to do so, only to encounter pushback from Russia.

    Still Putins Puppet


    Ohhhhhhhh .... (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 02, 2017 at 08:04:45 PM EST
    So when you said he stopped the installations in Eastern Europe, you didn't actually mean what you said:

    Bush had agreements to place missile defense systems in Eastern Europe,
    But Obama, as Putins puppet, caved and stopped the installations, making Putin proud

    What you really were struggling to say was that he didn't do what Bush wanted to do (but failed to do) before he left office.  Instead, he made changes which included moving forward with the installation of missile systems in Eastern Europe (i.e. including Romania, from my link), utilizing sea-based missile for some areas and land missiles for other, something that angered Russia and they called a "threat" to Russia.

    So weird that Russia would be so upset and threatened by a "puppet".



    " ....why the majority (none / 0) (#23)
    by KeysDan on Fri Dec 30, 2016 at 10:40:52 AM EST
    of Republicans are either siding with Putin or wanting to stymie investigations.."   Fear of diminishing, if not destroying, the legitimacy, prestige and authority of Trump's election. With a massive popular vote loss, Russian interference in the election, and Comey's swollen thumb on the scales, their concerns are understandable.

    my understanding (none / 0) (#48)
    by linea on Fri Dec 30, 2016 at 09:13:14 PM EST
    is that republicans are as belligerently militaristic toward russia and living in the cold-war era of the 1960s as ever.

    my understanding is that only the (conservative populist) trump supporters are fond of putin. how would one expect othewise? it's not like they live in talllinn.

    Republican John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said on Friday that Russia must face a penalty for the cyber attacks... "When you attack a country, it's an act of war," McCain said in an interview with the Ukrainian TV channel "1+1" while on a visit to Kiev.

    For a detailed (none / 0) (#86)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jan 01, 2017 at 11:13:17 AM EST
    expose, see David Corn's article at Mother Jones. Russians, according to the article, spent several years collecting info on Drumpf. Detailed memos by a veteran intelligence researcher were sent to FBI starting in June and nothing was done.

    Not planning to click on the Samba site, (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by fishcamp on Fri Dec 30, 2016 at 10:33:59 AM EST
    but, as much as I love the Samba in Brazil, this must be a site violator.

    Matt Taibbi @ Rolling Stone (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by BTAL on Fri Dec 30, 2016 at 03:08:25 PM EST
    He starts (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 30, 2016 at 03:48:32 PM EST
    off with a fallacy which is the intelligence was wrong on Iraq. The truth is the intelligence was conflicting on Iraq with many saying there were no WMDs. In 2005 the National Journal reported that the Bush Administration withheld pertinent intelligence that would have undercut their desire for a war in Iraq. They withheld that information from even their own party members on the intelligence committee. The Bush Administration also knew that a lot of what they were telling were lies but they went ahead anyway. So when Tabbai bases his whole case on that he's not making a coherent case against Russian hacking.

    And Hans Blix proved (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by MKS on Sat Dec 31, 2016 at 10:21:00 AM EST
    there was no WMD--before the invasion.

    Or, at least, Blix published two reports stating he had been allowed to conduct inspections unfettered and at times unannounced without interference and had found no WMD.

    Blix stated he would need perhaps a few more weeks or months but not a year to complete his inspection regime.

    We had proof there was no WMD but invaded anyway.


    i agree with this. (none / 0) (#69)
    by linea on Sat Dec 31, 2016 at 12:24:38 PM EST
    the reports by Hans Blix proved there were no nbc-weapons before the military bombed and invaded iraq - an estimated 500,000 dead, countless wounded, people hideously tortured, and children mutilated and missing body parts as a direct result of this war.

    im not sure what subtle point Donald is trying to make by asserting that the "intelligence on Iraq was not wrong." because after the invasion, after the bombing and torture and dead, when no nbc-weapons were found "enough intelligence officers stepped forward... in attempts to set the record straight."


    Exactly. (none / 0) (#30)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Dec 30, 2016 at 05:12:54 PM EST
    The intelligence on Iraq was not wrong. What the  intelligence said was that absent a robust inspections regime in place in Iraq, verification or discounting of any potential Iraqi WMD programs would be problematic.

    Rather, fault lies with those individuals in the Bush / Cheney administration who chose to first cherry-pick selective bits of available data, and then present such deliberately exaggerated "findings" to Congress and the general public with an intent to mislead both. They had already determined well prior to the 9-11 tragedy that they wanted a war with Iraq, and were fishing for an excuse to invade that country.



    i quibble (none / 0) (#42)
    by linea on Fri Dec 30, 2016 at 07:53:51 PM EST
    re: "The intelligence on Iraq was not wrong."

    we have no idea if the legitimate inteligence assesment was correct or wildly wrong. we're not actually privy to that. we do know the "inteligence" provided to the citizens in a democracy was manipulated, and in some instances fabricated, by the elected president and his administration.


    ... in attempts to set the record straight when members of the Bush administration, including Vice President Dick Cheney, attempted to make the U.S. Intelligence Community take the rap and fall for the failure to find any WMD in Iraq in the wake of our 2003 invasion.

    Basically, IC officials had always insisted that absent actual inspections on the ground in Iraq, there was not enough available intelligence to either confirm or deny the existence of WMD in that country. It was CIA Director George Tenet who boasted that making the Bush administration's case would be a "slam dunk."

    Even Secretary of State Colin Powell privately scoffed at the general lack of hard evidence regarding any alleged reconstitution of Iraqi WMD programs although to his eternal discredit, he went ahead with his now-infamous presentation to the United Nations anyway.

    The USIC got it right. It was the Bush administration that got it wrong.



    His main (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by FlJoe on Fri Dec 30, 2016 at 04:20:03 PM EST
    beef seems to be a matter of trust. He and many others from both sides want to equate this with the WMD debacle. IMO they are not even remotely the same.

    Right now I see a unanimity and explicitness from the Intel, executive and to a extent congressional communities, with corroboration from at least one private company. Back then there was no such consensus, although Bush with the help of the press created that narrative.

    Bush had a clear motive for his stove piping, he wanted a casus belli. With Obama the motive seems murky at best, if it was purely political why not before the election? If it is some ploy to maliciously hamper Trump's administration the risk/reward seems unwarranted.

    Taibbi and all the rest have the right and the duty to be skeptical, but they also have the duty to call a spade a spade by digging deeper and keeping everything in perspective.



    Because (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Dec 30, 2016 at 07:09:36 PM EST
    if it was purely political why not before the election?

    There was no way The Donald was going to be President.
    This was a hack of private e mail, it wasn't even government e mail.
    And the e mails were not that earth shattering, all they did was confirm suspicions, especially of The Bernistas.


    The truth (none / 0) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 30, 2016 at 06:16:22 PM EST
    of the matter is that certain people on the left Greenwald being one of them do not want to admit that they were duped just as bad as conservatives were by the Putin/Assange partnership.

    ha ha (none / 0) (#45)
    by linea on Fri Dec 30, 2016 at 08:21:36 PM EST
    i like matt taibbi!

    from wiki:

    His July 2009 Rolling Stone article "The Great American Bubble Machine" described Goldman Sachs as "a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money".

    Agreed. (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by KeysDan on Fri Dec 30, 2016 at 05:18:10 PM EST
    Matt Taibbi, as an investigative reporter, is being skeptical, but overlooks, after eight years to observe, the cautious manner in which President Obama works and the limits to his revealing sources.

     And, he underestimates the role that Cheney had in pressure-shaping the WMD intelligence during his frequent trips over to Langley. The intelligence community, not just the CIA, is quite sensitive, surely, to the dangers of falling, once again, for political manipulation.

     Trump's dispute of the entire intelligence communities' findings, and tacit support of Putin's position, calls into question not only US intel competence, but also, its veracity. Of course, we all know Trump is very smart, becasue he told us so, many times. But, still.  Trump's position is based on that of president-elect who skips intel briefings and does not plan to learn more about this Russian espionage until sometime next week.  Maybe, if he can tear himself away from heady discussions with Don King.

     Trump's behavior  may come back to haunt him if he needs to take future action on the basis of the findings of this same intelligence composite.

    The Russian action is not amenable to a sweet tweet. As Taibbi recognizes, "America could have just been the victim of a virtual coup d'etat engineered by Trump and Putin which would be among the most serious thing ever to happen to our democracy."

    Drumpf's stance (none / 0) (#87)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jan 01, 2017 at 11:17:31 AM EST
    will not come back to haunt him unless Repugs in Congress themselves take action.
    Drumpf is supporting Russia by dissing the detailed investigative results of our intelligence agencies because it's in his interest to do so.  Read Corn's article at Mother Jones.

    Okay, it seems clear that they (4.50 / 2) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 30, 2016 at 12:21:47 AM EST
    hacked. So it was the Russians who gave WIKI the emails....??

    Now, can we get a good summary of what they did?

    You know, organizations that were hacked, email released by Wiki.

    We can also ask Assange for some proof on this:

    "But WikiLeaks and Julian Assange have not changed their statements about the source of their information. In a radio interview with Sean Hannity in mid-December, Assange asserted again that their DNC emails and Podesta's emails did not originate from Russian hackers."

    If not the Russians, who?

    On December 14, just a day before Assange's interview, Craig Murray, a close associate of Assange, said that he had received one of WikiLeaks' sources, The Washington Times reported. He said that he was given a package near American University, in a wooded area, that was the source of some of the Clinton emails. He said the source was a Democratic insider who had legal access to the information. Murray said he was prompted to make the revelation after seeing claims that WikiLeaks' source came from Russia.

    The sources, he said, were disgusted with corruption in Clinton's campaign and the sabotage of Bernie Sanders, Inquistr reported. Murray is a former British ambassador who was removed because of allegations of miscond

    Do we have multiple hackers?

    Still (4.00 / 8) (#9)
    by FlJoe on Fri Dec 30, 2016 at 05:56:18 AM EST
    in denial. It seems, you grudgingly accept the fact that the Russians were hacking, but you still demand more, insinuating that they were not behind the leakd (they were just hacking for the fun of it?).

    You still are trying to exonerate Putin by holding up Assange, of all people, as an unimpeachable speaker of truth,  

    Typical quisling behavior, putting the word of  foreigners over that of our entire intel community.


    Grudgingly?? (3.00 / 2) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 30, 2016 at 09:23:54 AM EST
    ...it seems clear....

    We can also ask Assange for some proof on this
    ....his claim that the Russians didn't do it.

    I mean you do want the truth, don't you?

    And shades of Watergate...Craig Murray, ...that he was given a package near American University, in a wooded area, that was the source of some of the Clinton emails.

    Could it not be that we haa two sources feeding Wiki?

    Obama is belatedly punishing one. Why  not the other one?? Is it inconvenient to know the Demos were also bleeding internally from the "Super Delegate" disease?????

    I mean if the Democrat's concern is truly about hacking and trying to influence the election, shouldn't we punish them all?

    And finally, let's have the emails reproduced and introduced.

    It appears that we have had a crime committed but we can't have a description of what was stolen.

    And were the emails truthful? And if so, wasn't it best that American people knew what the Democrats thought of each other? I mean, being honest and transparent and all that stuff.

    Heaven knows we saw the Repubs dirty laundry ad nasueam courtesy of the media and willing Repubs and Demos....And the Republic has survived.

    Let's face facts. No Demo "leader" wanted the emails in front of the public. They were willing to sacrifice national security in an attempt to let the furor die away after Hillary was elected. They didn't want to admit how poor their security was.

    Now they want to use the attacks, but not the bullets in the gun,  to attack Trump.


    So you're trying to argue ... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 30, 2016 at 07:51:05 PM EST
    ... there could be more than one source for the leaks in this case, a concept that totally escapes you in the Plame case.

    Heh, heh, heh ....


    Puker (3.67 / 3) (#18)
    by FlJoe on Fri Dec 30, 2016 at 09:49:56 AM EST
    up for Putin, quisling.

    I think lickspittle... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Dec 30, 2016 at 10:09:10 AM EST
    applies nicely as well.

    No Alliteration though (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by FlJoe on Fri Dec 30, 2016 at 10:18:36 AM EST
    but I guess Lickspittle for Likud would apply to many of these quislings.

    There's gonna be (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 30, 2016 at 03:06:06 PM EST
    a run on Russian Red lipstick from conservatives. Perhaps we need to all buy stock in Mac Cosmetics?

    Puker ?? lol (3.00 / 2) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 30, 2016 at 09:08:03 PM EST
    I find it amusingly interesting that since you can't show a single place where I have supported the Russians you demonstrate your lack of ability by just launching the juvenile equilivent of spit balls... "Puker?" ;-)

    Why are you frightened to ask the question...did Assange lie? If so, why? Wouldn't it  be better for him just to not say anything?? And why do you want to pretend that Craig Murray doesn't exist and didn't say there was a second source of information??

    Look, if we have a truly terrible security problem, why aren't you demanding a full investigation? How many hackers? Who fed Murray his info?

    And if you think that the hacking of DNC and Hillary's email servers harmed American security, why aren't you criticizing Hillary and the DNC for not taking adequate precautions and use system that cannot be hacked...or at least more secure than Gmail, AOL, etc.

    I mean, don't you lock your doors when you leave or go to bed?

    If your bank just let someone walk in and dig through your safety deposit box would you say the bank has no responsibility???

    Russians bad? No doubt. Democrats and DNC mega dumb? Indeed.


    Sure (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by FlJoe on Sat Dec 31, 2016 at 08:03:47 AM EST
    blame the victim.
    why aren't you criticizing Hillary and the DNC
    a common tactic of enablers.

    You throw in your usual red herrings(Craig Murrary) and strawmen (there IS an investigation going on and I want more).

    You once again seem put more weight behind Julian Assange's word then the unanimous conclusion of the intelligence community.

    Finally, after six paragraphs of not condemning Putin, you do manage to call him bad while you take one last shot at the victim. I guess that is better then the Puckerer in chief, who continues to praise Putin.

    I will continue to consider you a quisling until I hear a full throated and unequivocal condemnation of Putin(minus the victim blaming), as a bonus you could criticize Trump for doing the opposite.

    Until then get used to the tagline, Pucker up for Putin.


    Sorry but your turning a bank (1.00 / 1) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 31, 2016 at 09:19:33 AM EST
    into a young person who has passed out from alcohol and been taken advantage of doesn't work.

    The bank is an institution that is expected by everyone to take care of the personal information/goods in the safety deposit boxes. If it failed grossly to do their duties they are going to be sued just like bartenders can be sued if they over serve a patron.

    And the bank is expected to keep their customer accounts and email secure from hacking.

    So a reasonable person would not expect the DNC, and Hillary, to install a system that, to quote the FBI, was less secure than Gmail...Especially after the Chinese hacks of our government's  system and the Russian hacking of East Anglia's CRU system that revealed Professor Jones' belief that climate change was a sham.

    The DNC and Hillary didn't take any actions to insure the systems they used had the best security available.

    And Obama, when he knew what had happened, did nothing. He knew the Repubs would use the same argument that I just used and ask the following question.

    These are the people you want in charge of our country's security?

    And red herrings??? Craig Murray is a real person claiming that he was given information. Why don't you want to know if that's real?? Are you afraid that it will be revealed that the "leaker" was a disgruntled Democrat?

    And why should it be required that I condemn Putin?? We all know what he is. What's next? Should I start writing, "Hillary Clinton, a known liar, has..."

    So keep on insulting while supporting people who wanted a "Russian reset," gave up the missile shield in east Europe, didn't keep its word to Ukraine, gave money and nukes to Iran and have now stabbed in the back the only friend and ally we have in the Middle East

    We all know what you are.


    Got me Jim (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by FlJoe on Sat Dec 31, 2016 at 09:33:16 AM EST
    We all know what you are.

    Sure,I'm a juvenile snarky provocateur,
    But at least I am not a victim blaming quisling...with bright Russian Red lips.

    No, unfortunately (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 31, 2016 at 10:19:20 AM EST
    you are not a juvenile

    Unfortunately (1.00 / 1) (#68)
    by FlJoe on Sat Dec 31, 2016 at 11:12:30 AM EST
    I am not a juvenile (oh to be young again) but yes, unfortunately, you are still a quisling.



    I believe the expression (none / 0) (#72)
    by jondee on Sat Dec 31, 2016 at 12:53:42 PM EST
    Tailgunner Jim used the other day was "useful idiot".

    Though I think the "useful" part might be up for debate.


    This just in (none / 0) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 31, 2016 at 01:32:31 PM EST
    Putin oas reversed himself and announced that in retaliation for expelling Russians he will change the password on all US government email systems.


    Did it ever occur to you that this has been going on for years and Obama's intelligence agencies evidently didn't have a clue??

    Look, we have the best intelligence agencies in the world. They had to have known and they had to have told Obama. They also, as the NSA did with the Venona project, decided it was in our interests to let them play and they told Obama and he agreed.

    But when Hillary lost he decided to use it against Trump.

    How petty. Maybe someday we will find out how badly that hurt our intelligence gathering capabilities....or how many lives that cost by letting the Russians know.

    But then he did call a deserter in a combat zone a hero.

    The man is seriously warped.


    This just in: at least the guy was once (none / 0) (#75)
    by jondee on Sat Dec 31, 2016 at 01:50:33 PM EST
    in a combat zone, which is more than you can say.

    This other item just in: what a pity it is that Obama couldn't have someone like you, who bent over backwards (and forwards), tap danced, belly-crawled through the muck, and twisted into pretzal-like contortions to excuse Bush's failures before and after 9-11.

    A certain other man besides Obama is seriously warped. Warped beyond recognition.


    If we (none / 0) (#107)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jan 01, 2017 at 02:45:25 PM EST
    have "the best intelligence agencies in the world" why the heck, is Trump dismissing their findings out of hand? They have unanimously condemned and accused Putin, yet Trump continues to praise him. Warped, indeed. Warped indeed.  

    Really??? (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 01, 2017 at 05:52:37 PM EST
    The more you comment the more you demonstrate a serious case of TDS. Let's look at ABC news said:

    Though he's praised Putin as a strong leader and said it would be ideal for the two countries to stop fighting, he also suggested this month the U.S. might mount a new nuclear arms race, triggering fresh anxieties about a return to Cold War-style tensions.

    First calling Putin a strong leader is not praise. It is a mere factual statement. He is. So was FDR, Truman,Churchill, Hitler, Stalin and Mao...just to name a few.

    And why do you dismiss the possibility of us getting along with Russia? Wouldn't it be nice if we had some help with the War On Terror?

    I mean Obama let Crimea and the missile shield go by default. Should we declare war?? You sound like some of the old Cold War warriors that you condemned in the past.

    And yes, Trump, who is so under Puitin's control (sarcasm alert)that he told Putin that if Putin wanted a nuke race we were ready to play! And Putin backed down. That tells you that Trump has blocked him.


    Trump's warm outreach to Putin, combined with picks for secretary of state and national security adviser who are seen as friendly to Russia,

    So that "warm outreach" comment is pure BS. Now I ask you this, and it is not a trick question.

    If you were going to hire a salesman to sell your product to a company would you want someone who knows the President of the company and has the ability to get your position in front of him? Or would you hire someone with no experience with the customer.

    Hint. If you chose the latter you haven't the vaguest clue about how to get people to agree with  you and accept your product.

    And yes, we have great intelligence agencies. But you claim they had it wrong about Iraq.

    Yet you are most willing to believe them when you think it harms Trump.

    I really don't know but I am willing to accept it. It is what countries do. I hope we are doing our share. Heaven knows the agencies cost a ton of money.

    Putin says that he is willing to wait before taking action. Trump says that's smart and it is. He is avoiding any head on confrontation and waiting to see what Trump will do.

    Maybe we should do the same.  


    of course (none / 0) (#110)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jan 01, 2017 at 06:12:52 PM EST
    Putin can afford to wait, soon he will have his puppet in the WH.

    I am not one to blindly trust the Intel agencies, but I damn sure give them more weight than the Russians or Trump who is quite sure he knows more than the experts.

    Unlike you, I am a loyal American, who stands with our institutions  as you accept the word of an ignorant conman of and a "smart" long standing enemy.

    I still have yet to hear you make a strong and unequivocal denouncement of the Russian hacking, don't really expect one from a traitor such as yourself.


    Ooh (none / 0) (#106)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jan 01, 2017 at 02:35:37 PM EST
    a one, that must have stung....not to worry Jim, those swollen lips can be put to good use.

    Well, that report (none / 0) (#104)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jan 01, 2017 at 02:09:54 PM EST
    Looks like it was put together slap dash and not too enlightening.
    http://tinyurl.com/zfku7yc  Fortune magazine

    The report, Carr says, lists hacking groups previously suspected of Russian government ties, mostly identified by commercial security firms, "without providing any supporting evidence that such a connection exists." That evidence may still remain classified, but Carr says that if so, it should be reviewed by an independent commission, because the White House targeting of Russia "is looking more and more like a domestic political operation run by the White House".

    The flaws of the Grizzly Steppe report could become grist for those skeptical of White House and security agencys' claims of Russian hacking--most notably, President Elect Donald Trump. He and his supporters largely see the accusations against Russia as an attempt by President Obama and Democratic allies to discredit the incoming President.But political anxiety over the lack of evidence is simmering elsewhere, too. Writing on Friday, left-wing commentator Matt Taibbi described the Grizzly Steppe report as "long on jargon but short on specifics," and part of a broader pattern of government overstatement with "an element of salesmanship."

    No exoneration of Putin (none / 0) (#10)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Dec 30, 2016 at 06:46:38 AM EST
    But, wasn't the Chinese hack far more devastating?

    22 million personnel records, with security clearances , including the security background checks. Lots of secrets there, with personnel throughout our government.  

    Now that deserved a stronger response than the Russian hack of private e mails.

    Yes, Russian hacking, Chinese hacking, North Korean hacking is serious, and it appears our government has not taken it as seriously as it should have, until it became a political issue.

    The Donald, Obama, and Vlad can all spout their talking points, but in the end, we will continue to try and hack them, and they will do likewise.
    The politics now on center stage is just showmanship


    Now it's Deflection (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by FlJoe on Fri Dec 30, 2016 at 07:38:01 AM EST
    "The Chinese were worse", "Putin's transgressions were small potatoes", "don't forget about the scary North Koreans", "it's all a political ploy" and the bizarre "it's just show business"(my newly arrived Quisling decoder ring is getting quite the workout).

    What deflection? (none / 0) (#37)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Dec 30, 2016 at 07:13:21 PM EST
    Where is the Outrage?

    The Chinese hack of the Office of Personnel Management was so more intrusive with who knows what ramifications,
    Now that one was far more serious than a hack of a private e mail account.


    "Far more serious" (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 30, 2016 at 07:41:32 PM EST
    Yet, you have no idea what the ramifications were of the Chinese hack.



    Exactly (none / 0) (#39)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Dec 30, 2016 at 07:47:44 PM EST
    22 million government employees, with security clearances. Yes, that ALONE is far more serious than 1 persons private e mail account.

    The actual ramifications, well, as the saying goes,
    if we found out, they would have to kill us!!


    It is? (none / 0) (#78)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 31, 2016 at 02:36:24 PM EST
    Do tell?  What horrible things do you think have happened as a result of the Chinese hack - as opposed to the election of a clueless, orange demagogue to the most powerful position in the world.

    Lol (none / 0) (#81)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Dec 31, 2016 at 09:13:54 PM EST
    Ask anyone , non partisan as to the seriousness of the Chinese hack.

    The "Russian " hack of Podestas e mail did not elect The Donald.

    American voters did.

    So what damaging information was revealed in those Top Secret Podesta e mails?


    Still waiting (none / 0) (#112)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 02, 2017 at 07:11:52 PM EST
    Can't come up with anything?


    BTW - The "American people" did NOT elect the Donald.  The American people chose Hillary by a margin of @ 3 million.  The electoral system and ignorant Republicans - influenced heavily by fake news and a smear masquerading as an FBI "investigation - chose the Orange Cheetoh.


    i support (none / 0) (#113)
    by linea on Mon Jan 02, 2017 at 07:31:39 PM EST

    one person shoukd count as one vote.
    this is also the reason why i am eurosceptic.


    What's more serious than (none / 0) (#88)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jan 01, 2017 at 11:20:23 AM EST
    foreign interference and disruption of our democratic processes? And why argue about 1 hacking being worse than another.  It's all bad.  The question is why are we not sufficiently armed for cyberwar that we can stop these attacks?

    What disruption (none / 0) (#92)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jan 01, 2017 at 11:29:28 AM EST
    Of our democratic process took place?

    None that I recall.

    Private  e mails were released, with nothing earth shattering or classified in them.


    Those emails dominated (none / 0) (#93)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 01, 2017 at 11:39:39 AM EST
    coverage for weeks.

    I'd say throwing the election to Trump is a big deal. But since your guy won, it is just fine.

    The GOP 180 on Russia is stunning.  Just get in line with Trump's being bought off, manipulated by Putin, and then delivering the quid pro quo in accepting Putin's views apparently across the board.

    Pay to play, indeed.


    Again I ask (none / 0) (#96)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jan 01, 2017 at 12:15:35 PM EST
    what GOP 180? Who now wants to lie in bed with Russia?
    None of the Republican Congress, thats for sure.

    I will wait and see what policies unfold before I make any conclusions.


    The POTUS has nothing (none / 0) (#98)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 01, 2017 at 01:07:04 PM EST
    to do with foreign policy, eh?



    I'm confused (none / 0) (#97)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jan 01, 2017 at 12:16:47 PM EST
    what exactly was in those e mails that would have convinced someone to vote for The Donald instead of Madame Sec?

    as i understand it (none / 0) (#99)
    by linea on Sun Jan 01, 2017 at 01:07:14 PM EST
    the emails we are refering to are the ones wiki released that (many interpreted) as evidence the DNC was actively hostile to Bernie and colluding with the Hillary campain rather than being a fair broker.

    thus, i assume the argument is either (a) enough Bernie supporters were disgusted and did not vote Hillary causing her to lose the election or (b) people (the general electorate) felt this was confirmation of the republican meme that Hillary was dishonest.

    that's how i understand it.

    but listening to interviews on NPR of people who twice voted for Obama but voted for Trump this year doesnt give me an inpression this was a factor at all. but that's just my impression.


    Correct (none / 0) (#103)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jan 01, 2017 at 02:03:09 PM EST
    The rust belt states, Madame Sec's blue wall, was broken not because of e mails, but because of policy.
    They voted for The Donald not because they liked him, not because they're racists,homophobes and Islamophobes,
    They voted for The Donald in spite of all the stupid things he said, because of policy, they wanted a change in policy that would create jobs

    No, you're not (none / 0) (#100)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 01, 2017 at 01:10:35 PM EST
    You are feigning ignorance.

    By making all the Hillary coverage negative, it prevented other, more helpful coverage--at the very least.  It also irritated the Left and Bernie supporters and depressed Democratic turnout.

    That is all obvious, but you carry water for Trump, so of course you feign ignorance.


    Deflection (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by FlJoe on Fri Dec 30, 2016 at 08:00:55 PM EST
    as in going off topic with your Chinese strawman. Hacking is hacking, it's a crime. You keep trying to minimize  Putin's crime as not that serious because he "only" robbed a 7-11 while the Chinese knocked over a bank or some such nonsense.

    Sure, massive data theft is troubling, public and private, but remember Russian hackers stole plenty of voter data along with the emails all for nefarious reasons.

    You don't seem troubled at all that Putin's motive
    was to muck around in our electoral process, an issue a least as serious as data theft in it's own way.

    Where's the outrage, indeed.


    It is not a strawman (none / 0) (#53)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Dec 31, 2016 at 07:16:23 AM EST
    It actually happened. Without this great outrage and threats of reprisal.

    Russians (supposedly with government backing) hacked into the account of a private individual.

    And released personal e mails.

    Please explain the difference in our President and his administrations response to both events.

    That is all I am stating. You prefer to decline to respond to that simple statement.

    Where did I minimize Putins crime? I did say that our governments response to the Chinese OPM hack was far less robust than this hack of 1 personal e mail account.

    Motive?  So far reports have indicated that from the outset there was no clear motive. And perhaps it changed after the hack being successful.

    But it most likely was simply what I stated long ago, Madame Sec stated that Russian elections were not fair, and I always thought that Putin wanted to show American elections were not either.
    Release of the e mails showed media in bed with Madame Sec's campaign (getting debate questions, asking what points should they bring up in a Republican debate, and conspiring with the DNC to suppress The Bern) and did indicate that American elections weren't exactly fair either.


    You (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by FlJoe on Sat Dec 31, 2016 at 09:00:03 AM EST
    minimize Putin's crime right here  
    this hack of 1 personal e mail account.
    Did you forget about the hack of the DNC and multiple Voter Data bases? Or are you lying like a good little quisling?

    BTW: Obama did show some outrage and threaten reprisals. Obama to China: Stop hacking U.S. companies, or else and took some actions that provided actual results,

    In fact, the last year has seen a little-discussed but dramatic drop in Chinese state-sponsored hacking, particularly for intrusions targeting private companies.
    That decline was achieved through two major moves by the US government since 2014. First, the US Department of Justice identified five Chinese men by name--all members of China's People's Liberation Army--and accused them of taking part in a series of intrusions of American companies, going so far as to issue criminal charges against them in absentia. Additionally, after the US threatened new trade sanctions against China for its hacking activities in 2015, Chinese President Xi Jinping and President Obama signed an agreement in that September in which both countries agreed not to hack the other's private sector targets. With a few exceptions, China has since abided by that agreement,
    Just because it doesn't register on that "outrage meter" in your head doesn't mean you can flush it down your memory hole.

    Pucker up for Putin.


    see, here's the thing (none / 0) (#11)
    by mm on Fri Dec 30, 2016 at 07:05:39 AM EST
    the President Elect says it time to move on in response.

    That doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling.


    The warm and fuzzy, let's move on (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by KeysDan on Fri Dec 30, 2016 at 03:58:31 PM EST
    feelings are between Putin and Trump. Putin's "magnanimous" reaction, for which he is so well known, states: "although we have the right to retaliate, we will not react to irresponsible 'kitchen' diplomacy, but will plan our further steps to restore Russia-US relations based on the polices of the Trump Administration. (note: apparently, that 'kitchen' reference is to the great, Cold War era, Kitchen Debate between Nixon and Krushchev in 1959--V. Putin has a long, Sovietsky operational memory.)

    Trump, in response, tweeted: "Great move for delay (by V. Putin).  I always knew he as very smart."

    Trump's response is curious in that "V. Putin" did not, in his statement, indicate that a Russian reaction was to be "delayed."   Could it be there was another communication between V. Putin and General Flynn, or best friend, Tillerson?  I think their slip is showing.


    I wonder how serious... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Fri Dec 30, 2016 at 07:46:00 AM EST
    it really is though...Russia, China, N. Korea, Iran and more trying to hack us constantly, and we are trying to hack them constantly.  Big whoop.

    How serious is a buncha international gangsters doing international gangster sh&t and how does it directly effect the common folk of their respective countries?  I'm inclined to think hacking doesn't crack the Top 20 of nefarious doings by Russia, China, USA...anybody.

    Of course it rubs me the wrong way...but much of what world governments do rubs me the wrong way, mine included. Ob la di, ob la da.


    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by FlJoe on Fri Dec 30, 2016 at 08:25:32 AM EST
    it's no big deal, but if you ever read any cyber punk SF you might think there are some disturbing consequences of unfettered hacking on an industrial scale.

    No Cyber in this Punk... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by kdog on Fri Dec 30, 2016 at 09:27:51 AM EST
    I still use Hotmail...Analog Punk;)

    A lot disturbs me about the digital world...the loss of privacy not least amongst it...but this type of low down dirty espionage might be an improvement on the old style...when low down dirty spooks used torture, blackmail, brick and mortar B&E, or LSD & Hookers to pry information from unwilling sources.


    Oh no (none / 0) (#35)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Dec 30, 2016 at 07:04:09 PM EST
    What China did to our Office of Personnel Management, getting background checks of people with security clearances, hacking information on over 22 million federal employees.

    Yes, that one did effect the little people, plus who knows what they can do with that information.

    "If an individual underwent a background investigation through OPM in 2000 or afterwards ... it is highly likely that the individual is impacted by this cyber breach," OPM's statement said today.

    Even before today's announcement, there was little doubt that the universe of victims was vastly larger because the hackers had access to far more than personnel records, including files associated with background investigations and information on government workers' families, sources said.

    Surely you (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 30, 2016 at 07:48:50 PM EST
    jest. Putin is going to have his own guy in the white house so he won't even have to hack and get the names from the personnel office. And let's not forget that Putin also released a ton of personal information, credit cards and everything from DNC donors. And the names of gay people in countries so they could be tortured. Trump can just hand over the information to Putin. And who knows what kind of blackmail material Putin may have on Trump to boot.

    Oh yes (none / 0) (#52)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Dec 31, 2016 at 07:16:20 AM EST
    On Day one The Donald will give Vlad the password to get into all US Government databases

    Who's going (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 31, 2016 at 07:54:21 AM EST
    to stop him? Surely not any Republicans in the house or senate are going to be watching what he does. He's already shown that they will obey his beck and call. The house and senate have been falling all over themselves to either praise Putin or make excuses for him.

    What alternate universe do you reside in? (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Dec 31, 2016 at 08:04:43 AM EST
    Some Republican Members of Congress have criticized Obama's measures as too little, too late. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, for instance, described the sanctions as "a good initial step, however late in coming."

    Arizona GOP Sen. John McCain told Fox News that he wants to increase sanctions on Russia, in addition to permanently stationing U.S. soldiers in the bordering Baltic countries and further helping neighboring Ukraine against Russian aggression -- to ensure Russian President Vladimir Putin knows "this kind of action in the future will be responded to."

    Graham outlined a more specific agenda and suggested Obama should end his presidency next month without taking action.

    "Putin has cleaned his clock," Graham said. "Here's what I'd prefer: Let the new Congress and new president deal with Russia. ...

    Paul Ryan:  

    "Russia does not share American's interests," Ryan said in a statement. "In fact, it has consistently sought to undermine them, sowing dangerous instability around the world. While today's action by the administration is overdue, it is an appropriate way to end eight years of failed policy with Russia. And it serves as a prime example of this administration's ineffective foreign policy that has left America weaker in the eyes of the world.

    The response (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 31, 2016 at 08:17:57 AM EST
    from the GOP is beyond pathetic and does nothing to answer my question as to who is going to stop Trump from handing everything over to Putin? These are the same people who have enabled Putin every step of the way. McConnell refusing to release the information on Putin and Ryan stymieing an investigation in the house. They can issue stupid statements all they want but when the rubber hits the road those jokers chose Trump and Putin over the citizens of this country and allegiance to the country.

    Trevor I am so confused (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by FlJoe on Sat Dec 31, 2016 at 09:15:59 AM EST
    You are outraged because we are outraged, now the Republicans who were not outraged before the election are now outraged that Obama was not outraged soon or strong enough.

    I really think the Russians have developed and deployed a stupid ray. Ironically tinfoil enhances the effects.


    Sigue, sigue (none / 0) (#64)
    by MKS on Sat Dec 31, 2016 at 10:37:52 AM EST
    Thoroughly amusing posts.

    It reminds me of Major Major and Catch 22.

    They are outraged indeed.  And what the hell are they outraged about?  I lost track too.  Gotta get a GOP scorecard or bingo card to know when to be outraged.


    Yes (none / 0) (#65)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Dec 31, 2016 at 10:39:06 AM EST
    You are confused, on that we agree.

    Republicans have been asking Obama for actions gainsayer Russia his whole Presidency, for Crimea, for Ukraine, so , hopefully, you are not confused now.

    It is Obama who finally got on board with the Republicans and decided to push back against the Russians, after the election.

    He could have done something regarding Russia a long time ago,

     I guess he was too busy telling the Russians he could be more flexible after his re election in 2012. Oops, the mic wasn't supposed to catch that.


    Oh, yeah (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 31, 2016 at 11:08:04 AM EST
    those putzes were so concerned about Russia that they allowed Trump to make the GOP platform Putin friendly. They basically let Putin write the foreign policy on their party platform. Go tell your nonsense to people who believe your talking points. The rest of us here know better.

    Invest in some Russian Red lipstick Trevor so you can kiss Putin's butt. You've already done a great job puckering up for Putin.


    GA...GOP Platorm Russian friendly?? (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 31, 2016 at 01:14:07 PM EST
    Really?? You mean wanting our allies and other countries in the ME to do their share of defeating radical islamists is Russian friendly???

    The things I do learn from you.

    BTW - Does this mean that you want to take on defeating ISIS et al by ourselves???


    You don't know (none / 0) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 31, 2016 at 02:26:50 PM EST
    what you've been voting for?

    How the GOP establishment lost to Trump on Russia

    The GOP platform has been changed to making it very Putin friendly and it has nothing to do with ISIS and everything to do with what Putin wants regarding the Ukraine etc. Put on your Russian Red lipstick and start puckering up for Putin.


    Outraged? (none / 0) (#66)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Dec 31, 2016 at 10:42:27 AM EST
    Not me.

    Am just curious where all the outrage was prior to the election.
    You know , when all this occurred.
    The annexation of Crimea, the advance into Ukraine, the hack of Podestas e mail.

    The administrations late response is all politically driven, and it is sad, because reprisals should have been made when these things occurred


    Silly troll (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 31, 2016 at 02:30:34 PM EST
    It seems you have a VERY selective memory. We were outraged that Putin was interfering in the election, Hillary even mentioned it in at least one debate and guess what you did? You called it tin foil conspiracy theories. Not only were you not angry about it you attacked people who were angry. Perhaps the GOP now should mean Grand Old Putin? Go all Out for Putin?

    Am just curious.. (none / 0) (#71)
    by jondee on Sat Dec 31, 2016 at 12:45:52 PM EST
    why you're so memory-challenged that you have no recall of the sanctions that were imposed on Russia in response to the annexation of Crimea and the advance into the Ukraine.

    Wow (none / 0) (#82)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Dec 31, 2016 at 09:16:41 PM EST
    Stern slap on the wrist.

    Nuns in Catholic school had sterner rebukes.

    Perhaps giving the Ukrainians a means to defend themselves might have given the Russians pause, especially after they shot down a civilian airliner.


    If it was such (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jan 01, 2017 at 07:07:47 AM EST
    a meaningless slap on the wrist why did Trump fight so hard to remove them from the party platform?
    Inside the meeting, Diana Denman, a platform committee member from Texas who was a Ted Cruz supporter, proposed a platform amendment that would call for maintaining or increasing sanctions against Russia, increasing aid for Ukraine and "providing lethal defensive weapons" to the Ukrainian military.

    "Today, the post-Cold War ideal of a `Europe whole and free' is being severely tested by Russia's ongoing military aggression in Ukraine," the amendment read. "The Ukrainian people deserve our admiration and support in their struggle." and about those weapons Finally, Trump staffers wrote an amendment to Denman's amendment that stripped out the platform's call for "providing lethal defensive weapons" and replaced it with softer language calling for "appropriate assistance."

    Trump staffers in the room, who are not delegates but are there to oversee the process, intervened. By working with pro-Trump delegates, they were able to get the issue tabled while they devised a method to roll back the language.

    and about those weapons,
    Finally, Trump staffers wrote an amendment to Denman's amendment that stripped out the platform's call for "providing lethal defensive weapons" and replaced it with softer language calling for "appropriate assistance."

    I know you quislings have trouble with dealing with facts...... but your lips sure look purdy.



    Being such that (none / 0) (#84)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jan 01, 2017 at 09:39:07 AM EST
    Party platforms mean so much, lol, and so often are completely ignored,

    Because what Trump thinks and what Republicans think are 2 different things.

    And Republicans would like to increase sanctions on Russia, as the ones in place are a slap on the wrist...

    a platform amendment that would call for maintaining or increasing sanctions against Russia

    Thank you for pointing that out

    And that the current administration and Trump think alike, no means for the Ukranians to defend themselves

    increasing aid for Ukraine and "providing lethal defensive weapons" to the Ukrainian military.

    So why do you support Trump (none / 0) (#85)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 01, 2017 at 09:44:34 AM EST
    if he up-ends GOP orthodoxy and loves Putin?

    I don't (none / 0) (#90)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jan 01, 2017 at 11:25:44 AM EST
    I supported the Little Cuban fella.

    The Donald is the President, and Republicans have the House and a small majority in the Senate.

    The Donald has some policies that I feel are detrimental , others perhaps eh, and some I fully support.
    A plus is his ability to upset the Washington elite, set it on its ear.
    A minus is his ability to upset the status quo, so , in effect, that role of Disrupter in Chief, well, can go either way.
    I believe he has accomplished, competent people surrounding him, how much he listens is yet to be determined.
    His campaign only seemed to take off when he did listen, he too often doubled down on own goals (pride and stubbornness) , most glaringly the Khans and the former pageant winner. Hopefully , a learning experience.
    After the last 16 years of ineffectual leadership displayed by both parties, we get The Donald. And only because the political elite of both parties take care of themselves first.
    As far as Putin, his approach is vastly different than the historical Republican  view. He will negotiate , and where he finds common ground, will yield some of what Putin wants to get something he wants.He is not a Putin puppet, but he is willing to trade off with him.
    He also will be unleashing the ultimate weapon to weaken Vlad , Iran, and other Arab nations. Oil. Oil and gas  production will ramp up, hopefully to drive the price back down.
    Ultimately, I hope the Republican Congress can push some of their agenda through. It is the way our country operates, Republicans did not get much of their agenda with Bush, none the past 8 years, so , you take small gains where you can get them.
    Stylistically, he may break the place, but, the country and separation of powers should limit any actual damage.
    Of course, Obama pushing the edge of executive powers and actions sure doesn't look good when The Donald gets to use those new powers, does it?


    "He is not a Putin puppet" (none / 0) (#94)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 01, 2017 at 11:45:55 AM EST
    If it looks like a duck.....Sure, he is a puppet.  Why are you so confident he is not?  That is great faith you have--contrary to all the evidence.  Looks like blind faith to me.  Makes you a supporter.

    And driving the price of oil down?  Huh?  Gas prices are very low now.  


    Actually (none / 0) (#95)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jan 01, 2017 at 12:13:40 PM EST
    Since OPEC started drilling quotas, the price of oil has went from $30 barrel to now close to $60.
    Which is the price the frackers may restart production. Although new fracking techniques may enable them to restart at a lower oil price.

    Why are you so sure he is a puppet?

    He said nice things, thats it? That makes one a puppet, saying nice things. I tend to wait and see actual policy in effect before I make such declarative pronouncements


    You are (none / 0) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 01, 2017 at 01:36:12 PM EST
    very good at embarrassing yourself. However Jennifer Rubin aptly named Republicans like you Vichy Republicans. You'd work with the Nazis like the French Vichys did as long as you get X. You've chosen being a Republican over being an American first. You apparently are fine with a Putin stooge in the white house.

    I was fine (none / 0) (#102)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jan 01, 2017 at 02:03:05 PM EST
    With Obama in the White House, as there was nothing I could do about it. But Obama would not negotiate with Republicans for anything, and The Donald will.
    So you take small policy gains where you can, always moving forward.
    Or, you could stamp your feet and ball up your fists.

    your troll (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 01, 2017 at 02:32:30 PM EST
    fantasies are funny. I guess you forgot about the whole year Obama tried to work with the Republicans on health care and they refused. What Republicans consider "working with" is not a normal definition. Of course, the entire GOP is pretty much abnormal. however when the GOP says "work with me" it means you sign what we want and you get nothing. McConnell even said that he couldn't be seen doing anything with Obama. So that set the tone. The GOP wrote wacko legislation that they knew Obama wouldn't sign and then they blamed Obama for not "working with them" when in all honesty they never wanted to work with Obama. You got played by the GOP but hey, what else is new?

    You think the answer to (none / 0) (#108)
    by Chuck0 on Sun Jan 01, 2017 at 05:31:13 PM EST
    "16 years of ineffectual leadership" is the spectre of NO leadership under the orange prince? We are doomed.

    Direct impact (none / 0) (#89)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jan 01, 2017 at 11:24:49 AM EST
    As a former government employee, I was one who may have been hacked.  I consider Russia's actions far more damaging to the nation as a whole, especially in light of information in post above indicating that US took action which seems to have deterred Chinese hacking.  What will be done about Russian hacking going forward?

    The Washington Times (none / 0) (#70)
    by jondee on Sat Dec 31, 2016 at 12:39:00 PM EST
    what an unimpeachable source.

    Are you still required to be washed in the blood of Sun Myung Moon before you can work for them?


    So Is It Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (none / 0) (#1)
    by RickyJim on Thu Dec 29, 2016 at 07:18:54 PM EST
    that they Russians were behind the hacking?  I don't plan to sift through the evidence so I hope I can get some expert lawyerly opinions. :-)

    Did someone bring (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Peter G on Thu Dec 29, 2016 at 07:38:28 PM EST
    criminal charges? Since when did we demand that U.S. intelligence agencies disclose the "evidence" that they presented to the President to inform national security decisions? Much less that the evidence, once presented, satisfy the standard that would otherwise apply only in a criminal trial? The President may choose to disclose some or all of that evidence, for his own reasons, or he may not. Either way, he accepts the consequences of that decision in the arena of national and/or international public opinion (cf. GWBush & WMD).

    That Was Too Lawyerly (none / 0) (#22)
    by RickyJim on Fri Dec 30, 2016 at 10:34:15 AM EST
    IOW, avoid the question and deprecate the questioner.  Scientists even use the phrase, "Proved beyond a reasonable doubt."  The existence of the Higgs Boson is while dark matter isn't.  Just as with the case of the WMD, we should ask the question as to how good the evidence is and not accept a proof by authority.

    So, if the question you were asking (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Peter G on Fri Dec 30, 2016 at 01:41:42 PM EST
    was not intended to be understood in the legal sense, why did you ask for a lawyer's opinion in response to the question? I am now even more convinced that you have no real interest in the answer to the purported "question" at all. Your purpose seems more likely to obfuscate and deflect inquiries that reflect poorly on the utterly unserious and unqualified Tr*mp's credibility and legitimacy as President-elect.

    Wrong (none / 0) (#32)
    by RickyJim on Fri Dec 30, 2016 at 05:25:43 PM EST
    I naively thought that lawyers like to analyze evidence, even complicated ones.  And if you look at my posting the past year, it is pretty obvious that I am no fan of Trump.

    This may be a miscue (none / 0) (#33)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 30, 2016 at 06:08:18 PM EST
    Don't think this is the case.

    I would not ordinarily jump in here, but your posts are perhaps more than anyone else around here even-handed, reasonable and in good will--even to the idiots who post here.  I think this is just miscommunication in this instance.  


    You Are Right (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by RickyJim on Fri Dec 30, 2016 at 10:56:44 PM EST
    I should have just asked if anybody had studied the published evidence enough so they could come to a conclusion of how convincing the case was that the Russian government had done the hacking.  There was no reason to ask for a "lawyerly opinion" and I apologize if some lawyers were offended.

    Again (none / 0) (#91)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jan 01, 2017 at 11:26:17 AM EST
    read Corn's piece at Mother Jones

    miscue? (none / 0) (#46)
    by linea on Fri Dec 30, 2016 at 08:49:01 PM EST
    perhaps (none / 0) (#49)
    by Peter G on Fri Dec 30, 2016 at 09:36:28 PM EST
    In that case, RJ's comment just makes no sense to me, and I have no further interest in it.