MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
Talking heads don't appear to have had much time to look at the details yet. Reporters are waiting on the formal announcement from Rod Rosenstein of the indictments. It is clear that they are directly related to Putin, not clear yet whether to the Trump administration.
A federal grand jury in the District of Columbia returned an indictment Friday against 13 Russian nationals and three Russian entities accused of violating US laws to interfere with US elections and political processes [....]
Comments
CNN just added two more reporters to the byline (there was only one when I first posted the link) so they are probably going to publish more at the link soon. On live TV it is clear they have not had time to digest the indictments.
by artappraiser on Fri, 02/16/2018 - 1:28pm
ALL RIGHTY THEN.
I am watching Trump's favorite assistant AG.
hahahhahahah
Is Trump worried?
WHAT, ME WORRY?
by Richard Day on Fri, 02/16/2018 - 1:35pm
Rosenstein is speaking live now.
One thing that already struck me is that he spent time explaining how this group took care to hire Americans who did not know they were working for Russia and to stress that no Americans have been charged. That they worked to promote discord in the population by appearing as grassroot activists. That they did things like organize rallies both for and against Trump on the very same day.
by artappraiser on Fri, 02/16/2018 - 1:38pm
It's over, it was short and he only took one question.
Edit to add: White House Reporter Pam Brown has that Rosenstein briefed the president this morning.
A reiteration from reporters/anchor that this indictment does not involve any Americans and that any Americans that worked with these organizations or used their information were unaware that they were working for Russian aims, thought they were American grassroots activists.
by artappraiser on Fri, 02/16/2018 - 1:51pm
I just wish to check in; I am beginning to really like Rosenstein.
I was never sure about him.
After all, I am a thousand miles away, geographically.
ha
I am beginning to trust the bastard.
I just keep hoping that Trump does not.
the end
by Richard Day on Fri, 02/16/2018 - 4:32pm
CNN Live Updates link, has the Rosenstein announcement video
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/16/politics/russia-investigation-latest/index.html
with this intro:
They have Carl Bernstein speaking live on broadcast pointing out that this indictment strategically protects Mueller's further investigation as objective, takes away the ability to attack it as a political witch hunt.
by artappraiser on Fri, 02/16/2018 - 1:58pm
BBC:
It says a group of Russians:
by NCD on Fri, 02/16/2018 - 2:23pm
Sample tweets
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 02/16/2018 - 2:28pm
What I can't get out of my mind on this whole thing is how it means that there were some genuises in Russian intel who understood that Trump was a troll par excellence, the ideal vessel for what they wanted to do: provoke discord. Even before most of us understood the extent of Trump's troll capabilities. This is counter all I have learned about Russian intel, I've learned over the years to think of them as mostly clueless oafs about our government and culture.
On the other hand, I am less convinced that in the end "Hillary lost because of the Russians". Because those Americans who fell for or worked for these guys agreed with whatever was being pushed. It's not like the Russians pushed them to believe it. They were just exploiting American tendencies already there. This is the way I see it: every time you push polarizing political agitprop, you are doing what these Russians think will help bring our country down.
And that means: if you think they are correct in their analysis of our country's situation, and you don't want our country brought down, you will stop with the polarizing rhetoric and want to tamp down the partisanship and try to reach out to whoever you think the other side is.
by artappraiser on Fri, 02/16/2018 - 3:07pm
Who's the polarizer..? Who's the polarizer..? You're the polarizer..!!
Trump of course is the polarizer in chief.
by NCD on Fri, 02/16/2018 - 3:13pm
So you agree with the Russians! Traitor! Hating each other, cultural identity groups, civil war: as American as apple pie!
by artappraiser on Fri, 02/16/2018 - 3:17pm
Trump ended DACA and is deporting people.
Trump doesn’t believe in climate change and is selling off national parks
Trump is suppressing votes.
Trump wants more guns not less
What is there that creates bipartisan agreement?
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 02/16/2018 - 3:39pm
Your parodies often inspire me, NCD.
Comes to mind that Putin is always pushing for mono-culture for mother Russia. He learned this from his Soviet masters in the KGB and is a believer. What he thinks is the end game of that is what I don't get. If you have these mighty mono-cultures as nation states controlling the globe, what then? It is just moving culture wars to a much higher level, nation vs. nation.
Then I thought of a comparison on a micro-level. Most non-delusional people realize that all families are dysfunctional in one way or another but continue to make it through generation after generation somehow. What is the trigger where it all becomes too much dysfunction where things like divorce and disinheritance happen? Where relatives never ever talk with each other again, no longer come to partake of Thanksgiving arguments, do not show up at a family funeral after decades have passed, etc.
by artappraiser on Fri, 02/16/2018 - 4:10pm
A good one just came to mind to come back atcha:
I'm a uniter, not a divider ~ George W. Bush
(works best if you imagine a Bushian heh! at the end as if he was surprised at himself saying it.)
by artappraiser on Fri, 02/16/2018 - 4:22pm
Your assumption does not explain those who voted for Obama and then for Trump. Nor does it take into account the people who voted Green, knowing that Jill would not be elected.
The unrelenting negativity unleashed at Clinton, including rumors of serious illness, non-scandal scandals, etc must have taken a toll on some voters who were somewhat on the fence, if nothing else.
I just can’t imagine Russia pouring so much money in to a waste of time and effort. All they did was essentially to wage their own campaign. Every candidate campaigns. Why? Because if they have enough money and are also lucky, they might get elected. And focusing on the hotbed of Social media, where rumors evolve and grow into “truth” was evil genius. Even President Obama was cowed by a stupid threat from McConnell that he would say that Obama was making up a Russian cyber attack to skew the election. What a huge mistake it was for Obama not to call his bluff and even announce the threat as well.
it seems so odd to me that each time anyone acknowledges the concerted, expensive, and expansive effort a former Russian spy masterminded against our democracy, they invariably end up saying that it actually accomplished nothing. Really? How else could a fool like Trump get into the Oval Office?
edited to fix quote
by CVille Dem on Fri, 02/16/2018 - 3:56pm
The other demand is that Liberals stop the polarizing rhetoric. If Liberals don’t push back against Conservative nonsense, it allows lies to go unchallenged. A man with a rifle arrived at a D.C. pizzeria to stop Hillary’s child porn ring. That man’s action is not because of anything Hillary did. You have to fight.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 02/16/2018 - 4:10pm
Yet I often see you attack Hal's polarizing rhetoric. You have a vision of what a liberal is that does not include Bernie Sanders fans and vicey versa.
Edit to add: Meantime the conservative trolls are controlling the frames of the national discussion. Not liberals. Liberals become the reactors. That makes them look weak. They cannot come up with frames of their own, always on the defense, and a splintered defense to boot.
That's what trolls on the internet do, frame the discussion, away from rationality into reactive emotional discussion that splinters.
by artappraiser on Fri, 02/16/2018 - 4:29pm
Yes, I attack Hal’s polarizing rhetoric. Yes I attack Trump’s polarizing rhetoric. It is called pushback.
In the aftermath of the shootings in Florida, Conservatives are offering thoughts and prayers. They say that there is no solution to gun violence. That is nonsense and it should be called nonsense. Remember the great response that occurred when Obama had a reasoned discussion about gun control after Sandy Hook? Look at all the great reforms that came out of that approach.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 02/16/2018 - 4:41pm
"Meantime the conservative trolls are controlling the frames of the national discussion. Not liberals. Liberals become the reactors. That makes them look weak. They cannot come up with frames of their own, always on the defense, and a splintered defense to boot."
This is true to a very real extent. So, AA, why do you think so many liberals refuse to rally around frames like: "Health care is your right as an American." "Your children deserve to go to college just as much as the Koch kids do." "You worked hard all your life, don't let the billionaires take away the retirement you earned." "Sick and tired of watching good American jobs going to exploited workers in China? Vote democratic socialist!"
by HSG on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 7:43am
Let's address just 1 example of your silliness. Clothing is much less expensive now than 30 years ago, so that people have more variety, swap out clothes each year, engae in "fast fashion". It's not great ecologically, but people like it. And Americans save a ton of money - much more in total than the amount given away in jobs. Don't believe it? Take an iPhone - parts made in Asia cost max $200, probably much less. iPhone now selling for $1000. So at least 80% of the cost goes to the US, and the actual profit on manufacturing and shipping from China is probably less than 50%, while the costs in the US are a little bit for stores and HQ, and mostly for people = jobs. So we lose very little shopping those manufacturing jobs overseas, but drive the price down, can produce much more cheaply in China with enough workers, and therefore make a ton more profit that goes to US workers and investors. Sure we can build $1 billion LCD plants in the US, but it's not very profitable, so what's the point?
Health care as a "right"? How much? Heart transplants for 94-year-olds? It all ends up weird sloganeering.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 8:50am
It is astonishing to me that you continue to defend poverty wages. Okay, it's not astonishing. I'll grant you this. You are consistent. Nothing can change your mind once you've expressed an opinion. I'm certainly not going to waste more time trying.
by HSG on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 9:34am
"Poverty wages" are often not poverty wages in the country where they're paid - they're often the way to a slow steady climb up the ladder. In the case of fast fashion and other exploitation, I readily accept that those in control can and have pushed wages in some sectors below survivability and acceptability (such as mothers not being able to afford to keep their children with them). You remember my piece about the exploitation in the garment industry? Of course not. Waste your time "trying"? you never try - you only regurgitate your same old 3-4 "solutions"/ magic bullets, and ignore all logic and arguments presented to you. lather, rinse, repeat - it's always deja vu all over again.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 12:25pm
I'd certainly believe it when this is all said and done, Hillary believes it, that Russians are why she lost. Because she doesn't just have decades of experience at political campaigning and the demographics of this country, she also has the big picture of being Secretary of State and knowing how important it is that people know the truth of what other nation state actors are capable of doing and what they are not.
It's not good to raise fear of an adversary's power unnecessarily, that's how the cold war happened. Especially if their efforts had little effect. You have to gauge carefully what they can do and what they can't. I.E., sometimes maybe it's better to ridicule efforts like this.
Myself, my reading is leading me to think that the most damage was done in losing swing voters who had voted for Obama to Trump is this: a underlying dislike for political correctness of decades standing which many liberals like to pretend is not there. Obama did not for the most part participate. But Hillary has been branded with it for decades, not through her own fault, excepting maybe her manner. Trump sold himself as non-politically correct. A tiny number of swings in the right places liked that about him. Now they are sorry they voted for him, as in: be careful what you wish for, you might just get it. Because all political correctness really is is an attempt to introduce some civility in our daily lives, as wrongheaded and overboard it might get sometimes. Whereas Trump is really just a troll caring only about himself.
by artappraiser on Fri, 02/16/2018 - 7:08pm
So Hillary bears no responsibility, "excepting maybe her manner," for how people perceive her? Does Trump bear responsibility for people's perception of him? How about Obama - widely respected and admired - is he responsible for the public perception of him? Elizabeth Warren is considered a wonky progressive. Is that an accurate perception? Why in your opinion do people perceive Hillary so inaccurately when you probably think we get most politicians at least somewhat correctly?
Maybe I should ask you if Hillary perceives herself accurately? She said that she's kinda "moderate center." Was she right? If so, then can you understand why progressives wouldn't perceive her as an ally? What about her actual record as opposed to people's perceptions? Does it scream progressive populist or does it scream establishment politician who tries to tell people what she thinks they want to hear while doing the bidding of rich and powerful backers? If there's any truth to the latter characterization, then can you understand why those on the left and independents don't trust her?
AA - is it possible that you're the one whose perception of Hillary is inaccurate?
by HSG on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 7:52am
Hal, we've been through this a million times. Hillary's moderate center stance was just fine with most Americans, and turning others off with lies about uranium, Bill's mistresses, her stance on guns, her emails, and other fake news is certainly not her fault. If you're distraught over her "cackle", then there's no hope. If you don't understand the economics of trade, well, perhaps you can study and figure it out in a decade or two. (so far you come across as a low information voter)
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 8:54am
The charges note that the Russians were in contact with members of the Trump campaign. The Russians also praised Sanders and Jill Stein. The overall effort was to damage Hillary Clinton. While the FBI was secretly investing Trump’s campaign, Comey was open about a renewed investigation of Hillary. The odds were stacked against Hillary. The result is that the electoral college elected an authoritarian.
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 9:26am
PP - we've been through this a million times. You are unwilling to revise your (frequently demonstrated to be incorrect) views on trade. You are simply uneducable in that regard and I will not argue with you. I speculate that you are unwilling to be educated because your income comes from multinational corporations that profit from the world-destroying "free trade" that you extol. Obviously I can't know that. I will continue to debunk your false pro-trade claims with facts.
Most Americans recognize that she is corrupt and that was a major reason that she lost. You are welcome not to believe that. But if you want to persuade people, beyond the few here who are emotionally committed to be with her, you need to present persuasive evidence and make compelling arguments. That, however, you are unable to do.
by HSG on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 9:30am
You've never offered a single coherent, economics-backed argument about trade. It's always how it destroys US jobs but exploits foreign workers, and never addresses that it pays real people's salaries and gives consumer benefits, despite my repeated acknowledgment that trade without proper regulation is a bad idea. Lots of hysterical innuendo with little fact.
[btw, big drivers of inflation are health care, housing, education and energy costs - all domestically abused sectors, not the results of trade or foreign interference]
You know nothing about my income, but your guess is wildly off the mark, unsurprisingly..
And you never address direct firsthand experience with communist socialism, which considering the horrid toll it took on the world in the 20th Century, should give you a little pause in your steadfast cheerleading.
I note your everpresent ability to refer to Hillary as corrupt (largely bolstered by both fake news and none-too-friendly press who kept repeating the word), while you don't seem to be too bothered by say Jane Sanders' nonsense at Burlington College or their daughter's sweetheart deal with the Woodworking School, though I guess you did support Bernie releasing his income taxes - coulda, should, woulda for the "most honest man alive".
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 12:16pm
Hal there are millions of virtuous open minded economically anxious white males at Red State, Der Sturmer and Briebart waiting for you to proselytize.
They exist innocently in a neoliberal hell, exploited by all the evils perpetrated by free traders, and rich multinational corporate plutocrat trolls as you so sublimely identify here.
The oppressed white males are lost in the ideological wilderness, armed, angry and have a burning zeal for a revolution that empowers them. The populism Trump speaks of and which you have so eloquently craved must be fulfilled. Yet not here..!!
Your mission will prosper in the hot blood and the fertile soil of the plutocrat free, populist sites above.
Let the revolution begin...!!!!!
by NCD on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 1:50pm
Most Americans recognize that she is corrupt
Ridiculous hyperbole. Which just shows your agenda up, a ridiculous agenda where you constantly try to convince Dagblog members that they don't understand the American public and that if they just listen to you, they could.
There are subtle reasons that a very small minority of centrist and left-of-center Americans dislike her. The only sweeping statement of that nature that I'd buy would be something like most Americans would rather have seen a fresh face run for president on the Democratic ticket rather than someone where they know all the foibles and part of a family dynasty to boot. I think that's what happened to her in 2008. It's easy to overcome the fresh factor, too, though. Look at the son of George Bush.
You seem to have this dream that Bernie Sanders would be so popular if only if only if only. There's no there there. You can't even convince a handful of liberals at Dagblog to like him. Meanwhile you're the only one here who thinks Hillary is "corrupt".
On the national stage, the only ones who still seem to think about Hillary as "corrupt" are Donald Trump and Sean Hannity. You are with them. Where you gonna go with that coalition with your socialist ends? There isn't much "lock er up" enthusiasm elsewhere these days, even at Breitbart.
I dare make this sweeping generalization instead, gets the zeitgeist more accurately: a large majority of Americans now wish Hillary were president. The few inside that group that had qualms about her wished they hadn't. Only a small passionate cohort think that of Bernie Sanders.
And this one: a large majority hates Trump.
And this one: a large majority hates the MAGA Agenda
And this one: only a small minority is anti-globalization and anti-trade.
Even the end game of this dreaming is silly denial of reality, lets take it by some miracle that Bernie was the candidate and won. Trump fans would still be out there. Hillary fans would still be out there. He'd probably still have a Republican Congress.
Your position and arguments to sound rational and to convince need to start with reality: you are arguing from a minority position and need to convince a lot of people. Bernie gets that, you don't.
by artappraiser on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 2:51pm
"Convince dagbloggers that Bernie is popular?" Are you actually trying to argue that he's not? I guess you've got insights that nearly nobody else has since Politifact gave a "mostly true" to the claim last April that Bernie is "the most popular politician in America today." Politifact said it was "accurate" but needed clarification since only the retired Obama had a better polling average over the past year. At that time, Bernie's approval rating was at 57%, Hillary's was at 42% and Trump's 44%.
A "very small minority" of Americans dislike her? What do you know that Gallup doesn't?
But you claim that most Americans now wish that she were President instead of Trump. Maybe he's even more unpopular than she is. Whoops, nope. From the same article: "Clinton's unpopularity rivals Trump's, whose favorability rating remains around 40 percent, a record low for presidents at the end of their first year."
You scoff at my assertion that most people consider Clinton to be corrupt. You call it ridiculous hyperbole. Over the summer of 2016, the LA Times asked readers what words came to mind when they first thought of Hillary Clinton. The first two were "liar" and "corrupt". That's not a scientific poll you harrumph. What do you say in response to the Gallup poll during the Democratic primaries which found that a plurality of Americans consider Clinton to be "dishonest," a "liar," "don't trust her," "has poor character." On July 25, 2016, 68% of Americans surveyed by CNN said Hillary isn't honest and trustworthy.
Look, your views are held by a majority of the tiny sliver of Americans who comment and post at this website. Why do you think you and they are so out of step with the American people?
by HSG on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 10:45pm
Why do white voters hate Hillary so much? Voters in other ethnic groups prefer Hillary. What attracts white voters to Donald Trump?
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 11:07pm
Hal, if white voters still prefer Trump over Hillary, that does not indicate that Hillary is the problem, it is a sign that the country is in free fall.
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 11:36pm
As has been pointed out numerous times 5 years ago Hillary had great favorability numbers. What "corrupt" hateful incident happened since? An email server? Or years of directed invective, bizarre Benghazi hearings, media hate for ratings, oppo spin and Russian influence?
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 11:31pm
Here are ten reasons that Hillary's popularity dropped like a stone between 2014 and now: 1) Her confidential Wall Street speeches. 2) Her prickly defensiveness during the 2016 primaries reminded everybody of her prickly defensiveness during the 2008 primaries. 3) Her refusal to acknowledge in a forthright manner that she she violated federal regulations regarding email preservation while Secretary of State. 4) Her inability to point to any examples, since 2001, where she championed the interests of poor, working, and middle-class Americans over those of the affluent. 5) BLM's ability to publicize the racist policies that she pursued in the 90s. 6) Her flip flops on the TPP and Keystone XL. 7) Haiti. 8) Libya & Syria. 9) Bibi. 10) Bernie's superiority to Hillary on the issues and his evident decency and honesty made Hillary's selfishness and duplicity all the more obvious.
by HSG on Mon, 02/19/2018 - 8:28am
If people are still choosing Trump over Hillary, aren’t those voters the real problem? Democrats won about thirty elections since the election of Trump. Voters still siding with Trump are hopeless.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 02/19/2018 - 9:21am
Her Wall Street speeches is the only one I see as valid. When Bush/Cheney/Rove can delete 20 million emails, and they turn around and get pissy about supporting multiple email accounts on phone, they're just being jackasses, like their awfully fucked up multiple Benghazi hearings. Prickly defensiveness? She's been attacked for Bill's mistresses, killing Vince Foster & 20 or 50 others, being racist against Obama, etc, etc. As for the rest, you're just a troll.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 02/19/2018 - 9:48am
Hal, do you have a link to your posts at Briebart and Red State..?
Are they ready to throw off the tyranny of Hillary and the corrupt Democrats?
by NCD on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 11:46pm
Broward County vote scandal mongering
And Russian provided cages with orange Hillary convict outfits. And what else?
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 11:52pm
PROVES NO COLLUSION..!!!!!
Obama's FAULT..!!!
by NCD on Mon, 02/19/2018 - 12:39am
In answer to your first question: No and I don't rely on Blue Nation Review, Verrit, or Rachel Maddow either for credible information.
In answer to your second question: Wha?
by HSG on Mon, 02/19/2018 - 8:09am
Hey, I just finished reading the indictments. It really does Read like a spy novel. I think you are a fast reader, but I’ll give you a big tip:
Skip over the 10 syllable names, lol!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pJNX97nYc4ZHa3yBtMhHqMOOAwN0UeDI/view
by CVille Dem on Fri, 02/16/2018 - 5:27pm
WaPo interview with lawyer:
by NCD on Fri, 02/16/2018 - 5:50pm
Absolutely. I pointed this out this afternoon soon after the story broke:
Didn't have time to mention other talking heads saying that, too.
To my mind, it's without question ,very clear: this is a strategic indictment to counter all the pro-Trumpie conspiracy theories about the Mueller investigation. First he starts with the Russian proof. To prove it happened and to prove he is being apolitical.
Next he moves on to any proof of collaboration or just even a coverup like Nixon.
I think people who care should support him in doing this. Instead of fanning the partisan thing at this time, tamping it down and pointing to the original crime: by Russia. Step by step.
by artappraiser on Fri, 02/16/2018 - 6:47pm
This particularly caught my eye, beginning at the bottom of page 2:
The only people that we know of who are in the category of the parentheses were involved with Trump.
Listening carefully to Rosenstein, I gathered that this “gang of 13” have specific charges that only apply to the stuff they did as foreigners, banking fraud, etc. So there may be other charges against them, as well as others, the individuals that the Grand jury already knows about, and some they haven’t yet met.
by CVille Dem on Fri, 02/16/2018 - 8:40pm
Tweet reproduced in the Breitbart article I just posted downthread:
after which is this:
later notes things like this without disparagement:
by artappraiser on Fri, 02/16/2018 - 8:51pm
In reference to the same quote C'Ville highlights in her reply - Phillip Bump has a good take on it. The first two lines:
by barefooted on Fri, 02/16/2018 - 6:06pm
Bump's assertion that the influence exerted by the Russians can only be measured by showing that some people changed how they would have voted without influence presumes that all the people who voted were aware of all the things that brought them to choose one over the other.
In the marketing and trading world, algorithms are developed that are used because they demonstrate a certain bang for buck. If doing X means you consistently get a certain result, the user doesn't demand to understand it completely. One does X until it stops working.
It is an iterative process.
by moat on Fri, 02/16/2018 - 6:57pm
Yes! Great point. And the Russians were playing with marketing and algorithms. They've done it with other countries too.
One cannot get sure results with it, this is the human vs. robot thing of the Candy Heart Messages written by a Neural Network.
It is why I totally buy that their main goal is sowing chaos. Because they can't be sure of any other result. What they are doing is good for one thing: sowing chaos.
by artappraiser on Fri, 02/16/2018 - 7:15pm
Their main goal, through sowing chaos, was to prevent Hillary Clinton from becoming President. The efforts to promote Sanders prove that - take her out early if possible, simpler that way. Had Sanders won the nomination, what would their algorithms and marketing have told them then?
eta: Keeping in mind, of course, that once Hillary was defeated the next goal in line was to support the most likely kompromat-susceptible candidate. Trump topped that list as soon as he descended the escalator.
by barefooted on Fri, 02/16/2018 - 7:30pm
Yes, means to an end.
by moat on Fri, 02/16/2018 - 7:36pm
I'm not sure we know yet what the end is. Perhaps it's an ongoing determination.
by barefooted on Fri, 02/16/2018 - 7:56pm
Me neither. The question of how specific the desired ends are does bedevil every consideration of the matter.
by moat on Fri, 02/16/2018 - 9:33pm
It will be very telling if the Russian trolls switch to backing the anti-trump candidates just to fuck with trumps mind. He truly would not know what to do and his behavior would be even more chaotic. If you believe that Putin is more anti-USA than pro-trump it is a distinct possibility.
by CVille Dem on Mon, 02/19/2018 - 11:20am
Greg Sargent observes that this set of indictments steers clear of the collusion question by only talking about unwitting help from the Trump campaign:
"The indictment says that some of the defendants “communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump campaign.” At a presser just now, Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein reiterated this, claiming that “there’s no allegation in this indictment” that any American was aware of the alleged crimes. (Emphasis mine.) "
I take Sargent's point that this leaves plenty of room to pursue evidence of quid pro quo. What is equally important is that these indictment show that a working relationship between the Russians and the campaign can be demonstrated without proving intent. In terms of a group of professionals wanting to protect their reputations, having it be proved that they are clueless tools may be as bad as getting caught at playing dice with the universe.
by moat on Fri, 02/16/2018 - 6:29pm
AND even if he hasn't or doesn't find enough evidence of intentionally complicity, one still may have the whole coverup thing that got Nixon.
I think this approach will help in that: all patriotic Americans should be appalled at the point of Russia trying to interfere. Full stop because that's all he's focusing on now. Let the public think about just that.
by artappraiser on Fri, 02/16/2018 - 6:50pm
Covering up an unwitting act of cooperation with a foreign power? The idea does strongly suggest that the cover upper became more "witting" at some point.
The reactions by Trump and team is what is so bizarre about this whole affair. Are they completely out of their minds? Are they clever criminals who know how to keep their advantages in every situation? Are they Thelma and Louise accelerating as they approach the precipice? Do I look fat in these jeans?
by moat on Fri, 02/16/2018 - 7:23pm
Wow, just checked Breitbart, and shock and awe: forced to play it straight! The headliner is a long analytic article by Matthew Boyle, very low spin zone, using the indictments, but also citing past enemies like Bloomberg.com as if they are truthtellers, pointing out things like fake demonstrations meant to align Hillary with the Muslim hordes, and that the "un-indicted co-conspirators" might turn out to be Americans in a great deal of trouble. One result that says to me Mueller's doing it right:
Mueller Drops Hammer with Indictment of 13 Russians in Election Meddling Conspiracy
Is actually a good read.
by artappraiser on Fri, 02/16/2018 - 8:37pm
Impressive. Mueller knows how not to get sidelined, avoided all the minefields. No conservatives were harmed in the making of this press release. Only Russians. Simply clever.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 02/16/2018 - 11:10pm
For the moment, the Russians are the enemy (2018 elections? Bipartisan attention? Further FBI action?), but signals the case is far from closed - Tennessee two-step.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-16/mueller-is-said-to-st...
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 02/16/2018 - 11:23pm
Just came to me that it would be quite easy to keep the Deep State conspiracizing going if one wanted to, though, given the indictments came 3 days after the Deep State heads en masse testified the same story to the Senate Intel committee. Is this a milestone at Breitbart, a shake of the readership as if to say "okay time to wake up now, it was fun but we have to tend to reality?" We'll see.
by artappraiser on Sat, 02/17/2018 - 12:26am
This marks the first case where the charge of Russian interference to defeat Hillary is made by a jury of - jurors- rather than by the scorned representatives of the "deep state". Means Team Trump needs to retool its campaign.
As does Chairman Nunes.
by Flavius on Fri, 02/16/2018 - 11:16pm
Furthermore, a carefully played Trump, and then Republican, card was that he and they represent the " PEOPLE" not those whom that truck driver described to Terri Gross yesterday as "Jews and Girls." IMHO it's worked The low road always does.
by Flavius on Fri, 02/16/2018 - 11:24pm
(Edited to fix link.) Thanks for relating that "jews and girls" thing, Flav, is a new one on me, hah. Is especially interesting in light of recent reports on the truckers' friend Bannon that suggest that he might be afraid of what those girls might be able to do. (Maybe not a coincidence one of them smartypants elite Asians just opened a presidential campaign with the warning that one million truck driving jobs will disappear in just a few years and all us "jews and girls" should be afraid of what truck drivers like him will do after that if the gummint does nothing about it.)
by artappraiser on Sat, 02/17/2018 - 12:08pm
I found this 2015 NYTimes piece worth a read for thinking about big picture motive, hat tip Andrew Prokop's piece on the indictments @ Vox.com
And before they started to work on other countries, in Russia, where Chen went to check it all out, it's totalitarian but more Kafka than Orwell, the original purpose: basically to ruin the internet for anti-government purposes. Same as with cracking down and taking over other media. A couple of excerpts:
Goes on to explain how they ended up started to troll in English around 2014...
by artappraiser on Sat, 02/17/2018 - 4:30am
*This*.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 02/17/2018 - 5:55am
In 2009, five years before the trolls started trolling in English, this radical idea was presented and maybe even seriously considered, though I doubt it, but then rejected by the Obama administration.
by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 02/17/2018 - 6:07am
Hmmm...maybe Russia cared more about disclosure of others' offenses in part because they thought they were ahead on offense and wanted to preserve a perceived lead? Or, opposite of that, maybe they thought they were behind and wanted a way to catch up more quickly?
Fred Kaplan' s Dark Territory, on the U.S. history, is said to include information new even to some insiders. Might be bumping that one up in the queue for heightened topical relevance. Singer's book on Cybersecurity and Cyberwar said to be a good intro. I wouldn't know, either, how importantly dated it might or might not be at this point.
by AmericanDreamer on Sat, 02/17/2018 - 6:38am
Or they would play their shell game funding private groups and pretend they had no control. Kind of like with chemical weapons.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 02/17/2018 - 11:56am
Wow. Not that anything Putin and his government do feels shocking given what has long been known and documented about him.
by AmericanDreamer on Sat, 02/17/2018 - 6:19am
You'd think anyone with some knowledge about the US would know that when it comes to dissing and hating on one another we are pretty good at that on our own and don't need much if any of a nudge in this regard.
Of course each of us could help counter if not foil this Russian effort by deciding that, upon encountering internet incivility, that it is probably not a fellow American on the other end but a Russian not (my autocorrect is repeatedly not letting me type the word "bot" after the word "Russian": coincidence? I think not...)
The Cold War rivalry with the Soviets coincided with some sketchy US behavior interfering with political outcomes in Iran, Chile, and Guatemala to name just a few. Interesting that in this era the Russians aren't "limiting" their efforts to "third world" countries but are baldly going right after the big dog. Of course to the extent they are successful it is reflective of deep weaknesses in our society which we allow to fester even as elements seeking power consistently and aggressively seek to widen and exploit them.
One other consequence of the Cold War competition was greater impetus to move forward on civil rights in the 1950s and 1960s. There was a national embarrassment factor at work. This was back when there was bipartisan belief and understanding that we could suffer consequences on account of our moral shortcomings, strategic as well as reputational.
by AmericanDreamer on Sat, 02/17/2018 - 9:40am
The only defense against this form of cyberattack is an informed public. There should be loud pushback against the wingnuts who offer thoughts and prayers rather than gun control,after a massacre. People calling for Hillary should have been ridiculed. The internet is not going to be cleaned up from disagreements. There are people who will call the indictment of 13 Russians as vindication of Trump. Providing links to support your opinion is not trolling, it is arguing your position. Trump won because there were too many uniformed voters.
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 02/17/2018 - 10:36am
The problem in our democracy is not "dissing and hating each other".
It's that since the beginning of recorded history there is and will always be a segment of any population that is easily manipulated. By lies, bigotry, racism, greed, "hot button issues". Not aware or informed enough to realize it.
Today, and for decades, that exploited group is mined for money and votes by the right wing. See The Long Con, from 2012.
There are already sites aimed at them pushing Florida shooting #falseflag, :
that the shooting was gov't/liberal fake, done to take away guns, "destroy our way of life"
There is money to be made in exploiting ill informed people, call them victims and create social coherence by blaming all ills on racist lies. Money to be made in liquidating democracy, which is why David Pecker at the National Enquirer protects Trump because they help each other keep up the con with carefully selected dicey distractions and lies.
Powerful plutocrats from Kansas to Moscow (see Jean LeCarre, Fresh Air last September) are acting to degrade democracy, and control government for their own aggrandizement. By using a perverse "emphasis on believing without understanding", on people who are carefully indoctrinated and programed to reflexively accept cognitive manipulation, thus extinguishing critical thinking. Be it climate change, who gets the tax cuts, who did the latest massacre, Operation Jade Helm FEMA camps, fake birth certificates, "enemy of the people free press" etc
The "ideological and financial" con can only be ended by voting out Republicans.
by NCD on Sat, 02/17/2018 - 12:11pm
Amen.
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 02/17/2018 - 12:04pm
Thanks RM.
The manipulated right wing mob reflexively attacks Lindsey Vonn::
by NCD on Sat, 02/17/2018 - 12:53pm
And how do you know for sure those hate tweets are not by Russian trolls? Just kidding, but then again, maybe not.
by artappraiser on Sat, 02/17/2018 - 1:21pm
We have Trump video at recent Adoration Rally of cult supporters where he calls Democrats traitors for not applauding him. Lindsey Vonn said she wouldn't go to meet Trump at the White House. Connect two dots.
Russians upset about the doping scandal Russian flag, anthem ban is frankly understandable. They are proud of their athletes there.
Frankly the Russian flag ban was stupid, all the Russian athletes there are cleared, the ban just creates jingoistic support for Putin.
by NCD on Sat, 02/17/2018 - 1:45pm
. Lindsey Vonn said she wouldn't go to meet Trump at the White House. Connect two dots.
Ok, I buy that. Especially because stereotype passionate Trumpies are also likely to be the type yelling at the pro football coach from the couch with a six pack and this would be a demographic detail that Russian trolls could not possibly get, they only get the surface of the U.S.A. #1 thing, not it's entirety.
by artappraiser on Sat, 02/17/2018 - 2:37pm
Plus they probably only knew about that because Sean Hannity told them, why else would they wanna pay attention to wimmins skiing?
by artappraiser on Sat, 02/17/2018 - 2:40pm
P.S. Off thread, but on Olympics. I enjoyed reading this NYT review of what actually happened there. At the end there is a chart of the times, you are talking like nanoseconds for the top 3 medal winners, and less than a minute's difference for the top ten. They all seem to be quite well aware that they are all champions just going for personal best and that it is all about serendipity when all are so good. I don't usually read this stuff but I was so inspired that I moved on to read this at WaPo about what happened at the end of the men's freestyle cross country, how the last finishers all supported each other. Again, very inspirational.
Which in the end brings back a little back to topic. Those tweets, if not Russian, they seem to me to be dragging the professional spectator sports mentality of "hate the other side, support your team" partisanship to the Olympics, where it really doesn't belong! That is not what it is about. The atheletes in individual sports, they don't want or need that, they are there to push each other to excel.
by artappraiser on Sat, 02/17/2018 - 1:44pm
See above, Putin probably loves the the Russian flag, anthem ban. Stupid and punishes cleared athletes, as clean as other nations, Putin claims victimhood for his nation.
Russia itself, and honest Russians, are lumped in with the athletic program dopers.
by NCD on Sat, 02/17/2018 - 2:05pm
Czech snowboarder accidentally won her *ski* event without realizing it - stood there dumbstruck with mouth open for nearly a minute, then exclaimed, "how did that happen?". Had even borrowed skis for the event. Refused to take off her goggles, saying she hadn't put on makeup as she didn't think she'd be anywhere near the winner's circle. Sharon Dipitý, I think her name is.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 02/17/2018 - 5:00pm
Jonathan Turley facepalms his column in The Hill today. On a day with 16 indictments, a plea by Ricardo Penado, signs that Manafort is going down, and a direct leak that this is not the end of the investigation (with up to 13 angles publicly under investigation, including cybercrime, money laundering and obstruction of justice) how can Turley pretend this is proof there was no collusion? As has been noted many times, there is no law against "collusion", so Mueller will pursue real legal avenues for real violations of real statutes in his own careful time and sequence. With Republicans trying to shut him down, along witha Congressional committee head trying to leak testimony to suspects, he has to be careful.
I wonder how much Russian money and kompromat has gotten to otherwise decent journalists (aside from Greenwald).
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 02/17/2018 - 12:23pm
I heard speculation on Manafort by a legal expert on Rachel Maddow's show last night that the Gates plea deal must have provided evidence that Manafort had been trying to fool Mueller and what they just filed in court probably meant they were going to ask to jail him, that that was the most likely reason for the procedure hey just did. The expert was clearly being non-partisan and professional, just trying to interpret the legal processes going on.
by artappraiser on Sat, 02/17/2018 - 2:55pm
Proclaiming his heavily mortgaged house as mortgage-free collateral probably wasn't the smartest move.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 02/17/2018 - 5:02pm
More "ignore the clown in front ot the curtain" messaging from the cabinet really running our country:
McMaster says evidence of Russian meddling is ‘now really incontrovertible’ as he woos European allies
@ WashingtonPost.com, Feb. 17
by artappraiser on Sat, 02/17/2018 - 12:38pm
McMaster bad, not supporting proof of my rock solid popularity:
by artappraiser on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 4:15am
RNC is doing spinning for Trump:
by artappraiser on Sat, 02/17/2018 - 6:49pm
A former Russian troll speaks: ‘It was like being in Orwell’s world’
By Anton Troianovski @ WashingtonPost.com, February 17 at 7:10 PM
by artappraiser on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 5:12am
More on the above:
by artappraiser on Mon, 02/19/2018 - 11:29pm
P.S. That he failed the tryout as an English-language blogger, and was only allowed to be a commenter, he has some interesting reveals on that, like fake debates:
by artappraiser on Mon, 02/19/2018 - 11:42pm
AA wrote: "What I can't get out of my mind on this whole thing is how it means that there were some genuises in Russian intel who understood that Trump was a troll par excellence, the ideal vessel for what they wanted to do: provoke discord."
I was also struck by the fact that they were backing Trump even during the primary, but I infer a different reason for the choice. Perhaps they picked him because they could control him.
Trump's unwillingness to criticize Putin has always seemed suspicious, but now it has become a farce. "Trump blames everyone but Russia," headlines CNN. It's almost as if Russia has some dirt on him...
by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 2:14pm
Hard to believe, eh? Who'd think a self-made billionaire could be swayed with a bit of kompromat?
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 2:29pm
Trump has too much self control, Christian born again chastity and unimpeachable dignity to put himself in a compromised situation with ladies of ill repute, particularly in Russia, where his most above board straight arrow financial backers live.
by NCD on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 3:07pm
Well put
by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 3:47pm
He and most Russian oligarchs share a lot, they even have the same tastes in real estate, decor, wimmin, entertainment, wheeling dealing. The only difference is he has the TV showman understanding and love of P.R. and they don't, making him able to do the populist demagogue thing. And he doesn't have near their level of wheeling dealing skills. He definitely sold that image, but it is all strings and mirrors, not at all capable of building a real personal empire. So initially Russian oligarchs find him appealing and simpatico, but then eventually see there's no there there, this is a populist oaf.
by artappraiser on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 3:35pm
Throw in that Putin really doesn't seem to like him or respect him. With that it becomes clear to me that it's the troll = chaos thing that appealed. That is of course just intuiting from what's presented for public consumption, if you wanted to believe they secretly talk on the phone every day, you can and some will. But what the troll farms have done in other countries supports this, they seem to favor the native trolls running for office. About the only unifying thing is a preference for nativist/nationalist, so as to break down the strength of coalitions between nations like NATO. End game: a Russian Federation the strongest coalition on the globe? That synchs with what seems to be Putin's desired legacy: to leave mother Russia strong enough so it can survive forever, survive whatever comes.
by artappraiser on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 3:13pm
Or it could have been a matter of making sure the weakest person wins.
Clinton established a lot of connections while running the State Department. She was heavily criticized for spending so much time doing it. Leaving aside the debate of whether her foreign policy would have been the best thing for the nation, she was in a unique position to execute one.
A better sign of Putin having won this round is not the sanctions Trump won't sign off on but the empty shell Tillerson has carved out of the department he was put in charge of.
by moat on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 3:29pm
Yes I've read enough analysis that has convinced me that with Putin it was "anyone but Hillary" precisely because he thought she would be the strongest adversary and he already had the real time evidence of that.
by artappraiser on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 3:54pm
Comes to mind how upset he is now about the sanctions and how this suggests he misunderstood what happens when he installs a president here, the Congress is not a rubber stamp like the situation he's got. We've got that Senate thing. And there's a lot of them who dislike him enough and still suspect his countrymen enough that they won't sell out that particular point to go along with a president that ran along with their party. Should have been instructing the trolls to spin a lot of pro-Russia stuff along with other things they pushed? But one couldn't really push "Russia is a friendly wonderful democratic country" and maintain fearsome power, getting the American public to like them enough to influence their representatives (I'm thinking someone like John McCain)--a real tough one..
by artappraiser on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 4:02pm
It is hard to know all the results that were hoped for on the Russian side. Every decision has the shadow of unintended consequences ready to make one wish a different choice had been made after the fact. Regretting having gone one way doesn't mean the consequences of choosing differently would certainly have been better.
With those caveats in place, I think the Russians are more interested in balance of power and spheres of influence than changing public opinion in the U.S. Putin might be more worried about his moves to weaken NATO accidentally leading to a stronger Europe than U.S. attempts to bracket their markets.
My bunker in Brooklyn is small and I don't receive all the information needed to figure this stuff out. And then there all the chores. Time to move stuff around again.
by moat on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 4:43pm
Sure, there could be other reasons. But what better reason could Putin have for picking Trump? And what better reason could Trump have for protecting Putin? It would be so easy for the king of petty insults to lob a few at the Kremlin, if only to prove that he’s no one’s puppet. And yet, he goes out of his way to avoid criticizing Putin or Russia. Why?
by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 3:56pm
Thomas Friedman thinks he has the answer; or at least the right questions.
by barefooted on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 8:12pm
Reminds me I was impressed with Friedman' last column, on Syria; was going to post it but forgot. Just on an analytic level, seems to pretty much have all the players figured out and what they are up to, at least summarizes better than anything else I've read, and yes, of course, that includes Russia. So it is sort of on topic as far as Russia geopolitical motive.
by artappraiser on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 9:08pm
I suspect so too. And Josh Marshall has been pushing this angle for some time.
by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 10:06pm
We seem to be getting silly - over at Seth Abramson's twitter feed, he's documenting over and over specific agreements tied between Trump and the Russians around his pageant, the aborted Trump Tower Moscow deal and a run for President, with 3rd party tweets confirming this, and MAGA registered back in *2012*, and millions in excessive charges flowing into his accounts. Trump is Putin's boy, and Trump has repeated over and iver the importance of loyalty towards him. I'm sure he feels it towards Putin. He's a made man. Or was. Just keep walking forward, and the Russians would help fill in the rest.
(to be clear, a lot of places besides Abramson backing up this very basic info - Trump was already bragging about going for POTUS long before he claims now)
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 02/19/2018 - 12:55am
Jennifer Rubin's latest, "Trump's conduct is inexplicable, unless he's in Putin's pocket": https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2018/02/20/trumps-con...
from Tom Friedman's Sunday column:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/18/opinion/trump-russia-putin.html
"They may own our president."
by AmericanDreamer on Tue, 02/20/2018 - 4:27pm
NYTimes and WaPo. both disrespecting the narcissist projector this evening. I dunno whether that's gonna work out well or not. Do especially note the last link from WaPo, which suggests this is not a dangerous feeding of the troll.
Times:
Trump’s Relief Quickly Turns Into Fury After Indictment
By KATIE ROGERS and MAGGIE HABERMAN 8:00 PM ET
Fact Check: Trump Falsely Claims, ‘I Never Said Russia Did Not Meddle’
WaPo:
Trump lashes out over Russia probe in angry and error-laden tweetstorm
In a nine-hour tirade remarkable even by his own combative standard, the defiant president attacked the FBI and national security adviser H.R. McMaster, blamed Russian interference on Democrats and claimed special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation has exonerated him.
Perspective: Fact checking Trump’s error-filled tweetstorm about the Russia investigation
Top U.S. officials tell the world to ignore Trump’s tweets
by artappraiser on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 9:27pm
Max Boot ramping up the troll bait: Trump is ignoring the worst attack on America since 9/11
by artappraiser on Sun, 02/18/2018 - 9:37pm