|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
The sacking of Michael Flynn as national security adviser has intensified the frenzy over possible Russian interference in the election. The New York Times published an editorial comparing the Flynn imbroglio to Watergate, expressing “shock and incredulity” that Trump campaign officials were in contact with Russian intelligence officials, demanding a congressional investigation of “whether people at the highest levels of the United States government have aided and abetted the interests of a nation that has tried to thwart American foreign policy since the Cold War.” President Trump, of course, scorns the charges as “a ruse” and “ridiculous.” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) called an emergency meeting of Democrats to plan how to spotlight the issue.
When Washington heads into one of these feeding frenzies, judgment is often the first casualty. It’s worth remembering what is at stake.
After the election, we learned that the CIA and the FBI — with the more tentative agreement of other intelligence agencies — concluded that Russian intelligence officials ran a covert operation that hacked into and leaked emails from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, with the purpose of hurting Clinton. Upon reviewing the still-secret report, President Obama, after affirming the results of the election, punished the Russians, expelling 35 suspected Russian intelligence operatives and imposing other restrictions.
To date, the evidence released publicly for this explosive charge — in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s Jan. 6 report — is so threadbare that the Times conceded that it “contained no information about how the agencies had collected their data or had come to their conclusions.” Clearly, an independent commission should be created to report on what was done and what should be done to protect against it in the future. It is shameful that Republicans in the Congress have chosen to block this effort.
The sacking of Flynn also raises fundamental concerns.
According to intelligence agency leaks, intercepted conversations between Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and Flynn, then the incoming national security adviser for President-elect Trump, suggest that Flynn may have urged the Russians not to overreact to the Obama sanctions. Putin chose not to respond in a traditional tit for tat. According to the leaks, intelligence agencies went to acting attorney general Sally Q.Yates with concerns that Flynn might be subject to Russian blackmail. She took those concerns to Trump. Weeks later, Flynn was fired for misleading Vice President Pence, among others, about the substance of his conversations.
But the Times editorial board and others suggest that mere contact with Russian officials is somehow nefarious, if not criminal — and that to suggest better relations are in the offing with a new president is virtual treason.
This is simply bizarre. Trump spoke positively of Russian President Vladimir Putin throughout the campaign, stating he would seek to enlist Russia in the fight against the Islamic State. If Flynn was reassuring the Russian ambassador that Obama’s sanctions wouldn’t dissuade Trump, he was doing what any national security adviser might do for a president-elect.
Flynn is — as anyone reading his writings would discover — unfit to head the National Security Council. But talking to the Russian ambassador or to purported “Russian intelligence officials” about the intentions of the incoming president is hardly subversive.
What should be of concern is the leaking of officially classified and intercepted telephone conversations — in what was clearly a successful effort to target and take out Flynn. That Trump has railed against the intelligence leaks should not discredit this concern. The intelligence community’s use of leaks of secret information to undermine a president constitutionally elected by the American people — no matter how unfit we consider him to be — is an ominous precedent.
Trump’s expressed hope for cooperating with Russia raised significant alarm at high levels of the national security establishment. The exaggerated Russian threat helps justify bloated military budgets and unify increasingly fractious allies. As Robert Hunter, the former U.S. ambassador to NATO, recently observed: “Allegations of Russian interference in the U.S. election campaign become a tool to limit, if not cripple, President Trump’s attempts to change the downward course of U.S. and Western relations with Russia.”
Sadly, common sense is getting lost in the frenzy. Clinton supporters inflate the importance of the purported Russian hacks to excuse her painful defeat. Democrats see the scandal as a way to undermine Trump.
In the targeting of Trump, too many liberals have joined in fanning a neo-McCarthyite furor, working to discredit those who seek to deescalate U.S.-Russian tensions, and dismissing anyone expressing doubts about the charges of hacking or collusion as a Putin apologist. But, as the Nation has editorialized, “skepticism isn’t treason; instead it’s essential to establishing the truth.”
In fact, better relations with Russia are in our national interest. Cooperation on nuclear proliferation, arms control, terrorism and other issues is vital to our security. Consolidating a zone of peace in Europe cannot happen without Russian engagement. As a leading oil producer, Russia must be part of the global effort to address climate change. Increasingly dangerous steps between two nuclear powers — a Russian spy ship off our coast, near misses of planes over Syria, provocative NATO exercises on the Russian border — could easily spiral out of control.
Foreign interference in U.S. elections is unacceptable. Leaks of secret intelligence to discredit an elected president are bad precedent. We need an independent investigation that reports publicly on what happened and what steps are necessary to protect against both. What we don’t need is a replay of Cold War hysteria that cuts off debate, slanders skeptics and undermines any effort to explore areas of agreement with Russia in our own national interest.
Source
Also, in contrast to what the trolls around here said about it being a desperate distraction in the face of the Flynn resignation, the Crimea comment by Trump was taken quite poorly in Russia. While any sane person knew that there was far more to gain from discrediting the US than holding out for any hope of a 180 on Russia policy, it has now become the dominant public opinion. Mind you, Medvedev said on the day Trump was elected that the government was operating under the assumption that no sanctions relief was on the horizon.
|
On February 21 2017 23:33 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +The sacking of Michael Flynn as national security adviser has intensified the frenzy over possible Russian interference in the election. The New York Times published an editorial comparing the Flynn imbroglio to Watergate, expressing “shock and incredulity” that Trump campaign officials were in contact with Russian intelligence officials, demanding a congressional investigation of “whether people at the highest levels of the United States government have aided and abetted the interests of a nation that has tried to thwart American foreign policy since the Cold War.” President Trump, of course, scorns the charges as “a ruse” and “ridiculous.” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) called an emergency meeting of Democrats to plan how to spotlight the issue.
When Washington heads into one of these feeding frenzies, judgment is often the first casualty. It’s worth remembering what is at stake.
After the election, we learned that the CIA and the FBI — with the more tentative agreement of other intelligence agencies — concluded that Russian intelligence officials ran a covert operation that hacked into and leaked emails from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, with the purpose of hurting Clinton. Upon reviewing the still-secret report, President Obama, after affirming the results of the election, punished the Russians, expelling 35 suspected Russian intelligence operatives and imposing other restrictions.
To date, the evidence released publicly for this explosive charge — in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s Jan. 6 report — is so threadbare that the Times conceded that it “contained no information about how the agencies had collected their data or had come to their conclusions.” Clearly, an independent commission should be created to report on what was done and what should be done to protect against it in the future. It is shameful that Republicans in the Congress have chosen to block this effort.
The sacking of Flynn also raises fundamental concerns.
According to intelligence agency leaks, intercepted conversations between Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and Flynn, then the incoming national security adviser for President-elect Trump, suggest that Flynn may have urged the Russians not to overreact to the Obama sanctions. Putin chose not to respond in a traditional tit for tat. According to the leaks, intelligence agencies went to acting attorney general Sally Q.Yates with concerns that Flynn might be subject to Russian blackmail. She took those concerns to Trump. Weeks later, Flynn was fired for misleading Vice President Pence, among others, about the substance of his conversations.
But the Times editorial board and others suggest that mere contact with Russian officials is somehow nefarious, if not criminal — and that to suggest better relations are in the offing with a new president is virtual treason.
This is simply bizarre. Trump spoke positively of Russian President Vladimir Putin throughout the campaign, stating he would seek to enlist Russia in the fight against the Islamic State. If Flynn was reassuring the Russian ambassador that Obama’s sanctions wouldn’t dissuade Trump, he was doing what any national security adviser might do for a president-elect.
Flynn is — as anyone reading his writings would discover — unfit to head the National Security Council. But talking to the Russian ambassador or to purported “Russian intelligence officials” about the intentions of the incoming president is hardly subversive.
What should be of concern is the leaking of officially classified and intercepted telephone conversations — in what was clearly a successful effort to target and take out Flynn. That Trump has railed against the intelligence leaks should not discredit this concern. The intelligence community’s use of leaks of secret information to undermine a president constitutionally elected by the American people — no matter how unfit we consider him to be — is an ominous precedent.
Trump’s expressed hope for cooperating with Russia raised significant alarm at high levels of the national security establishment. The exaggerated Russian threat helps justify bloated military budgets and unify increasingly fractious allies. As Robert Hunter, the former U.S. ambassador to NATO, recently observed: “Allegations of Russian interference in the U.S. election campaign become a tool to limit, if not cripple, President Trump’s attempts to change the downward course of U.S. and Western relations with Russia.”
Sadly, common sense is getting lost in the frenzy. Clinton supporters inflate the importance of the purported Russian hacks to excuse her painful defeat. Democrats see the scandal as a way to undermine Trump.
In the targeting of Trump, too many liberals have joined in fanning a neo-McCarthyite furor, working to discredit those who seek to deescalate U.S.-Russian tensions, and dismissing anyone expressing doubts about the charges of hacking or collusion as a Putin apologist. But, as the Nation has editorialized, “skepticism isn’t treason; instead it’s essential to establishing the truth.”
In fact, better relations with Russia are in our national interest. Cooperation on nuclear proliferation, arms control, terrorism and other issues is vital to our security. Consolidating a zone of peace in Europe cannot happen without Russian engagement. As a leading oil producer, Russia must be part of the global effort to address climate change. Increasingly dangerous steps between two nuclear powers — a Russian spy ship off our coast, near misses of planes over Syria, provocative NATO exercises on the Russian border — could easily spiral out of control.
Foreign interference in U.S. elections is unacceptable. Leaks of secret intelligence to discredit an elected president are bad precedent. We need an independent investigation that reports publicly on what happened and what steps are necessary to protect against both. What we don’t need is a replay of Cold War hysteria that cuts off debate, slanders skeptics and undermines any effort to explore areas of agreement with Russia in our own national interest. SourceAlso, in contrast to what the trolls around here said about it being a desperate distraction in the face of the Flynn resignation, the Crimea comment by Trump was taken quite poorly in Russia. While any sane person knew that there was far more to gain from discrediting the US than holding out for any hope of a 180 on Russia policy, it has now become the dominant public opinion. Mind you, Medvedev said on the day Trump was elected that the government was operating under the assumption that no sanctions relief was on the horizon.
"By Katrina vanden Heuvel"
Ahhhh, that explains it. I couldn't believe what I was reading considering it was coming from the Washington Post, haha.
|
I can easily see the SCOTUS siding with Uncle Sam on this one.
The cellphone video is vivid. A Border Patrol agent aims his gun at an unarmed 15-year-old some 60 feet away, across the border with Mexico, and shoots him dead.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in a case testing whether the family of the dead boy can sue the agent for damages in the U.S.
Between 2005 and 2013, there were 42 such cross-border shootings, a dramatic increase over earlier times.
The shooting took place on the border between El Paso, Texas, and Juárez, Mexico.
The area is about 180 feet across. Eighty feet one way leads to a steep incline and an 18-foot fence on the U.S. side — part of the so-called border wall that has already been built. An almost equal distance the other way is another steep incline leading to a wall topped by a guardrail on the Mexican side.
In between is a the dry bed of the Rio Grande with an invisible line in the middle that separates the U.S. and Mexico. Overhead is a railroad bridge with huge columns supporting it, connecting the two countries.
In June 2010, Sergio Hernández and his friends were playing chicken, daring each other to run up the incline on the U.S. side and touch the fence, according to briefs filed by lawyers for the Hernández family.
At some point U.S. border agent Jesus Mesa, patrolling the culvert, arrived on a bicycle, grabbed one of the kids at the fence on the U.S. side, and the others scampered away. Fifteen-year-old Sergio ran past Mesa and hid behind a pillar beneath the bridge on the Mexican side.
As the boy peeked out, Agent Mesa, 60 feet or so away on the U.S. side, drew his gun, aimed it at the boy, and fired three times, the last shot hitting the boy in the head.
Although agents quickly swarmed the scene, they are forbidden to cross the border. They did not offer medical aid, and soon left on their bikes, according to lawyers for the family.
A day after the shooting, the FBI's El Paso office issued a press release asserting that agent Mesa fired his gun after being "surrounded" by suspected illegal aliens who "continued to throw rocks at him."
Two days later, cellphone videos surfaced contradicting that account. In one video the boy's small figure can be seen edging out from behind the column; Mesa fires, and the boy falls to the ground.
Source
|
Yes, certainly an oddity coming from the publishers of "Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say." But an interesting one at that.
If nothing else, the DNC leaks seem to have legitimized an "anything goes" approach to partisanship. That's perfect.
|
On February 21 2017 23:33 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +The sacking of Michael Flynn as national security adviser has intensified the frenzy over possible Russian interference in the election. The New York Times published an editorial comparing the Flynn imbroglio to Watergate, expressing “shock and incredulity” that Trump campaign officials were in contact with Russian intelligence officials, demanding a congressional investigation of “whether people at the highest levels of the United States government have aided and abetted the interests of a nation that has tried to thwart American foreign policy since the Cold War.” President Trump, of course, scorns the charges as “a ruse” and “ridiculous.” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) called an emergency meeting of Democrats to plan how to spotlight the issue.
When Washington heads into one of these feeding frenzies, judgment is often the first casualty. It’s worth remembering what is at stake.
After the election, we learned that the CIA and the FBI — with the more tentative agreement of other intelligence agencies — concluded that Russian intelligence officials ran a covert operation that hacked into and leaked emails from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, with the purpose of hurting Clinton. Upon reviewing the still-secret report, President Obama, after affirming the results of the election, punished the Russians, expelling 35 suspected Russian intelligence operatives and imposing other restrictions.
To date, the evidence released publicly for this explosive charge — in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s Jan. 6 report — is so threadbare that the Times conceded that it “contained no information about how the agencies had collected their data or had come to their conclusions.” Clearly, an independent commission should be created to report on what was done and what should be done to protect against it in the future. It is shameful that Republicans in the Congress have chosen to block this effort.
The sacking of Flynn also raises fundamental concerns.
According to intelligence agency leaks, intercepted conversations between Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and Flynn, then the incoming national security adviser for President-elect Trump, suggest that Flynn may have urged the Russians not to overreact to the Obama sanctions. Putin chose not to respond in a traditional tit for tat. According to the leaks, intelligence agencies went to acting attorney general Sally Q.Yates with concerns that Flynn might be subject to Russian blackmail. She took those concerns to Trump. Weeks later, Flynn was fired for misleading Vice President Pence, among others, about the substance of his conversations.
But the Times editorial board and others suggest that mere contact with Russian officials is somehow nefarious, if not criminal — and that to suggest better relations are in the offing with a new president is virtual treason.
This is simply bizarre. Trump spoke positively of Russian President Vladimir Putin throughout the campaign, stating he would seek to enlist Russia in the fight against the Islamic State. If Flynn was reassuring the Russian ambassador that Obama’s sanctions wouldn’t dissuade Trump, he was doing what any national security adviser might do for a president-elect.
Flynn is — as anyone reading his writings would discover — unfit to head the National Security Council. But talking to the Russian ambassador or to purported “Russian intelligence officials” about the intentions of the incoming president is hardly subversive.
What should be of concern is the leaking of officially classified and intercepted telephone conversations — in what was clearly a successful effort to target and take out Flynn. That Trump has railed against the intelligence leaks should not discredit this concern. The intelligence community’s use of leaks of secret information to undermine a president constitutionally elected by the American people — no matter how unfit we consider him to be — is an ominous precedent.
Trump’s expressed hope for cooperating with Russia raised significant alarm at high levels of the national security establishment. The exaggerated Russian threat helps justify bloated military budgets and unify increasingly fractious allies. As Robert Hunter, the former U.S. ambassador to NATO, recently observed: “Allegations of Russian interference in the U.S. election campaign become a tool to limit, if not cripple, President Trump’s attempts to change the downward course of U.S. and Western relations with Russia.”
Sadly, common sense is getting lost in the frenzy. Clinton supporters inflate the importance of the purported Russian hacks to excuse her painful defeat. Democrats see the scandal as a way to undermine Trump.
In the targeting of Trump, too many liberals have joined in fanning a neo-McCarthyite furor, working to discredit those who seek to deescalate U.S.-Russian tensions, and dismissing anyone expressing doubts about the charges of hacking or collusion as a Putin apologist. But, as the Nation has editorialized, “skepticism isn’t treason; instead it’s essential to establishing the truth.”
In fact, better relations with Russia are in our national interest. Cooperation on nuclear proliferation, arms control, terrorism and other issues is vital to our security. Consolidating a zone of peace in Europe cannot happen without Russian engagement. As a leading oil producer, Russia must be part of the global effort to address climate change. Increasingly dangerous steps between two nuclear powers — a Russian spy ship off our coast, near misses of planes over Syria, provocative NATO exercises on the Russian border — could easily spiral out of control.
Foreign interference in U.S. elections is unacceptable. Leaks of secret intelligence to discredit an elected president are bad precedent. We need an independent investigation that reports publicly on what happened and what steps are necessary to protect against both. What we don’t need is a replay of Cold War hysteria that cuts off debate, slanders skeptics and undermines any effort to explore areas of agreement with Russia in our own national interest. SourceAlso, in contrast to what the trolls around here said about it being a desperate distraction in the face of the Flynn resignation, the Crimea comment by Trump was taken quite poorly in Russia. While any sane person knew that there was far more to gain from discrediting the US than holding out for any hope of a 180 on Russia policy, it has now become the dominant public opinion. Mind you, Medvedev said on the day Trump was elected that the government was operating under the assumption that no sanctions relief was on the horizon.
Good article, except for this section
What should be of concern is the leaking of officially classified and intercepted telephone conversations — in what was clearly a successful effort to target and take out Flynn. That Trump has railed against the intelligence leaks should not discredit this concern. The intelligence community’s use of leaks of secret information to undermine a president constitutionally elected by the American people — no matter how unfit we consider him to be — is an ominous precedent.
Which was pretty questionable. Saying the Intelligence Community's actions are concerning is good, but has been true since the IC agencies were created. But then the tone otherwise oddly dismissive and treats the public's reaction to true information (unless the author debates the leaked Flynn information) as somehow bad. The only problem is a lack of access to more information, and the large amount of influence the Intelligence Community is able to exert.
|
United States44439 Posts
On February 21 2017 17:15 mikedebo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2017 14:57 KwarK wrote:On February 21 2017 14:22 Gahlo wrote:On February 21 2017 14:19 KwarK wrote:On February 21 2017 13:40 BlueBird. wrote:On February 21 2017 12:46 zlefin wrote:
I'm happy to have windmills save family farms. much preferable to massive welfare payments in the form of farm subsidies for failing businesses.
on robot taxing: wouldn't the money already be taxed anyways? I mean, if the owner/corporation earns money from the production of the robot, that would be taxed. so what about that doesn't work? or maybe it just does work. part of the thing is that the robot reduced the value of the work I suppose, so it's no longer worth the original $50k (as per the example number in the post a bit above). efficiency improvements change the valuation of work. We currently tax profits created from a worker for a company and the workers income. I'm assuming it's a bit more complicated than that but that is the way I understand it. When you cut out the worker you now have an unemployed Person further burdening the government and now you have higher corporate profits which are taxed but you have no income tax to tax and it likely doesn't balance out because of the former workers and their families needing your help now. The net positive effect on the community from that company is now lessened in a sense, it could even be a burden if there are externalities on the community like air pollutants and the trade off of jobs goes away. If you replace a worker with a robot and don't change the price of what you sell then corporate profits will increase (otherwise you'd not want the robot) which are taxed there. If multiple rival companies do it then the savings are passed on directly to the consumer which is its own benefit. A progressive sales tax mixed with some kind of UBI is probably the optimal solution. I'll buy that when America's internet isn't both a) shitty and b) reasonably priced for its quality. Because right now, it isn't. The companies don't care because they've all got a piece of the pie. I said it was either or. Either they're raking in dollars for doing fuck all, in which case corporate taxes and taxes on dividends/capital gains scoop that up, or they're passing the savings on, in which case that's a direct benefit to the public. I agree with your analysis but I don't think it ends up in a "net gain" place. In the first case, corporate taxes and capital gains taxes are again usually lower on the same volume than income taxes are. Unless there is a corresponding massive increase in demand _because_ of automation (which I think is a stretch) I think this still ends up with a net loss of collected taxes. (There may be more subtleties here also depending on who is collecting -- state or fed) In the second case, we are removing tax dollars from budgets which can be generally applied to social causes and turning them into specific benefits for specific consumer bases who may not be the ones who need the attention of social services in the first place. I don't think money is the same regardless of whose account it is in.
Corporate and capital gains rates are lower, but they're double taxation and collectively represent a higher rate in many cases. If a corporation makes a profit it pays tax on that profit. If it reinvests the money then the share price increases, creating capital gains for the taxpaying public (either LT or ST depending upon how long they held the shares). If it issues a dividend then that is taxed directly as part of the income of the taxpaying public. It's taxed once when the company makes it and once more when they distribute it to the public.
Furthermore I think tax rates are largely a function of what the government needs to spend. They can be adjusted, and have been significantly in the past.
|
On February 21 2017 23:57 LegalLord wrote:
Yes, certainly an oddity coming from the publishers of "Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say." But an interesting one at that.
If nothing else, the DNC leaks seem to have legitimized an "anything goes" approach to partisanship. That's perfect.
Are you not familiar with Katrina vanden Heuvel (editor of TheNation)? She's married to Stephen F. Cohen, a professor emeritus of Russian studies at Princeton, who's been repeatedly accused of being a Putin apologist))
|
On February 22 2017 00:32 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2017 23:33 LegalLord wrote:The sacking of Michael Flynn as national security adviser has intensified the frenzy over possible Russian interference in the election. The New York Times published an editorial comparing the Flynn imbroglio to Watergate, expressing “shock and incredulity” that Trump campaign officials were in contact with Russian intelligence officials, demanding a congressional investigation of “whether people at the highest levels of the United States government have aided and abetted the interests of a nation that has tried to thwart American foreign policy since the Cold War.” President Trump, of course, scorns the charges as “a ruse” and “ridiculous.” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) called an emergency meeting of Democrats to plan how to spotlight the issue.
When Washington heads into one of these feeding frenzies, judgment is often the first casualty. It’s worth remembering what is at stake.
After the election, we learned that the CIA and the FBI — with the more tentative agreement of other intelligence agencies — concluded that Russian intelligence officials ran a covert operation that hacked into and leaked emails from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, with the purpose of hurting Clinton. Upon reviewing the still-secret report, President Obama, after affirming the results of the election, punished the Russians, expelling 35 suspected Russian intelligence operatives and imposing other restrictions.
To date, the evidence released publicly for this explosive charge — in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s Jan. 6 report — is so threadbare that the Times conceded that it “contained no information about how the agencies had collected their data or had come to their conclusions.” Clearly, an independent commission should be created to report on what was done and what should be done to protect against it in the future. It is shameful that Republicans in the Congress have chosen to block this effort.
The sacking of Flynn also raises fundamental concerns.
According to intelligence agency leaks, intercepted conversations between Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and Flynn, then the incoming national security adviser for President-elect Trump, suggest that Flynn may have urged the Russians not to overreact to the Obama sanctions. Putin chose not to respond in a traditional tit for tat. According to the leaks, intelligence agencies went to acting attorney general Sally Q.Yates with concerns that Flynn might be subject to Russian blackmail. She took those concerns to Trump. Weeks later, Flynn was fired for misleading Vice President Pence, among others, about the substance of his conversations.
But the Times editorial board and others suggest that mere contact with Russian officials is somehow nefarious, if not criminal — and that to suggest better relations are in the offing with a new president is virtual treason.
This is simply bizarre. Trump spoke positively of Russian President Vladimir Putin throughout the campaign, stating he would seek to enlist Russia in the fight against the Islamic State. If Flynn was reassuring the Russian ambassador that Obama’s sanctions wouldn’t dissuade Trump, he was doing what any national security adviser might do for a president-elect.
Flynn is — as anyone reading his writings would discover — unfit to head the National Security Council. But talking to the Russian ambassador or to purported “Russian intelligence officials” about the intentions of the incoming president is hardly subversive.
What should be of concern is the leaking of officially classified and intercepted telephone conversations — in what was clearly a successful effort to target and take out Flynn. That Trump has railed against the intelligence leaks should not discredit this concern. The intelligence community’s use of leaks of secret information to undermine a president constitutionally elected by the American people — no matter how unfit we consider him to be — is an ominous precedent.
Trump’s expressed hope for cooperating with Russia raised significant alarm at high levels of the national security establishment. The exaggerated Russian threat helps justify bloated military budgets and unify increasingly fractious allies. As Robert Hunter, the former U.S. ambassador to NATO, recently observed: “Allegations of Russian interference in the U.S. election campaign become a tool to limit, if not cripple, President Trump’s attempts to change the downward course of U.S. and Western relations with Russia.”
Sadly, common sense is getting lost in the frenzy. Clinton supporters inflate the importance of the purported Russian hacks to excuse her painful defeat. Democrats see the scandal as a way to undermine Trump.
In the targeting of Trump, too many liberals have joined in fanning a neo-McCarthyite furor, working to discredit those who seek to deescalate U.S.-Russian tensions, and dismissing anyone expressing doubts about the charges of hacking or collusion as a Putin apologist. But, as the Nation has editorialized, “skepticism isn’t treason; instead it’s essential to establishing the truth.”
In fact, better relations with Russia are in our national interest. Cooperation on nuclear proliferation, arms control, terrorism and other issues is vital to our security. Consolidating a zone of peace in Europe cannot happen without Russian engagement. As a leading oil producer, Russia must be part of the global effort to address climate change. Increasingly dangerous steps between two nuclear powers — a Russian spy ship off our coast, near misses of planes over Syria, provocative NATO exercises on the Russian border — could easily spiral out of control.
Foreign interference in U.S. elections is unacceptable. Leaks of secret intelligence to discredit an elected president are bad precedent. We need an independent investigation that reports publicly on what happened and what steps are necessary to protect against both. What we don’t need is a replay of Cold War hysteria that cuts off debate, slanders skeptics and undermines any effort to explore areas of agreement with Russia in our own national interest. SourceAlso, in contrast to what the trolls around here said about it being a desperate distraction in the face of the Flynn resignation, the Crimea comment by Trump was taken quite poorly in Russia. While any sane person knew that there was far more to gain from discrediting the US than holding out for any hope of a 180 on Russia policy, it has now become the dominant public opinion. Mind you, Medvedev said on the day Trump was elected that the government was operating under the assumption that no sanctions relief was on the horizon. Good article, except for this section Show nested quote +
What should be of concern is the leaking of officially classified and intercepted telephone conversations — in what was clearly a successful effort to target and take out Flynn. That Trump has railed against the intelligence leaks should not discredit this concern. The intelligence community’s use of leaks of secret information to undermine a president constitutionally elected by the American people — no matter how unfit we consider him to be — is an ominous precedent.
Which was pretty questionable. Saying the Intelligence Community's actions are concerning is good, but has been true since the IC agencies were created. But then the tone otherwise oddly dismissive and treats the public's reaction to true information (unless the author debates the leaked Flynn information) as somehow bad. The only problem is a lack of access to more information, and the large amount of influence the Intelligence Community is able to exert.
The way I saw that was that the IC overstepped its mission by taking matters into its own hands and releasing intelligence targeted for political purposes. That the IC has always been on that edge doesn't justify that it is like that - it just means that someone needs to keep a mad dog (that can, in the proper circumstances, defend you from an intruder) on a chain in the backyard.
It's kind of like this. Either both the Russian and IC leaks are bad, or neither are. They're both true information, but released with a politicized purpose. I suppose the big difference is that one is American in origin and the other isn't, but the intentions and means are quite the same. That normalizes the idea that it's alright to deal in politicized intelligence as long as it's for domestic matters. It'd be interesting to me if people are willing to go down that rabbit hole.
|
On February 22 2017 00:51 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2017 00:32 Logo wrote:On February 21 2017 23:33 LegalLord wrote:The sacking of Michael Flynn as national security adviser has intensified the frenzy over possible Russian interference in the election. The New York Times published an editorial comparing the Flynn imbroglio to Watergate, expressing “shock and incredulity” that Trump campaign officials were in contact with Russian intelligence officials, demanding a congressional investigation of “whether people at the highest levels of the United States government have aided and abetted the interests of a nation that has tried to thwart American foreign policy since the Cold War.” President Trump, of course, scorns the charges as “a ruse” and “ridiculous.” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) called an emergency meeting of Democrats to plan how to spotlight the issue.
When Washington heads into one of these feeding frenzies, judgment is often the first casualty. It’s worth remembering what is at stake.
After the election, we learned that the CIA and the FBI — with the more tentative agreement of other intelligence agencies — concluded that Russian intelligence officials ran a covert operation that hacked into and leaked emails from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, with the purpose of hurting Clinton. Upon reviewing the still-secret report, President Obama, after affirming the results of the election, punished the Russians, expelling 35 suspected Russian intelligence operatives and imposing other restrictions.
To date, the evidence released publicly for this explosive charge — in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s Jan. 6 report — is so threadbare that the Times conceded that it “contained no information about how the agencies had collected their data or had come to their conclusions.” Clearly, an independent commission should be created to report on what was done and what should be done to protect against it in the future. It is shameful that Republicans in the Congress have chosen to block this effort.
The sacking of Flynn also raises fundamental concerns.
According to intelligence agency leaks, intercepted conversations between Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and Flynn, then the incoming national security adviser for President-elect Trump, suggest that Flynn may have urged the Russians not to overreact to the Obama sanctions. Putin chose not to respond in a traditional tit for tat. According to the leaks, intelligence agencies went to acting attorney general Sally Q.Yates with concerns that Flynn might be subject to Russian blackmail. She took those concerns to Trump. Weeks later, Flynn was fired for misleading Vice President Pence, among others, about the substance of his conversations.
But the Times editorial board and others suggest that mere contact with Russian officials is somehow nefarious, if not criminal — and that to suggest better relations are in the offing with a new president is virtual treason.
This is simply bizarre. Trump spoke positively of Russian President Vladimir Putin throughout the campaign, stating he would seek to enlist Russia in the fight against the Islamic State. If Flynn was reassuring the Russian ambassador that Obama’s sanctions wouldn’t dissuade Trump, he was doing what any national security adviser might do for a president-elect.
Flynn is — as anyone reading his writings would discover — unfit to head the National Security Council. But talking to the Russian ambassador or to purported “Russian intelligence officials” about the intentions of the incoming president is hardly subversive.
What should be of concern is the leaking of officially classified and intercepted telephone conversations — in what was clearly a successful effort to target and take out Flynn. That Trump has railed against the intelligence leaks should not discredit this concern. The intelligence community’s use of leaks of secret information to undermine a president constitutionally elected by the American people — no matter how unfit we consider him to be — is an ominous precedent.
Trump’s expressed hope for cooperating with Russia raised significant alarm at high levels of the national security establishment. The exaggerated Russian threat helps justify bloated military budgets and unify increasingly fractious allies. As Robert Hunter, the former U.S. ambassador to NATO, recently observed: “Allegations of Russian interference in the U.S. election campaign become a tool to limit, if not cripple, President Trump’s attempts to change the downward course of U.S. and Western relations with Russia.”
Sadly, common sense is getting lost in the frenzy. Clinton supporters inflate the importance of the purported Russian hacks to excuse her painful defeat. Democrats see the scandal as a way to undermine Trump.
In the targeting of Trump, too many liberals have joined in fanning a neo-McCarthyite furor, working to discredit those who seek to deescalate U.S.-Russian tensions, and dismissing anyone expressing doubts about the charges of hacking or collusion as a Putin apologist. But, as the Nation has editorialized, “skepticism isn’t treason; instead it’s essential to establishing the truth.”
In fact, better relations with Russia are in our national interest. Cooperation on nuclear proliferation, arms control, terrorism and other issues is vital to our security. Consolidating a zone of peace in Europe cannot happen without Russian engagement. As a leading oil producer, Russia must be part of the global effort to address climate change. Increasingly dangerous steps between two nuclear powers — a Russian spy ship off our coast, near misses of planes over Syria, provocative NATO exercises on the Russian border — could easily spiral out of control.
Foreign interference in U.S. elections is unacceptable. Leaks of secret intelligence to discredit an elected president are bad precedent. We need an independent investigation that reports publicly on what happened and what steps are necessary to protect against both. What we don’t need is a replay of Cold War hysteria that cuts off debate, slanders skeptics and undermines any effort to explore areas of agreement with Russia in our own national interest. SourceAlso, in contrast to what the trolls around here said about it being a desperate distraction in the face of the Flynn resignation, the Crimea comment by Trump was taken quite poorly in Russia. While any sane person knew that there was far more to gain from discrediting the US than holding out for any hope of a 180 on Russia policy, it has now become the dominant public opinion. Mind you, Medvedev said on the day Trump was elected that the government was operating under the assumption that no sanctions relief was on the horizon. Good article, except for this section
What should be of concern is the leaking of officially classified and intercepted telephone conversations — in what was clearly a successful effort to target and take out Flynn. That Trump has railed against the intelligence leaks should not discredit this concern. The intelligence community’s use of leaks of secret information to undermine a president constitutionally elected by the American people — no matter how unfit we consider him to be — is an ominous precedent.
Which was pretty questionable. Saying the Intelligence Community's actions are concerning is good, but has been true since the IC agencies were created. But then the tone otherwise oddly dismissive and treats the public's reaction to true information (unless the author debates the leaked Flynn information) as somehow bad. The only problem is a lack of access to more information, and the large amount of influence the Intelligence Community is able to exert. The way I saw that was that the IC overstepped its mission by taking matters into its own hands and releasing intelligence targeted for political purposes. That the IC has always been on that edge doesn't justify that it is like that - it just means that someone needs to keep a mad dog (that can, in the proper circumstances, defend you from an intruder) on a chain in the backyard. It's kind of like this. Either both the Russian and IC leaks are bad, or neither are. They're both true information, but released with a politicized purpose. I suppose the big difference is that one is American in origin and the other isn't, but the intentions and means are quite the same. That normalizes the idea that it's alright to deal in politicized intelligence as long as it's for domestic matters. It'd be interesting to me if people are willing to go down that rabbit hole.
In some cases, there should simply be far more transparency so there's no need for leaks.
|
On February 22 2017 00:32 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2017 23:33 LegalLord wrote:The sacking of Michael Flynn as national security adviser has intensified the frenzy over possible Russian interference in the election. The New York Times published an editorial comparing the Flynn imbroglio to Watergate, expressing “shock and incredulity” that Trump campaign officials were in contact with Russian intelligence officials, demanding a congressional investigation of “whether people at the highest levels of the United States government have aided and abetted the interests of a nation that has tried to thwart American foreign policy since the Cold War.” President Trump, of course, scorns the charges as “a ruse” and “ridiculous.” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) called an emergency meeting of Democrats to plan how to spotlight the issue.
When Washington heads into one of these feeding frenzies, judgment is often the first casualty. It’s worth remembering what is at stake.
After the election, we learned that the CIA and the FBI — with the more tentative agreement of other intelligence agencies — concluded that Russian intelligence officials ran a covert operation that hacked into and leaked emails from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, with the purpose of hurting Clinton. Upon reviewing the still-secret report, President Obama, after affirming the results of the election, punished the Russians, expelling 35 suspected Russian intelligence operatives and imposing other restrictions.
To date, the evidence released publicly for this explosive charge — in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s Jan. 6 report — is so threadbare that the Times conceded that it “contained no information about how the agencies had collected their data or had come to their conclusions.” Clearly, an independent commission should be created to report on what was done and what should be done to protect against it in the future. It is shameful that Republicans in the Congress have chosen to block this effort.
The sacking of Flynn also raises fundamental concerns.
According to intelligence agency leaks, intercepted conversations between Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and Flynn, then the incoming national security adviser for President-elect Trump, suggest that Flynn may have urged the Russians not to overreact to the Obama sanctions. Putin chose not to respond in a traditional tit for tat. According to the leaks, intelligence agencies went to acting attorney general Sally Q.Yates with concerns that Flynn might be subject to Russian blackmail. She took those concerns to Trump. Weeks later, Flynn was fired for misleading Vice President Pence, among others, about the substance of his conversations.
But the Times editorial board and others suggest that mere contact with Russian officials is somehow nefarious, if not criminal — and that to suggest better relations are in the offing with a new president is virtual treason.
This is simply bizarre. Trump spoke positively of Russian President Vladimir Putin throughout the campaign, stating he would seek to enlist Russia in the fight against the Islamic State. If Flynn was reassuring the Russian ambassador that Obama’s sanctions wouldn’t dissuade Trump, he was doing what any national security adviser might do for a president-elect.
Flynn is — as anyone reading his writings would discover — unfit to head the National Security Council. But talking to the Russian ambassador or to purported “Russian intelligence officials” about the intentions of the incoming president is hardly subversive.
What should be of concern is the leaking of officially classified and intercepted telephone conversations — in what was clearly a successful effort to target and take out Flynn. That Trump has railed against the intelligence leaks should not discredit this concern. The intelligence community’s use of leaks of secret information to undermine a president constitutionally elected by the American people — no matter how unfit we consider him to be — is an ominous precedent.
Trump’s expressed hope for cooperating with Russia raised significant alarm at high levels of the national security establishment. The exaggerated Russian threat helps justify bloated military budgets and unify increasingly fractious allies. As Robert Hunter, the former U.S. ambassador to NATO, recently observed: “Allegations of Russian interference in the U.S. election campaign become a tool to limit, if not cripple, President Trump’s attempts to change the downward course of U.S. and Western relations with Russia.”
Sadly, common sense is getting lost in the frenzy. Clinton supporters inflate the importance of the purported Russian hacks to excuse her painful defeat. Democrats see the scandal as a way to undermine Trump.
In the targeting of Trump, too many liberals have joined in fanning a neo-McCarthyite furor, working to discredit those who seek to deescalate U.S.-Russian tensions, and dismissing anyone expressing doubts about the charges of hacking or collusion as a Putin apologist. But, as the Nation has editorialized, “skepticism isn’t treason; instead it’s essential to establishing the truth.”
In fact, better relations with Russia are in our national interest. Cooperation on nuclear proliferation, arms control, terrorism and other issues is vital to our security. Consolidating a zone of peace in Europe cannot happen without Russian engagement. As a leading oil producer, Russia must be part of the global effort to address climate change. Increasingly dangerous steps between two nuclear powers — a Russian spy ship off our coast, near misses of planes over Syria, provocative NATO exercises on the Russian border — could easily spiral out of control.
Foreign interference in U.S. elections is unacceptable. Leaks of secret intelligence to discredit an elected president are bad precedent. We need an independent investigation that reports publicly on what happened and what steps are necessary to protect against both. What we don’t need is a replay of Cold War hysteria that cuts off debate, slanders skeptics and undermines any effort to explore areas of agreement with Russia in our own national interest. SourceAlso, in contrast to what the trolls around here said about it being a desperate distraction in the face of the Flynn resignation, the Crimea comment by Trump was taken quite poorly in Russia. While any sane person knew that there was far more to gain from discrediting the US than holding out for any hope of a 180 on Russia policy, it has now become the dominant public opinion. Mind you, Medvedev said on the day Trump was elected that the government was operating under the assumption that no sanctions relief was on the horizon. Good article, except for this section Show nested quote +
What should be of concern is the leaking of officially classified and intercepted telephone conversations — in what was clearly a successful effort to target and take out Flynn. That Trump has railed against the intelligence leaks should not discredit this concern. The intelligence community’s use of leaks of secret information to undermine a president constitutionally elected by the American people — no matter how unfit we consider him to be — is an ominous precedent.
Which was pretty questionable. Saying the Intelligence Community's actions are concerning is good, but has been true since the IC agencies were created. But then the tone otherwise oddly dismissive and treats the public's reaction to true information (unless the author debates the leaked Flynn information) as somehow bad. The only problem is a lack of access to more information, and the large amount of influence the Intelligence Community is able to exert.
Interesting that the author feels the need to ignore an important aspect of the leaks - the claim that frequent and high-level contacts with Russian intelligence occurred during the campaign. He only talks about Flynn's conversation with the ambassador on one day, as if that's the only issue here.
|
pmh -> cnn's revenue is significantly up as a result of the trump coverage. trump coverage and outrage generates $$$. that's just how it is; people get the media they want to consume, and reasoned coverage generates less money than outrage and partisanship.
|
On February 21 2017 23:09 LegalLord wrote:
We can't afford to nominate a socialist. We have to win this election no matter the cost. And to that end, it would be irresponsible to choose anyone but the most experienced, electable candidate we could possibly have. Never mind anything else, we have to win, and Trump is SO BAD.
We're now entering the era where everybody forgets the thrust of electability arguments in the face of a predicted Trump defeat (blue wall, impossible probability of winning every swing state). Now it's just Trump 24/7 and very little 'this is why you got Trump' reflection and cultural analysis.
On February 22 2017 00:51 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2017 00:32 Logo wrote:On February 21 2017 23:33 LegalLord wrote:The sacking of Michael Flynn as national security adviser has intensified the frenzy over possible Russian interference in the election. The New York Times published an editorial comparing the Flynn imbroglio to Watergate, expressing “shock and incredulity” that Trump campaign officials were in contact with Russian intelligence officials, demanding a congressional investigation of “whether people at the highest levels of the United States government have aided and abetted the interests of a nation that has tried to thwart American foreign policy since the Cold War.” President Trump, of course, scorns the charges as “a ruse” and “ridiculous.” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) called an emergency meeting of Democrats to plan how to spotlight the issue.
When Washington heads into one of these feeding frenzies, judgment is often the first casualty. It’s worth remembering what is at stake.
After the election, we learned that the CIA and the FBI — with the more tentative agreement of other intelligence agencies — concluded that Russian intelligence officials ran a covert operation that hacked into and leaked emails from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, with the purpose of hurting Clinton. Upon reviewing the still-secret report, President Obama, after affirming the results of the election, punished the Russians, expelling 35 suspected Russian intelligence operatives and imposing other restrictions.
To date, the evidence released publicly for this explosive charge — in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s Jan. 6 report — is so threadbare that the Times conceded that it “contained no information about how the agencies had collected their data or had come to their conclusions.” Clearly, an independent commission should be created to report on what was done and what should be done to protect against it in the future. It is shameful that Republicans in the Congress have chosen to block this effort.
The sacking of Flynn also raises fundamental concerns.
According to intelligence agency leaks, intercepted conversations between Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and Flynn, then the incoming national security adviser for President-elect Trump, suggest that Flynn may have urged the Russians not to overreact to the Obama sanctions. Putin chose not to respond in a traditional tit for tat. According to the leaks, intelligence agencies went to acting attorney general Sally Q.Yates with concerns that Flynn might be subject to Russian blackmail. She took those concerns to Trump. Weeks later, Flynn was fired for misleading Vice President Pence, among others, about the substance of his conversations.
But the Times editorial board and others suggest that mere contact with Russian officials is somehow nefarious, if not criminal — and that to suggest better relations are in the offing with a new president is virtual treason.
This is simply bizarre. Trump spoke positively of Russian President Vladimir Putin throughout the campaign, stating he would seek to enlist Russia in the fight against the Islamic State. If Flynn was reassuring the Russian ambassador that Obama’s sanctions wouldn’t dissuade Trump, he was doing what any national security adviser might do for a president-elect.
Flynn is — as anyone reading his writings would discover — unfit to head the National Security Council. But talking to the Russian ambassador or to purported “Russian intelligence officials” about the intentions of the incoming president is hardly subversive.
What should be of concern is the leaking of officially classified and intercepted telephone conversations — in what was clearly a successful effort to target and take out Flynn. That Trump has railed against the intelligence leaks should not discredit this concern. The intelligence community’s use of leaks of secret information to undermine a president constitutionally elected by the American people — no matter how unfit we consider him to be — is an ominous precedent.
Trump’s expressed hope for cooperating with Russia raised significant alarm at high levels of the national security establishment. The exaggerated Russian threat helps justify bloated military budgets and unify increasingly fractious allies. As Robert Hunter, the former U.S. ambassador to NATO, recently observed: “Allegations of Russian interference in the U.S. election campaign become a tool to limit, if not cripple, President Trump’s attempts to change the downward course of U.S. and Western relations with Russia.”
Sadly, common sense is getting lost in the frenzy. Clinton supporters inflate the importance of the purported Russian hacks to excuse her painful defeat. Democrats see the scandal as a way to undermine Trump.
In the targeting of Trump, too many liberals have joined in fanning a neo-McCarthyite furor, working to discredit those who seek to deescalate U.S.-Russian tensions, and dismissing anyone expressing doubts about the charges of hacking or collusion as a Putin apologist. But, as the Nation has editorialized, “skepticism isn’t treason; instead it’s essential to establishing the truth.”
In fact, better relations with Russia are in our national interest. Cooperation on nuclear proliferation, arms control, terrorism and other issues is vital to our security. Consolidating a zone of peace in Europe cannot happen without Russian engagement. As a leading oil producer, Russia must be part of the global effort to address climate change. Increasingly dangerous steps between two nuclear powers — a Russian spy ship off our coast, near misses of planes over Syria, provocative NATO exercises on the Russian border — could easily spiral out of control.
Foreign interference in U.S. elections is unacceptable. Leaks of secret intelligence to discredit an elected president are bad precedent. We need an independent investigation that reports publicly on what happened and what steps are necessary to protect against both. What we don’t need is a replay of Cold War hysteria that cuts off debate, slanders skeptics and undermines any effort to explore areas of agreement with Russia in our own national interest. SourceAlso, in contrast to what the trolls around here said about it being a desperate distraction in the face of the Flynn resignation, the Crimea comment by Trump was taken quite poorly in Russia. While any sane person knew that there was far more to gain from discrediting the US than holding out for any hope of a 180 on Russia policy, it has now become the dominant public opinion. Mind you, Medvedev said on the day Trump was elected that the government was operating under the assumption that no sanctions relief was on the horizon. Good article, except for this section
What should be of concern is the leaking of officially classified and intercepted telephone conversations — in what was clearly a successful effort to target and take out Flynn. That Trump has railed against the intelligence leaks should not discredit this concern. The intelligence community’s use of leaks of secret information to undermine a president constitutionally elected by the American people — no matter how unfit we consider him to be — is an ominous precedent.
Which was pretty questionable. Saying the Intelligence Community's actions are concerning is good, but has been true since the IC agencies were created. But then the tone otherwise oddly dismissive and treats the public's reaction to true information (unless the author debates the leaked Flynn information) as somehow bad. The only problem is a lack of access to more information, and the large amount of influence the Intelligence Community is able to exert. The way I saw that was that the IC overstepped its mission by taking matters into its own hands and releasing intelligence targeted for political purposes. That the IC has always been on that edge doesn't justify that it is like that - it just means that someone needs to keep a mad dog (that can, in the proper circumstances, defend you from an intruder) on a chain in the backyard. It's kind of like this. Either both the Russian and IC leaks are bad, or neither are. They're both true information, but released with a politicized purpose. I suppose the big difference is that one is American in origin and the other isn't, but the intentions and means are quite the same. That normalizes the idea that it's alright to deal in politicized intelligence as long as it's for domestic matters. It'd be interesting to me if people are willing to go down that rabbit hole.
Selectively leaking wiretaps for political aims is incredibly troubling. This is the deep state flexing its muscles, which is a different issue than cyber security against foreign hackers. It's a blow to the idea of a citizen executive and government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
|
On February 22 2017 01:23 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2017 23:09 LegalLord wrote:
We can't afford to nominate a socialist. We have to win this election no matter the cost. And to that end, it would be irresponsible to choose anyone but the most experienced, electable candidate we could possibly have. Never mind anything else, we have to win, and Trump is SO BAD. We're now entering the era where everybody forgets the thrust of electability arguments in the face of a predicted Trump defeat (blue wall, impossible probability of winning every swing state). Now it's just Trump 24/7 and very little 'this is why you got Trump' reflection and cultural analysis. Show nested quote +On February 22 2017 00:51 LegalLord wrote:On February 22 2017 00:32 Logo wrote:On February 21 2017 23:33 LegalLord wrote:The sacking of Michael Flynn as national security adviser has intensified the frenzy over possible Russian interference in the election. The New York Times published an editorial comparing the Flynn imbroglio to Watergate, expressing “shock and incredulity” that Trump campaign officials were in contact with Russian intelligence officials, demanding a congressional investigation of “whether people at the highest levels of the United States government have aided and abetted the interests of a nation that has tried to thwart American foreign policy since the Cold War.” President Trump, of course, scorns the charges as “a ruse” and “ridiculous.” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) called an emergency meeting of Democrats to plan how to spotlight the issue.
When Washington heads into one of these feeding frenzies, judgment is often the first casualty. It’s worth remembering what is at stake.
After the election, we learned that the CIA and the FBI — with the more tentative agreement of other intelligence agencies — concluded that Russian intelligence officials ran a covert operation that hacked into and leaked emails from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, with the purpose of hurting Clinton. Upon reviewing the still-secret report, President Obama, after affirming the results of the election, punished the Russians, expelling 35 suspected Russian intelligence operatives and imposing other restrictions.
To date, the evidence released publicly for this explosive charge — in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s Jan. 6 report — is so threadbare that the Times conceded that it “contained no information about how the agencies had collected their data or had come to their conclusions.” Clearly, an independent commission should be created to report on what was done and what should be done to protect against it in the future. It is shameful that Republicans in the Congress have chosen to block this effort.
The sacking of Flynn also raises fundamental concerns.
According to intelligence agency leaks, intercepted conversations between Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and Flynn, then the incoming national security adviser for President-elect Trump, suggest that Flynn may have urged the Russians not to overreact to the Obama sanctions. Putin chose not to respond in a traditional tit for tat. According to the leaks, intelligence agencies went to acting attorney general Sally Q.Yates with concerns that Flynn might be subject to Russian blackmail. She took those concerns to Trump. Weeks later, Flynn was fired for misleading Vice President Pence, among others, about the substance of his conversations.
But the Times editorial board and others suggest that mere contact with Russian officials is somehow nefarious, if not criminal — and that to suggest better relations are in the offing with a new president is virtual treason.
This is simply bizarre. Trump spoke positively of Russian President Vladimir Putin throughout the campaign, stating he would seek to enlist Russia in the fight against the Islamic State. If Flynn was reassuring the Russian ambassador that Obama’s sanctions wouldn’t dissuade Trump, he was doing what any national security adviser might do for a president-elect.
Flynn is — as anyone reading his writings would discover — unfit to head the National Security Council. But talking to the Russian ambassador or to purported “Russian intelligence officials” about the intentions of the incoming president is hardly subversive.
What should be of concern is the leaking of officially classified and intercepted telephone conversations — in what was clearly a successful effort to target and take out Flynn. That Trump has railed against the intelligence leaks should not discredit this concern. The intelligence community’s use of leaks of secret information to undermine a president constitutionally elected by the American people — no matter how unfit we consider him to be — is an ominous precedent.
Trump’s expressed hope for cooperating with Russia raised significant alarm at high levels of the national security establishment. The exaggerated Russian threat helps justify bloated military budgets and unify increasingly fractious allies. As Robert Hunter, the former U.S. ambassador to NATO, recently observed: “Allegations of Russian interference in the U.S. election campaign become a tool to limit, if not cripple, President Trump’s attempts to change the downward course of U.S. and Western relations with Russia.”
Sadly, common sense is getting lost in the frenzy. Clinton supporters inflate the importance of the purported Russian hacks to excuse her painful defeat. Democrats see the scandal as a way to undermine Trump.
In the targeting of Trump, too many liberals have joined in fanning a neo-McCarthyite furor, working to discredit those who seek to deescalate U.S.-Russian tensions, and dismissing anyone expressing doubts about the charges of hacking or collusion as a Putin apologist. But, as the Nation has editorialized, “skepticism isn’t treason; instead it’s essential to establishing the truth.”
In fact, better relations with Russia are in our national interest. Cooperation on nuclear proliferation, arms control, terrorism and other issues is vital to our security. Consolidating a zone of peace in Europe cannot happen without Russian engagement. As a leading oil producer, Russia must be part of the global effort to address climate change. Increasingly dangerous steps between two nuclear powers — a Russian spy ship off our coast, near misses of planes over Syria, provocative NATO exercises on the Russian border — could easily spiral out of control.
Foreign interference in U.S. elections is unacceptable. Leaks of secret intelligence to discredit an elected president are bad precedent. We need an independent investigation that reports publicly on what happened and what steps are necessary to protect against both. What we don’t need is a replay of Cold War hysteria that cuts off debate, slanders skeptics and undermines any effort to explore areas of agreement with Russia in our own national interest. SourceAlso, in contrast to what the trolls around here said about it being a desperate distraction in the face of the Flynn resignation, the Crimea comment by Trump was taken quite poorly in Russia. While any sane person knew that there was far more to gain from discrediting the US than holding out for any hope of a 180 on Russia policy, it has now become the dominant public opinion. Mind you, Medvedev said on the day Trump was elected that the government was operating under the assumption that no sanctions relief was on the horizon. Good article, except for this section
What should be of concern is the leaking of officially classified and intercepted telephone conversations — in what was clearly a successful effort to target and take out Flynn. That Trump has railed against the intelligence leaks should not discredit this concern. The intelligence community’s use of leaks of secret information to undermine a president constitutionally elected by the American people — no matter how unfit we consider him to be — is an ominous precedent.
Which was pretty questionable. Saying the Intelligence Community's actions are concerning is good, but has been true since the IC agencies were created. But then the tone otherwise oddly dismissive and treats the public's reaction to true information (unless the author debates the leaked Flynn information) as somehow bad. The only problem is a lack of access to more information, and the large amount of influence the Intelligence Community is able to exert. The way I saw that was that the IC overstepped its mission by taking matters into its own hands and releasing intelligence targeted for political purposes. That the IC has always been on that edge doesn't justify that it is like that - it just means that someone needs to keep a mad dog (that can, in the proper circumstances, defend you from an intruder) on a chain in the backyard. It's kind of like this. Either both the Russian and IC leaks are bad, or neither are. They're both true information, but released with a politicized purpose. I suppose the big difference is that one is American in origin and the other isn't, but the intentions and means are quite the same. That normalizes the idea that it's alright to deal in politicized intelligence as long as it's for domestic matters. It'd be interesting to me if people are willing to go down that rabbit hole. Selectively leaking wiretaps for political aims is incredibly troubling. This is the deep state flexing its muscles, which is a different issue than cyber security against foreign hackers. It's a blow to the idea of a citizen executive and government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Would you accept that there is a distinct possibility that the leaks may have happened due to national security concerns held by the IC rather than their political agenda?
|
United States44439 Posts
On February 22 2017 01:23 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2017 23:09 LegalLord wrote:
We can't afford to nominate a socialist. We have to win this election no matter the cost. And to that end, it would be irresponsible to choose anyone but the most experienced, electable candidate we could possibly have. Never mind anything else, we have to win, and Trump is SO BAD. We're now entering the era where everybody forgets the thrust of electability arguments in the face of a predicted Trump defeat (blue wall, impossible probability of winning every swing state). Now it's just Trump 24/7 and very little 'this is why you got Trump' reflection and cultural analysis.
Firstly, Trump lost Nevada, one of the swing states. Not a key one, but it's there. It tipped the 2000 election, for example.
Secondly, Hillary was exceptionally qualified for the position, probably the most qualified candidate in recent history. Certainly more so than Obama ever was, although she obviously lacked his charisma and appeal. This revisionist history where we conclude that because Hillary couldn't win the white high school dropout demographic by promising to roll back the industrial revolution and the civil rights movement she must have been a terrible candidate is absurd.
Bernie wasn't able to win the Democratic primary, he failed too, and he failed earlier than Hillary did. We'll never know if he'd have won in the general election because he never made it that far. Sure, he can't have done too much worse than Hillary but LegalLord seems to think that all of the arguments that made him unsuitable for the Democratic candidacy are somehow now invalid because apparently what really works with those swing voters is the label socialist.
|
kwark -> how far back are you going for it to qualify as "recent history"?
I'm just pondering the qualifications of the last while's worth of presidents, and wondering whether I might disagree with that detail or not, so wanted to know how far back is in the eligible pool for contesting.
|
"Exceptionally qualified" not a new one, but certainly a funny one.
Yes, I would say that there is certainly something exceptional about her qualifications. But certainly not in a good way. If you want someone who is capable of being wrong for decades and still learning nothing, Hillary is your (wo)man.
|
United States44439 Posts
On February 22 2017 01:40 zlefin wrote:
kwark -> how far back are you going for it to qualify as "recent history"?
I'm just pondering the qualifications of the last while's worth of presidents, and wondering whether I might disagree with that detail or not, so wanted to know how far back is in the eligible pool for contesting.
Last couple of decades, albeit given eight year terms that doesn't actually get you very many to choose from. She's nearly 70 and has spent her entire adult life working for the American people, including direct experience within the White House and as a top level cabinet member.
|
Is this thread really going to come back to arguing about Hillary every 3 days for the next 4 years? She's irrelevant and we've had like 3 months of talking about it already, can we just drop it.
|
Acting like the IC community is an independent branch of government that is attacking the president is a bit of a reach. They are controlled by the executive branch, House and Senate. If any of those groups wanted to reign in the IC community, they could and likely will. Those leaks will be found, just like they were under Obama.
The President and his staff, especially Bannon, have make their contempt for career civil servants well known. Which is cute when they are attacking people at the EPA, but less so when the agencies they are attacking are responsible for the lives of service members. That open contempt for civil servants has prompted harsh blow back from the military and IC community. No one should be surprised by this turn of events. This is exactly what was always going to happen when someone like Bannon got into real politics.
On February 22 2017 01:47 ThaddeusK wrote:
Is this thread really going to come back to arguing about Hillary every 3 days for the next 4 years? She's irrelevant and we've had like 3 months of talking about it already, can we just drop it.
As long as LL keeps bringing it up to say "I told you so" every time he feels down.
|
This man is a sham through and through lol. The frequency of his lies and hypocrisy that his supporters are willing to accept is astounding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
