It seems a majority of Americans believe that Hillary Clinton, having won the popular vote by some three million ballots, should be the president of the United States, not Donald J. Trump.
There's a problem for the Giant Orange Bloat. On vote tallies alone a majority of his public see his presidency as illegitimate before he's even sworn in.
Then there's the FBI scandal that's still simmering but may eventually erupt as evidence of state corruption to skew the election in Trump's favour. That's pretty blatant. It's not going away and, for DJT, it's not going to help his claim to the Oval Office.
There are indications that some Electoral College electors may vote their conscience and support Hillary. That sort of break would further undermine Trump's legitimacy.
There's Trump's Clown Car cabinet picks. Word is out today that their aggregate net worth exceeds that of the entire lowest third of American households. At an average household size of four people and a total population of 325 million, that means Trump's cabinet is wealthier than about 30 million households. I don't think there's been that sort of disparity since Versailles.
Let's not forget the Gullibilly Bait, Trump's inflammatory campaign promises that didn't even last a couple of weeks after the election before DJT told his faithful that he was only bullshitting them all along. There ain't gonna be no wall. Hillary ain't gonna go to jail. All those jobs won't be coming back. But the rich will get plenty richer. Ooh, that's gotta sting.
And now it's Obama's turn to deliver his parting gift to The Donald which may take the form of a cyber war on Russia. America's intelligence community, the CIA and the other agencies, are sticking by their guns. Russia meddled in the elections to skew the outcome in favour of Trump. That's something that has even Republicans choking a bit. A foreign government, one that Americans have seen as their natural enemy since the late 40s, flips their election.
Now Obama has thrown down the gauntlet, vowing retaliation against Russia for its cyber-perfidy.
According to extracts of an interview due to air on National Public Radio on Friday morning, the US president said he was waiting for a final report he has ordered into a range of Russian hacking attacks, but promised there would be a response.
“I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections … we need to take action,” Obama said. “And we will – at a time and place of our own choosing.
“Some of it may be explicit and publicised; some of it may not be.”
The CIA has judged that the Russian cyber attacks, including the hacking of emails from the Democratic National Committee, were intended to influence the election in Donald Trump’s favour. The FBI agrees that there was Russian hacking but has not as yet concluded it was intended to favour the Republican contender.
Senators from both parties have called for a congressional enquiry, while Trump himself has rejected the reports and his office has derided the CIA.
If Obama is going to act against Putin, he's got about four weeks to do it, and, whatever he does, it will fall squarely into Trump's lap on January 20th. Sweet.
"a hundred million households" can't be correct.....that would be the entire population, not one third. Basic math
ReplyDeleteBecause there 325 million people vice households. Therefore in excess of 100 million people which when assuming the average of 4 persons per household would yield a result in "households" of 25 million.
ReplyDeleteI think.
The stew is bubbling, Mound. Eventually, it will boil over.
ReplyDeleteRe the Putin bs...
ReplyDeletetry some INFORMED comment for a change:
http://www.juancole.com/2016/12/demonization-personally-propaganda.html
Here's the thing,NPoV. I don't have access to the intelligence on this and I'll bet you don't either. Same goes for Juan Cole. We're all just guessing. America does, however, have the most massive intelligence apparatus on the planet. Despite the myth that it was the CIA that got it wrong on the WMDs and Saddam - and that is a myth - they are pretty good at this sort of sleuthing. So, unless you've got something credible on this, which I doubt, it's all opinion and conjecture save for the intelligence and I'm willing to bet on Obama, not Juan Cole. Best not to vouchsafe pundits, eh?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSorry, Anon, you're right. I should have said almost 30-million households. Even at that it's an astonishing figure reflective of a new aristocracy and, potentially, the onset of a new feudalism. Versailles anyone?
ReplyDeleteI've seen this movie before. When I was a teen I heard President Eisenhower announce on the radio that he was sending the Marines into Guatemala to stop a Communist insurgency. Many years later I stumbled onto the real story. Henry Cabot Lodge and one of the Dulles Brothers were in Eisenhower's Cabinet while the other Dulles brother was head of the CIA. All three had intimate ties with the United Fruit Company. From there the trail was easy to follow. Yes, Eisenhower lied. There is no other word for it; Eisenhower lied. He overthrew a legitimate government for bananas. This is easy to look up. (Canadians beware)
ReplyDeleteWhen the forces in Washington start demonizing it is time to look behind the curtains.
Toby, I'm not saying there isn't reason for caution. Of course there is. What I'm saying is that you can't refute it either which means your dismissal is not credible.
ReplyDeleteIt surely is a strange sign of the times that there are so many people more willing to believe a Russian oligarch than the government of the US.
ReplyDeleteMound, you are generally suspicious and critical of political motives so I'm surprised that you are so ready to believe this Cold War rhetoric from those who have a record of telling us what they want us to hear. Are they right? Are they wrong? I don't know. It just seems rather far fetched to me.
ReplyDeleteOh, you are probably right that Obama leaves at least one poison pill for Trump.
ReplyDeleteI could imagine that the US might try a "tit for tat" style attack, to try to hack RT or Sputnik to find direct evidence of collusion between the Russian government and those news services. That would be scandalous if these were western news agencies. But collusion is just what everyone would expect of the Kremlin.
Russia just doesn't present any targets for a proportionate response. The problem for Obama is that the Russian Government is beyond shame.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/vladimir-putin-wants-a-new-world-order-why-would-donald-trump-help-him/2016/12/15/ad12a046-c30d-11e6-8422-eac61c0ef74d_story.html
ReplyDeleteDana said, "It surely is a strange sign of the times that there are so many people more willing to believe a Russian oligarch than the government of the US."
ReplyDeleteWho said anything about trusting a Russian oligarch? I don't trust either side in this dispute. There is a limit to how much disinformation one can be exposed to before one learns to disbelieve. Remember the buildup to the Iraq war?
No I don't remember that. Why don't you remind me.
ReplyDeleteSo . . . Obama may force Trump to actually do the one evil, dangerous, crazy thing he didn't seem to want to do. Hurrah?
ReplyDeleteJust so we're clear, and in hopes that a fair portion of us are on the same page, let's note that this CIA/Democratic pressure play to re-engage the cold war is based on the usual tissue of lies:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/12/16/ah-so-putin-didnt-hack-those-emails-after-all/
One might argue with some force that it would be well worth lying one's ass off to seriously hamper the Trump presidency. The argument that it is worth lying, needlessly making international relations more strained and violent, AND courting global thermonuclear war, to seriously hamper the Trump presidency is a bit harder in my view to sustain. I would rather they destabilized Trump with pretty much ANY other cock-and-bull story.
Bill Moyers: Buying the War
ReplyDeleteQuick precis of the article I linked:
ReplyDelete1. The alleged hacking relates to the revelation of certain emails.
2. These emails were released by Wikileaks.
3. Prominent (named, not anonymous) Wikileaks people say they didn't get them from the Russians but directly, in person, from non-Russians who would have had access, and they were leaked, not hacked. So that is direct witness evidence.
Personal interjection: Given the option of trusting anonymous CIA sources who present no evidence or trusting Wikileaks people . . . well, let's see, the CIA makes black propaganda (ie lying) an industry, part of its mandate, whereas Wikileaks have never lied to this date as far as I know and their entire ethos is about releasing the truth. I think I know who I'll believe.
4. If they had been hacked, the NSA would have been able to track the movement of files across the internet, and would have had no reason not to say so. They haven't. Ergo the leak story is more plausible.
I think it is not really true, then, to say we're all just guessing. We have the information from the Wikileaks' mouth.
And I also think that when it comes to the CIA, the chance of their telling the truth to the public on any given issue is well under 50%, gets even lower when there is no hard evidence advanced, and lower still when the CIA sources are anonymous. If the CIA was alleging, without pictures via anonymous CIA sources, that the sky was blue, I would go out and check, and then maybe catch a bus and check across town, before I gave much credence to the idea. For something like this Russian thing . . . say nobody from Wikileaks had come forward. If it was just a rumour on the internet I'd give it maybe 50/50 chance of being true--it's certainly something the Russians could do (although Putin is too careful a man to authorize such a thing personally IMO). If it was apparently baseless allegations from Democratic politicians, that would drop substantially, to say 30% or even less. But if anonymous CIA sources were claiming it . . . maybe 10%. Those guys lie for a living.
Even on those rare occasions the CIA find a truth useful enough to tell, it's still a sure thing that their purpose in telling it is to do us harm. It is unwise ever to be happy that the CIA is apparently on your side.
One is certain. There is an intense struggle between two major power groups in USA. And those two camps are not democrats or republicans. The best scenario would be that this fight would not spill(too much)into the world as a whole. Nothing to cheer about this last scenario...
ReplyDeleteA..non
Another bizarre feature of the Russian Haxors issue is that Putin is being accused of . . . telling the truth. Nobody is questioning the genuineness of the emails under discussion, they're just flabbergasted at the gall of anyone telling the American people what their masters are doing. Of course Putin backers don't believe he would ever do anything so reprehensible! A bit of bombing, strong-arm diplomacy, the occasional assassination, sure, but truth-telling?! How dare the media make such accusations!
ReplyDeleteWhat should be of more concern is that in earlier American elections there would not have been any chance a foreign despot could influence the outcome. This whole episode displays the depths that American democracy has sunk.
ReplyDeleteRe
ReplyDeleteThere's a problem for the Giant Orange Bloat. On vote tallies alone a majority of his public see his presidency as illegitimate before he's even sworn in.
This happens all the time in Canada; why is it an issue here?
Re
e DJT told his faithful that he was only bullshitting them all along. There ain't gonna be no wall. Hillary ain't gonna go to jail. All those jobs won't be coming back. But the rich will get plenty richer. Ooh, that's gotta sting.
My guess is that the US public will take to the streets within 12 months.
The CIA has judged that the Russian cyber attacks, including the hacking of emails from the Democratic National Committee, were intended to influence the election
Re,
The CIA has judged that the Russian cyber attacks, including the hacking of emails from the Democratic National Committee, were intended to influence the election .
Wow, all of this innuendo from an organisation that gave the world the Shah of Iran and weapons of mass destruction.
Put that on your resume.
Re,
If Obama is going to act against Putin, he's got about four weeks to do it, and, whatever he does, it will fall squarely into Trump's lap on January 20th. Sweet.
Looks like Putin did what the USA failed to do in Syria.
Putin's credibility rises whilst the credibility of the USA fails in a big way.
Next stop; Trumps foreign policy!
Holy shit said the Pope.
TB
Toby, what I've been biting my tongue to avoid raising is the question of America's own history of "meddling" in other countries' elections. As far back as I can remember, certainly back to the 70s, America has funneled money and other aid to help defeat parties or leaders they didn't like. That's been so common that it almost goes unmentioned. Even in Ukraine (pre-Crimea separation) the US was deeply involved in toppling the admittedly corrupt but democratically elected regime. Iran is another glaring example. It's a bit much that the nation that refuses to respect the democratic process in so many other, smaller countries, acts as saintly when this sort of thing happens to them.
ReplyDelete"There is an intense struggle between two major power groups in USA. "
ReplyDeleteRight... the two sides are arguing over whether to include Russia in the white-boys club as they continue global conquest.
It seems a majority of Americans believe that Hillary Clinton, having won the popular vote by some three million ballots, should be the president of the United States, not Donald J. Trump.
ReplyDeleteExcept that Presidential elections in the USA are not decided this way.
I have yet to read what exactly have those pesky reds done. Exposed Hillary's emails? How Bernie was fucked over by the DNC?
Now, tell me, how many times has the USA directly and covertly tried to control elections in other countries?
You may not like Trump but think of it as blowback for the Gough Whitlam's that have been dismissed.
Anon, if you had read my previous remarks you would realize I had canvassed the point of America's history of meddling in the elections of other states. Do try to keep up.
ReplyDelete" I had canvassed the point of America's history of meddling in the elections of other states."
ReplyDeleteMeddling, which is likely ~10x* that of Russia.
(* my estimate, based on economic and military strength)
So Mound, why to bother with publishing the post? To spite Trump?
A..non
I tried to convey my reluctance to bring up this issue because it's secondary to the principal story of what's going on between the US and Russia and how that might have impacted the outcome of the election, ie. how it factors into the legitimacy of the Trump presidency which has plenty of other problems. It's relevant but it's tangential and America's sullied history is not, of itself, determinative of the issue. The Americans may not have clean hands but that doesn't resolve this problem. It's more complex than that.
ReplyDeleteHacking computer systems and selectively leaking their contents to organisations in a way that can be used to create a somewhat misleading narrative: this is bad for sure. And it is a problem.
ReplyDeleteBut the bigger problem was the effect these leaks had on the media (traditional and new) and the public's reaction.
To counter the threat, you could proceed in several ways:
1) Prevent damaging leaks:
* Practice security. So much of how organisations work with data is lamentable, from a security standpoint.
* Prioritize between what is secure and not secure. Never be afraid for your non-secured data to eventually leak. Try to work in ways that doesn't generate a need for strong secrecy or security online.
2) Strengthen the media in ways that the public is well informed and immunized against fake news.
* Fully fund NPR/PBS
* Consider tax breaks for household newspaper subscriptions. The weakness of the traditional media has both lowered its quality, and also allowed poor/questionable/fake news sites to proliferate online.
In Canada we can be thankful for the CBC. But our print media is extremely vulnerable. Even though I gag at what post-media has become today, there needs to be a discussion on whether the government may wish to somehow underwrite its subscriptions, along with those of its competitors. A stable, more competitive newspaper industry is needed for a well informed populace, which is essential in the functioning of a Democracy.
Wouldn't it be good to see something like this:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXrOqjS9ZyA
Chris, we have delved into these issues twice so far: the Davey and the Kent Commission reports to be specific. We have explored the critical role the media play in creating an informed public capable of exercising their democratic franchise to vote. Those reports also dealt with what has become today's corporate media cartel, outfits exactly like PostMedia that achieve such an unhealthy domination of the media market whether through concentration of ownership or market cross-ownership that the public interest is harmed.
ReplyDeleteA tell tale of the corporate media cartel is when the media no longer represents the public as watchdog of government and instead becomes the government's lap dog. That's when the cartel makes the subtle shift from disseminating information to distributing messaging under the guise of information only with a spin, a precursor to outright propaganda. This abandonment of the public interest in favour of the vastly more lucrative special interest or government interest is a betrayal of the public trust the fourth estate is supposed to uphold. The most jarring example was when PostMedia, after years of being the virtual house organ of the Canadian Petroleum Club, came out and announced it was "partnering" with the oil industry. Henceforth its reportage would bear an admitted slant. It was a shameless admission that, for PostMedia, the notion of a free press was negotiable.
Harper personally exempted PostMedia from the laws governing foreign ownership, a favour that was repaid a dozen times over most blatantly when every PostMedia newspaper ran a full, front page endorsement of Harper on the eve of the 2015 election. That was a huge but now largely forgotten assault on liberal democracy.
Across the western world, liberal democracy is battered and in retreat. Poland, Hungary, Turkey, the United States are already in the illiberal camp and other nations, including France, are trending in the same direction. Canadians have no business taking our democracy for granted. We still have the opportunity for a democratic restoration which I've long argued begins by breaking up the corporate media cartel and restoring a genuinely free press - as broadly owned as possible and offering the widest range of news and opinion across the political spectrum.
Achieving this reformation may ultimately require ideas such as you've proposed. The cost is but one issue. The greater problem is that, of all our national parties, only one has a platform policy to restore a free press to Canada and that is neither Liberal, Conservative nor New Democrat. The absence of the slightest interest on the part of our major mainstream political parties is proof of how neoliberal doctrine has them in its grasp.
Poland, Hungary and Turkey are run now by nationalistic governments.
ReplyDeleteFor the last ~40 years USA has been run primarily by $$$.
Canada succumbed to the almighty dollar a decade or so after US.
A..non