Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘2016 election’

I am not big on post mortems.  Living through that 2015 – 2016 campaign season was painful enough one time around. In her Candidate Confessional podcast for HuffPo, Jennifer Palmieri, communications director for Hillary for America,  revisits the difficulty she encountered trying to get the press to buy into the seriousness of the Russian meddling. There is a lesson here, especially for the press.


The most ignored story of the 2016 presidential campaign is the press corps’ unwillingness to focus on Russia’s election meddling before election night, according to one of Hillary Clinton’s former top aides.

After all, the circumstances that led to the accusations of collusion that continue to dog President Donald Trump were visible during the campaign itself. The same Trump associates who are currently being questioned for potential ties to the Kremlin had senior positions on his election team.

But to the eternal frustration of Clinton’s camp, the press never seemed interested in the Russian-meddling angle during the campaign.

In the latest episode of “Candidate Confessional,” Jennifer Palmieri, Clinton’s campaign communications director, recounts how she tried to repeatedly get reporters to write about Russia, to little effect.

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Hillary Clinton’s campaign team was frustrated the press wouldn’t focus on potential Russian meddling in the election until after Election Day.

Read more and hear podcast >>>>

Read Full Post »

Just to keep the record straight, here are the 17 intel agencies that we have been hearing about since Hillary Clinton brought them up during one of the debates.

 

latimes.com

There’s more than the CIA and FBI: The 17 agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community

Nina Agrawal

The U.S. intelligence community recently reaffirmed its conclusion that senior officials in Russia were behind hacks during the 2016 presidential campaign into the Democratic National Committee and emails belonging to associates of Hillary Clinton.

But what exactly is the “intelligence community?” It’s not just an amorphous term for all U.S. intelligence officials. It’s a veritable alphabet soup of 17 agencies and offices. The group includes agencies strictly focused on intelligence as well as the intelligence arms of other government agencies and of the military. Its total budget in 2015 was $66.8 billion.

Here are the 17 offices:

Read more >>>>

Matthew Rosenberg of the New York Times explains why Trump’s remarks yesterday implying that not all 17 agencies were in agreement were deceptive misleading.

 

President Trump speaking in Warsaw on Thursday. During his speech, Mr. Trump yet again raised doubt about Russian meddling in the presidential election.

President Trump speaking in Warsaw on Thursday. During his speech, Mr. Trump yet again raised doubt about Russian meddling in the presidential election. Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

Trump Misleads on Russian Meddling: Why 17 Intelligence Agencies Don’t Need to Agree

By MATTHEW ROSENBERG

President Trump said on Thursday that only “three or four” of the United States’ 17 intelligence agencies had concluded that Russia interfered in the presidential election — a statement that while technically accurate, is misleading and suggests widespread dissent among American intelligence agencies when none has emerged.

The “three or four” agencies referred to by Mr. Trump are the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the F.B.I. and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, all of which determined that Russia interfered in the election. Their work was compiled into a report, and a declassified version was released on Jan. 6 by the director of national intelligence. It said that all four agencies had “high confidence” that Russian spies had tried to interfere in the election on the orders of President Vladimir V. Putin.

The reason the views of only those four intelligence agencies, not all 17, were included in the assessment is simple: They were the ones tracking and analyzing the Russian campaign. The rest were doing other work.

Read more »

Cross-posted at The Department of Homegirl Security.

Read Full Post »

I found this article by Susan Bordo on Medium and think it is worth sharing.

“Don’t Judge a Book By It’s Cover” advises another “uppity” woman, Katy Perry, reading my book on the beach

During the past couple of months, Hillary Clinton has come “out of the woods” to deliver several speeches and give three fascinating interviews in which she said what everyone who has paid any attention to post-election revelations should know: her loss in 2016 was not due to any one factor, but an over-determined pile-on that few candidates could have weathered — and that she almost did overcome, even so.

There were the factors that would have hobbled any Democrat: gerrymandering, voter suppression, the deplorable — yes, deplorable — appeal of Donald Trump to white supremacist and rabid nationalist anger, and the mistaken belief among ordinary working people that the man who lived in a golden penthouse was somehow “on their side.”

Read more >>>>

Read Full Post »

Here is the report everyone is talking about today. Rarely do I post an article before reading and fully digesting it myself, but this is different. Based on sources deep inside the Russian government, this report validates what we suspected knew all along: that Putin directed these initiatives and that the target, specifically, was Hillary Clinton. So, without having read more than a few paragraphs, I am posting it here to provide immediate circulation. It is long. It is important.

Hacking Democracy

Timeline

(Photo by Alexei Druzhinin/AFP/Getty Images; photo illustration by Nick Kirkpatrick/The Washington Post)

Early last August, an envelope with extraordinary handling restrictions arrived at the White House. Sent by courier from the CIA, it carried “eyes only” instructions that its contents be shown to just four people: President Barack Obama and three senior aides.

The White House debated various options to punish Russia, but facing obstacles and potential risks, it ultimately failed to exact a heavy toll on the Kremlin for its election interference.

Inside was an intelligence bombshell, a report drawn from sourcing deep inside the Russian government that detailed Russian President Vladi­mir Putin’s direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit the U.S. presidential race.

But it went further. The intelligence captured Putin’s specific instructions on the operation’s audacious objectives — defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and help elect her opponent, Donald Trump.

Read more >>>>

It is also important that we thank the Washington Post team for their dogged pursuit of the truth. We have seen in the past as we see today that persistent investigative reporting is essential to keeping the government on task.  The task is uncovering the truth.

Read Full Post »

Rebecca Traister was recently given unusually extended access to Hillary, interviewing her over a period of months this Spring and ending just this morning at Wellesley.  This profile is set for the May 29 issue of New York Magazine. It’s a hefty weekend read. There might be tears. Just saying.

Hillary Clinton Is Furious. And Resigned. And Funny. And Worried.

The surreal post-election life of the woman who would have been president.

By

Photographs by Lynsey Addario

Hillary backstage at a speech in May.

  2:36 pm

When I walk into the Chappaqua dining room in which Hillary Clinton is spending her days working on her new book, I am greeted by a vision from the past. Wearing no makeup and giant Coke-bottle glasses, dressed in a gray mock-turtleneck and black zip sweatshirt, Hillary looks less Clinton and more Rodham than I have ever seen her outside of college photographs. It’s the glasses, probably, that work to make her face look rounder, or maybe just the bareness of her skin. She looks not like the woman who’s familiar from television, from newspapers, from America of the past 25 years, but like the 69-year-old version of the young woman who came to the national stage with a wackadoodle Wellesley commencement speech in 1969. With no more races to run and no more voters to woo with fancy hair, Clinton appears now as she might have if she’d aged in nature and not in the crucible of American politics. Still, this is not Hillary of the woods. She is reemerging, giving speeches and interviews. It’s clear that she is making an active choice to remain a public figure.

It’s the day after Donald Trump has fired FBI director James Comey, the man who many — including Clinton — believe is responsible for the fact that she is spending this Wednesday in May working at a dining-room table in Chappaqua and not in the Oval Office. Clinton checks with her communications director, Nick Merrill, about what’s happened in the past hour — she’s been exercising — and listens to the barrage of updates, nodding like a person whose job requires her to be up-to-date on what’s happening, even though it does not.

“I am less surprised than I am worried,” she says of the Comey firing. “Not that he shouldn’t have been disciplined. And certainly the Trump campaign relished everything that was done to me in July and then particularly in October.” But “having said that, I think what’s going on now is an effort to derail and bury the Russia inquiry, and I think that’s terrible for our country.”

Read more >>>>

Read Full Post »

In chapter 11 of Hard Choices, Hillary Clinton discusses Vladimir Putin blaming her for Russian civil unrest following the December 2011 parliamentary elections. By December of 2016, accounts began appearing in the press attesting to Putin’s interference in our election as a direct response to Hillary’s purported influence over the Russian protestors.

Now, The Hill reports that U.S. intelligence sources heard and transcribed a Russian intel agent bragging about his organization targeting Hillary.

US spies heard Russian intelligence agent vowing to target Clinton: report

US spies heard Russian intelligence agent vowing to target Clinton: report
© Getty

U.S. spies reportedly heard a Russian military intelligence officer bragging about his organization planning to target Hillary Clinton in May 2016.

The officer told a colleague that GRU would cause havoc in America’s presidential election, Time reported Thursday.

The officer reportedly described the intelligence agency’s effort as retribution for what Russian President Vladimir Putin considered Clinton’s influence campaign against him while serving as secretary of State.

Senior U.S. intelligence officials told Time that American spies transcribed the conversation and sent it to headquarters for analysis.

Time reported that an official document based on the raw intelligence was then circulated.“We didn’t really understand the context of it until much later,” a senior U.S. intelligence official said.

Putin publicly accused Clinton of conducting a major operation against Russia when protests erupted in more than 70 cities in 2011.

Read more >>>>

Read Full Post »

At the Women for Women event yesterday, Hillary Clinton again raised the James Comey letter.   At the time that letter was released, 11 days before Election Day, many of us were intentionally avoiding watching or citing polls. When Hillary brought that letter up again in the interview with Christiane Amanpour, some pointed out that she had since consulted polls and particularly Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.  So, for clarification, here is Nate’s analysis of the effect of that letter on the polls from two days before Election Day.

Nov. 6, 2016

How Much Did Comey Hurt Clinton’s Chances?

And is it too late for his second letter to help her?

Edited May 3 to add this.

This is the tenth article in a series that reviews news coverage of the 2016 general election, explores how Donald Trump won and why his chances were underrated by most of the American media.

Hillary Clinton would probably be president if FBI Director James Comey had not sent a letter to Congress on Oct. 28. The letter, which said the FBI had “learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation” into the private email server that Clinton used as secretary of state, upended the news cycle and soon halved Clinton’s lead in the polls, imperiling her position in the Electoral College.

The letter isn’t the only reason that Clinton lost. It does not excuse every decision the Clinton campaign made. Other factors may have played a larger role in her defeat, and it’s up to Democrats to examine those as they choose their strategy for 2018 and 2020.

But the effect of those factors — say, Clinton’s decision to give paid speeches to investment banks, or her messaging on pocket-book issues, or the role that her gender played in the campaign — is hard to measure. The impact of Comey’s letter is comparatively easy to quantify, by contrast. At a maximum, it might have shifted the race by 3 or 4 percentage points toward Donald Trump, swinging Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida to him, perhaps along with North Carolina and Arizona. At a minimum, its impact might have been only a percentage point or so. Still, because Clinton lost Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by less than 1 point, the letter was probably enough to change the outcome of the Electoral College.

Read more >>>>

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton declared herself a private citizen and part of the Resistance.  #StillWithHer?  I sure am! Let’s go!  ¡Vamos! En allez!  I would follow Hillary Clinton anywhere.  I have that much faith in her.  If she is a ReSister, I am too.  In 2008, when people asked me why I was so dedicated to Hillary, my short answer was “Because she is scary smart, and I need scary smart.”  Well, things are scary now, and she is smart. That’s my leader.

 


Edited to add this bulletin from The Boston Globe.

Comey says he doesn’t regret disclosing Clinton probe

FBI Director James Comey told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that he doesn’t regret his decision to disclose the reopening of the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation in the days before the 2016 election.

He told the panel that while the notion that he affected the election made him “mildly nauseous,” concealing that information would have been “catastrophic.”

To read more, visit: www.BostonGlobe.com.

Can anyone help me understand why concealing the Trump/Russia investigation was OK but not disclosing this would have been “catastrophic?”

 

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: