Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Vladimir Putin’

The Plot to Subvert an Election, from New York Times reporters Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti, does not contain everything we know about the Russian incursion into our culture and our 2016 election.  This compilation is, however, comprehensive enough to provide a good, quick survey course on the subject.

Because, as Rachel Maddow pointed out this week, Hillary Clinton was relentlessly in the bull’s eye of the Russian efforts, the entire anthology should be of interest to her 2016 supporters and voters and to Democrats in general. We know it has not stopped. We know they are still doing this in the run-up to the primaries that are almost upon us. Worse, we know that the primaries are not and will not be the prime target. 2020 will be. The presidential election will be – once again. We had better be prepared.

Here is a portion.

Putin Is Angry

The Russian leader thought the United States, and Hillary Clinton, had sought to undermine his presidency.

The Russian leader believed the United States had relentlessly sought to undermine Russian sovereignty and his own legitimacy. The United States had backed democratic, anti-Russian forces in the so-called color revolutions on Russia’s borders, in Georgia in 2003 and Ukraine in 2004. It had funded pro-democracy Russian activists through American organizations with millions in State Department grants each year.

With little evidence, Mr. Putin believed this American meddling helped produce street demonstrations in Moscow and other cities in 2011, with crowds complaining of a rigged parliamentary election and chanting, “Putin’s a thief!”

And Mrs. Clinton, then secretary of state, cheered the protesters on. Russians, she said, “deserve the right to have their voices heard and their votes counted, and that means they deserve free, fair, transparent elections and leaders who are accountable to them.”

Mr. Putin blamed Mrs. Clinton for the turmoil, claiming that when she spoke out, his political enemies “heard the signal and with the support of the U.S. State Department began active work.”

The two tangled again the next year when Mr. Putin pushed for a “Eurasian Union” that would in effect compete with the European Union. Mrs. Clinton sharply dismissed the notion, calling it a scheme to “re-Sovietize the region” and saying the United States would try to block it.

Read much much more and see video clips >>>>

We must remain wary of social media presences that play to the disaffected. What we saw, among many other ploys from Russia in 2016, were seemingly American accounts admonishing Bernie Sanders supporters not to vote for Hillary Clinton. Also from the article:

The Russian operation also boosted Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate who had dined with Mr. Putin in Moscow, to draw votes from Mrs. Clinton. It encouraged supporters of Mr. Sanders to withhold their votes from Mrs. Clinton even after he endorsed her.

If you are a disaffected Hillary voter, I caution you to be wary of “Hillary supporters” masquerading as Americans on social media. Typically, they praise HRC to the skies but also embed lies within their posts and/or the comment threads, e.g. claiming that Guccifer 2.0 was not Russian (refuted in the Mueller July 13 indictment and in this article) or that Russian organized crime deals exclusively in politics and money laundering and not in weapons or drugs. (They will sell you a mothballed USSR military submarine to transport drugs if you have the money. With a nuclear weapon if you have even more money. This is documented.)

There are several writers of varied levels of English Language Proficiency (ELP). The “ops,” i.e. sock puppets, trolls, bot controllers, access content from databases on cloud platforms as outlined in the July 13 Mueller indictment. The ultimate plan is very likely to skew the 2020 top line vote in ways that would dismay Hillary Clinton and re-elect Donald Trump.

This is not a short read, but it can be taken in episodes if necessary for a weekend read. It is rich with graphs, stats, videos.  It is well worth the time. You will not likely find this much information on the subject elsewhere all in one piece. It is probably also well worth a bookmark.

Have a lovely weekend. Fall is coming.

 

Read Full Post »

In one of his final appearances on the Senate floor, Senator John McCain urged his colleagues on both sides of the aisle to get back to regular order. Hillary Clinton echoed that imperative on The Rachel Maddow Show last night. Appearing on the anniversary of the release of her book, What Happened, and upon the release of the paperback edition with a new afterword (also published in The Atlantic), Hillary addressed, among other topics, the Kavanaugh confirmation logjam, the Special Counsel probe, the Manafort deal, and the ongoing Russian influence not only in our elections but in our very interactions.

Rachel began the interview quoting from the piece that ran in The Atlantic, and asked Hillary why she is afraid of losing our country. Hillary responded saying that putting aside ideological concerns we have to defend our democracy. Degrading the rule of law, de-legitimizing elections, attacking truth and reason, undermining our unity … is a crisis. She said the authoritarian tendencies, left unchecked could result in the erosion of our institutions to an extent that we have never imagined here. We are not there yet, she contends, but that is because there is an election. “We need a new Congress, and we need a new Republican party.”

With a new Congress, Hillary thinks we need an agenda broader than one of impeachment. She listed policy changes already made, and said those need to be addressed. If people do not go out and vote, she thinks we will see more dismantling of institutions.

She believes that she was clearly a part of the puzzle where Russian interference was concerned in 2016, but she thinks they are playing a longer game of undermining democracy here and globally.  She said, “Foreign money, foreign interference in our elections, I don’t care if it’s from the right, the left, the center, up, down; I don’t care where it’s from. It’s wrong. It’s illegal,and the American people deserve to know if it happened so we can try to prevent it.”¹

Rachel replayed a clip from a year ago where Hillary said we have to depend on those around Trump to be our first line of defense against him doing something that might have serious repercussions. The Times op-ed of September 5 and Bob Woodward’s Fear appear to show that remark to have been predictive.

Her prediction now is that after the election Trump will wholesale fire people. She said he is close to being uncontrollable. She is hoping people will see that we need checks and balances and will vote accordingly. While she has not heard any specifics of invocation of the 25th Amendment, she thinks there are private discussions in the White House, and that people are worried.

It was a broad, extensive interview and thought-provoking. Hillary has warned us in the past. Once again she is sounding the alarms. Yes, we must get out the vote. But we must do more. We need to hold the government accountable. First, we must hold the line. Then, we must repair the damage. That demands advocacy. It is going to take more than a village. It is going to take the whole country.

See the full interview here >>>>

 

 


¹Please bear this comment in mind and take it very seriously to heart if you are one of those who defends a “Hillary supporter” whom you suspect or know not to be American but who insists upon not only impersonating an American but also insists upon telling Americans how to think and how to vote. Proxies, trolls, sock puppets, and bots take every side. There is a purpose to this alleged support. Do not be duped.

Read Full Post »

It is a ludicrous idea: that a former Secretary of State should feel impelled to come to the defense of a former ambassador (to a huge, powerful country) against the president’s wimpy response to a dictator.  These are not normal times. Putin’s demand was outrageous. Trump’s response was, to quote Susan Rice, “Beyond outrageous.”

And in true diplomatic form:

Read Full Post »

Boom!

Read Full Post »

Trump was in the UK the past few days.  Meanwhile … back at the ranch ….

Remember this?

 

Well, now this!

Read: Mueller indictment against 12 Russian spies for DNC hack

It comes days before President Trump’s summit with Russian leader Vladimir Putin.

Special counsel Robert Mueller just released an indictment against 12 Russian intelligence officers.
Alex Wong/Getty Images

Special counsel Robert Mueller just indicted 12 Russian intelligence officers, accusing them of interfering in the 2016 US presidential election.

They are charged with hacking the computer networks of members of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. They allegedly coordinated to release damaging information to sway the election under the names “DCLeaks” and “Guccifer 2.0.” However, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein told reporters that it’s unclear if their efforts changed the outcome of the election.

Read the indictments >>>>

(Proof he’s an amateur or, really, a puppet. Experienced dictators know better than to leave home while a sh*tstorm is brewing.  Even Putin knows Trump is in too deep and doesn’t give a fig. THAT should light a fire under some kettles.)

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Having studied Russian at Moscow State University and having been a Ford Foundation Fellow in Soviet Studies, Condoleeza Rice was George W. Bush’s Russia expert. No one, Republican or Democrat, questioned her qualifications in that realm.

It is, therefore, stunning that she has chosen to side with Vladimir Putin against her successor at the State Department, Hillary Clinton.

dailycaller.com

Rice Blames Hillary For Russian Election Meddling

Benny JohnsonReporter At Large

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice put some of the blame for Russian election on Hillary Clinton in a wide-ranging MSNBC interview on Thursady

Rice, who has considerable experience with Vladimir Putin, did not hold back on her assessment of the motivations behind Russian election meddling.

She said that then-Secretary of State Clinton criticizing Putin for Russia’s 2012 elections encouraged the foreign leader to seek revenge. Rice said that Putin is an “eye for an eye” kind of person and that he was out to hurt Clinton in order to prove that America could also have flawed elections.

“With Vladimir Putin, this was an eye for an eye. He’s an eye for an eye kind of person, and Hillary Clinton criticized his election. Now he wants to show that he can sow chaos in ours.”

 

Read more >>>>

Condi is wrong on several counts.

1. Hillary commented (no she did not “meddle” – that is something different but back to that later) on the 2010 Russian parliamentary elections not Putin’s 2012 presidential election.

In her memoir of her State Department years, Hard Choices, Hillary Clinton portrays Putin’s worldview as “shaped by his admiration of the powerful czars of Russian history” and his view of geopolitics as a zero-sum game. Following the December 2010 parliamentary elections in Russia, widespread reports of fraud brought tens of thousands of protestors out into the frigid Russian streets. Hillary recalls stating, “The Russian people, like people everywhere, deserve the right to have their voices heard and their votes counted…. That means they deserve fair, free, transparent elections and leaders who are accountable to them.” She goes on to describe Putin blaming her for “setting the tone” for the widespread demonstrations that followed the elections. Nothing in Hillary’s memoir nor elsewhere  provides any account of Hillary speaking out against Putin’s 2012 reelection or any protests, for that matter.

2.  Hillary Clinton was not “meddling” when she made her comments. This is meddling. As secretary of state, Hillary was well within her “paygrade” to make a comment regarding elections and unrest in another country.

3. Victim-blaming is always a cheap shot and always wrong! It is especially disturbing coming from a former secretary of state about her successor. I have this quote in the right sidebar here. It bears repetition. “What I have always found is that when it comes to foreign policy, it is important to remember that politics stops at the water’s edge.” -HRC 11-04-10. Had Condi remained at the State Department in December 2010, she, too, would have been expected to comment on the elections and protests in Russia – especially given her academic background. Would her remarks have been so different?

The cyber attacks against independent election observers that Hillary describes in Chapter 11 of Hard Choices foreshadow some of what we saw happen here in 2016. Some. But not all. Not the worst. We also deserve fair, free, transparent elections and commentary about a foreign country from a candidate never justifies elements from that country interfering in our elections in any way.

Reuters Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice meets with President-elect Barack Obama’s Secretary of State nominee Hillary Clinton at the State Department.

 

Read Full Post »

If this is found to be the case, what is the solution?


By Joe Rothstein

Donald Trump spent much of the 2016 campaign warning us that the result of the presidential election would be rigged. Events of the last few weeks suggest he may have been right and that his presidency is illegitimate.

Here’s what we have learned in those last few weeks:

1. The Republican and Democratic co-chairs of the Senate Intelligence Committee endorsed the conclusions of U.S. intelligence agencies that Putin’s government engaged in propaganda and hacking campaigns to influence the outcome of 2016 U.S. election. The use of “hacking” in their assessment is significant for reasons I’ll discuss in a moment.

2. The Russian propaganda campaign mirrored the way the Trump campaign itself used Facebook advertising to target voters, strongly suggesting collusion.

3. The National Security Agency and Equifax, two of the most secure data repositories in the world, reported that they were successfully hacked, undermining claims that state and county voting systems, many built on consumer software, were impenetrable to outside manipulation.

Let’s first consider the propaganda question.

Read more >>>>

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: