There is much discussion on all news outlets exploring the impact of Russia's meddling in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. The crux of these discussions almost always gets to the heart of the matter, and that is how are we going to prevent that meddling from happening again. That is going to prove to be a near impossible endeavor because it means more than just moving back to paper ballots and prosecuting hackers. It means dealing with 63 million U.S. voters minds--minds that are comfortable with voting with emotions-including gullibility, instead of with knowledge and with compassion.
The Russian Meddling is basically a two-pronged attack.
Prong One is where someone hacked campaign emails and computers, and then published that material in a choreographed and strategic manner benefitting their favored candidate.
Prong Two is the strongly suggested collaboration with either Cambridge Analytica directly or with the Trump Campaign Tech/Media officer (who had married Cambridge Analytica's Facebook profiling Election Management software with the extensive GOP voter database) to employ bots to mass-broadcast fake stories worded to sway the beliefs and minds of the 5 personality types of Facebook users (and probably other social media users).
So, even though, at this time, we have repeated "confirmations" from various public servants that "Russia's meddling did NOT include actual vote-tampering", there certainly was "mind-tampering" ... an intentional, strategic, exploitation of gullible and/or manipulatable U.S. voters that fail to see the horror of a U.S. election significantly influenced by a foreign entity.
Granted some of the 43 million Trump voters came to their act without being influenced by "bot bombings" or by Russian Meddling. Nevertheless, Trump's "base" is still saying that they support and approve of his presidency so far. This is shocking when considered in light of all the evidence of Russian contacts with his administration and campaign and of all of the evidence corroborating the existence of Prong One and Prong Two. This means that we--the United States of America, have tens of millions of citizens that find no serious problem with Russians participating in OUR election process, or with a foreign entity (or a group of organized Russian "citizens") providing IT assistance to a U.S. political campaign.
Is there something to be done to prevent any candidate from benefiting from IT assistance, fake news bombing on social media, or neurolinguistic manipulation of voters by a foreign entity -- it seem like "no". We have to burden voters with the responsibility of motivating themselves to make their decisions based on facts and with the responsibility of knowing how our brains can be manipulated by digital, print, and linguistic sensory data--and I just don't see that happening.
So, we are stuck with a president whose best campaign staff was Russian and who can run for re-election using the same staff and techniques.
That is both scary and brilliant.
@2017, June 23
UPDATE: June 25
FEC Commissioner on MSNBC today saying we need new rule to prevent things like Russian Meddling in the future.
Her short is that foreign influence is not allowed already but if it comes through a U.S. source/business, it is hidden and undiscoverable to the regulators/Commission.
The segment also referenced a recently filed FEC complaint filed by Free Speech for the People and Campaign for Accountability against Trump.
The amendment to their complaint is here:
https://freespeechforpeople.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/FSFP-FEC-Complaint-re-Russia-Trump-WEB.pdf
It has numerous live links which also make for juicy reading.
On a general note, I am noticing a lot more analysis of Trump's personality traits without any admission that those traits allow a diagnosis of some sort of pathology. I know--well, strongly feel, that the unspoken agreement is silence on this issue, just like there is an unspoken agreement in the media to remain silent on public discussion of Trump/Trump campaign's active collusion with and reliance on Russian intermediaries for significant strategic "advantages."
And, really, why subject us repeatedly with John Dean's opinion that Trump's actions do not rise to obstruction of justice. That seems like its an attempt at a "sophisticated" version of sensationalism, but, really, its a boring waste of time. Its like making us sit through listening to Newt Gingrich expound upon his opinion that there can be no seamy circumstances in which to serve your spouse with divorce papers.
Friday, June 23, 2017
Wednesday, June 21, 2017
Misogyny: Pelosi as leader @2017
Apparently, since 2010, republicans have been running campaign ads "mal"-igning democrat candidates by warning voters that the democrat candidate will vote as minority leader Nancy Pelosi votes. The ads apparently are effective in damaging the democrat candidate's campaign.
Democrats run no similarly crafted ads. Apparently, they know that its no criticism to warn that a successful candidate will vote in sync with the male leader of the party. And, apparently, they don't see the value in calling out the misogyny in this.
The gop's leaders are/have been both male. The gop apparently understands that there is no risk in speciously standing the female party leader in the place of the candidate.
Its common course and expected that a successful candidate will have a tendency to vote in sync with her/his political party/leaders. Voting in step with your male party leader is treated by our society as "loyal", but voting in step with your female party leader is such a "sign" of some deep flaw in the candidate that it can be leverage--and leveraged effectively, to disparage the candidate.
So, why is voting in sync with your party baggage when the leading person in the party is female, but not when he is male, and why haven't the dems figured out and run effective responses countering this anti-Pelosi strategy???
These ads and the dems failed response reflect the rampant and not so subtle misogynistic culture that we currently live in.
@2017
Democrats run no similarly crafted ads. Apparently, they know that its no criticism to warn that a successful candidate will vote in sync with the male leader of the party. And, apparently, they don't see the value in calling out the misogyny in this.
The gop's leaders are/have been both male. The gop apparently understands that there is no risk in speciously standing the female party leader in the place of the candidate.
Its common course and expected that a successful candidate will have a tendency to vote in sync with her/his political party/leaders. Voting in step with your male party leader is treated by our society as "loyal", but voting in step with your female party leader is such a "sign" of some deep flaw in the candidate that it can be leverage--and leveraged effectively, to disparage the candidate.
So, why is voting in sync with your party baggage when the leading person in the party is female, but not when he is male, and why haven't the dems figured out and run effective responses countering this anti-Pelosi strategy???
These ads and the dems failed response reflect the rampant and not so subtle misogynistic culture that we currently live in.
Tuesday, June 13, 2017
Trump's Tell re: Obstruction Efforts @2017
Ok, so I have watched Comey testify twice and watched Sessions testify today, I listened to the questions put to each man, and now I am listening to the "reporters". I have to put it out there that what is not being asked, talked about, or analyzed is the fact that Comey's boss did NOT fire him--Trump's did.
Let's review the context:
1. U.S.A.G. Sessions is Comey's supervisor, responsible for reviewing his work and firing him. Rosenstein is Deputy AG.
2. Session's was an "officer" in Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. Today, June 13, 2017, Sessions denied ever having received a classified or any briefing on Russia's election meddling.
3. On March 2, 2017, Sessions recused himself from any investigation involving Russia because, by March 2, 2017, he knew a law existed that required recusal of any investigative officer working on an investigation of a political campaign where that officer has a "relationship" with the campaign because of having worked in the campaign (which Sessions did work for Trump's campaign). [Today, June 13, 2017, Sessions clearly and repeatedly explained he recused himself at that time and in that manner for this exact reason and even cited the law.] This means that by March 2, 2017, Sessions knew that the Trump campaign was being investigated within the overall Russia Election Meddling investigation. His testimony strongly suggests that he knew about this fact even before being sworn in as U.S. A.G.
4. On March 20, 2017, Comey revealed to all--made public, that Trump Campaign officials are also being investigated for their alleged interactions with Russian officials during their meddling with the election.
5. On May 9, 2017, Sessions testified today, that he was asked his "opinion" about Comey's work performance by Trump, who told him to put that opinion in writing, which he did, and he delivered it to Trump along with his Deputy AG's "opinion". "Opinion" is the language Sessions used today, while also denying that no discussion of Russia investigation(s) occurred during his conversations with Trump about Comey.
This is where we should start paying close attention, because while a man can lie, he can't ever UN-KNOW a fact his brain has already processed. So, in delivering a lie or in squirming out of telling the truth, a human's response will occur in the context of knowledge of the fact trying to be hidden or circumvented.
CNN has Trump's "Comey, You're Fired" letter, Sessions' and Rosenstein's Trump-requested "Comey Opinions", and the WH's press release on the firing here: http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/09/politics/fbi-james-comey-fired-letter/index.html
6. Note that each of the men's letters May 9th, 2017 letters to Trump re: Comey's failures omit any reference to Russia investigations. In listing Comey's faults, Rosenstein certainly could have added that Comey failed to deliver to Sessions (before he recused himself) any briefing on the Russia investigation(s). This certainly would corroborate the image of Comey that Rosenstein was trying to create in his letter. Instead, the A.G. and Deputy A.G. mainly focus on Comey's improper handling of the Clinton Email/Server investigation. This cleansing of their Opinions reflects a coordinated--yet overdone, effort to make the Comey firing look justified and properly done.
7. On May 9th, 2017, Trump himself fires Comey by issuing a press release that included his terse "Comey, You're Fired" letter even before Trump's personal security officer delivered the letter to Comey. The point is, there is no reason why Sessions--who is Comey's supervisor, should not have released Comey from his job, especially if the basis for the firing is truly what Sessions writes in his "Opinion". Short of Sessions doing it correctly, Rosenstein should have done it, especially, again, if the basis for firing Comey is truly what Rosentstein (and his supervisor, Sessions) writes in his letter to Trump re: Comey's faults.
But neither of Comey's supervisors fired Comey--Trump did.
8. Less than a day later, on May 10th, 2017, while hosting Russian officials in the Oval Office, Trump admits to them that the investigation "cloud" is over now because yesterday he fired the "nutbag" Comey. Then, in an interview with Holt, Trump further admits that he fired Comey to obtain relief from the Russia investigation(s).
Ignoring the completely idiotic self-sabotaging nature of that kind of strategic analysis, let's get straight to what I think happened between Trump, Sessions, and Rosenstein on May 9th:
--Trump had what he thought would be a brain-storming session with Sessions and Rosenstein in which he specifically posited to them to fire Comey, citing how much of a relief it would be to all of them for a myriad of alleged reasons which included taking the wind out of the "witch-hunt" called the investigation into Russia's interference with the election and his campaign team.
--Sessions and Rosenstein rightly informed Trump that neither of them could fire Comey without risking what would be rightfully-deserved criticism which would very likely be so fierce as to interfere with their agendas/work product.
--Trump, working the art of the deal with our nation's top justice gate-keepers, brought Sessions and Rosenstein to compromise by insisting that they at least put in writing their "opinions" about Comey's mis-conduct.
--Trump then takes matters into his own hands and fires Comey, telling the world he did it to relieve the pressure or cloud from the FBI's Russia investigations.
What should be remembered is that Sessions, especially, has bent himself into a pretzel to avoid any linking of the firing of his own subordinate with the FBI's Russia investigation. The trouble for Sessions is that his success here corroborates the allegation that he absolutely knew what Trump was planning and took action to obstruct justice--and he, Session, has participated, aided, abetted...that crime.
Let's review the context:
1. U.S.A.G. Sessions is Comey's supervisor, responsible for reviewing his work and firing him. Rosenstein is Deputy AG.
2. Session's was an "officer" in Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. Today, June 13, 2017, Sessions denied ever having received a classified or any briefing on Russia's election meddling.
3. On March 2, 2017, Sessions recused himself from any investigation involving Russia because, by March 2, 2017, he knew a law existed that required recusal of any investigative officer working on an investigation of a political campaign where that officer has a "relationship" with the campaign because of having worked in the campaign (which Sessions did work for Trump's campaign). [Today, June 13, 2017, Sessions clearly and repeatedly explained he recused himself at that time and in that manner for this exact reason and even cited the law.] This means that by March 2, 2017, Sessions knew that the Trump campaign was being investigated within the overall Russia Election Meddling investigation. His testimony strongly suggests that he knew about this fact even before being sworn in as U.S. A.G.
4. On March 20, 2017, Comey revealed to all--made public, that Trump Campaign officials are also being investigated for their alleged interactions with Russian officials during their meddling with the election.
5. On May 9, 2017, Sessions testified today, that he was asked his "opinion" about Comey's work performance by Trump, who told him to put that opinion in writing, which he did, and he delivered it to Trump along with his Deputy AG's "opinion". "Opinion" is the language Sessions used today, while also denying that no discussion of Russia investigation(s) occurred during his conversations with Trump about Comey.
This is where we should start paying close attention, because while a man can lie, he can't ever UN-KNOW a fact his brain has already processed. So, in delivering a lie or in squirming out of telling the truth, a human's response will occur in the context of knowledge of the fact trying to be hidden or circumvented.
CNN has Trump's "Comey, You're Fired" letter, Sessions' and Rosenstein's Trump-requested "Comey Opinions", and the WH's press release on the firing here: http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/09/politics/fbi-james-comey-fired-letter/index.html
6. Note that each of the men's letters May 9th, 2017 letters to Trump re: Comey's failures omit any reference to Russia investigations. In listing Comey's faults, Rosenstein certainly could have added that Comey failed to deliver to Sessions (before he recused himself) any briefing on the Russia investigation(s). This certainly would corroborate the image of Comey that Rosenstein was trying to create in his letter. Instead, the A.G. and Deputy A.G. mainly focus on Comey's improper handling of the Clinton Email/Server investigation. This cleansing of their Opinions reflects a coordinated--yet overdone, effort to make the Comey firing look justified and properly done.
7. On May 9th, 2017, Trump himself fires Comey by issuing a press release that included his terse "Comey, You're Fired" letter even before Trump's personal security officer delivered the letter to Comey. The point is, there is no reason why Sessions--who is Comey's supervisor, should not have released Comey from his job, especially if the basis for the firing is truly what Sessions writes in his "Opinion". Short of Sessions doing it correctly, Rosenstein should have done it, especially, again, if the basis for firing Comey is truly what Rosentstein (and his supervisor, Sessions) writes in his letter to Trump re: Comey's faults.
But neither of Comey's supervisors fired Comey--Trump did.
8. Less than a day later, on May 10th, 2017, while hosting Russian officials in the Oval Office, Trump admits to them that the investigation "cloud" is over now because yesterday he fired the "nutbag" Comey. Then, in an interview with Holt, Trump further admits that he fired Comey to obtain relief from the Russia investigation(s).
Ignoring the completely idiotic self-sabotaging nature of that kind of strategic analysis, let's get straight to what I think happened between Trump, Sessions, and Rosenstein on May 9th:
--Trump had what he thought would be a brain-storming session with Sessions and Rosenstein in which he specifically posited to them to fire Comey, citing how much of a relief it would be to all of them for a myriad of alleged reasons which included taking the wind out of the "witch-hunt" called the investigation into Russia's interference with the election and his campaign team.
--Sessions and Rosenstein rightly informed Trump that neither of them could fire Comey without risking what would be rightfully-deserved criticism which would very likely be so fierce as to interfere with their agendas/work product.
--Trump, working the art of the deal with our nation's top justice gate-keepers, brought Sessions and Rosenstein to compromise by insisting that they at least put in writing their "opinions" about Comey's mis-conduct.
--Trump then takes matters into his own hands and fires Comey, telling the world he did it to relieve the pressure or cloud from the FBI's Russia investigations.
What should be remembered is that Sessions, especially, has bent himself into a pretzel to avoid any linking of the firing of his own subordinate with the FBI's Russia investigation. The trouble for Sessions is that his success here corroborates the allegation that he absolutely knew what Trump was planning and took action to obstruct justice--and he, Session, has participated, aided, abetted...that crime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)