December 15, 2016

"If Russia, or some other entity, was hacking, why did the White House wait so long to act? Why did they only complain after Hillary lost?"

Trump tweets.

168 comments:

Jack Wayne said...

Question asked and answered.

Nonapod said...

Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt have no statute of limitations.

AllenS said...

Hard to know of an event if the event never happened.

veni vidi vici said...

Sometimes raising the obvious issue is evidence of sophisticated thought.

PB said...

I still think Putin preferred Hillary over Trump. She was a known quantity and could be bought.

Balfegor said...

"If Russia, or some other entity, was hacking, why did the White House wait so long to act? Why did they only complain after Hillary lost?"

Isn't the answer that they were in high dudgeon about Trump suggesting the election could be rigged, and it would kind of step on that message if they were to start bleating about how Russia is totally rigging the election. People are pointing and laughing at the contradiction now but at least journalists and other Democratic spokespeople aren't being asked to make both statements in the same sentence.

EDH said...

"If Russia, or some other entity, was hacking, why did the White House wait so long to act? Why did they only complain after Hillary lost?"

Silly Trump. After all, they murdered the leaker in July before blaming Russia for hacking, didn't they?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/10/assange-implies-murdered-dnc-staffer-was-wikileaks-source.html

rhhardin said...

It's soap opera and free-riding on soap opera, on the part of the MSM and the dems respectively.

Gretchen said...

I love that the claim is "Russians Hacked the Election".

Only the DHS tried to hack the election in Georgia, someone leaked DNC emails and a fairly rudimentary phishing scheme (one, as my programmer son told me, he and his friends knew how to do to get into the grade books in HS) was used on Podesta.

There is zero evidence of the Russians hacking.

Fake News.

great Unknown said...

Putin prefers Trump because Hillary and much of the Democrat "elite" are agents of Soros. And if there's anybody in the world Putin hates, it's George Soros.

David said...

Good question.

I saw one story (forget where) that said Obama did not want to escalate cyber war with Russia. True or not, that sounded consistent with his approach to other matters.

Remember that the President apparently had extensive personal knowledge of the intelligence.

Drago said...

great Unknown: "Putin prefers Trump because Hillary and much of the Democrat "elite" are agents of Soros. And if there's anybody in the world Putin hates, it's George Soros"

Perhaps you didn't understand the question.

Would you like to try again?

boycat said...

Shorter: Why did Obama let this happen on his watch? When Romney said in 2012 that Russia was our biggest geo-political foe, Obama scoffed.

David said...

Gretchen said...

There is zero evidence of the Russians hacking.


Maybe there is lots of evidence of Russians hacking. That would be unsurprising. But where is the evidence of motive?

And where is the evidence that they hacked the Republicans but did not disclose? That is totally unsupported as of now. There is also the possibility that the "hacks" of the Republicans was unsuccessful, or that they did not find anything of interest. Those dull Republicans.

lemondog said...

Why doesn't he ask bff President Obama?

Michael McClain said...

Because Barry told Vlad that he'd be more flexible in his 2nd term.

Thorley Winston said...

There’s an old saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to support them. So far we have been presented with ZERO evidence of Russian “hacking” in the 2016 presidential election. And just to clarify, it’s not a question or whether we should believe our intelligence agencies because none of them have made any public statements or gone on the record about this. It’s purely a question of whether we believe the New York Times and Washington Post who are the ones claiming to have secret “evidence” from “anonymous sources.”

tommyesq said...

Remember how funny it was when Alec Baldwin/SNL did a debate spoof, and the joke was that the media was conspiring to make him look bad by "taking all of the things I say and all of the things I do and putting them on TV?" Liberals everywhere laughed and laughed. Good times... Of course, now that its the Russians making Hillary/DNC look bad by doing the same thing, its not so funny.

Unknown said...

Republicans may be pretty used to not writing anything down as a matter of policy. I mean the democrat media, the civil servants and now it seems the intelligence community can not be trusted on anything.

And we know that Google, yahoo, Apple and Microsoft are deep in with the democrats.

Democrats typically do not have this problem. Thank goodness for wiki leaks and Snowden. The only honest news I have gotten in the last year has been through them.

Arthur James said...

While the Dems and media types throw temper tantrums. hysterical in attempting to create a childish dominating narrative, I am convinced Trump is assembling a team with their nose to the grindstone, primed for action. Let the madness and talk reign for the time being, exposing many for their true character, while beneath the serious work is being engaged. Move over children, the adults are taking over--fortitude and mission will prevail over desperation.

PB said...

Jeh Johnson said he felt that the "hacking" didn't affect the election. They're trying to move past the question of if there was hacking so that hacking becomes a "fact". What he's really trying to do is to move quickly past the issue that arose during the Michigan recount - that so many of Detroit's precincts had significant problems where far more votes were counted than ballots can be found. They really don't want an investigation to reveal vote fraud.

it is estimated that vote fraud may not be insignificant.

There are an estimate 15 million illegal aliens in the US and studies have consistently shown that 15% of illegal aliens are registered to vote. Additionally those studies show that registered illegal aliens vote at the same or higher participation rate than legal registered voters at 80% (remember only 55% of eligible voters are registered). So, 15 million x 15% registered x 80% voting = 1.8 million illegal votes.

Additionally, it is estimated that 2% of legal voters cast illegal votes by voting for another person or being simultaneously registered in another location. With 130+ million votes cast in 2016, this would be 2.6 million illegal votes

Both of these categories are believed to predominantly favor Democrats.

4.4 million illegal votes is nothing to sneeze at and certainly something the Democrats wouldn't want someone to be shining a light on. So we have Jeh Johnson telling us, yes there was hacking but no it didn't affect the result, so just move along. Nothing to see here.

mockturtle said...

'The dogs bark but the caravan moves on'.

Virgil Hilts said...

Why isn't the Craig Murray stuff (wikileaks obtained the dem party dirt from dem insider that was pissed off at corruption and handling of Sanders) getting as much ink as russian hacking?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/14/craig-murray-says-source-of-hillary-clinton-campai/
It doesn't even seem to appear on Mememorandum?
Could they be lying? Sure, but isn't it still a really, really big story?

AprilApple said...

Because the coordinated DNC-media narrative takes time to develop, Hillary was supposed to win, and the content of the Wikileaks must be swept under that rug.


Fake news:
Palin inspired the Tuscon shooter
Hands up don't shoot
It was the video


The real big fake news is all on the left.

Henry said...

Before the election the DNC did not want to talk about hacking because they expected to win. To talk about hacking would draw attention to the Wikileaks emails that the DNC was trying to dismiss as irrelevant and maybe tainted. It would draw attention to the DNCs incompetence in protecting their own data. It would especially draw attention to HRC's personal email scandal.

After the DNC lost, all this careful pretense fell to pieces. The clumsy magician has lost his rabbit. Send out the jugglers!

Nonapod said...

From a general narrative shaping standpoint, all this is an interesting strategy by the left. If they can't actually change the election results, they need to do what they can to delegitimize and undermine Trump's Presidency.

This works because in absence of actual evidence of anything people will always revert to the common assumptions of their tribal affiliations, their team, their religious doctrine, whatever group they associate themselves with. People on the left want the explanation for Trumps win to be a sinister, nefarious conspiracy involving the Russians since it fits with their worldview of Trump (and the right in general) being a villain.

Trump himself has used this strategy a bunch to cast doubt at different times (the whole birther thing being just one example).

Henry said...

it really should be reinforced that the DNC emails were hardly all that damaging. The DNC had it in for Bernie Sanders. Everyone already knew that.

Hell, maybe it was Bernie the Russians were trying to help. Too little, too late.

Birches said...

Have you all seen the latest attempt to void the election? These guys haven't learned a thing.

eric said...

Maybe it's a false flag?

Maybe they figure these hackers really want credit for what they've done. And the government doesn't know who did it. So they figure they can blame the Russians and the real culprit will come forward, like an idiot, demanding recognition?

dbp said...

"...Why did they only complain after Hillary lost?"

My super-sophisticated guess: They only complained after Hillary lost because Hillary, unexpectedly, lost the election.

Bob Boyd said...

@ Henry

That's right.
And with regard to Hillary's server, the narrative was that there was no evidence it had been hacked by a foreign government. It was just a harmless mistake that had no impact national security.

khesanh0802 said...

@Birches These assholes think they are helping someone, but I don't know who. They can do nothing but infuriate the Trump voters. One of the real bene's of all this nonsense is that more people are seeing these people for what they are; just actors or comedians who think they re better than the rest of the voters, but really just actors or comedians. Fuck 'em.

Matthew Sablan said...

"I saw one story (forget where) that said Obama did not want to escalate cyber war with Russia."

Weird, huh?

GWash said...

you folks are so delusional... why not come at it from the other direction... the russians are always hacking our systems... our intelligence groups are well acquainted with who and how they try... this hacking was identified by several intelligence organizations including the brits, french and germans... we are also engaged in this kind of activity so i think these guys know what they are talking about... the 'evidence' was presented to the congressional people who are supposed to care and turtleneck decided it was too close to the election to say that the russians had taken trump up on his invitation... trumps pal putin is kgb so he is not above doing this... the president was kind of in a catch22 which is why they went to congress... WAKE UP people ... trump won... the russians hack on his behalf (there are many theories on why they chose to support him - another discussion another time) ... for you the question is do we stand together as a nation or are we going to splinter into trump/not trump?

PackerBronco said...

The answer is obvious. The last thing the Dems wanted were more stories about e-mails and lack of cyber security when their candidate was dealing with her own scandals on those various issues.

mezzrow said...

Somewhere in the hereafter, James Jesus Angleton sits and smiles with a smile of the Buddha.

Unknown said...

Pizzagate is real! Believe!

AprilApple said...

Nobody cares about pizzagate.

Clayton Hennesey said...

NPR is now explicitly reporting that the CIA is claiming that Putin supervised Russian hacking in order to benefit Trump's campaign.

Because questioning whether Putin/Russia was trying to take revenge upon Hillary - which, by default, would have benefited Trump, the alternative candidate - opens up too many uncontrollable narrative paths.

PackerBronco said...

Besides the Dems strategy with dealing with the hacked e-mails was to not discuss them.

Q: Do you have any comment about the DNC sabotaging the Sanders campaign?
A: We don't talk about those e-mails.
Q: Can you confirm that the e-mails are legitimate?
A: We don't talk about those e-mails.
Q: What about ...
A: We don't talk about those e-mails.

And the MSM largely went along with that stance. But of course, you can't attack the release of those e-mails w/out making the substance of the e-mails an even bigger issue. So the strategy begins and ends with: "We don't talk about those e-mails."

Jupiter said...

GWash said...

"...for you the question is do we stand together as a nation or are we going to splinter into trump/not trump?"

GWash, 3 points;
1 - If I have to choose between standing with you or Vlad Putin, I'm going with Vlad.
2 - I have asked you to stop calling yourself that. America's first President was a man named George Washington, and while I'm sure you don't know anything about him and intended no disrespect, it is distressing to those of us who admire him to see your User ID.
3 - If you must use that ID, at least spell it right. It starts "HO".

Drago said...

GWash: " ..the 'evidence' was presented to the congressional people who are supposed to care and turtleneck decided it was too close to the election to say that the russians had taken trump up on his invitation.."

This assertion is #Fakenews.

There was no evidence presented to the congressional committees. In fact, quite the opposite.

And now when the appropriate congressional committees schedule hearings for the intelligence agencies to come forward with this "evidence" the intelligence agencies, whose leaders were appointed by Obama, REFUSE.

Yes, you heard that right. The intelligence agencies with all the "evidence" are REFUSING to share this information with the appropriate congressional committees.

Gee, it's almost as if the "evidence" is BS and the dems know that and so they want to slowball this until Trump takes over and then claim the inevitable "non-evidence" decision itself came from Trumps White House.

What possible reason could there be for Obama's intelligence heads to REFUSE to appear before the appropriate committees yet continue to leak negative information to the dem house organs (NYT/WP) all the while providing fodder for the dems to undermine the election results?

The politicization of the executive branch agencies under the leftists is now complete.

mockturtle said...

Hell, maybe it was Bernie the Russians were trying to help. Too little, too late.

Good point, Henry! After all, does anyone really suspect that Trump and Tillerson are Communist conspirators?

Jupiter said...

"If Russia, or some other entity, was hacking, why did the White House wait so long to act?"

NY Post has the answer; They were waiting on Trump!

http://nypost.com/2016/12/14/white-house-says-trump-stood-by-while-russia-hacked-hillary/

Clayton Hennesey said...

And now when the appropriate congressional committees schedule hearings for the intelligence agencies to come forward with this "evidence" the intelligence agencies, whose leaders were appointed by Obama, REFUSE.

Quite. Devin Nunes got all upset about this, but I think a more interesting response might have been to put out a statement declaring that, since no intelligence agency officially found anything worthwhile to report about Russian hacking, Congress has no alternative but to conclude that the issue is baseless and of no further official concern.

Can't have their cake and eat it, too.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

The complaining about Russian hacking started before Election Day. This is Trump's birther issue, except it appears to be true.

Bob Ellison said...

Nonapod said, "From a general narrative shaping standpoint, all this is an interesting strategy by the left."

It's not a leftist strategy. It's a power play. The same thing Trump is doing.

It's all power and money. You could put a donkey in the oval office and expect braying about how it had a phone and a hoof.

Sebastian said...

"If Russia, or some other entity, was hacking, why did the White House wait so long to act? Why did they only complain after Hillary lost?" Before Hill lost, complaints would have exposed Dem incompetence and successful Russian efforts to undermine her. After Hill lost, complaints served the useful purpose of undermining Trump's legitimacy.

Haven't seen any Dem address the obvious problem with their complaints, namely that authentic revelations of what they really thought cost them the election.

Matthew Sablan said...

"What possible reason could there be for Obama's intelligence heads to REFUSE to appear before the appropriate committees yet continue to leak negative information to the dem house organs (NYT/WP) all the while providing fodder for the dems to undermine the election results?"

-- This is what leads me to believe that there is no source.

lgv said...

Simple

1) It was all Comey's fault - Didn't work
2) Vote hacking - no one believed
3) Electoral voters rebel - not going to happen

On the #4, Putin did it. When no evidence is found that both parties were hacked, damning information was found on both parties, AND only that from the DMC was leaked, then it will be on to #5.

Matthew Sablan said...

Also: Why did Obama use the illegal taping of Romney's 47% remark? I mean, if we're to believe that Trump should have -- what? Recused himself? Refused to use a weapon against Clinton? Yet, the left is more than free to use whatever tool comes to their hand through any means -- even illegally obtained tax documents that the IRS released about some non-profits?

There's no reason for Trump -- at the time not part of the intelligence community -- to not use these files. After all, the left was fine with exploiting Wiki Leaks when it was Bush's ox getting gored.

traditionalguy said...

The internally leaked e-mails of DNC and Podesta all reveal that creating a subtle narrative, poll testing it, and orderingg their Media soldiers to do a blitz coverage of a rumor is standard politics in Progressive Land. The slow reveal by Assange just reminded everyone how stupid the Dems think they are. Meanwhile Mr Authhentic convinced them he would deal in reality.

M Jordan said...

Barack Obama represents the modern beta male in full flower. He is smart but not intellectual. He loves pop culture more than culture. He is glib, not deep. He is, most of all, passive-aggressive. When President Obama made a show of saying he wanted a smooth transition, he was already concocting ways to undermine Trump. He went overseas and issued warnings. He told the troops to challenge the new Commander in Chief. He whispered cues to Josh Earnest to give validity to the "fake news" meme and to go even deeper into the woods with the Russian hacking meme. Those same whispers found their way to Brennen's CIA.

Trump and his new cabinet are a repudiation of all that. It's nice to think we may re-establish male/female distinctions again as God created them.

David said...

Matthew Sablan said...
"What possible reason could there be for Obama's intelligence heads to REFUSE to appear before the appropriate committees yet continue to leak negative information to the dem house organs (NYT/WP) all the while providing fodder for the dems to undermine the election results?"

-- This is what leads me to believe that there is no source.


There are sources. It would be high surprising if there were not.

The question is the quality and nature of the sources. The intelligence heads don't want to show up because they don't agree about that and many other things. There is no consensus. They need time to get their stories straight.

Getting your stories straight is not necessarily a bad thing but it's not good when you are doing so after politically tinged conclusions have been leaked.

GWash said...

Mr sablan as they say politics aint beanbag... i'm sure the republicans give as good as they get... besides the 47% remark was ACTUALLY said so it's not like the dems made something up say like the a child pornography ring operating out of a pizza shop run by hillary and podesta.. or etc etc... my only point is that trump won now govern... it aint so easy being the party in power and having responsibility for what you do or don't do... we'll see how well trump does and we all wish him well and success.. see how you like this country with this group of financial/military leaders... i thought the bloggers where were all about less government and freedom.. seems more dogma and ideology... maybe the years wondering in the desert have effected you more than you think?...

sykes.1 said...

Wikileaks claims they got the emails directly from a DNC insider.

Matthew Sablan said...

I like how Pizza Gate has completely destroyed all the actual news leaks, like all the illegal/unethical things done with the Global Initiative and tinkering with the DNC.

The Cracker Emcee said...

Eastern Europe is full of expert amatuer hackers and eavesdroppers. There's unemployed mailmen doing more sophisticated hacking out their basement apartments in Tallinn than the IT slobs at the DNC can dream of countering.

The bottom line is this, though. If you did nothing wrong and had nothing to hide, what possible difference could it make to the election that your emails were made public?

Original Mike said...

Blogger Birches said..."Have you all seen the latest attempt to void the election?"

I didn't know who 70% of those people were. I guess I need to get out more.

Connie said...

The continued arrogance of the left is astounding. For over a year we were told repeatedly that Hillary's home brew was secure, wasn't hacked, had no classified info, etc. When the White House was hacked we were told it never happened. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/12/remember-when-the-russians-hacked-the-white-houses-computers.php
The left continues to believe that Americans are too stupid to recognize their double standards. Having co-opted all of their media for over a year to deny the existence and significance of any political hacking they now expect outrage over the fact that somebody disclosed what they really think of the populace. The inconsistencies are truly impressive.

Drago said...

GWash: "...i thought the bloggers where were all about less government and freedom.. seems more dogma and ideology... maybe the years wondering in the desert have effected you more than you think?..."

Would it be okay with you if we actually waited to see what Trump and his cabinet (along with Congress) actually do, or is too important for you and Chuck to already label the entire effort a failure?

Left Bank of the Charles said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Henry said...

Wikileaks claims they got the emails directly from a DNC insider.

Alger Hiss, his name.

Makes everything true at once.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Could "some other entity" be a tell that The Trumo campaign itself was behind the hacking?"

-- Yes. Exactly that. He was also behind the grassy knoll.

Matthew Sablan said...

Hah! I quoted the post before he deleted it.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Could "some other entity" be a tell? If the Trump campaign itself is behind the hacking, this could be another Watergate.

great Unknown said...

Drago @9:43 am

I was responding to PB @9:34 am

What question were you referring to, that I was
ostensibly misunderstanding?

Original Mike said...

"Could "some other entity" be a tell? If the Trump campaign itself is behind the hacking, this could be another Watergate."

You know what? If John Podesta is that stupid, I don't care it it was Trump.

AprilApple said...

I read somewhere that what the democrats really need is a collective tin foil hat to keep the Russians from spying on their thoughts.

Michael K said...

"If the Trump campaign itself is behind the hacking, this could be another Watergate."

Good grief ! Tell me you don't believe that ! This gets sillier every day.

If anyone else was "behind it," it was either the DNC with an angry Bernie supporter, or the Israelis who have no affection for Hillary and who have good computer skills. It could even be NSA officers angry at her cavalier regard for their life work.

Matthew Sablan said...

It could just be "for the lulz" too.

The Cracker Emcee said...

"Could "some other entity" be a tell? If the Trump campaign itself is behind the hacking, this could be another Watergate"

Why? The "Trump campaign" is a non-government entity.

Michael K said...

"maybe the years wondering in the desert have effected you more than you think?..."

You might try counting the GOP state officers. Then think again.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Hacking the election and hacking into a server and releasing information are two completely different things.

The first.....hacking the election means manipulating the number, type and kind of votes themselves. Hacking into the vote machines. Stuffing ballot boxes. Faking registrations. Having the deceased vote. The Russians didn't do this.

However, we can look at the discrepancies in Detroit to determine that the Democrats HAVE hacked the election. They failed. They were unable to overcome the "Monster Vote" that came out for Trump.

The second....hacking into a server and releasing information is not hacking the election. The people now have information that they didn't have before. The people are free to ignore the information or take the information into consideration when they cast their votes.

This is not hacking the election anymore than the distorted news reported by the Washington Post, NY Times and other mouthpieces of the Democrats is actually "hacking". Persuading. Informing. And allowing the voters to make up their own minds. Is not hacking.

The Democrats lost. Big League! They are butthurt and are grasping at straws.

If they succeed in overturning this election through Electoral College manipulation or other methods.....there will be Hell to pay. If we wish to live in a country with laws, rules and an orderly succession of administrations we should all decry this effort to overturn the Constitution. If we allow this, Nellie bar the door!

Original Mike said...

"If we wish to live in a country with laws, rules and an orderly succession of administrations we should all decry this effort to overturn the Constitution. If we allow this, Nellie bar the door!"

If we allow this, I'm moving to Australia!

n.n said...

After the Chinese publicly snubbed Obama, they privately hacked the DNC in a final act of humiliation.

There is also Bernie Sanders's voters who were disenfranchised by the DNC. WaterCloset lead to PhishingPost which recalls insider "hacks" that lead to ClimateGate.

It seems that the Left under its Pro-Choice doctrine selected and sacrificed one too many nations, women, interns, lives, and livelihoods.

Big Mike said...

I think Trump asks a good question.

@great Unknown, everybody except those who accept his money to do his bidding hates George Soros.

Brando said...

Let's say they find proof that the Russians did hack private emails to try and influence the election. That'd be grounds for retaliatory measures against Russia or at least exposing what they did, but unless Trump was actually found to be working with them (or actually falsifying votes) this isn't grounds for overturning the election.

Though frankly, if I were Russia and I did hack both campaigns and was trying to help Trump, I'd have release RNC and Trump campaign e-mails as well as Dem ones, only release ones that aren't particularly damaging (e.g., something we already knew about) so then both sides could express outrage but no one would assume outside interference helped. It never looks good to get outside help.

khesanh0802 said...

Great piece about the press by Molly Hemingwayhere

khesanh0802 said...

@Matthew Sablan 10:42 They are all too busy looking for jobs in a down market to show up and get their asses kicked.

GWash said...

michael k... good point.. but gerrymandering and voter suppression (i'm just saying i'm not defending that phrase) can do wonders for you reelection chances... and if you like limiting the electorate dont fret it's coming to a federal election near you in the next 4 years...
and ms dustbunny.. lets remember that however much you are enjoying the electoral college this cycle, clinton still won the majority of voters by almost 3million votes, do its not exactly like she got slammed... (and please everyone please dont bring up that old cunard... unless you have proof (which noone here has EVER provided and which really does not exist -again just saying not trying to divert the conversation)) i wish trump well and will support him where i can and i hope you all have your political christmas wishes granted! i hope you guys are as honest with your criticisms now that trump has won as you were when the other guys were in power.. just remember you are governing all of us not just folks that want to make america 'great AGAIN'...

Mike said...

Because it's bullshit #FakeNews !!

Matthew Sablan said...

"just remember you are governing all of us not just folks that want to make america 'great AGAIN'..."

-- Yeah. That argument worked so well on Barack "I Won" Obama. I hope Trump works well across the aisle, but the precedent has been set that, well, that's not how things go any more, so if he plays hardball, that's what you should expect.

Matthew Sablan said...

Also: Jill Stein's recount shows significant over voting in Detroit. Enough to make Trump win the popular vote? Who knows. I do know though that after recounts elsewhere, Trump GAINED votes. So, I am a bit skeptical of how high that popular vote really is. I still think she won the popular vote, but I'm not sure by how much.

Matthew Sablan said...

"but gerrymandering"

-- Is a red herring thrown out there to add buzz words to spin. Gerrymandering has nothing to do with presidential elections, save in the few states that vote by districts, in which those states are small enough it doesn't matter.

Mike said...

"17 agencies" is the new "97% of scientists" -- a factoid (which is the opposite of a true fact). These two things should give rabid MSM/Dem complex pause:

James Clapper, DNI, the top of the top of the intelligence chain disagrees with the conclusions that Russia did it and that it was to help Trump.

The FBI has publicly disagreed with the "conclusion" the MSM/Dem complex is peddling too. Interesting FBI fact: They are the experts in domestiuc spying and hacking and are the go to agency for matters like this.

Fake news for pitiable people unable to grasp reality.

GWash said...

mr sablan i would NOT expect that... we have to work together or we will continue to have these wild swings from left to right and back again... to me the only way to run anything really is to have 'buy in' from everyone as much as possible... unless you would like to be governed by a 'boss' that is used to giving orders not governing...

Mike said...

lgv: Simple

1) It was all Comey's fault - Didn't work


This is one I love. Completely wiped from the memory banks is the fact that Comey effectively exonerated Hillary and gave a huge boost to her campaign just when the server issue was starting to drag her down. Unprecedented and unsupported by the Law, but HRC and the DNC-Media praised this act to high heaven. Nothing he did in November compares in scale to what he did for her in July.

Matthew Sablan said...

GWash: That's what I said in 2008/2012 when I encouraged people to vote for the moderate Republicans with a history of working across the aisle to compromise, even if not perfectly.

The voters decided compromise is not what they wanted and went with a left/far left go-it-alone politician with no history of working with others outside his ideological bubble, and then backed Trump, a consummate deal maker known for holding grudges.

Republicans offered the country moderates, and the country rejected them. So, the party learned and finally offered up someone in the vein of Obama -- celebrity, strong personal charisma -- and won. The age of the middle of the road compromiser is probably over, and Democrats killed it by painting people like Bush, McCain and Romney as The Next Hitler.

Fabi said...

Gerrymandering - drink!

GWash said...

mr sablan i guess we'll have to just disagree about this point... the republican 'moderates' (read reagan republicans) were 'primaried' by a very radical base of voters... so until the more moderate voters can figure out that in red states the primary is where the real election takes place (and i would guess the same holds true for blue states) we are destined to have these giant swings.. that and the antiquated electoral college means we are destined to be held 'captive' (i mean that in a figurative sense) by a well organized radical minority... we'll see if these country doesn't swing back to the left next cycle.. but by then your medicare and ss will be destroyed and we'll be subjected to a national version of kansas with all of the benefits that trickle down economics bring...until then, its great to be a white male american...

Mike said...

however much you are enjoying the electoral college this cycle, clinton still won the majority of voters by almost 3million votes

Which Clinton? Because I remember the guy who only got 43% of the vote, and in fact that clinton NEVER even got a majority of the vote! How can you claim a mandate and govern without even getting a majority of the vote? Absurd!

What I DON'T recall is all the right wing riots and cries of NOT MY PRESIDENT and demand for SAFE SPACES and BUM-RUSHING THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE and the collective GNASHING OF MEDIA TEETH over FAKE NEWS (they were covering up for this clinton too -- what a coincidence!); and their was complete INDIFFERENCE to the fact the country had just elected a WHITE SOUTHERN MAN MENTORED BY RACISTS who lived in the AR governor's mansion UNDER A CONFEDERATE FLAG, but then those were different times. Shoe on the other foot and all that.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

@ GWash
clinton still won the majority of voters by almost 3million votes, do its not exactly like she got slammed

Which means exactly jack shit. It isn't a popular vote, pure democracy that we live in. THANK GOD!!! The election for President is a compilation of 51 individual elections. The States and Washington DC. This is to prevent one or two populated states like California and New York from being able to overwhelm the other states.

The Founders knew this was a problem and crafted our "representative republic" to encourage the colonies to join. Ensuring them that they WOULD have a voice and not be relegated powerless by the popular vote from a few colonies.

Most of the popular vote advantage to Clinton came from California.

Do you REALLY want California to be able to dictate to the rest of the country who gets to be President, dictate what the policies should be in the rest of the States.... because that State is full of millions of fruits and nuts? Disclosure. I live in California and can attest to the insanity that is rampant there.

Mike said...

I live in California and can attest to the insanity that is rampant there.

Ditto and I too don't want California governing the country. I don't even want the people who govern our state to be in charge of Sacramento, much less this whole state.

Brando said...

"Ditto and I too don't want California governing the country. I don't even want the people who govern our state to be in charge of Sacramento, much less this whole state."

That's where the talk of "red states" and "blue states" gets so silly. I live in a very overall blue state but there are certainly red parts of it--far redder than say, Austin which is in a solid red state. If a state should secede from the country because it doesn't like the way the country was run, then should a part of that state secede from the seceding state? (During the Civil War this actually happened) Who gets to dominate who?

Maybe some of these states ought to be redrawn so people can be governed in a way more suitable to them. I'm sure Oswego County is tired of Manhattan calling the shots.

GWash said...

i get it mike... you are an ideologue ... i'm just saying that hillary clinton won the popular vote but trump won the electoral college... and since more americans voted for hclinton i would say that tempers trumps mandate somewhat... i guess i'm not seeing all the people in the street that you are seeing out there in california... trump won and now you have to govern... i just ask you not turn the country into kansas... and let me know after you deregulate the financial sector, when i should move my money from securities to bonds, cause just as sure as trump will be getting security briefings, there is bound to be a meltdown that you and i will have to finance with our tax money...

Matthew Sablan said...

"the republican 'moderates' (read reagan republicans) were 'primaried' by a very radical base of voters."

-- Because the moderate Republicans kept losing the national election. Because they got all the negatives that a more right candidate got ["Next Hitler! Will kill your grandma with cancer!"] and none of the benefits [an energized conservative base.] So, Republican voters decided, "no matter who we nominate is going to be Hitler. We might as well go big." And, that's how you got Trump. If the left had not demonized Mitt Romney, maybe the moderate Republicans could have won again in their primary. Instead, everyone on the right knows whoever we nominate will be presented as evil incarnate, so even if the person actually IS immoral/amoral, that's not a downside. Mitt Romney -- the man who literally sat by a dying kid's bedside to help the kid write a will for free and closed down his business for days to find a missing girl -- was made out to be Hitler. So, why nominate a nice guy, who won't fight back when smeared, when they can get a fighter, who is going to get *the same exact smears*? Democrats brought you Trump; Republicans wanted to bring you Romney 2.0.

"that and the antiquated electoral college means we are destined to be held 'captive' (i mean that in a figurative sense) by a well organized radical minority"

-- That is ridiculous. A "radical minority" would be something like 15-20% of the voters. Trump won with what, being about 3-4% behind in the popular vote? That's... that's not a "radical minority."

Francisco D said...

People on this site would be surprised at how easily others are duped. Most of my depressed/suicidal patients are avid Democrats. Actually, all of them are.

The last few weeks have been tough for me. I have heard all sorts of "fake news" and conspiracy theories that most people would just laugh at. I have to keep a straight face and pretend to be a compassionate and neutral psychologist.

Did you know that Trump supporters lynched a Black man in Georgia last week?

Did you know that Trump will abolish Medicare, Medicaid and SSI Disability?

Did you know that Trump has sex with his daughter Ivanka?

Did you know that the Russians hacked our voting machines (which are not connected to the internet) in order to elect Trump?

The list is endless and would be comical if it were not so infuriatingly sad.

The Democrats have mastered the ridiculous rumor game among their base. They are not going to give up now, with a target rich environment.

Browndog said...

I read that Hillary won California by 4.5 million votes. She won the popular vote by 2.5 million votes.

That means Trump won 49 States by 2 million votes.

The Electoral College worked.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Brando

I live in a very overall blue state but there are certainly red parts of it--far redder than say, Austin which is in a solid red state. If a state should secede from the country because it doesn't like the way the country was run, then should a part of that state secede from the seceding state?

I live in a solidly RED area of a blue state. California, where the coastal areas dictate to the rest of the State, just like they want to dictate to the rest of the Country. We, in our area have practicably zero representation in the State Government and all...ALL of our votes in a national election are a total loss. Even though our many counties outside of the Bay area and the LA Coastal areas vote Republican, our voice is discarded.

We, in our area have wanted to secede, separate, divorce ourselves from California for DECADES. Google State of Jefferson. The rest of California can exit from the United States for all we care. Fall into the ocean. Whatever. The State of Jefferson would be a part of the United States.

The concept that the United States will always remain 'united' is becoming more and more unlikely as the arrogance and fascism of the leftists in the "blue" areas becomes ever more oppressive. We in northern and rural California have nothing whatsoever in common with the other areas of California. There can be an orderly, peaceful secession....or not.

This is an interesting read regarding the right of States to secede and has a different take on the economics and political background regarding the Southern Secession. The South Was Right

cubanbob said...

@ GWash
clinton still won the majority of voters by almost 3million votes, do its not exactly like she got slammed"

It may have escaped your attention that Trump won the majority of the States and in each of those States he won the majority of the votes. That is the system we have. And that is the system we will always have since thirty eight states are not going to change it.

So now it comes down to that the Democrat-Communists are pissed off that their candidate and her staffers who are grifters, schemers, criminals and traitors lost an election because they were exposed for the scum that they are.

By the way, more people voted against Bill Clinton twice than those who voted for him, using your logic he should have never been president.

GWash said...

cubanbob i think that you too are an ideologue and i would respectfully disagree with your characterization of many of your (i suppose) fellow americans... i know you know this but maybe you disagree, that one of the strong points of our democracy was a freedom to have different opinions... i agree that trump won based on the electoral college which is how we determine the outcome... however, my point is that more of your fellow americans voted against trump than voted for him, so he must govern with that in mind... and ms queen please don't tell me that we will have to refight the civil war?... why not bring back slavery (not that that was the soul cause :)) of the civil was... i do believe that just as it would be hard to change the electoral college it would be doubly hard to take us back to the bad old days of ante bellum country..

Mac McConnell said...

Obama and his Democrat administration was in charge of cybersecurity not Trump.
The media, Trump won!
The election, Trump won!
The riots didn't overturn the election, Trump won!
The recount did overturn the election, Trump won!
The Hamilton Electors getting rat fucked this coming monday, Trump wins!
Trump doesn't seem to tire of winning.

Poor Democrats are hysterical and the President Trump Train hasn't even left the station.

Michael K said...

GWash would probably not be interested to learn how many votes in California were cast by illegal aliens.

My wife's drivers license was due for renewal last January on her birthday. She could not get an appointment at the DMV until April because they were flooded for months with illegals who could now get DLs.

Every DL comes with voter registration and no citizenship test. I estimate 1/3 of Los Angeles population is illegal.

Matthew Sablan said...

In 2013, according to Google, LA had 3.8 million population. I'd be surprised if 1/3 of them were illegal. I think there's a lot, but not that many.

Lydia said...

boycat @9:46 a.m. said: Why did Obama let this happen on his watch?

Great piece by John Podhoretz on this and all the other stuff Obama let happen on his watch -- How Obama invited the Russian ‘hack attack’ — and worse:

As his administration comes to its end, President Obama is effectively calling into question the results of the 2016 race by demanding a full accounting of Russian intrusions into our electoral process. But The New York Times tells us the president knew about the political hacks in July.

So now that the barn door is closed, Obama wants to let the horses out, presumably to trample on the public’s perceived legitimacy of the Trump victory. Yet when he actually had the chance to act against the hacking itself, Obama did … nothing.

Which is reminiscent of the time back in 2014 when Russia invaded Ukraine and seized territory and he did … nothing.

Which reminds me of the time when Syria used chemical weapons against its own people in 2013 and thus crossed a “red line” Obama himself had drawn that required a military response, and Obama did … nothing.

Or how about after the fall of Moammar Khadafy in Libya in 2011, which led to the country turning into a sinkhole that eventually swallowed up the four Americans killed at Benghazi, when Obama did … nothing?

Perhaps you remember when the Iranian government stole the 2009 election and hundreds of thousands of Iranians took to the streets and Obama did . . . nothing?

The consistency with which Barack Obama has spent his presidency refusing to respond to international provocations, evils and specific threats against the United States is no accident. It constitutes one of the prevailing foreign-policy motifs of the past eight years. Call it the Underreaction Doctrine.

alan markus said...

@ Francisco D The Democrats have mastered the ridiculous rumor game among their base. They are not going to give up now, with a target rich environment.


The Jill Stein recount fundraiser & the current "Hamilton Electors" fundraiser are just a warm up for the next 4-8 years of grifters reaching into the pockets of aggrieved Democrats. It will be the same crew that was doing it to the Republican base the last 8 years.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

DBQ: Yeah. Let's let Blue California secede, form Jefferson out of Red California (and maybe part of Oregon), and we're done -- except for the water rights. (Always with the water rights!) Bonus: The number of stars on the flag stays the same. Though, to be fair, that result does represent a missed stimulus opportunity.

Matthew Sablan said...

Also, about Hamilton Electors. Does anyone think they'd be called this if there wasn't a musical?

GWash said...

mk.. actually i would be interested in how many illegals voted.. not only in california but elsewhere.. however, no one can tell me.... and as you well know and has been mentioned many times here, getting a dl in california does not make you automatically eligible to vote in a federal election... if i'm wrong i apologize, but i've heard that so many times and its not as much of a slam dunk as is often presented here..anyway not that it matters at this point (trump won), if this is such a major problem in california, i'm sure one of the republican billionares would be more than happy to finance an investigation and nail this... maybe when we build the wall it will cut down on illegal voting in california and we can move on to something more pressing - that is, if we can take trump at his word about the trump wall...wait i guess he wasn't really talking about a real wall, maybe a virtual wall or maybe a picket fence?

Drago said...

GWash: " however, my point is that more of your fellow americans voted against trump than voted for him, so he must govern with that in mind."

This is absurd.

Your static thought processes betray a complete inability to understand what is actually occurring in the country at the federal, state and local levels.

But hey, we get it. Obama won in 2008 with 52.86% of the popular vote and he and his party viewed that as a mandate to completely and fundamentally transform the United States of America and that's cool.

All Trump is talking about is restoring some limits on the insane lefts desire to create a no-borders centralized Social Justice Warrior controlled society.

But its Trump you find out of bounds.

Telling indeed.

Original Mike said...

Blogger GWash said..."mr sablan i would NOT expect that... we have to work together or we will continue to have these wild swings from left to right and back again... to me the only way to run anything really is to have 'buy in' from everyone as much as possible... unless you would like to be governed by a 'boss' that is used to giving orders not governing..."

This is why ObamaCare failed. Unlike the votting rights act, social security, and medicare, ObamaCare was shoved down our throats with no buy-in from the other side. No wonder no one on the other side is now willing to bail him out.

I've said this many times: Obama couldn't negogiate his way out of a paper bag.

He's a fucking failure.

Drago said...

So, we must return to the question at hand: Russia and China and lots of others have been hacking into our most secure systems for years now and there has been no outcry on the left.

But now that the dems nominated an utterly flawed and corrupt candidate who lost because she had no message that could possibly resonate with any sentient human being, suddenly we must go to DEFCON 1 and let the dems create a #Fakenews narrative that the Russians hacked the election while witnessing the obama intelligence agency partisans not come clean with Congress even as they leak BS to the NYT/WP and others.

But hey, GWash and Chuck want you to know that Trump is the problem.

Well, thanks for that.

Curious George said...

"Matthew Sablan said...
In 2013, according to Google, LA had 3.8 million population. I'd be surprised if 1/3 of them were illegal. I think there's a lot, but not that many."

The LA metro area is almost 14 million.

GWash said...

drago, your point about trump restoring limits seems reasonable to me.. not sure what the next phrase means... also i dont find trump out of bounds (not sure what you mean by that either).. trump is elected and now has to govern... but the folks he is bringing on board are goldman sachs,military and dancing with the stars people.. seems a little unbalanced, not to mention a head of the epa that is denied many of the regulations/laws he will be responsible for upholding and the list goes on... not much of a populist revolution... again, my point about a mandate is only that trumps mandate is tempered by the fact that most of his fellow citizens voted against him, not that he can't implement and ideas he may have.. hey, i dont have to agree with eliminating medicare, medicaide and ss as we know it... and if he thinks its a good idea and cost effective to take peoples insurance away more power to him... i guess i'll have to adjust and live with it...

roesch/voltaire said...

NYT reported on Russia's involvement on July 26th let us not re-write history. Putin prefers Trump because of possible oil and hotels deals he will be involved in. Putin also wants a policy from US that will not interfere in the Ukraine, and with Paul Manafort's help he should get that, and he wants a weaken NATO so that he does not feel threaten, something that was started under the Bush project, and which Trump has indicated he is willing to work with, and which Hillary would have opposed. Just what kind of Russia reset we get will be interesting for all those Republicans who have made out Russia to be our enemy.

mccullough said...

Obama is trying to have some influence on Russia about Syria. That's why he hasn't made a big deal about Russian hacking. Hillary made a big deal about it in the third debate and accused Trump of being pro Russia. Obama, like most presidents, doesn't trust the CIA. The CIA is leaking it's conclusions because Obama is skeptical about the CIA's conclusions.

Levi Starks said...

If only there were a way we could blame George W for the sad state of cyber security in 2016.
I'm fairly confident that Obama learned about this the same way he learned about every other national embarrassment....
When he reads it in the newspaper just like the rest of us.
But don't you worry, now that he knows you can be sure he's plenty upset.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Putin prefers Trump because of possible oil and hotels deals he will be involved in. Putin also wants a policy from US that will not interfere in the Ukraine, and with Paul Manafort's help he should get that,"

-- All of this is nonsense. Obama already GAVE Putin oil/uranium deals and already was not interfering with Putin. The Democrats have already given Putin everything he wants; the *only* reason the Democrats have become antagonistic towards Russia is over these alleged hacks.

Meanwhile, we suppose that Putin wanted to elevate the Republican party, which has acknowledged Russia as America's #1 geopolitical foe and has criticized Putin's expansionism and tried to convince Obama to take more decisive action against Obama.

To believe that Putin would choose to elevate Trump and Republicans over Hillary and Democrats is to be completely ignorant of Russia-American relations in the past several years.

Matthew Sablan said...

to take more decisive action against Putin.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

@ roesch/voltiare

Just what kind of Russia reset we get will be interesting for all those Republicans who have made out Russia to be our enemy.

The Democrats seem to be the ones who want to enimize Russia. Blame them for everything that has gone wrong. Not that I think that Russia is entirely blameless.

There is a world of difference between having an adversary which has been basically what Russia and the US have been since the cold war.....and making that adversary into an enemy

You can DEAL with an adversary. Adversarial relationships have an element of mutual respect. There is no dealing with an enemy and no mutual, if grudging respect. You hate your enemies....at least I do :-) I prefer Trump's method of dealing respectfully, firmly and diplomatically (we hope) with Russia and China and many of the other adversarial countries.

A good deal is where everyone wins something, no one is beaten into total submission and everyone walks away from the table feeling that they didn't lose everything and have some winning moments.

Matthew Sablan said...

Not only that, Clinton would continue to limit the U.S.'s ability to tap our oil reserves and compete with Russia; Trump's energy policy is much more likely to lead to competition with Russia, or at least, increase the general supply of oil and hurt Russia's ability to churn out expensive oil.

There is no logical reason to believe that Russia went with Trump because Trump will be better for their oil plans.

Matthew Sablan said...

"A good deal is where everyone wins something, no one is beaten into total submission and everyone walks away from the table feeling that they didn't lose everything and have some winning moments."

-- Letting people save face is very important in a lot of theories of conflict resolutions.

Francisco D said...

Roesch/Voltaire,

You sound like one of my patients, but with a more integrated and intact delusional system. Maybe The Daily Kos has helped you sound rational, but you are clearly not.

Putin is going to make deals with Trump so he can make more money? Seriously? He is going after pennies when our two large world powers affect trillions of dollars?

I won't even ask for evidence. On logic alone, that is ridiculous. He only needs to give the Clinton Crime Family a few million bucks and Hillary would have given him anything he wanted. She's already done that. Do you think Putin is an idiot?

As to the NATO assertion, what is Paul Manafort's interest? What has been his role in the Trump camp over the past few months?

Birches said...

@ Original Mike

I don't know who most of the ending people are either and I'm under 35. Is the really scary lady Hot Lips from MASH? I wouldn't recognize her at all, except that I saw Trapper first.

Birches said...

Because the moderate Republicans kept losing the national election. Because they got all the negatives that a more right candidate got ["Next Hitler! Will kill your grandma with cancer!"] and none of the benefits [an energized conservative base.] So, Republican voters decided, "no matter who we nominate is going to be Hitler. We might as well go big." And, that's how you got Trump. If the left had not demonized Mitt Romney, maybe the moderate Republicans could have won again in their primary. Instead, everyone on the right knows whoever we nominate will be presented as evil incarnate, so even if the person actually IS immoral/amoral, that's not a downside. Mitt Romney -- the man who literally sat by a dying kid's bedside to help the kid write a will for free and closed down his business for days to find a missing girl -- was made out to be Hitler. So, why nominate a nice guy, who won't fight back when smeared, when they can get a fighter, who is going to get *the same exact smears*? Democrats brought you Trump; Republicans wanted to bring you Romney 2.0.

What he said.

Brando said...

"A good deal is where everyone wins something, no one is beaten into total submission and everyone walks away from the table feeling that they didn't lose everything and have some winning moments."

A recent example was a few years back when Boehner and Co. agreed to a budget deal with Obama, and after the deal was done Jack Lew (who later became Treasury Secretary) preened on about how they screwed over the GOP by agreeing to cut things that were not going to be on the table anyway. So Republicans felt like they'd be fools to cut more deals with them, and for what? So Lew could be a jerk about it?

No one's going to cut a deal where they feel they're getting nothing out of it.

Drago said...

R/V: "Putin prefers Trump because of possible oil and hotels deals he will be involved in"

LOL

Yes, someone actually wrote that....and probably believes it.

Putin has already been given everything he wants: Uranium, Syria, the Crimea, the Ukraine, the ability to freely move advanced missiles into areas threatening the Baltics, and Russia is already the top oil producer (based on 2015 figures).

But really, the "hotels" touch was absolutely precious.

Drago said...

Why doesn't the left just come out and say it?

Putin wants Trump in the White House in order to get more mints on his pillows when he stays at a Trump property?

Francisco D said...

Drago,

I heard that Putin will grow his hair out and wants Trump's comb-over secrets. Trump refused unless Vlad helped him become POTUS.

Don't tell R/V. He will be disappointed at the banality of it all. He's an intellectual, I hear.

Brando said...

"Putin wants Trump in the White House in order to get more mints on his pillows when he stays at a Trump property?"

That's insane and absurd! Wait what kind of mints? If it's those high end mints we're in business.

JaimeRoberto said...

@ GWash
"clinton still won the majority of voters". Wrong. She got 48% which is a plurality not a majority. Words matter.

Drago said...

Brando: "That's insane and absurd! Wait what kind of mints? If it's those high end mints we're in business"

How DARE you Sir!

Trumps mints are the highest of the high end, luscious and luxurious!

As you would expect.

Of course, Chuck and GWash would not like these mints, at all.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

@ GWash
"clinton still won the majority of voters". Wrong. She got 48% which is a plurality not a majority. Words matter.

And

Math is hard!

Drago said...

JaimeRoberto: "@ GWash
"clinton still won the majority of voters". Wrong. She got 48% which is a plurality not a majority. Words matter."

whoa there Jaime.

GWash is the self-proclaimed non-ideologue who is simply an honest arbiter of what is occurring. Do not presume to lecture him/her on their inaccuracies!

GWash, like "lifelong republican" Chuck, "just happen" to skew things factually and rhetorically in alignment with dem talking points.

Unexpectedly.

Original Mike said...

"Is the really scary lady Hot Lips from MASH? I wouldn't recognize her at all, except that I saw Trapper first."

I knew those two! Yes, Sally Kellerman (Hot Lips) was in there. She was in the movie And I saw Mike Ferrell (BJ Hunnicutt) who maybe is your "Trapper John". He was in the TV series.

GWash said...

sorry you are right... it was a plurality... my bad... but still she got almost 3million more votes... and you are all right words do matter.. let's all remember that as our twitter president proceeds...

GWash said...

in regards to the mints...as we say around here, if its free its me !

Francisco D said...

Wash,

If the Chicago Bears gain more yards than the hated GB Packers this weekend, but get skunked on the score, did they win some sort of victory? It seems analogous to Clinton getting more votes but getting skunked in the electoral college, which is how we keep score.

Can you give me words that I can use to get out of the $20 I will lose to my Wisconsin cousin?

Fabi said...

Trump doesn't need a mandate -- whatever that means. He has the House and the Senate on his side -- to some degree -- all duly elected per the Constitution. He and the other Republicans will govern as they see fit. As a petulant asshole once said: "Elections have consequences. We won."

Michael K said...

"not to mention a head of the epa that is denied many of the regulations/laws he will be responsible for upholding"

No, the only regulations that he is responsible for upholding are those described in legislation passed by Congress. The hundreds of billions of dollars in regulations the past 8 years have mostly been written inhouse by the administrative state.

I recommend Is Administrative Law Unlawful ? as reading.

Joe said...

Multiple sources, including the courier of the leaks to Assange, have maintained that it was a DNC inside job.

What makes this whole thing metaphysically weird is that the leaks exposed truths. One argument against Trump by the hysterical left is that he's hiding the truth. Wasn't that what the DNC was actually, provably doing?

The DNC really did rig the primaries against Bernie Sanders. I don't think they needed to do this, but they did to play it safe. The GOP really was trying to get rid of Trump. I presume they failed since the GOP is better at simply being two-faced than in actually carrying out its threats.

Chuck said...

Drago said...
So, we must return to the question at hand: Russia and China and lots of others have been hacking into our most secure systems for years now and there has been no outcry on the left.
But now that the dems nominated an utterly flawed and corrupt candidate who lost because she had no message that could possibly resonate with any sentient human being, suddenly we must go to DEFCON 1 and let the dems create a #Fakenews narrative that the Russians hacked the election while witnessing the obama intelligence agency partisans not come clean with Congress even as they leak BS to the NYT/WP and others.
But hey, GWash and Chuck want you to know that Trump is the problem.
Well, thanks for that.


Without even trying, you are doing a better job of making the case for Trump, than Trump is.

Most intelligent observers would respond to the Trump Tweet in this post by saying, "You idiot, Trump; of course the White House made a case about Russian involvement with the email thefts more than a month ago! Following the Obama lead, The New Yorker put Putin on a cover (with Putin as Trump's "wife" holding a bible at a future inauguration). MSNBC has been whining about Russian meddling for weeks. They'd even argue that Republican leadership was asked to sign off on a joint intelligence service and Bipartisan statement after a briefing earlier in the fall.

The Trump Tweet was a crappy little shorthand for the issue.

You, Drago, have done better than that in this thread!

Chuck said...

btw: By 63%-27%, the vast majority of Americans think Trump's use of Twitter is inappropriate.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/poll-63-percent-of-americans-dont-approve-of-trumps-tweeting/article/2005865?utm_campaign=Weekly%20Standard:%20Daily%20Standard&utm_source=Weekly%20Standard:%20Daily%20Standard%20-%2012/15/16&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletters&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily+Standard+-+Manual

tim in vermont said...

Putin wants North American oil to stay in the ground. Hillary was his best bet. Russia is a petro state. Drill baby drill America is Russia's worst nightmare.

tim in vermont said...

Twitter disintermediates the media. Think like the fans, sit with the fans, as the saying goes.

tcrosse said...

Trump's Twittering reminds me of Martha Mitchell and her late-night phone calls back in the Nixon era. Much as I wish DJT well, I think it's unseemly. But seemliness didn't get him elected President, I guess.

Drago said...

"Lifelong Republican" Chuck: "You , Drago, have done better than that in this thread!"

And you Chuck have successfully passed another day of complete non-criticism of Dems/left even though they are in full-blown coup mode.

One waits in vain for any detailed criticism of anyone on the left by you.

Which, of course, only makes sense under one scenario.

Drago said...

It is also very clear that Chuck, adhering to his strict policy of non criticism of Dems, does not want to dip his toes in the waters of why obama and his admin have ignored years of China/Russian actual hacks or the now clear politicization of the CIA.

Unexpectedly.

n.n said...

JournoLists beware, Trump is directing the news cycle.

David said...

The Russians have gotten what they wanted, whether they were behind the theft of the emails or not. And our politicians are now doing their very best to help them out. I'm not referring to the low level venal politicians like US Senators, press secretaries and the like. I mean Trump and Obama.

Trump is making it worse by insisting seeming to insist that it was not a Russian invasion. Couldn't he at least acknowledge the possibility and call foe further investigation and clarification.

Obama, without saying so himself, is allowing his press secretary and other senior officials to advance the idea that Trump was the intended beneficiary of the Russian spying. Indeed, they are saying that Trump knew this and acquiesced or encouraged it. Could Obama not say that this is speculation and inference, not proven fact?

No, neither of them can. So now they are at the brink with each other, which the Russians aid Assad in the mop up massacre in Aleppo.

Do we know what Aleppo is now? Do we care?

David said...

Many typos in the previous. Can you tell I'm upset?

HT said...

Here is the actual map featuring the actual California results for 2016 presidential.

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/maps/president/

Michael K said...

David, you idiot. Of course you're upset. Your candidate LOST !!!!!!!!

Russia is a petro state. Drill baby drill America is Russia's worst nightmare.

Yes and that is why David and the rest of the lefties are crazy. Bill Clinton did a pretty good job of blocking coal mining in Utah.

That, of course, was a payoff to donors as are all Clinton actions.

Democrats attempted to downplay the allegations of impropriety. Even if the Clinton campaign and the Party did receive illegal contribution- which is denied -what, they demanded, had Clinton done for Lippo Group, the Riadys, or Indonesia that really affects this country adversely? Good question. The Payoff

Clinton's announcement at the Grand Canyon was wrapped in political correctness. "Mining jobs are good jobs, and mining is important to our national security - but we can't have mines everywhere, and we shouldn't have mines that threaten national treasures," he told his sycophantic audience.

But coal is not only important for our nation's security. More importantly, at the present time it is the most cost-effective fuel for the electric plants that supply our homes and industries with light, heat and power.

Moreover, the coal at Kaiporowitz Plateau is a kind of coal that is not found "everywhere." It is very low sulfur, low ash - hence, low polluting - coal, the kind in high demand for power plants, such as one being designed for Ensenada, Mexico. That megawatt giant, presently on the drawing boards, will supply electricity across northern Baja, an area plagued by brownouts.

Had it not been taken off the world market, the logical source of coal for the Baja plant would be the Kaiparowitz Plateau. Once mined it could be transported by rail to the ports of Long Beach or Los Angeles, then by barge to Ensenada. Thanks to Clinton, there will be no exporting of Kaiparowitz coal, which means the facility's procurement people will have to look elsewhere for clean non-polluting fuel.


I'll bet the payoff was huge.

Hillary was in line for big payoffs from Russian billionaires. Oh heck !

Comanche Voter said...

Because, in the immortal words of my old drill sarge-Bobby Jean Rowlands 1969 out of Broken Arrow Oklahoma--these pussies could fuck up a wet dream. Bobby Jean, you were right in 1969 and you are right today. You hounded the bejabbers out of me--and I still respect you for what you were trying to do.

n.n said...

It wasn't the Russians. A preponderance of evidence suggests that it was the Chinese, or the Ukrainians, or the Somalians, or the Germans, ...

Yeah, premature evacuation from Iraq, followed by the Libya-ISIS Affair, continue to pay dividends in mass abortions and immigration "reform".

Perhaps it was the Serbians. They were also bombed into submission by Clintons. It could also have been the Libyan survivors joining forces with sovereigns that fear a repeat of Gaddafi's trial by sodomy and abortion.

That said, WaterCloset and PhishingPost were more likely the result of insiders, as the disenfranchisement of Americans before that, as the trail of blood from Benghazi to Damascus to Kiev to Paris before that, as the Benghazi Massacre in the wake of the Libya-ISIS Affair before that, as ClimateGate before that, ...

readering said...

NY Times has a headline on its web site calling this Trump tweet false.

Birches said...

Thanks Original Mike. I get Honeycutt and Trapper confused as they are both just Hawkeye's sidekick.

And Matthew Sablan, of course they're hoping to trade off the musical's popularity. It is so poorly thought out, it should be a false flag operation. It's like Pookie from The Simpsons.

HT said...

"Thanks Original Mike. I get Honeycutt and Trapper confused as they are both just Hawkeye's sidekick."

Ack. Huge difference. Love old Mash, hate new mash.

Bob Loblaw said...

And where is the evidence that they hacked the Republicans but did not disclose? That is totally unsupported as of now.

That particular assertion smells of ass. The RNC says it wasn't hacked, and nobody seems to be able to find a shred of evidence to the contrary.

The Cracker Emcee said...

"And where is the evidence that they hacked the Republicans but did not disclose? That is totally unsupported as of now."

As of now, there isn't a shred of evidence that the Russians hacked the Democrats. Absolutely nothing of substance.

walter said...

The post reset Russky scare is still effective at distracting from the content revealed by the "hack".
Because the American people are sick of hearing about your(her) damn emails".

Unknown said...

Michael K calls David an idiot. Idiotically forgetting that David is as much a conservative as he is and that Hillary probably wasn't David's candidate. Michael K can't keep track of who is who anymore, senility strikes again.

Unknown said...

Fox News Kelly File

"CATHERINE HERRIDGE: Fox News has independently confirmed that Russian-backed cyber militias were targeting US systems and influential US persons in the summer of 2015, and the operation evolved into an effort to interfere in the US election. These operations were sanctioned by the highest levels of the Russian government.

After the FBI director’s July statement about the Clinton email investigation, a government source says there was a reluctance to further insert government institutions and their assessments into an already deeply politicized election cycle. A leading cybersecurity expert says the intelligence community reviewed the techniques, tactics, and procedures leveraged in the attacks and made the link to Russia. In October, the agencies and Homeland Security, or DHS, went on the record, though Putin was not mentioned by name."

walter said...

"Unknown", (so clever)
so..regarding that content? Sounds like it was revealed vs generated.

walter said...

i,e. "You weren't supposed to see this shiite!" Noble

Paul said...

"After the FBI director’s July statement about the Clinton email investigation, a government source says there was a reluctance to further insert government institutions and their assessments into an already deeply politicized election cycle."

So the government (ours) didn't try to STOP foreign countries from interfering? Crime right in front of their eyes and they do nothing?

That does not sound right unless the 'Russian-backed cyber militias' were not effective. Oh, and what exactly were they doing? How where they interfering? See we know Obama spend money to interfere with Israel's election, but just how are these militias doing this?

It just sounds so hokie.

Martin said...

Why are they more outraged by this than they were when someone got 25 million personnel files from the Office of Personnel Management?

After almost 8 years of lies and politicization of everything, why should I believe any of this, which at this point is only a reporter claiming an anonymous tip about a secret report that draws inferences based on inconclusive information, and with which DNI and FBI disagree (per their own leaks).

At this point, it is all rumor-mongering by people with no credibility. "Fake news" if that term means anything.