I've been reading, watching TV and listening to commentary for the past few days. Conclusions: America's democracy is under serious attack.
The attackers are Russia and the American GOP.
Russia has been attacking our democracy since about 2008.
The GOP has been attacking our democracy since at least 2,000 but in some areas since about 1948.
Only we can protect democracy.
Together.
Don't wait for the Lone Ranger.
Saturday, June 10, 2017
Thursday, June 8, 2017
Comey Hearing
I'm getting ready to watch the Comey hearing.
I have some preliminary conclusions and am waiting for the hearing to either confirm my thinking or call it into question.
I'll have more to say later.
I have some preliminary conclusions and am waiting for the hearing to either confirm my thinking or call it into question.
I'll have more to say later.
Wednesday, June 7, 2017
Russian Election Interference
My Russian is a bit rusty, but I still speak it. It has been a few years - maybe a couple of decades since I followed Russian politics in detail, but I have studied Russian and Soviet history, politics, national security policy, etc. since about 1956. So I know a thing or two about Russia.
I have been deeply involved in American elections and related legal and regulatory matters for the past decade. I have spent my adult life in defense of democracy both here and in allied countries.
I'm not an expert, but I know a thing or two.
I spent the Watergate years in Washington DC. I had friends and colleagues in the Pentagon, the White House, the State Department, the Congress and the press. I was interviewed for a job on the National Security Council Staff, but the incumbent decided to stay, so I went to the Pentagon instead..
I know more about international than domestic affairs, but I know a bit about that, too.
I mention these things to make a point - I know much of what I know not from reading books, but because I was there. And I paid attention. I've been paying attention for more than seven decades.
I read books not necessarily to learn things from scratch, but often to refresh my memory or sometimes to fill in some blanks.
Today I'm reading The Plot To Hack America by Malcolm Nance. What a terrific book.
Nance speaks Russian and Arabic and has been in the intelligence business for more than three decades.
I find him immensely credible.
Plainly Russia tried to steal the 2016 US election for Trump.
Did they actually pull it off? They got the outcome they hoped for, but did they cause it?
I think they did, but I can't prove it. One must avoid the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.
Other possible factors? Jim Comey's intervention, which may have been triggered by deceptive active measures by the Russians. Hard to prove.
There has been heavy criticism the past few days of Hillary Clinton's explanations.
I say baloney.
After every airplane crash, the site is inundated with investigators. Many participants have conflicting interests at risk. The airlines hope to show that a pilot or some other crew member was at fault. They would be equally pleased at a finding of some structural or design fault in the aircraft. Pilot error lets the manufacturer off the hook.
You get the idea.
But the airline industry as a whole wants to know what caused the mishap so the problem can be fixed.
Someone needs to do that kind of autopsy with failed campaigns. Not to assign blame, but to know what happened. And to fix it.
We all need to know in case the outcome was the result of an attack on democracy.
That's where I would look first.
I have been deeply involved in American elections and related legal and regulatory matters for the past decade. I have spent my adult life in defense of democracy both here and in allied countries.
I'm not an expert, but I know a thing or two.
I spent the Watergate years in Washington DC. I had friends and colleagues in the Pentagon, the White House, the State Department, the Congress and the press. I was interviewed for a job on the National Security Council Staff, but the incumbent decided to stay, so I went to the Pentagon instead..
I know more about international than domestic affairs, but I know a bit about that, too.
I mention these things to make a point - I know much of what I know not from reading books, but because I was there. And I paid attention. I've been paying attention for more than seven decades.
I read books not necessarily to learn things from scratch, but often to refresh my memory or sometimes to fill in some blanks.
Today I'm reading The Plot To Hack America by Malcolm Nance. What a terrific book.
Nance speaks Russian and Arabic and has been in the intelligence business for more than three decades.
I find him immensely credible.
Plainly Russia tried to steal the 2016 US election for Trump.
Did they actually pull it off? They got the outcome they hoped for, but did they cause it?
I think they did, but I can't prove it. One must avoid the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.
Other possible factors? Jim Comey's intervention, which may have been triggered by deceptive active measures by the Russians. Hard to prove.
There has been heavy criticism the past few days of Hillary Clinton's explanations.
I say baloney.
After every airplane crash, the site is inundated with investigators. Many participants have conflicting interests at risk. The airlines hope to show that a pilot or some other crew member was at fault. They would be equally pleased at a finding of some structural or design fault in the aircraft. Pilot error lets the manufacturer off the hook.
You get the idea.
But the airline industry as a whole wants to know what caused the mishap so the problem can be fixed.
Someone needs to do that kind of autopsy with failed campaigns. Not to assign blame, but to know what happened. And to fix it.
We all need to know in case the outcome was the result of an attack on democracy.
That's where I would look first.
Topic Tags:
Russia
Tuesday, June 6, 2017
D-Day Anniversary Allied Landing In Normandy
Morning Joe this morning on MSNBC called attention to this being the anniversary of the June 6, 1944 allied landing at Normandy. It was the largest amphibious landing in history. Remarkable.
Joe called attention to participating allies, mentioning the UK and Canada.
There were, in fact, nine allied nations whose forces took part in the landing. The main Allied forces came from the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada, but another nine nations sent units, the rest being Australia, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Greece, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Poland.
We should not forget the others.
Someone should tell the White House.
Joe called attention to participating allies, mentioning the UK and Canada.
There were, in fact, nine allied nations whose forces took part in the landing. The main Allied forces came from the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada, but another nine nations sent units, the rest being Australia, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Greece, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Poland.
We should not forget the others.
Someone should tell the White House.
Topic Tags:
Allies
Saturday, June 3, 2017
Thoughts On Russia
I am a bit puzzled by how anxious Donald Trump and the people around him are to make nice with Russia.
Let's put Russia in perspective.
The per capita GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of Russia is about the same as Mexico. So why isn't Trump and Co. making nice with Mexico?
Russia doesn't make anything the rest of the world wants to buy. What they sell is oil and gas.
There isn't much of an international market for matryoshka dolls.
Russia's GDP is declining.
We will not become prosperous by deals with Russia.
Today's Russia is a kleptocracy. Vladimir Putin is the chief kleptocrat.
Russia is a closed society.
Her most talented young people seek futures elsewhere.
Reminds me of Mississippi.
Let's put Russia in perspective.
The per capita GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of Russia is about the same as Mexico. So why isn't Trump and Co. making nice with Mexico?
Russia doesn't make anything the rest of the world wants to buy. What they sell is oil and gas.
There isn't much of an international market for matryoshka dolls.
Russia's GDP is declining.
We will not become prosperous by deals with Russia.
Today's Russia is a kleptocracy. Vladimir Putin is the chief kleptocrat.
Russia is a closed society.
Her most talented young people seek futures elsewhere.
Reminds me of Mississippi.
Topic Tags:
economics
Friday, June 2, 2017
Russia - Long History Of Autocracy - And Fake News
I am not an expert on Russia, but I know a thing or two.
I started studying Russian history, government and culture in 1956. I speak the language. I worked for years in the Pentagon on Soviet policy issues, studied Soviet economics, Soviet naval affairs, foreign policy, etc. Still, I am no expert.
I am appalled at the ignorance in the White House concerning Russia.
I was taught Russian by former Tsarist naval officers, former Soviet generals, Russian scholars, doctors, lawyers, schoolteachers, etc. I wouldn't trade that experience for anything.
I can neither confirm nor deny that I ever knew any secrets.
I am a certified expert in national security policy and in naval warfare.
And I served in Washington during Watergate.
In time, I'll have more to say.
Remember, democracy is under attack.
I started studying Russian history, government and culture in 1956. I speak the language. I worked for years in the Pentagon on Soviet policy issues, studied Soviet economics, Soviet naval affairs, foreign policy, etc. Still, I am no expert.
I am appalled at the ignorance in the White House concerning Russia.
I was taught Russian by former Tsarist naval officers, former Soviet generals, Russian scholars, doctors, lawyers, schoolteachers, etc. I wouldn't trade that experience for anything.
I can neither confirm nor deny that I ever knew any secrets.
I am a certified expert in national security policy and in naval warfare.
And I served in Washington during Watergate.
In time, I'll have more to say.
Remember, democracy is under attack.
Topic Tags:
Russia
Thursday, June 1, 2017
Covfefe - I don't know what it means, either
Trump tweeted a new word last night - "covfefe."
No one seems to know what it means.
I won't even hazard a guess.
No one seems to know what it means.
I won't even hazard a guess.
Topic Tags:
president
Wednesday, May 31, 2017
Donald J. Trump Disrespects Veterans; Disrespects Europe; Disrespects Democracy
Watching TV coverage of President Trump's first foreign trip, I was reminded of Casey Stengel's question during his first season with the newly-formed NY Mets: "Can't anyone here play this game?"
Apparently the answer is "no."
If we were dealing with simple incompetence, that would be alarming enough. But we seem to be dealing with something worse - actual malice toward Europe and toward democracy.
But there is also incompetence of a particular kind. An astonishing unwillingness to recognize reality.
What is said at official international meetings is important. There is both the substantive importance - the content of the statements; and there is a kind of ritual importance that may count for more.
Trump's refusal to reiterate the continued commitment of the United States to Article Five of the North Atlantic Treaty - at a meeting that unveiled a monument to 9/11, which is the first and only time NATO ever invoked Article Five - was a poke in the eye with a sharp stick to our allies.
Coming on the eve of Memorial Day, it was also a statement of disrespect to the brave Americans and Allies who invaded at Normandy, at Italy and in the South of France in 1944, fought their way across Europe, reestablished democracy. It reflected disrespect for the sustained defense of democracy in Europe.
What the president said (and didn't say) and the way he said it reflected not only disdain for NATO, disdain for democracy, but also immense ignorance of how international security is managed on a day to day basis.
Oh, by the way, he also doesn't understand the first thing about international trade. I'll offer a hint - we have flexible exchange rates and flexible markets. One result is that bilateral trade balances are meaningless. He doesn't understand that.
He doesn't understand a lot of things.
Why doesn't someone on his staff explain these things?
I wondered about that. Especially since the National Security appointments are universally viewed as an order of magnitude more knowledgeable than the civilian appointees. So I looked up the bios of the generals appointed to these positions.
What I learned is that none of Trump's "brilliant" generals has any substantive knowledge about Europe, about Russia, about China, about East Asia, about Latin America, or about Africa. All they know is Central Asia. I don't even see evidence that they have any particular knowledge about Iran.
This is not good.
It means that it is almost impossible for anyone to brief the president on issues in the rest of the world.
On top of that, our journalists have very limited access to the government leaders in those parts of the world, because many foreign bureaus have been closed. As a result, Americans find themselves largely cut off from information about the outside world.
Last week Germany took the hint and decided to lead Europe in its own direction. France had already repudiated Russian attempts to interfere with her elections.
Last year's House of Cards included an episode where a character said, "the president IS the people around him."
We are just beginning to learn who some of the people around Trump are. Not promising.
Apparently the answer is "no."
If we were dealing with simple incompetence, that would be alarming enough. But we seem to be dealing with something worse - actual malice toward Europe and toward democracy.
But there is also incompetence of a particular kind. An astonishing unwillingness to recognize reality.
What is said at official international meetings is important. There is both the substantive importance - the content of the statements; and there is a kind of ritual importance that may count for more.
Trump's refusal to reiterate the continued commitment of the United States to Article Five of the North Atlantic Treaty - at a meeting that unveiled a monument to 9/11, which is the first and only time NATO ever invoked Article Five - was a poke in the eye with a sharp stick to our allies.
Coming on the eve of Memorial Day, it was also a statement of disrespect to the brave Americans and Allies who invaded at Normandy, at Italy and in the South of France in 1944, fought their way across Europe, reestablished democracy. It reflected disrespect for the sustained defense of democracy in Europe.
What the president said (and didn't say) and the way he said it reflected not only disdain for NATO, disdain for democracy, but also immense ignorance of how international security is managed on a day to day basis.
Oh, by the way, he also doesn't understand the first thing about international trade. I'll offer a hint - we have flexible exchange rates and flexible markets. One result is that bilateral trade balances are meaningless. He doesn't understand that.
He doesn't understand a lot of things.
Why doesn't someone on his staff explain these things?
I wondered about that. Especially since the National Security appointments are universally viewed as an order of magnitude more knowledgeable than the civilian appointees. So I looked up the bios of the generals appointed to these positions.
What I learned is that none of Trump's "brilliant" generals has any substantive knowledge about Europe, about Russia, about China, about East Asia, about Latin America, or about Africa. All they know is Central Asia. I don't even see evidence that they have any particular knowledge about Iran.
This is not good.
It means that it is almost impossible for anyone to brief the president on issues in the rest of the world.
On top of that, our journalists have very limited access to the government leaders in those parts of the world, because many foreign bureaus have been closed. As a result, Americans find themselves largely cut off from information about the outside world.
Last week Germany took the hint and decided to lead Europe in its own direction. France had already repudiated Russian attempts to interfere with her elections.
Last year's House of Cards included an episode where a character said, "the president IS the people around him."
We are just beginning to learn who some of the people around Trump are. Not promising.
Topic Tags:
democracy,
diplomatic
Saturday, May 27, 2017
Trump And NATO - Making The World Safe For Democracy
A century ago last month, President Woodrow Wilson announced the entry of the United States into World War I "to make the world safe for democracy."
Wilson might have made the announcement as early as January of 1917, except for one thing - the world's most oppressive autocrat - the Tsar of Russia - was a key member of the alliance against Germany and Austria. But then on March 8, 1917 the Russian people overthrew the Tsar and established a parliamentary government.
After that, Wilson wasted little time entering the war against Germany, whose submarines were destroying unarmed and neutral American merchant ships on the high seas.
Wilson declared a number of aspirational goals, spelling some out in his famous Fourteen Points. Among them: "Open covenants openly arrived at;" (no more secret treaties); "National self determination,"
The commitments to democracy and to national self determination proved to have a powerful positive influence on allied efforts against the Central Powers. That effect may well have been more powerful than the vast influx of arms and men to the Western Front.
Thus, Democracy was one of the most effective weapons for the allies and continued to be effective in negotiating the peace. We should never forget that.
What did Wilson mean by democracy? Holding elections was not enough. He meant countries that governed themselves.
Wilson's biggest disappointment was his failure to persuade Republicans to support the League of Nations. That failure to involve the United States in the proposed collective security measure at least contributed to the outbreak of World War II.
Seeing that war on the horizon, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Winston Churchill tried again with the North Atlantic Charter in 1941. That charter became the foundation of the United Nations. The centerpiece: commitment to democracy and to national self determination.
At the time of the Charter, many observers of the international scene thought that authoritarian dictatorships were the wave of the future. Among those observers was Charles Lindbergh and his fellow members of the America First Movement. The Atlantic Charter declared otherwise:
Four years later, when our soldiers, sailors and airmen returned from the war, we all recognized the outcome reflected the triumph of democracy over authoritarian dictatorships. Over the following decades, we did our best (and largely succeeded) to extend the reach of democracy in the world.
This week in Brussels, President Donald J. Trump abandoned that effort.
This is a tragedy and an outcome up with which we should not put (to borrow from Churchill's observation about dangling prepositions.)
As we approach Memorial Day, please remember that many Americans have dedicated their adult lives to the defense of democracy. They have never sworn personal loyalty to any president (thanks to the foresight of our founders), but have sworn to protect and defend the Constitution, to which our loyalty belongs.
This is our oath to democracy.
Let's renew our global effort to defend democracy.
Wilson might have made the announcement as early as January of 1917, except for one thing - the world's most oppressive autocrat - the Tsar of Russia - was a key member of the alliance against Germany and Austria. But then on March 8, 1917 the Russian people overthrew the Tsar and established a parliamentary government.
After that, Wilson wasted little time entering the war against Germany, whose submarines were destroying unarmed and neutral American merchant ships on the high seas.
Wilson declared a number of aspirational goals, spelling some out in his famous Fourteen Points. Among them: "Open covenants openly arrived at;" (no more secret treaties); "National self determination,"
The commitments to democracy and to national self determination proved to have a powerful positive influence on allied efforts against the Central Powers. That effect may well have been more powerful than the vast influx of arms and men to the Western Front.
Thus, Democracy was one of the most effective weapons for the allies and continued to be effective in negotiating the peace. We should never forget that.
What did Wilson mean by democracy? Holding elections was not enough. He meant countries that governed themselves.
Wilson's biggest disappointment was his failure to persuade Republicans to support the League of Nations. That failure to involve the United States in the proposed collective security measure at least contributed to the outbreak of World War II.
Seeing that war on the horizon, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Winston Churchill tried again with the North Atlantic Charter in 1941. That charter became the foundation of the United Nations. The centerpiece: commitment to democracy and to national self determination.
At the time of the Charter, many observers of the international scene thought that authoritarian dictatorships were the wave of the future. Among those observers was Charles Lindbergh and his fellow members of the America First Movement. The Atlantic Charter declared otherwise:
The eight principal points of the Charter were:
- no territorial gains were to be sought by the United States or the United Kingdom;
- territorial adjustments must be in accord with the wishes of the peoples concerned;
- all people had a right to self-determination;
- trade barriers were to be lowered;
- there was to be global economic cooperation and advancement of social welfare;
- the participants would work for a world free of want and fear;
- the participants would work for freedom of the seas;
- there was to be disarmament of aggressor nations, and a post-war common disarmament.
This week in Brussels, President Donald J. Trump abandoned that effort.
This is a tragedy and an outcome up with which we should not put (to borrow from Churchill's observation about dangling prepositions.)
As we approach Memorial Day, please remember that many Americans have dedicated their adult lives to the defense of democracy. They have never sworn personal loyalty to any president (thanks to the foresight of our founders), but have sworn to protect and defend the Constitution, to which our loyalty belongs.
This is our oath to democracy.
Let's renew our global effort to defend democracy.
Friday, May 19, 2017
How To Keep Up With Trump News? - There's Just No Way
I've been trying to follow the daily, hourly, and by the minute bombshells out of the White House - just can't keep up.
I do remember Watergate, though, so maybe I can guess what's coming. As the Farmer's ad says: "I know a thing or two because I've seen a thing or two.
Here's what we can look forward to:
1. Government paralysis: hundreds of senior government positions are vacant because Trump has not yet nominated them - appointments won't get easier;
2. International paralysis: we often forget how many international crises happened during Watergate - what I remember is how hard it was to get the attention of the White House:
I do remember Watergate, though, so maybe I can guess what's coming. As the Farmer's ad says: "I know a thing or two because I've seen a thing or two.
Here's what we can look forward to:
1. Government paralysis: hundreds of senior government positions are vacant because Trump has not yet nominated them - appointments won't get easier;
2. International paralysis: we often forget how many international crises happened during Watergate - what I remember is how hard it was to get the attention of the White House:
- 1972 -
- — June - Watergate break in'
- — October 8 Kissinger meets with the North Vietnamese negotiator Le Duc Tho in Paris for peace talks to end the Vietnam War, and initially the talks go well.
- — October 18 President Nguyen Van Thieu of South Vietnam rejects the proposed Paris peace agreement, complaining that Kissinger had not consulted him.
- — December 17 Paris peace talks break down.
- — December 18 Nixon orders "Christmas Bombings" against North Vietnam following the breakdown in the Paris peace talks.
- 1973 -
- — 27 January Paris Peace Accords ends the American war in Vietnam; POW's returned in March.
- — October 6 October War begins with a surprise attack on Israel by Egypt and Syria. The U.S. supports Israel while the Soviet Union supports Egypt and Syria.
- — October 12 Nixon orders Operation Nickel Grass, a major American effort to supply Israel with weapons to make good the IDF's heavy initial losses.
- — October 20 Arab oil embargo led by King Faisal of Saudi Arabia against the U.S and other Western nations begins as punishment for support of Israel. The oil embargo sparks major inflation in the United States.
- — October 24 The Soviet Union announces that it sent will troops to Egypt, which in turn leads Kissinger to warn that the United States will sent troops to fight the Soviet forces deployed to Egypt. Nixon places the United States military on DEFCON 3, one of the highest states of alert. The Soviets back down.
- — October 25 A ceasefire brokered by the U.S and the Soviet Union ends the October War.
1974-
- — January 18 Under an American disengagement plan negotiated by Kissinger, Israeli forces pull back from the Suez Canal.
- — March 17 Arab oil embargo against the West ends.
- __ August 8 Nixon resigns.
Topic Tags:
Cyprus,
international affairs,
Middle East
Tuesday, May 16, 2017
Memo To Voters: Don't Elect A Person Who Declares "I Alone Can Fix It"
So how many classified documents were found on Hillary Clinton's e-mail server? Actually, none were found. At least none that were marked classified.
About three documents were found that certain agencies contended after the fact contained classified information. Assuming for a minute that the judgment was correct, whose fault was that?
The rules for handling classified material aren't necessarily cut and dried, but one thing is perfectly clear: classification of any document is the responsibility of the originator, not the recipient. In other words, if an improperly classified document was found in Hillary Clinton's possession, and she did not originate the document, she would not have been guilty of any infraction.
Congressional investigators have completely obfuscated that issue. I believe Jim Comey did so as well.
Just saying.
About three documents were found that certain agencies contended after the fact contained classified information. Assuming for a minute that the judgment was correct, whose fault was that?
The rules for handling classified material aren't necessarily cut and dried, but one thing is perfectly clear: classification of any document is the responsibility of the originator, not the recipient. In other words, if an improperly classified document was found in Hillary Clinton's possession, and she did not originate the document, she would not have been guilty of any infraction.
Congressional investigators have completely obfuscated that issue. I believe Jim Comey did so as well.
Just saying.
Are there any Patriots in the Republican Party?
Gobsmacked. There's no other word to describe my reaction to Trump's latest assertion of the power to disclose intelligence information from other countries to the Russians. And to do it from the hip.
This is just one more example of Trump's apparent belief that he was elected emperor or dictator. No wonder he likes the Russians so much. Before the 1917 revolution, Russian Tsars ruled by issuing decrees (Ukase) on any subject they wanted to. Putin follows similar procedures, even to the point of having his opponents assassinated.
So when Donald J. Trump tweets that he has the "absolute right" to declassify anything he wants to, that sounds an awful lot like the assertion of an absolute monarch. He apparently is under the impression that there are no limits to his power.
That isn't in keeping with our patriotic traditions.
There is a reason that officers of the United States swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States," rather than an oath of loyalty to the president.
We also had an early dispute over how to address the president. An early candidate phrase was "Your Highness." That didn't fly. Quite rightly.
Every day in every way we learn yet again that when other candidates declared Donald J. Trump unfit to serve as president, they were absolutely correct.
This is just one more example of Trump's apparent belief that he was elected emperor or dictator. No wonder he likes the Russians so much. Before the 1917 revolution, Russian Tsars ruled by issuing decrees (Ukase) on any subject they wanted to. Putin follows similar procedures, even to the point of having his opponents assassinated.
So when Donald J. Trump tweets that he has the "absolute right" to declassify anything he wants to, that sounds an awful lot like the assertion of an absolute monarch. He apparently is under the impression that there are no limits to his power.
That isn't in keeping with our patriotic traditions.
There is a reason that officers of the United States swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States," rather than an oath of loyalty to the president.
We also had an early dispute over how to address the president. An early candidate phrase was "Your Highness." That didn't fly. Quite rightly.
Every day in every way we learn yet again that when other candidates declared Donald J. Trump unfit to serve as president, they were absolutely correct.
Topic Tags:
democracy,
intelligence,
international,
national security
Sunday, May 14, 2017
Some Thoughts On Firing Comey
Sources of confusion. Press reports are that Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein threatened to resign unless Trump backed off on the assertion that he fired Comey based on recommendations by Rosenstein and Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III to fire the FBI director. So what is that about, since all of the TV commentators read the Rosenstein memorandum as making such a recommendation?
According to the Washington Post, Trump had decided to fire Comey ahead of time and then called Sessions and Rosenstein to the White House on Monday May 8th and directed them to put in writing the reasons for firing Comey. They complied.
But Rosenstein, an experienced Justice Department official, DID NOT INCLUDE IN HIS MEMO A RECOMMENDATION TO FIRE COMEY!
So Rosenstein had every right to object when Trump claimed in writing that he was only following Rosenstein's recommendation. He had carefully followed the president's direction and put in writing some reasons to fire Comey but he did not make the recommendation to do so.
My reading is that Trump, unfamiliar and contemptuous of the ways of career government officials, totally missed the subtlety of Rosenstein's memo. Apparently Trump was in such a big hurry that he did not ask anyone familiar with government to review Rosenstein's memo.
Anyone with experience in government would have spotted what Rosenstein did. More evidence that Trump is not competent to govern. But we already knew that.
According to the Washington Post, Trump had decided to fire Comey ahead of time and then called Sessions and Rosenstein to the White House on Monday May 8th and directed them to put in writing the reasons for firing Comey. They complied.
But Rosenstein, an experienced Justice Department official, DID NOT INCLUDE IN HIS MEMO A RECOMMENDATION TO FIRE COMEY!
So Rosenstein had every right to object when Trump claimed in writing that he was only following Rosenstein's recommendation. He had carefully followed the president's direction and put in writing some reasons to fire Comey but he did not make the recommendation to do so.
My reading is that Trump, unfamiliar and contemptuous of the ways of career government officials, totally missed the subtlety of Rosenstein's memo. Apparently Trump was in such a big hurry that he did not ask anyone familiar with government to review Rosenstein's memo.
Anyone with experience in government would have spotted what Rosenstein did. More evidence that Trump is not competent to govern. But we already knew that.
Topic Tags:
Attorney General,
government,
Justice Department,
law
Wednesday, May 10, 2017
Courage Stands Up To Hate - In The Czech Republic
The New Generation Stands Up For Democracy
Tuesday, May 9, 2017
Deja Vu All Over Again
I'm not a great admirer of FBI Director Comey. I think he acted wrongly on the Clinton e-mail matter. But I don't think those actions had anything to do with his firing.
I also don't think Sally Yates' decision about Trump's first immigration order had anything to do with her firing.
This is about Russia.
Let's get this straight! Our democracy is under attack.
It is under attack by the Republican Party, whose leaders demonstrate contempt for democracy.
It is under attack by Russia, whose leader, Vladimir Putin, despises democracy..
I have seen some such attacks before.
My wife and I were in Washington DC during Watergate.
I knew some of the players in the White House, in the Congress, in the Department of State and in the Pentagon.
But it was a different time.
I have learned some things recently about ties between the Brexit campaign, Russian hacking, Steve Bannon, Bannon's billionaire sponsors in the Mercer family and extraordinary computer technology to target specific voters with particular false news reports.
These same techniques were used to get the UK out of the European Union, satisfying a major goal of Vladimir Putin. The same techniques were used in our 2016 presidential election, and succeeded in electing Donald Trump. I suspect the same techniques have been used in US elections to state and congressional offices over the past eight years.
The same techniques were used last Sunday in France, but it didn't work. They will probably be used in this summer's elections in Germany.
Now the deputy White House spokeswoman urges that the Russia investigation be ended.
A hundred years ago last month, President Wilson asked Congress to declare war on Germany "To make the world safe for democracy."
Our democracy in 1917 was flawed. Women could not yet vote. Blacks could not yet vote in most of the country. Unions had few rights. We still had child labor. And on and on. But over the next 80 years we worked hard to make our democracy better. And we spread democracy across the industrial world.
This plainly did not impress our billionaire class. Like the bandits in "Treasure Of The Sierra Madre," they don't need no stinkin' investigations.
Since the presidential campaign of 2000 and the case of Bush v. Gore, our democracy has been subjected to one attack after another.
It is time to fight back.
Follow the bodies.
Only we ourselves can defend democracy from its enemies.
I also don't think Sally Yates' decision about Trump's first immigration order had anything to do with her firing.
This is about Russia.
Let's get this straight! Our democracy is under attack.
It is under attack by the Republican Party, whose leaders demonstrate contempt for democracy.
It is under attack by Russia, whose leader, Vladimir Putin, despises democracy..
I have seen some such attacks before.
My wife and I were in Washington DC during Watergate.
I knew some of the players in the White House, in the Congress, in the Department of State and in the Pentagon.
But it was a different time.
I have learned some things recently about ties between the Brexit campaign, Russian hacking, Steve Bannon, Bannon's billionaire sponsors in the Mercer family and extraordinary computer technology to target specific voters with particular false news reports.
These same techniques were used to get the UK out of the European Union, satisfying a major goal of Vladimir Putin. The same techniques were used in our 2016 presidential election, and succeeded in electing Donald Trump. I suspect the same techniques have been used in US elections to state and congressional offices over the past eight years.
The same techniques were used last Sunday in France, but it didn't work. They will probably be used in this summer's elections in Germany.
Now the deputy White House spokeswoman urges that the Russia investigation be ended.
A hundred years ago last month, President Wilson asked Congress to declare war on Germany "To make the world safe for democracy."
Our democracy in 1917 was flawed. Women could not yet vote. Blacks could not yet vote in most of the country. Unions had few rights. We still had child labor. And on and on. But over the next 80 years we worked hard to make our democracy better. And we spread democracy across the industrial world.
This plainly did not impress our billionaire class. Like the bandits in "Treasure Of The Sierra Madre," they don't need no stinkin' investigations.
Since the presidential campaign of 2000 and the case of Bush v. Gore, our democracy has been subjected to one attack after another.
It is time to fight back.
Follow the bodies.
Only we ourselves can defend democracy from its enemies.
Topic Tags:
constitution,
democracy,
Watergate
Sunday, May 7, 2017
Vive La France!
I certainly breathed a sigh of relief at the outcome of the French election for president.
I only regret that I don't have a tricolor to fly from our front porch in recognition of France's dedication to Democracy and to Europe. The UK has abandoned the cause of Europe and has largely abandoned politics to the Tories.
France still stands as a champion of democracy in Europe.
Some years ago I posted other celebrations of the actions of French citizens in the face of tragedy. For example, after Charlie Hebdo: http://mile181.blogspot.com/2015/01/vive-la-france.html and http://mile181.blogspot.com/2015/11/well-always-have-paris.html.
Now we have a subsequent election in the aftermath of several episodes of terrorism in France - a clear choice between a candidate dedicated to improving Europe against a candidate committed to erecting barriers and withdrawing from the EU and from NATO.
But French voters stood up for freedom and for Europe.
Vive la France!
I only regret that I don't have a tricolor to fly from our front porch in recognition of France's dedication to Democracy and to Europe. The UK has abandoned the cause of Europe and has largely abandoned politics to the Tories.
France still stands as a champion of democracy in Europe.
Some years ago I posted other celebrations of the actions of French citizens in the face of tragedy. For example, after Charlie Hebdo: http://mile181.blogspot.com/2015/01/vive-la-france.html and http://mile181.blogspot.com/2015/11/well-always-have-paris.html.
Now we have a subsequent election in the aftermath of several episodes of terrorism in France - a clear choice between a candidate dedicated to improving Europe against a candidate committed to erecting barriers and withdrawing from the EU and from NATO.
But French voters stood up for freedom and for Europe.
Vive la France!
Tuesday, April 25, 2017
Walls
He is all pine and I am apple-orchard. | |
My apple trees will never get across | |
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him. | 25 |
He only says, "Good fences make good neighbors." | |
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder | |
If I could put a notion in his head: | |
"Why do they make good neighbors? Isn't it | |
Where there are cows? But here there are no cows. | 30 |
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know | |
What I was walling in or walling out, | |
And to whom I was like to give offence. | |
Something there is that doesn't love a wall, | |
That wants it down!" Robert Frost |
Topic Tags:
Walls
White Privilege - Explained By Jefferson Davis
In case any reader doubts that there was white privilege in the slaveholding states and that this privilege applied to poor whites, here is an essay by Jefferson Davis (later to be Confederate President) explaining it all:
Jefferson Davis' reply in the
Senate
Senate Chamber, U.S. Capitol, February 29, 1860
Jefferson Davis on Slavery
and White Equality, 1851
[Reviewing the debates in Congress on the Compromise of 1850,
Jefferson Davis expressed regret that the border states,] after we of
the planting states had labored to give them the law by which they
might perchance recover their slaves, had refused to co-operate with
us, to enable our people to obtain an outlet for the black population
of the country; joining in the cry of the "glorious Union,"
sustaining the odious so-called adjustment measures, and thus aiding
in the attempt of the free-soilers to encircle us about with a cordon
of free States, the direct tendency of which is to crowd upon our
soil an overgrown black population, until there will not be room in
the country for the whites and the blacks to subsist in; and in this
way destroy the institution and reduce the whites to the degraded
position of the African race. He, therefore, was in favor of
excluding the slaves of the border states from the planting
states, and he hoped that this policy would he adopted.
Col.
Davis said that he had heard it said that the poor men, who own no
negroes themselves, would all be against the institution, and would,
consequently, array themselves on the side of the so called Union
men- that the submissionists claimed them. But that he could not
believe, that the poor men of the country, were so blind to their own
interests, as to be thus cheated out of their privileges, which they
now enjoy. That now they stand upon the broad level of equality
with the rich man. Equal to him in every thing, save that they
did not own so much property; and that, even in this particular, the
road to wealth was open to them, and the poor man might attain it;
and, even if he did not succeed, the failure did not degrade him.
That no white man, in a slaveholding community, was the menial
servant of any one. That whenever the poor white man labored for the
rich, he did so upon terms of distinction between him and the negro.
It was to the interest of the master to keep up a distinction between
the white man in his employment, and his negroes. And that this very
distinction elevated, and kept the white laborer on a level with the
employer; because the distinction between the classes throughout the
slaveholding states, is a distinction of color. Between the classes
there is no such thing, here, as a distinction of property; and he
who thinks there is, and prides himself upon it, is grossly mistaken.
Free the negroes, however, and it would soon be here, as it is in the
countries of Europe, and in the North, and everywhere else, where
negro slavery does not exist. The poor white man would become a
menial for the rich, and be, by him, reduced to an equality with the
free blacks, into a degraded position; and the distinction, at once,
would be made that of-Property-of Wealth-between the classes,
between the Rich and the Poor. The rich man, with his
lands, and his other property, and his money, would be a rich man
still. The poor would be poor still, and with much less
chance than he now has of acquiring property, because of the numbers
of mean and worthless free negroes, in competition with whose labor
his own would have to come. And yet the tendency of the doctrines of
submissionists, is directly to invite further aggression from the
North, and by this invitation, to bring about this very state of
things. The non-slaveholder can see this, as well as the
slaveholder. And seeing, and knowing his rights, he will defend and
maintain them, as soon, if not sooner, than the rich man will. Then,
he did not believe that the submission party had the exclusive right,
which they claimed, or expect that the middle and poorer classes
would co-operate with them upon this important question, affecting,
as it does, their interests-their standing in the community- more
than all others.
Col.
Davis said that he had always thought, and sincerely believed, that
the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists among us, is
necessary to the equality of the white race.
Distinctions between classes have always existed, everywhere, and in
every country, where civilization has been established among men.
Destroy them today, and they will spring up tomorrow; and we have no
right to expect, or even to hope, that this Southern climate of ours,
would be exempt from the operation of this Universal law.
Menial services have to be performed, by some one; and every where
the world over, within the range of civilization, those persons, by
whom the menial services have been performed, as a class, have been
looked upon, as occupying, and are reduced to a state of inferiority.
Wherever a distinction in color has not existed to draw the line, and
mark the boundary, the line has been drawn, by property, between
the rich and poor. Wealth and poverty have marked the
boundary. The poor man stands in need of all his rights, and all his
privileges, and therefore, this question is of the greatest, and the
gravest importance to him; much more so than it is to the rich. The
rich by siding with the party in power-the authorities that be, may
always be safe. Not so with the poor. Their all is suspended upon
their superiority to the blacks-their all of equality, in a
political and social point of view-the social equality of their
wives, daughters, and sons, are all suspended upon, and involved in
this question. It will not do to say that this is a fancy sketch, or
that these things are too far in the distance, to be seriously
contemplated. The tendencies are all in that direction, and if they
are not met, and met promptly, and rolled back, or stayed forever in
their progress, the wheel of revolution will roll on until the
institution is crushed, the great object of the freesoilers
accomplished, and the negroes freed.
But
they have, if possible, still higher grounds than these. The
constitution, the palladium of the liberties of the people, in more
respects than one, has been violated, and that violation is to be
continued, under the implied invitation of the submissionists, if
they succeed in the present contest. And when once it becomes an
established principle, that repeated violations of that instrument
will be tolerated by the people-that they will submit-the poor man's
liberties are all gone, and gone forever.
Excerpts from
Jefferson Davis' reply in the
Senate
to William
H. Seward
Senate Chamber, U.S. Capitol, February 29, 1860
There is nothing, Mr.
President [ Senator
Benjamin Fitzgerald], which
has led men to greater confusion of ideas than this term of "free
States" and "slave States;" and I trusted that the
Senator, with his discriminating and logical mind, was going to give
us something tangible, instead of dealing in a phrase never
applicable. He applied another; but what was his phrase? "Capital
States" and "labor States." And where is the State in
which nobody labors? The fallacy upon which the Senator hung
adjective after adjective was, that all the labor of the southern
States was performed by negroes. Did he not know that the negroes
formed but a small part of the people of the southern States? Did he
suppose nobody labored but a negro, there? If so, he was less
informed than I had previously believe him to be Negro slavery exists
in the South, and by the existence of negro slavery, the white man is
raised to the dignity of a freeman and an equal. Nowhere else will
you find every white man superior to menial service. Nowhere else
will you find every white man recognized so far as an equal as never
to be excluded from any man's haouse or any man's table. Your own
menial who blacks your boots, drives your carriage, who wears your
livery, and is your own in every sense of the word, is not your
equal; and such is society wherever negro slavery is not the
substratum on which the white race is elevated to its true dignity.
We, however, have no theory to press upon you; we leave you to such
institutions as you may prefer; but when you assail ours, we come to
the vindication of our institutions by showing you that all your
phrases are false; that we are the freemen. With us, and with us
alone, as I believe, the white man attains to his true dignity in the
Government. So much for the great fallacy on which the Senator's
argument hangs, that the labor of the South is all negro labor, and
that the white man must there be degraded if he labors; or that we
have no laboring white men. I do not know which is his opinion; one
of the two. The Senator has himself resided in a southern State, and
therefore I say I believed him to be better informed before he spoke.
I must suppose him to be as ignorant as him speech would indicate. No
man, however, who has seen any portion of southern society, can
entertain any such opinion as that which he presents; and it is in
order that the statement he has made may not go out to deceive those
less informed than himself, that I offer at this time the
correction….
…We have heard time and
again this session the same point made against the Democratic party,
that they were hedging themselves behind the decision of the Supreme
Court [the 1857 Dred
Scott decision]. If this had
been presented in the beginning, it might have had some fairness;
but, after years of conflict, and after we had found it utterly
impossible ever to reach a conclusion satisfactory to both sides--in
other words, to enact a law which would answer the purpose--we then
agreed to postpone a question judicial in its character, and thus
agreed to be bound, legislatively and politically, by the decision
which that judicial question should receive. Now, the Senator pleads
to the jurisdiction, as though we had ever asserted that the Supreme
Court could decide a political question; but he was bound in honor,
and so were all who acted with him, to abide by the decision of an
umpire to which they had themselves referred the case. We are willing
to abide by it. We but claim from them that to which we pledged
ourselves, and that to which they were mutually pledged when his
position was taken by the two Houses of Congress.
But the Senator in his zeal
depicts the negro slave of the South as a human being reduced to the
condition of a mere chattel. Is it possible that the Senator did not
know that the negro slave in every southern State was still a person,
protected by all the laws which punish crime in other persons? Could
the Senator have failed to know that no master could take the life of
or maim his slave without being held responsible under the criminal
laws of any southern State, and held to a responsibility as rigid as
though that negro had been a white man? How, then, is it asserted
that these are not persons in the eye of the law, not protected by
the law as persons. The venerable Senator from Kentucky [John J.
Crittenden] knows very well that this is not law in any State of the
Union where slaves are held, but that everywhere they are protected;
that the criminal law covers them as perfectly as it covers the white
men….
…Several southern
Senators around have spoken to me to the effect that in each of their
States the protection is secured, and a suit may be instituted at
common law for assault and battery, to protect a negro as well as a
white man. The condition of slavery with us is, in a word, Mr.
President, nothing but the form of civil government instituted for a
class of people not fit to govern themselves. It is exactly what in
every State exists in some form or other. It is just that kind of
control which is extended in every northern State over its convicts,
its lunatics, its minors, its apprentices. It is but a form of civil
government for those who by their nature are not fit to govern
themselves. We recognize the fact of the inferiority stamped upon
that race of men by the Creator, and from the cradle to the grave,
our Government, as a civil institution, marks that inferiority. In
their subject and dependent state, they are not the objects of
cruelty as they would be if left to the commission of crime, for
which they should be incarcerated in penitentiaries and work-houses,
and put under hired overseers, having no interest in them and no
relation to them, no affiliation, growing out of the associations of
childhood and the tender care of age. Is there nothing of the balm
needed in the Senator's own State, that he must needs go abroad to
seek objects for his charity and philanthropy? What will be say of
those masses in New York now memorializing for something very like an
agrarian law? What will he say to the throngs of beggars who crowd
the streets of his great commercial emporium? What will he say to the
multitudes collected in the penitentiaries and prisons of his own
State? I seek not, sir, to inquire into the policy and propriety of
the institutions of other States; I assume not to judge of their
fitness; it belongs to the community to judge, and I know not under
what difficulties they may have been driven to what I cannot approve;
but never, sir, in all my life, have I seen anything that so appealed
to every feeling of humanity and manliness, as the suffering of the
poor children imprisoned in your juvenile penitentiaries--imprisoned
before they were old enough to know the nature of crime--there held
to such punishment as we never inflict save upon those of mature
years. I arraign you not for this: I know not what your crowded
population and increasing wants may demand; I know not how far it may
be the necessary result of crime which follows in the footsteps of
misery; I know not how far the parents have become degraded, and how
far the children have become outcast, and how far it may have
devolved on the State to take charge of them; but, I thank my God,
that in the state of society where I reside, we have no scenes so
revolting as these.
Why then not address
yourselves to the evils which you have at home? Why not confine your
inquiries to the remedial measures which will relieve the suffering
of and stop the progress of crime among your own people? Very intent
in looking into the distance for the mote in your brother's eye, is
it to be wondered that we turn back and point to the beam in your
own?
Topic Tags:
Slavery,
white privilege
Monday, April 24, 2017
Old Times Not Forgot?
I'm an old White Guy from Mississippi.
I know a thing or two because I've seen a thing or two.
I mention this not only because I know what I saw happen during last year's election, but also because of something Haley Barbour of Mississippi said several years ago.
And because I fear for the future of the American Republic. I fear for our future because one of our two political parties exhibits contempt for the practices and objectives of democracy.
A few years ago, Mississippi's governor, Haley Barbour, aroused controversy by his claim that "things weren't that bad" in his home town of Yazoo City, MS during the civil rights movement, and that the White Citizen's Council played a helpful role in peaceful integration.
Haley Barbour was wrong. Not only that, he did a disservice to his home town, his county, and his state by failing to recognize that despite very real danger, courageous citizens of Yazoo County and neighboring Holmes County did play a helpful role in integration. There was, for example, Hazel Brannon Smith, the courageous owner and editor of the the Lexington Advertiser, in Holmes County, just north of Yazoo County. Her account here of the formation of the White Citizen's Council and its purposes and methods gives the lie to Barbour's more rose colored recollections.
In 1955 in Holmes County, the White Citizen's Council, together with the County Sheriff, ran the leaders of an interracial cooperative farm near Cruger out of the county. Here is a brief account of that event. For a more detailed account, see Providence by Will D. Campbell.
I know Yazoo City (pronounced "yeh-zoo", not "yah-zoo"). My father and younger brother were born there. My parents, grandparents, great grandparents and great aunts and great uncles are buried in Glenwood Cemetery there. Other relatives are buried at the cemetery at Fletcher's Chapel about five miles southeast of Yazoo City. My grandmother took me there once to see the yankee cannon ball embedded in the chapel's wall.
I'm about ten years older than Governor Barbour. Even so, he would have to have been totally oblivious as a young man not to know what the White Citizen's Council was up to.
It is true, so far as I know, that Citizen's Councils did not directly organize any murders. Those episodes (Emmett Till, Schwerner, Goodman and Chaney, and others) seem to have been done by the Klan. But as a result of Citizen's Councils efforts, many Black Citizens lost their livelihoods. The Citizens Councils published names of Black citizens who actively sought their civil rights, including the right to vote. Members of the Klan and others of a violent inclination knew what to do with that information.
Nor was the Citizen's Council only interested in Black activists. They worked closely with the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission to harass and intimidate white citizens receptive to integration. I know this because I was one of their targets during my student years at Ole Miss.
I know a thing or two because I've seen a thing or two.
I mention this not only because I know what I saw happen during last year's election, but also because of something Haley Barbour of Mississippi said several years ago.
And because I fear for the future of the American Republic. I fear for our future because one of our two political parties exhibits contempt for the practices and objectives of democracy.
A few years ago, Mississippi's governor, Haley Barbour, aroused controversy by his claim that "things weren't that bad" in his home town of Yazoo City, MS during the civil rights movement, and that the White Citizen's Council played a helpful role in peaceful integration.
Haley Barbour was wrong. Not only that, he did a disservice to his home town, his county, and his state by failing to recognize that despite very real danger, courageous citizens of Yazoo County and neighboring Holmes County did play a helpful role in integration. There was, for example, Hazel Brannon Smith, the courageous owner and editor of the the Lexington Advertiser, in Holmes County, just north of Yazoo County. Her account here of the formation of the White Citizen's Council and its purposes and methods gives the lie to Barbour's more rose colored recollections.
In 1955 in Holmes County, the White Citizen's Council, together with the County Sheriff, ran the leaders of an interracial cooperative farm near Cruger out of the county. Here is a brief account of that event. For a more detailed account, see Providence by Will D. Campbell.
I know Yazoo City (pronounced "yeh-zoo", not "yah-zoo"). My father and younger brother were born there. My parents, grandparents, great grandparents and great aunts and great uncles are buried in Glenwood Cemetery there. Other relatives are buried at the cemetery at Fletcher's Chapel about five miles southeast of Yazoo City. My grandmother took me there once to see the yankee cannon ball embedded in the chapel's wall.
I'm about ten years older than Governor Barbour. Even so, he would have to have been totally oblivious as a young man not to know what the White Citizen's Council was up to.
It is true, so far as I know, that Citizen's Councils did not directly organize any murders. Those episodes (Emmett Till, Schwerner, Goodman and Chaney, and others) seem to have been done by the Klan. But as a result of Citizen's Councils efforts, many Black Citizens lost their livelihoods. The Citizens Councils published names of Black citizens who actively sought their civil rights, including the right to vote. Members of the Klan and others of a violent inclination knew what to do with that information.
Nor was the Citizen's Council only interested in Black activists. They worked closely with the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission to harass and intimidate white citizens receptive to integration. I know this because I was one of their targets during my student years at Ole Miss.
The White Citizen's Councils never supported integration, peaceful or otherwise. As the White Citizen's Council newspaper explained in a front page article in 1956, "integration is a Communist - Jewish conspiracy to mongrelize the human race."
When Haley Barbour of Yazoo City, (where my father was born in 1915 and my brother in 1941) was appointed Chair of the Republican National Committee in 1993, astonished journalists in DC asked Barbour if it didn't seem surprising for someone from the deep and formerly solid South to be Chair of the RNC, Barbour's answer: "not at all! Where Mississippi has been is where the country is headed."
I thought that, if he was right, this was an ominous foreboding. .
Oriental resident (or former resident gone cruising) Tony Tharp, called attention to an article in the Jackson Clarion Ledger blog site describing just where Mississippi's footsteps might lead. Tony, a native son of the Mississippi Delta (near Leland, MS along US Highway 82), often reflects on past and current developments in the state.
Donald Trump exploited all of the old racial fears of white people in last year's campaign, as did Ronald Reagan before him in 1980.
Russia is pushing the same agenda of white supremacy.
Let's stop sweeping this stuff under the rug.
I thought that, if he was right, this was an ominous foreboding. .
Oriental resident (or former resident gone cruising) Tony Tharp, called attention to an article in the Jackson Clarion Ledger blog site describing just where Mississippi's footsteps might lead. Tony, a native son of the Mississippi Delta (near Leland, MS along US Highway 82), often reflects on past and current developments in the state.
Donald Trump exploited all of the old racial fears of white people in last year's campaign, as did Ronald Reagan before him in 1980.
Russia is pushing the same agenda of white supremacy.
Let's stop sweeping this stuff under the rug.
Topic Tags:
mississippi,
race
Wednesday, April 19, 2017
Putin's Guests In Moscow - Mike Flynn We Knew About - But Jill Stein?
Hard not to conclude that Russia's efforts to affect our 1916 election actually succeeded.
Circumstantial evidence keeps adding up. Now the Russians are at it again in France.
Circumstantial evidence keeps adding up. Now the Russians are at it again in France.
Guess Who Came to Dinner With Flynn and Putin
by ROBERT WINDREM
It was a (red) star-studded affair, the December 2015 dinner celebrating the 10th birthday of Russian TV network RT. At a luxe Moscow hotel, President Vladimir Putin and a host of Russian luminaries toasted a state-backed news channel that U.S. intelligence calls a Kremlin mouthpiece.
And next to Putin at the head table, in the seat of honor, was an American. Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who would later become Donald Trump's national security adviser, was already advising Trump's presidential campaign when he was paid $45,000 to speak at the gala.
"It is not coincidence that Flynn was placed next to President Putin," said Michael McFaul, U.S. ambassador in Moscow from 2012 to 2014 and now an NBC News analyst. "Flynn was considered a close Trump adviser. Why else would they want him there?"
Flynn's Moscow jaunt, like his oddly timed phone chats with the Russian ambassador, has been well reported. But who else came to dinner on Dec. 10, 2015? An NBC News review of video and photos from the RT gala shows a healthy serving of ex-spies, cronies and oligarchs, with a side of friendly journalists and another American.
Flynn was one of 10 people at the head table, including the Kremlin's top leadership. Three of the Russians, including Putin, were under U.S. sanctions at the time for their role in Russia's annexation of Crimea.
Sergey Ivanov, then Putin's chief of staff, sat directly across the table from Flynn. A former KGB general who at one point ran KGB operations in Africa, he has also served as Russian defense minister and deputy prime minister. Ivanov had been under U.S. and European sanctions for a year and a half by the date of the dinner.
Next to Ivanov was Dmitry Peskov, nominally Putin's spokesman, but more importantly his de facto national security adviser, say U.S. officials. Like almost everyone at the head table that night, he speaks perfect English.
Flanking Putin on his right, two seats from Flynn, sat Alexey Gromov, Putin's deputy chief of staff. U.S. intelligence considers Gromov to be Putin's head propagandist. According to the January 6 Intelligence Community report on Russian interference in the U.S. election, "Gromov oversees political coverage on TV, and he has periodic meetings with media managers where he shares classified information and discusses their coverage plans."
He's also been accused by U.S. intelligence of "ordering media attacks on opposition figures." He has worked directly for the Russian president, first in the Press Office, then as press attache and, since 2008, as deputy chief of staff. He too was on U.S. and European sanctions the day of the dinner.
After Putin got up to make his speech, his place at Flynn's side was taken by Margarita Simonyan, RT's editor-in-chief. She is also editor-in-chief of Rossiya Segodnya, a state-owned and operated Russian news agency created by Putin. A personal friend of Putin, she worked in one of his presidential campaigns before being chosen by Gromov to head RT. The U.S. intelligence assessment of RT paints Simonyan as the lead person, along with Gromov, engaging in "information warfare" against U.S. policies. She is described as "closely tied to, controlled by the Kremlin."
In his dinner speech, Putin praised RT for its objectivity, disclaiming any influence on its coverage.
Next to Simonyan was the night's biggest global cultural celebrity, acclaimed director Emir Kusturica, who has twice won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival. Born a Muslim in Bosnia, he converted to Orthodox Christianity and is a Putin booster. Putin awarded him the Russian Order of Friendship in 2016. Of Putin, Kusturica once said, "If I was English, I would be very much against him. I was an American, I would even fight with him. But if I was Russian, I would vote for him."
Kusturica's wife, seated next to him, was the only spouse at the head table.
Also at the head table were three western politicians. Willy Wimmer, a former member of the German Bundestag who is often critical of U.S. foreign policy; Cyril Svoboda, former deputy prime minister, minister of foreign affairs, and interior minister of the Czech Republic, and two-time U.S. Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein, the only American besides Flynn at the head table.
Stein's 2016 campaign was heavily promoted by RT. She hasn't spoken much about the RT dinner, but in an interview with NBC News last fall, she deflected questions about her appearance, instead chastising the U.S. media for not paying attention to her campaign while RT gave it a lot more attention.
"And my own connection to RT, you know ironically, it takes a Russian television station to actually be open to independent candidates in this country and that is a shame. A shameful commentary on our own media," she told NBC's Alex Seitz-Wald.
(Stein did well enough to help Russia achieve its aims. Her vote totals in the crucial states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan were all greater than Clinton's margin of defeat, and arguably denied Clinton an Electoral College victory.)
Beyond the head table, Russia's oligarchs filled many of the seats.
Seated at a corner table was Mikhail Prokhorov, the owner of the Brooklyn Nets who ran against Putin as the designated liberal candidate in 2012 (and whose offices were raided by Russian security last April). Prokhorov is now on the outs with Putin. Next to him was Viktor Vekselberg, whose billions are in oil and aluminum and who is a business partner of Trump's Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and the owner of the world's largest collection of Faberge eggs.
At the table behind Putin's was Mikhail Gorbachev, the last Communist Party ruler of the Soviet Union, along with Artur Chilingarov, polar explorer and federal senator. Nearby, there was Arkady Mamontov, a famous TV host who said that a massive meteor strike that injured nearly 1,500 people in 2013 was God's vengeance on Russia's gay rights movement.
There was Tina Kandelaki, a socialite and award-winning TV host who's appeared on the covers of the Russian versions of Playboy, InStyle, and Maxim — and ran an international marketing operation for the AK-47, calling it an instrument of peace.
Unable to attend in person was WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who formerly hosted his own show on RT. Instead, he appeared via satellite as host of one of the 10th anniversary event's seminars, where he lamented the end of privacy.
'A Great Learning Opportunity'
Flynn had already been a frequent guest on RT in the months prior to the dinner.
In an interview with Dana Priest of the Washington Post in August 2016, Flynn talked about why he accepted such a starring role. He said he didn't ask for it, that the Russians sat him next to Putin.
"I was one of the guests there. ... Some interesting characters. I found it a great learning opportunity. One of the things I learned was that Putin has no respect for the United States leadership. Not for the United States, but the leadership."
When Putin finished his speech that night, Flynn was among the first to leap to his feet and offer a standing ovation.
In the year following the dinner, RT was part of the Putin government's overt attempt to influence the U.S. election, according to the U.S. Intelligence Community. In the January 2017 report on Russian interference, the IC discussed the network's role at length.
"RT's criticism of the U.S. election," said the report, "was the latest facet of its broader and longer-standing anti-U.S. messaging likely aimed at undermining viewers' trust in U.S. democratic procedures and undercutting U.S. criticism of Russia's political system. RT Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan recently declared that the United States itself lacks democracy and that it has 'no moral right to teach the rest of the world.'"
Jill Stein declined an NBC News request for comment.
Sunday, April 16, 2017
Making The World Safe For Democracy - 1917 To 2000
In August, 1914, Europe erupted in warfare For nearly three years, President Woodrow Wilson kept the United States out of the war, even in the face of actions that could have justified US entry.
American lives were lost on the high seas when German submarines sank the British civilian passenger ship Lusitania without warning and without stopping the ship and boarding it to determine if the cargo included contraband or offering passengers the opportunity to escape in life boats. These were well understood measures in maritime law intended to protect civilian life. To sink the ship without warning violated international law and custom.
Germany justified its actions because, since the last maritime war in the early 19th century, Marconi's invention of the radio made the traditional procedures too hazardous for warships to follow. The United States protested and Germany relented to a certain extent.
But Germany was becoming desperate. Enough so that they sent a telegram to Mexico offering to return territory taken by the US in 1846 to Mexico if they would join the war if the United States entered on the British side. That Zimmerman telegram alone could have been enough to justify US entry. But Wilson held off.
Then, in January 1917 a desperate Germany renewed unrestricted submarine warfare, sinking merchant ships on the high seas without warning no matter what flag they were flying. The goal was to starve England and France to the negotiating table. They expected this would cause the United States to enter the war, but expected they could defeat the allies before the US could recruit, train, equip and transfer to Europe a force sufficient to tip the balance against them.
It was a bad bet.
Last week PBS broadcast a three episode series showing the US entry into World War I: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/great-war/
If you missed the series, I recommend you seek it out and watch it.
Consequences of that decision produced powerful effects whose ripples are with us to the present time.
American lives were lost on the high seas when German submarines sank the British civilian passenger ship Lusitania without warning and without stopping the ship and boarding it to determine if the cargo included contraband or offering passengers the opportunity to escape in life boats. These were well understood measures in maritime law intended to protect civilian life. To sink the ship without warning violated international law and custom.
Germany justified its actions because, since the last maritime war in the early 19th century, Marconi's invention of the radio made the traditional procedures too hazardous for warships to follow. The United States protested and Germany relented to a certain extent.
But Germany was becoming desperate. Enough so that they sent a telegram to Mexico offering to return territory taken by the US in 1846 to Mexico if they would join the war if the United States entered on the British side. That Zimmerman telegram alone could have been enough to justify US entry. But Wilson held off.
Then, in January 1917 a desperate Germany renewed unrestricted submarine warfare, sinking merchant ships on the high seas without warning no matter what flag they were flying. The goal was to starve England and France to the negotiating table. They expected this would cause the United States to enter the war, but expected they could defeat the allies before the US could recruit, train, equip and transfer to Europe a force sufficient to tip the balance against them.
It was a bad bet.
Last week PBS broadcast a three episode series showing the US entry into World War I: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/great-war/
If you missed the series, I recommend you seek it out and watch it.
Consequences of that decision produced powerful effects whose ripples are with us to the present time.
Saturday, April 15, 2017
Mile 181 Back on Line - Let's Make The World Safe For Democracy Again
To my old readers - I have been silent for awhile. Blogger changed some things and I lost ability to post new entries. I finally figured it out and am back on line.
I expect to start posting my thoughts about the new regime and associated issues.
If any of you missed the American Experience broadcast on PBS of a three episode series on US entry into World War I (The Great War), make sure you see it.
I'll have a lot to say about that.
I expect to start posting my thoughts about the new regime and associated issues.
If any of you missed the American Experience broadcast on PBS of a three episode series on US entry into World War I (The Great War), make sure you see it.
I'll have a lot to say about that.
Topic Tags:
Russia,
World War I
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)