he will get us all killed...

 

Details emerge on ‘Trump University’ settlement

Well, *snap*.

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
Holding the evangelical/religious right is a major reason why Pence was on the ticket, imo.

To My Southern Baptist Brothers Who Voted For Trump

Trump slanders the CIA and tilts America toward Putin’s Russia

Corrupt AF

“I’m told he now just disclaims that. He now says it was cute, but he doesn’t want to use it anymore,”

An easy, one-stop repository.

The best rich man's (or woman's) president money can buy!!!

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
That's a long piece, I'm still soaking it in. However, I'd agree with it that the common journalistic response—we can blame this shocking election result entirely on the Democratic party and the press that overlooked Middle America—is inaccurate. It's easy to over-think the average American's level of intellectual engagement in campaigns. A lot of times it comes down to a gut reaction. I think a lot of Trump supporters just liked that Trump was calling BS on the whole presidential campaign system and the mealy-mouthed, sanitized personalities of the candidate. They got off on his politically incorrect outrageousness. They wanted Trump to start a bonfire in the middle of the high school campus.  

So no, I don't think that "the seething rage" was justified. As I've posted here many times, people have a right to be angry that they're struggling to find jobs, that their communities are declining, that they feel they're being left behind economically. But the Democrats under Obama tried hard to help them. Hillary had concrete plans to bring jobs back to struggling areas through infrastructure projects. 

All Trump has to offer is the bonfire and intolerance. Which makes me ask: did Trump's supporters really want economic help or just an angry guy ranting at the world? 

Look, it's quite possible that America will become more intolerant of minorities, more xenophobic, more in love with a would-be tyrant who claims he knows best how to fix the country, and more willing to ignore facts that don't fit into one's worldview. But are those trends really going to help create more jobs, lift wages, reduce income inequality, or bring back political power to people who feel left out? 

The answer is no. Right now it seems like Trump supporters are happy that their ranting guy won. They don't seem too concerned that Trump is on course to set up crony capitalism that won't help create jobs for the little guy. Which will leave most Trump supporters still stuck in the sh-t. But hey, at least they have a white guy as President who's dog-whistling the bigoted tune they want to hear.

To Trump supporters I say: good luck with that! Trump has just scammed you the worst you've ever been scammed.  

Red_Dragon, you might also like this Paul Krugman piece: 

How Republics End 

But now we have a president-elect who openly asked Russia to help smear his opponent, and all indications are that the bulk of his party was and is just fine with that...Winning domestic political struggles is all that matters, the good of the republic be damned.

And what happens to the republic as a result? Famously, on paper the transformation of Rome from republic to empire never happened. Officially, imperial Rome was still ruled by a Senate that just happened to defer to the emperor, whose title originally just meant “commander,” on everything that mattered. We may not go down exactly the same route — although are we even sure of that? — but the process of destroying democratic substance while preserving forms is already underway.

...

 My question, instead, is why one party’s politicians and officials no longer seem to care about what we used to think were essential American values. And let’s be clear: This is a Republican story, not a case of “both sides do it.”

...

But what directly drives the attack on democracy, I’d argue, is simple careerism on the part of people who are apparatchiks within a system insulated from outside pressures by gerrymandered districts, unshakable partisan loyalty, and lots and lots of plutocratic financial support.

 

And So it Begins: Normalizing the Election

 kurtster wrote: 

I need to finish this up for the night very soon, but here: 

You argued that

"Adding to this, the FBI has confirmed the the RNC was not hacked in spite of many attempts.  That is why we only have info from the Democratic side of the fence."

I took issue with that. Having looked over your same post, btw, I also disagree with your statement that "What the most likely source of all the DNC info, other than Podesta's emails which were accessed in the method you described above, is a DNC insider who supported Sanders and got all of the dirt out into the sunshine for all to see as revenge for rigging the primaries for Hillary and against Bernie." 

You pointed me to a WSJ piece that stated the RNC was not hacked. I commented on that piece. 

You pointed me to the Reuters piece. I am quoting below from that piece. 

While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named. 

...

An ODNI spokesman declined to comment on the issue.

"ODNI is not arguing that the agency (CIA) is wrong, only that they can't prove intent," said one of the three U.S. officials. "Of course they can't, absent agents in on the decision-making in Moscow."

 ...

The CIA assessed after the election that the attacks on political organizations were aimed at swaying the vote for Trump because the targeting of Republican organizations diminished toward the end of the summer and focused on Democratic groups, a senior U.S. official told Reuters on Friday.

Moreover, only materials filched from Democratic groups - such as emails stolen from John Podesta, the Clinton campaign chairman - were made public via WikiLeaks, the anti-secrecy organization, and other outlets, U.S. officials said.

 

"THIN REED"

The CIA conclusion was a "judgment based on the fact that Russian entities hacked both Democrats and Republicans and only the Democratic information was leaked," one of the three officials said on Monday.

"(It was) a thin reed upon which to base an analytical judgment," the official added.



kurtster, please note that the excerpt from the Reuters piece that you included in your post—namely, 

The CIA conclusion was a "judgment based on the fact that Russian entities hacked both Democrats and Republicans and only the Democratic information was leaked," one of the three officials said on Monday.

indicates that  ODNI agrees that the Russian "entities" hacked the Republicans as well as the Democrats.

The Reuters article reports that ODNI does agree with the CIA that Russians hacked both parties. ODNI does not agree about the CIA's assessment of INTENT, that the "Russian entities" were trying to swing the election to Trump. The FBI did not agree with the CIA's statement about the hackers' intent because the CIA could not prove intent, which apparently the FBI focuses on during investigations since the Bureau seeks to build criminal cases during investigations, cases that rely heavily on evidence of intent. 

ODNI is not willing to accept the CIA's conclusion as to the intent of the Russian entities. You and I were not discussing that subject of intent—we were arguing as to whether the RNC got hacked. Kaw and I were not discussing that subject either—Kaw does not believe that Russian entities were involved in the relevant hacking of American computer systems. I disagree with him. 

I also disagree with the alternative explanations about the hacking that you and Kaw provide. For instance, I have read no work of  journalism reporting that a disgruntled DNC insider leaked DNC material outside of Podesta's emails. If you have a news link supporting your notion, please supply it. 

Finally, I would not rely on Web-based surveys for accurate measurement of anything. That chart you posted has more significance for a discussion about PERCEPTIONS of trustworthiness amongst the news-gathering public than it does for any serious, scientific assessment of the reliability or accuracy of any of those news organizations. Perceptions about news organizations are not necessarily facts.

Your chart points to opinions on trustworthiness that were not gathered in a statistically reliable manner as far as I can tell. Your chart does not point to any attempt to accurately and impartially measure how well the news organizations perform.  

It would really be great if the WSJ piece could supply a little more hard information. I hope that piece you pointed me to was not the best that the paper can do because that piece was not great journalism. I freely admit that I don't read it much since I don't have a subscription. Finally, again, you may be right the hackers didn't get much at all from the RNC. But it does seem from what you and I have read that the CIA, FBI and ODNI agree that the RNC got hacked.

I think we can both agree that the DNC needs to learn a lot about how it handles cybersecurity. 

Good night. 

 kcar wrote: 

Here, try this on for size ...

 Exclusive: Top U.S. spy agency has not embraced CIA assessment on Russia hacking - sources

Reuters Tue Dec 13, 2016 | 9:36pm EST
 
The CIA conclusion was a "judgment based on the fact that Russian entities hacked both Democrats and Republicans and only the Democratic information was leaked," one of the three officials said on Monday.

"(It was) a thin reed upon which to base an analytical judgment," the official added.

 kurtster wrote: 
kurtster, are you claiming that in general the WSJ is a better source than the NY Times, CNN or the Washington Post? I would strongly disagree with such a sweeping claim.

The WSJ piece may be accurate, but it doesn't name the "US officials" sources or specify whether they work for the federal government.  In fact, there are almost no names or even vaguely identifying details as to the piece's sources. The piece also does not directly rebut or address statements by the FBI and CIA that hackers supported by the Russian government obtained computer-based data from the RNC and Republican individuals. Also, the editing of this article is poor—see below. 

Here's a sentence from the piece: 

A senior U.S. official said analysts now believe what started as an information-gathering campaign aimed at both parties later took on a focus of leaked emails about Mrs. Clinton and Democrats.

The piece gives no indication as to which agency, department or branch the "senior US official" belongs. And the analysts are...where? CIA? FBI? NSA?

Here's another goof: 

A third person familiar with the investigation said RNC staff members didn’t realize they had been the target of spies until June, after Democratic committee leaders revealed that hackers had successfully gained a foothold inside their networks. 

The piece failed to point to a first or second person before the above sentence. 

Another excerpt below...Where are the names of the RNC officials? Why would they want to keep their names off the record? What is the name of the "private computer security firm"? 
RNC officials, concerned they too might have been compromised, called a private computer security firm, which in turn called the FBI and obtained information about what kinds of malicious emails to look for, the person said. Upon inspection, the RNC found that its electronic filters had blocked emails sent to a former employee matching the description they’d been warned about.
If this truly is a WSJ piece, it's provided very little detail to back up its claims. 


Sorry about the broken WaPo link. Let's see if it works this time:



https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-blames-putins-personal-grudge-against-her-for-election-interference/2016/12/16/12f36250-c3be-11e6-8422-eac61c0ef74d_story.html?utm_term=.e42bf71a31be 

 kcar wrote: 
With all due respect, I based my statement on a far better and more credible source than the ones you offered, the Wall Street Journal.  And your WaPo article is not available.

 Republican National Committee Security Foiled Russian Hackers

 Updated Dec. 16, 2016 12:27 a.m. ET

{The only way to read the full article (unless you have subscription access to the WSJ) is to highlight the headline, search it on google and then enter it through google.}

Russian hackers tried to penetrate the computer networks of the Republican National Committee, using the same techniques that allowed them to infiltrate its Democratic counterpart, according to U.S. officials who have been briefed on the attempted intrusion.

But the intruders failed to get past security defenses on the RNC’s computer networks, the officials said.
...
The possibility that Russians tried and failed to infiltrate the RNC doesn’t necessarily conflict with the CIA’s conclusion. A senior U.S. official said analysts now believe what started as an information-gathering campaign aimed at both parties later took on a focus of leaked emails about Mrs. Clinton and Democrats.
...
Mr. Trump has discounted the U.S. intelligence assessments and disparaged intelligence officials. In a Twitter message Thursday, he wrote: “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?”
...

Until now, few details had been disclosed about the nature of the targeting of Republican organizations, especially the flagship Republican National Committee, where hackers sent so-called phishing emails last spring to an email address there. Those emails were quarantined by a filter meant to detect spam as well as potentially malicious traffic that may carry viruses or trick recipients into divulging passwords, two officials said.

A third person familiar with the investigation said RNC staff members didn’t realize they had been the target of spies until June, after Democratic committee leaders revealed that hackers had successfully gained a foothold inside their networks. Once inside, they reportedly were able to access a trove of DNC opposition research on Mr. Trump, then a candidate.
...

RNC officials, concerned they too might have been compromised, called a private computer security firm, which in turn called the FBI and obtained information about what kinds of malicious emails to look for, the person said. Upon inspection, the RNC found that its electronic filters had blocked emails sent to a former employee matching the description they’d been warned about.

The apparently successful blocking of a Russian espionage operation offers one possible explanation why the GOP’s main political organization didn’t suffer the same fate as its Democratic counterpart—a deluge of leaked emails revealing private correspondence and internal strategy.

But the suspicion that Russians did try to break into the RNC, using the same techniques and tactics that worked so well on the Democrats, suggests that at least initially, they were trying to gather potentially incriminating or embarrassing information on both parties.

And to rebut your WaPo statement ...

A few days after the Senate briefing, a senior FBI counter­intelligence official briefed the House Intelligence Committee but was not as categorical as the CIA briefer about Russia’s intention to help Trump, according to officials who were present. The FBI official’s more cautious presentation of the intelligence to the House panel left some Republican and Democratic lawmakers in the room with the impression that the FBI disagreed with the CIA.

Officials close to the FBI and the CIA now say that lawmakers had misunderstood Comey’s position. “The truth is they were never all that different in the first place,” an official said. Similarly, officials said, Clapper and Brennan saw the intelligence the same way.

Just what meetings and when are being referred to in the above ?

U.S. intelligence agencies feud with Republicans over Russian hacking

Reuters  Fri Dec 16, 2016 | 4:21pm EST

Republican members of Congress are complaining that U.S. intelligence agencies are refusing to brief them widely on a classified CIA report that concluded Russia hacked Democratic Party data in an effort to help Donald Trump win the presidency.

The Republicans said Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has refused their requests for full briefings of Congress' two intelligence committees. U.S. government officials said the leaders of Congress and the chairmen of the two intelligence committees, known as the "Gang of Eight," have been briefed on the Central Intelligence Agency's conclusion.

Nevertheless, Representative Devin Nunes, the California Republican who chairs the House Intelligence Committee and is a member of President-elect Trump's transition team as well as the Gang of Eight, has called for a briefing for his entire committee on the CIA assessment.

"The committee is vigorously looking into reports of cyber-attacks during the election campaign, and in particular we want to clarify press reports that the CIA has a new assessment that it has not shared with us," Nunes said.Representative Ron Johnson, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said his panel also has asked for a briefing but the CIA refused.

"It is disappointing that the CIA would provide information on this issue to the Washington Post and NBC but will not provide information to elected members of Congress," Johnson said in a statement on Friday.

Three U.S. government sources, who all asked for anonymity to discuss classified information, told Reuters that while the full congressional committees have not been briefed, the congressional leadership has, which is the standard procedure for briefing Congress on sensitive intelligence.

The sources said that Nunes was personally briefed on the CIA finding. A congressional official denied Nunes was briefed, however.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) said in a statement that because President Barack Obama last week ordered the intelligence community to conduct a full-scale "review of foreign efforts to influence recent presidential elections – from 2008 to the present," the agencies would not comment further until the study is completed.

I am very tired of anonymous sources.

And lastly a summation ...

Exclusive: Top U.S. spy agency has not embraced CIA assessment on Russia hacking - sources

Reuters Tue Dec 13, 2016 | 9:36pm EST
 
The CIA conclusion was a "judgment based on the fact that Russian entities hacked both Democrats and Republicans and only the Democratic information was leaked," one of the three officials said on Monday.

"(It was) a thin reed upon which to base an analytical judgment," the official added.

 kurtster wrote: 
Your statement is not correct.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html?_r=0 

WASHINGTON — American intelligence agencies have concluded with “high confidence” that Russia acted covertly in the latter stages of the presidential campaign to harm Hillary Clinton’s chances and promote Donald J. Trump, according to senior administration officials.

They based that conclusion, in part, on another finding — which they say was also reached with high confidence — that the Russians hacked the Republican National Committee’s computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks.

...

One senior government official, who had been briefed on an F.B.I. investigation into the matter, said that while there were attempts to penetrate the Republican committee’s systems, they were not successful.

But the intelligence agencies’ conclusions that the hacking efforts were successful, which have been presented to President Obama and other senior officials, add a complex wrinkle to the question of what the Kremlin’s evolving objectives were in intervening in the American presidential election.

“We now have high confidence that they hacked the D.N.C. and the R.N.C., and conspicuously released no documents” from the Republican organization, one senior administration official said, referring to the Russians.

It is unclear how many files were stolen from the Republican committee; in some cases, investigators never get a clear picture. It is also far from clear that Russia’s original intent was to support Mr. Trump, and many intelligence officials — and former officials in Mrs. Clinton’s campaign — believe that the primary motive of the Russians was to simply disrupt the campaign and undercut confidence in the integrity of the vote. 


See also this piece:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/12/politics/gop-russia-hacking-trump/

See this 12/16/16 WaPo piece as well: 
FBI in agreement with CIA that Russia aimed to help Trump win White House

FBI Director James B. Comey and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. are in agreement with a CIA assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election in part to help Donald Trump win the White House, officials disclosed Friday, as President Obama issued a public warning to Moscow that it could face retaliation.

 

New revelations about Comey’s position could put to rest suggestions by some lawmakers that the CIA and the FBI weren’t on the same page on Russian President Vladi­mir Putin’s intentions.

...

The positions of Comey and Clapper were revealed in a message that CIA Director John Brennan sent to the agency’s workforce Friday.

 

“Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election,” Brennan said, according to U.S. officials who have seen the message.
... 

A few days after the Senate briefing, a senior FBI counter­intelligence official briefed the House Intelligence Committee but was not as categorical as the CIA briefer about Russia’s intention to help Trump, according to officials who were present. The FBI official’s more cautious presentation of the intelligence to the House panel left some Republican and Democratic lawmakers in the room with the impression that the FBI disagreed with the CIA.

Officials close to the FBI and the CIA now say that lawmakers had misunderstood Comey’s position. “The truth is they were never all that different in the first place,” an official said. Similarly, officials said, Clapper and Brennan saw the intelligence the same way.

 islander wrote: 
Wow. Cool-ish. In a strictly etymologically-speaking sort of way.