Does Jackie Speier Think She's Found The Smocking Gun?

The first I ever heard of Russian oligarch and Putin crony Dmitry Rybolovlev-- the "king of fertilizer"-- was on Rachel Maddow's show. She talked about him quite a bit last year, as you can watch her doing above in a clip from March 2017. She kept going back to him not just because he's a billionaire who bought a Greek Island, a French soccer team and the most expensive apartment in Manhattan, but because in 2008 he bought a rather dilapidated Palm Beach mansion from shady businessman and already notorious money launderer Donald J. Trump. It was the most expensive home sale in the United States-- and was about two-and-a-half times more than what Trump had paid for it just a couple of years earlier. Now that's some flip-- especially considering that Trump hadn't done anything to increase the value.

Over the weekend, the San Francisco Chronicle published a smocking gun OpEd, Strange real estate deal raises specter of Putin buying Trump, by local Congresswoman Jackie Speier, a senior member of the House Intelligence Committee, who probably got her information about Rybolovlev from sources other than MSNBC. She wrote that "In July 2008, Donald Trump undertook one of his most infamous transactions. He sold a mansion in Palm Beach for $95 million to Dmitry Rybolovlev, Russian oligarch and billionaire. Trump had purchased it four years earlier for $41.35 million. The sale price was nearly $54 million more than Trump had paid for the property, even though he had made only modest improvements in it. Trump boasts about his dealmaking skills in this transaction, but the details suggest something more sinister."

July 2008 was the middle of the recession. The real estate market had tanked, especially in Florida. Despite the recession, not only was the price 230 percent of what Trump paid, but it was also $13 million above the highest price previously paid for a Palm Beach mansion, according to the Palm Beach Post. Rybolovlev did not conduct an inspection. He did not obtain an appraisal. He did not order any professional review or undertake any other form of due diligence before purchasing the property.

Five years after the sale, when the economy had made a significant recovery, Palm Beach County appraised the house for just $59.8 million. In other words, despite an actual recorded sale of $95 million and despite the economic recovery, the county determined that it was worth $35 million less than what Rybolovlev had paid five years earlier.

As of March 2017, Rybolovlev had never even lived in the house.

Why did Rybolovlev make this deal? There was publicity about a messy divorce and speculation that Rybolovlev was hiding assets from his wife (the divorce was not filed until five months after the purchase). Alternatively, he may have made the purchase as an investment.

Either way, the whole point would be to get his money back at some point. Overpaying for the property makes no sense. Nor does his complete failure to conduct even the most rudimentary due diligence.

There must have been another reason-- a reason to give Trump tens of millions of dollars with no expectation of a financial return. One possibility is that Russian leader Vladimir Putin saw an opportunity to exploit Trump’s financial problems to obtain his loyalty and indebtedness.

The recession had seriously depressed sales at the not-yet-complete Trump International Hotel & Tower Chicago. He was unable to make payments on a Deutsche Bank loan for $640 million. He had personally guaranteed $40 million of that debt.

And that was not all. Trump Entertainment Resorts, which owned the Trump Taj Mahal Casino in Atlantic City, was also failing. The Taj was losing business to other Trump casinos in Atlantic City and to newer competitors. Trump Entertainment was facing a $53 million payment to bondholders. The company was plummeting toward its third bankruptcy.

Trump had no apparent source of funds to meet these crises. His father had died, and the estate had been distributed. Wall Street banks were shunning Trump.

Rybolovlev had gotten control of Uralkali, a state-owned potash-mining company, at the age of 29. Uralkali supplied about 30 percent of the global demand for potash, a fertilizer ingredient. Rybolovlev had once served time in jail for murder before being cleared. His wife alleged that he partied on his private yacht with other oligarchs and prostitutes.

In 2008, Forbes estimated his net worth at $13 billion.

Rybolovlev, however, was also in financial trouble. In 2006, a portion of the potash mine had collapsed. No one was killed, but there was enormous damage. Rybolovlev was facing tremendous losses.

Diana Pilipenko describes the relationship between Putin and the oligarchs in her Center for American Progress report “Cracking the Shell”:

“When President Vladimir Putin consolidated power after the fall of the Soviet Union, he established a social contract of sorts, sanctioning the unbridled self-enrichment of Russia’s new class of wealthy business tycoons-- known as oligarchs-- in return for their unwavering loyalty to his administration. Among other things, this loyalty to Putin meant the oligarchs would not attempt to challenge him politically or otherwise act counter to the Kremlin’s strategic interests. It also meant the oligarchy would act on behalf of the state, thus erasing the boundary between the two.”

As Trump’s financial empire was crumbling, Putin certainly had reason to believe that Trump might be susceptible.

In 1987, the Soviet ambassador to the United Nations, Yuri Dubinin, arranged for Trump and his then-wife, Ivana, to enjoy an all-expense-paid trip to Moscow to consider possible business prospects.

Only seven weeks after his trip, Trump ran full-page ads in the Boston Globe, the New York Times and the Washington Post calling for, in effect, the dismantling of the postwar Western foreign policy alliance.

He had another tour of Moscow in 1996.

Russian mobsters frequented and enjoyed the Trump casinos. Russians were heavy purchasers of units in the Trump Tower. So many Russians bought Trump apartments at his developments in Florida that the area became known as Little Moscow. The developers of two of his hotels were Russians with significant links to the Russian mob. The late leader of that mob in the United States, Vyacheslav Kirillovich Ivankov, was living at the Trump Towers. In various real estate deals, Trump, at the very least, had turned a blind eye to apparent Russian money laundering.

Though Trump had previously contemplated running for president, Putin had no idea whether that would come to pass. It was enough that Trump was a prominent figure and television star already sympathetic to Russia.

Rybolovlev’s purchase of the Florida mansion put about $74 million in Trump’s pocket. Trump suddenly had oxygen.

What had Trump done to earn such a favor? It may seem surprising, but the answer could be nothing. At least not then.

Trump was being enrolled in the Russian system of kompromat, of which Putin is a master. Grant a favor, ask for nothing. Both parties understand that someday something may be expected in return.

And Rybolovlev? Only four months after Rybolovlev bought Trump’s Florida mansion, the Russian government ruled that his mine had not caused the damage, blaming the collapse on long-dead Stalin-era planners. The stock price of Rybolovlev’s company soared. It was up long enough for Rybolovlev to recover his losses on the Palm Beach purchase, plus, presumably, an ample commission for his service.

This decision was made by officials who have been identified as key figures in Putin’s circle. Kompromat is the only explanation of these events that fits all the facts as we now know them.

Looking at Trump’s circumstances in 2008, Putin laid out bait in the form of an absurdly high purchase price for a piece of real estate. Trump took the bait. The snare snapped shut.

One deal was closed. Could there have been others?

Keith Darden, an international relations professor at American University who has studied kompromat, says about Trump: “He’s never said a bad word about Putin. He’s exercised a degree of self-control with respect to Russia that he doesn’t with anything else. ... He knows there are limits, there are bounds on what he can say and do with respect to Russia.”

Michael McFaul, a professor at Stanford University and a former U.S. ambassador to Russia, observed, “The disconnect between President Trump and the Trump administration on Russia policy is unlike anything in U.S. foreign policy history. While the Trump administration had continued, and at times increased, the Obama’s administration confrontation of Putin’s malicious international behavior, Trump himself has never criticized Putin. On the contrary, President Trump consistently praises Putin. Why is that? Why is President Trump so eager to appease Putin?”

DC Rumor Mill: Trumpanzee Plans To Fire Mueller December 22

The Simpsons come through... bigly. Less hilarious is the Newsweek suggestion that Señor Trumpanzee may fire Mueller next week while Congress is away for holiday vacation. That's what Jackie Speier (D-CA) says she's hearing in the Capitol-- specifically that he'll fire Mueller on Dec. 22. Democrats will want to impeach him if he does-- but so what? Republicans control both houses of Congress and there aren't many who would go along either. Adam Schiff, who has been drumming up Trump fear-monger so he can raise immense sums of money for an eventual Senate run-- with no 2016 opponent, Schiff goes from his Rachel Maddow appearances directly to fundraisers and had already brought in $1,667,276 by October 1.

Meanwhile Florida dimwit, Matt Gaetz, one of only 5 millennials in the House, has been running around trying-- successfully-- to sound even stupider than Louie Gohmert, demanding Mueller be fired for corruption. Walter Shaub, former head of the Office of Government Ethics, noted that "the coordinated effort by President Trump and his surrogates to discredit the Mueller investigation raises serious alarms. Rather than making themselves complicit in this assault on the rule of law, Members of Congress should send a clear message to the President that firing Mueller is a red line he must not cross," no doubt a jab at the hyperbolic Gaetz.

And Gaetz is hardly the only dim bulb in Florida schreiking for Mueller's head. The most corrupt Attorney General in America, Pam Bondi, was on Fox with Hannity last week, along with neo-Nazi nutcase Sebastian Gorka, making an idiot out of herself. Speaking on Mueller's sterling team, the imbecilic Bondi babbled That "They need to be dissolved, and they need to be investigated. This team needs to be wiped out." When Hannity said that the level of corruption inside Mueller’s team is "worse than Watergate," Bondi butted in to slobber her agreement. But Hannity was on a tear and continued, "By the time we entangle this massive web of corruption, it will be worse than Watergate... Watergate on human growth hormone and steroids combined at massive levels."



Ready to blow him-- in her barely controllable excitement-- Bondi said, "And you’re the one who had to untangle it, Sean, not the federal government. That’s the shame of it."

No Men-- Especially No Men In Public Office-- Should Ever Think They Are "Untouchable" When It Comes To Workplace Sexual Harassment

-by Valley Girl

I wrote an email to Howie a few days back saying in part "I totally agreed with your tweet. This is what leadership should be about. It seems that they are not willing to name names because it will hurt their own careers. Howie, you have a lot of connections. Is there any way you could winkle this information out of someone? Get them to name even a few names? My gut feeling is that once even a few names are mentioned, then the floodgates will open."

Howie asked me to do a guest post. I’ve been working on that. Getting into the weeds, as I usually do. I started checking out Barbara Comstock (R-VA), who I didn’t know anything about before, but who now seems to have little record of bravery of any sort. I’ve compiled quite a dossier on her.

And, reminding myself of the details of Jackie Speirs’ history-- 1978 including when she went, as a congressional aide to Leo Ryan, to Jonestown, Guyana. By the end of the trip, Ryan was dead-- the first and only congressman to be assassinated in office-- along with three journalists and one cult defector. Speier and nine others had been shot and left for dead at a remote airstrip; they waited 22 hours for help to arrive.

Yes, she does have a solid history of bravery, courage, and public service. Watch this for context as to what Howie was talking about-- a House hearing:



Also note that this video above leaves out something: via CNN: During the hearing to review the House's sexual harassment policies, Comstock said it was "important that we name names."... exactly what Howie challenged her to do in his tweet.

And, also from the same CNN link, note this, if you follow the link-- "Speier, a Democrat who has gone public with her own allegations of sexual assault while she served as a Hill aide decades ago, testified before the panel Tuesday that two currently sitting members of Congress-- one Democrat, one Republican-- have 'engaged in sexual harassment' but have not yet been reviewed." NO, CNN is wrong on this quote. Speier actually says: two members… one Democrat, one Republican, who have been subject to review, or not have been subject to review, who have engaged in sexual harassment.

Fast forward with the post I’ve been working one-- I’m on EST, so I missed this news by several hours, until I woke up this morning. And ended up ditching most of what I’d already written. Note again Speier’s actual comment above.

The Buzz Feed story blows the lid off one of these two-- John Conyers. Title and subtitle: She Said A Powerful Congressman Harassed Her. Here’s Why You Didn’t Hear Her Story. "When you make private settlements, it doesn’t warn the next woman or the next person going into that situation."

Michigan Rep. John Conyers, a Democrat and the longest-serving member of the House of Representatives, settled a wrongful dismissal complaint in 2015 with a former employee who alleged she was fired because she would not “succumb to [his] sexual advances.”

Documents from the complaint obtained by BuzzFeed News include four signed affidavits, three of which are notarized, from former staff members who allege that Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the powerful House Judiciary Committee, repeatedly made sexual advances to female staff that included requests for sexual favors, contacting and transporting other women with whom they believed Conyers was having affairs, caressing their hands sexually, and rubbing their legs and backs in public. Four people involved with the case verified the documents are authentic.

And the documents also reveal the secret mechanism by which Congress has kept an unknown number of sexual harassment allegations secret: a grinding, closely held process that left the alleged victim feeling, she told BuzzFeed News, that she had no option other than to stay quiet and accept a settlement offered to her.

“I was basically blackballed. There was nowhere I could go,” she said in a phone interview. BuzzFeed News is withholding the woman’s name at her request because she said she fears retribution.

The woman who settled with Conyers launched the complaint with the Office of Compliance in 2014, alleging she was fired for refusing his sexual advances, and ended up facing a daunting process that ended with a confidentiality agreement in exchange for a settlement of more than $27,000. Her settlement, however, came from Conyers’ office budget rather than the designated fund for settlements.

In this case, one of Conyers’ former employees was offered a settlement, in exchange for her silence, that would be paid out of Conyers’ taxpayer-funded office budget. His office would “rehire” the woman as a “temporary employee” despite her being directed not to come into the office or do any actual work, according to the document. The complainant would receive a total payment of $27,111.75 over the three months, after which point she would be removed from the payroll, according to the document.

The process was “disgusting,” said Matthew Peterson, who worked as a law clerk representing the complainant, and who listed as a signatory to some of the documents.

“It is a designed cover-up,” said Peterson, who declined to discuss details of the case but agreed to characterize it in general terms. “You feel like they were betrayed by their government just for coming forward. It’s like being abused twice.”

Two staffers alleged in their signed affidavits that Conyers used congressional resources to fly in women they believed he was having affairs with. Another said she was tasked with driving women to and from Conyers’ apartment and hotel rooms.

In her complaint, the former employee said Conyers repeatedly asked her for sexual favors and often asked her to join him in a hotel room. On one occasion, she alleges that Conyers asked her to work out of his room for the evening, but when she arrived the congressman started talking about his sexual desires. She alleged he then told her she needed to “touch it,” in reference to his penis, or find him a woman who would meet his sexual demands.

She alleged Conyers made her work nights, evenings, and holidays to keep him company.

In another incident, the former employee alleged the congressman insisted she stay in his room while they traveled together for a fundraising event. When she told him that she would not stay with him, she alleged he told her to “just cuddle up with me and caress me before you go.”

“Rep. Conyers strongly postulated that the performing of personal service or favors would be looked upon favorably and lead to salary increases or promotions,” the former employee said in the documents.

Three other staff members provided affidavits submitted to the Office Of Compliance that outlined a pattern of behavior from Conyers that included touching the woman in a sexual manner and growing angry when she brought her husband around.

One affidavit from a former female employee states that she was tasked with flying in women for the congressman. “One of my duties while working for Rep. Conyers was to keep a list of women that I assumed he was having affairs with and call them at his request and, if necessary, have them flown in using Congressional resources,” said her affidavit. (A second staffer alleged in an interview that Conyers used taxpayer resources to fly women to him.)

The employee said in her affidavit that Conyers also made sexual advances toward her: “I was driving the Congressman in my personal car and was resting my hand on the stick shift. Rep. Conyers reached over and began to caress my hand in a sexual manner.”

The woman said she told Conyers she was married and not interested in pursuing a sexual relationship, according to the affidavit. She said she was told many times by constituents that it was well-known that Conyers had sexual relationships with his staff, and said she and other female staffers felt this undermined their credibility.

“I am personally aware of several women who have experienced the same or similar sexual advances made towards them by Rep[.] John Conyers,” she said in her affidavit.

A male employee wrote that he witnessed Rep. Conyers rub the legs and other body parts of the complainant “in what appeared to be a sexual manner” and saw the congressman rub and touch other women “in an inappropriate manner.” The employee said he confronted Conyers about this behavior.

“Rep. Conyers said he needed to be ‘more careful’ because bad publicity would not be helpful as he runs for re-election. He ended the conversation with me by saying he would ‘work on’ his behavior,” the male staffer said in his affidavit.

The male employee said that in 2011 Conyers complained a female staffer was “too old” and said he wanted to let her go. The employee said he set up a meeting in December 2011 to discuss “mistreatment of staff and his misuse of federal resources.” The affidavit says that Conyers “agreed that he would work on making improvements as long as I worked directly with him and stopped writing memos and emails about concerns.”

Another female employee also attested that she witnessed Conyer’s advances, and said she was asked to transport women to him. “I was asked on multiple occasions to pick up women and bring them to Mr. Conyers['] apartment, hotel rooms, etc.”

“I don’t think any allegations should be buried... and that’s for anyone, not just for this particular office, because it doesn’t really allow other people to see who these individuals are,” said the former staffer. “When you make private settlements, it doesn’t warn the next woman or the next person going into that situation.”

Another staffer said Conyers’ reputation made people fearful to speak out against him. Aside from being the longest-serving House member and the ranking member of a powerful committee, Conyers is a civil rights icon. He was lauded by Martin Luther King Jr. and is a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus.

“Your story won’t do shit to him,” said the staffer. “He’s untouchable.”

Jerry Nadler (D-NY) is the second most senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee after Conyers. This was his statement yesterday: "The allegations against Ranking Member Conyers are extremely serious and deeply troubling. Obviously, these allegations must be investigated promptly by the Ethics Committee. There can be no tolerance for behavior that subjects women to the kind of conduct alleged. We also must support efforts to reform the way the House of Representatives handles these matters to make the process easier and more supportive of victims, as well as more transparent."

I'll leave this post with a brief mention of the salience of "political correctness" in the societal explosion we're going through now. I borrowed it from an essay by Adam Serwer in The Atlantic: "Political correctness is a vague term, perhaps best defined by the conservative scholar Samuel Goldman. 'What Trump and others seem to mean by political correctness is an extremely dramatic and rapidly changing set of discursive and social laws that, virtually overnight, people are expected to understand, to which they are expected to adhere.' From a different vantage point, what Trump’s supporters refer to as political correctness is largely the result of marginalized communities gaining sufficient political power to project their prerogatives onto society at large. What a society finds offensive is not a function of fact or truth, but of power. It is why unpunished murders of black Americans by agents of the state draw less outrage than black football players’ kneeling for the National Anthem in protest against them. It is no coincidence that Trump himself frequently uses the term to belittle what he sees as unnecessary restrictions on state force."

Is Mueller Following Up On Kevin McCarthy's Revelation That The Kremlin Pays Rohrabacher? And What About Nunes?

I wonder how staunch conservatives in towns like Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Laguna Beach, Laguna Niguel and Fountain Valley feel about their Representative being referred to as "the pro-Russia congressman." That exactly how the San Francisco Chronicle labeled eccentric-- some would say crackpot-- Orange County Congressman Dana Rohrabacher in a headline Thursday. The picture that reporter Joe Garofoli painted of Rohrabacher was, by his own admission, "surreal." Rohrabacher, he wrote, "greater me in bare feet, sitting on his front step making fundraising phone calls while wearing a stained white T-shirt and khakis he bought at Goodwill. Later, he proudly showed me a blazer he scored there for $10." Roahabacher is likely to need whatever he can bring in from fundraising. Last cycle he didn't have any opposition from the DCCC-- which has ignored his district for... as long as anyone can remember. It has a PVI of R+7 last cycle (safely red); this cycle the PVI is R+4, which is reasonably contestable in a wave election, particularly if there is something peculiar about the incumbent-- like being in bed-- or being perceived as being in bed-- with the Kremlin. McCain beat Obama 51-46% and Romney beat Obama 55-43% but this very red district went for Hillary over Trumpy-the-Clown 47.9% to 46.2%. It was the closest Trump came to winning any of the Orange County districts.

Rohrabacher beat his under-funded Democratic opponent, Suzanne Savary, last year 178,701 (58.3%) to 127,715 (41.7%). Outside parties didn't get involved; he spent $646,004 to her $102,133. This cycle he's raised (as of the June 30 filing deadline) $496,494 while his 3 top Democratic rivals have been catching up. Harley Rouda raised $318,334; Hans Keirstead raised $138,504; and Laura Oatman raised $119,399. Rohrabacher has never had a real and sustained national focus on him before. He's 70 and it seems to be wearing him out. When I spoke with him the a couple of weeks ago, he complained about aches and pains "from surfing." My friend asked if he had been surfing in the Moscow River. He grimaced uncomfortably but seemd to worn out to engage. Rouda seems to have the most active campaign so I reached out to him. He seems more interested in talking about jobs and the economy, healthcare and global warming and green energy than about Russia. But Rohrabacher's eccentricities and shenanigans with the Kremlin haven't gone unnoticed. "Congressman Rohrabacher's continued relationship with the Kremlin and Putin," he told me this morning, "are not only dangerous to America's interest and unbecoming behavior for a United States Congressman, they are a disservice to the people in the 48th district. While Dana travels the world meeting with Vladamir Putin and Julian Assange, people back home are concerned about rising costs of prescription drugs and access to health care. We need a Congressman who will stand up and protect our coastal communities from the real-threat of climate change, not one who is doing the bidding of foreign governments and hackers."

Back to Garofoli at the Chronicle, who points out that Rohrabacher is "a hero to weed-lovers for being a Republican at the forefront of the pro-marijuana legalization movement, and a pariah to fellow Republicans for being so pro-Russia that House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy once jokingly said that 'Putin pays' him. He wants to cut a deal with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, and thinks the Charlottesville riots were staged by liberals and were 'a total hoax.'... During our visit, he largely dismissed human influence on climate change."

Standing at the corner of Fringe and Conspiracy streets, Rohrabacher would seem to be easy picking for Democrats, who are making Orange County the centerpiece of their plan to return to power in the House by flipping 24 GOP seats. They’re focused on districts like Rohrabacher’s, where Hillary Clinton outpolled President Trump and the incumbents are perceived as out-of-touch.

It won’t be that easy. Rohrabacher also stands squarely in the middle of the old school, wealthier, whiter, conservative, still- lovin’-the-Gipper part of the OC. He’s run for Congress 15 times, and he’s won by more than 20 percent 13 times. Call him fringe-y, but he’s conservative OC kind of fringe-y.

That’s why, if next year turns out to be the kind of low-turnout, midterm election that favors Republicans, Orange County GOP chairman Fred Whitaker said he’s “not worried about Dana at all.” And it doesn’t hurt that Republicans have an 11-point voter registration advantage in the 48th Congressional District.

Still, Rohrabacher acknowledges, “this race will be the toughest.” Not because Democrats are going after his seat and nine candidates have jumped in to oppose him, including two who are raising serious money. Because, he said, “of Russia.”

Rohrabacher describes himself as the lone voice against both conservatives and liberals who want retribution against Russia for meddling in the 2016 presidential election. But what about the “high confidence” with which the nation’s top intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia interfered in the election?

“Total bullshit,” Rohrabacher said over peanut butter sandwiches-- his favorite meal-- that he slapped together in his kitchen. “I’ve read those reports and they’re full of weasel words.”

“That story is a total fabrication in order to do one thing: To prevent Donald Trump from exercising the legitimate authority he was given by the voters in the last election,” he said.

One of Rohrabacher’s sources: Assange. Last summer, on his own dime, Rohrabacher visited Assange, who for years has been harbored in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, fearing extradition to Sweden on sexual assault accusations and bail-jumping charges in England.

Rohrabacher said Assange told him that Russia wasn’t involved in the theft of emails from the Democratic National Committee that Wikileaks released, but didn’t say who was. Maybe the emails fell off the back of a truck, as they used to say in my grandpa’s neighborhood.

Rohrabacher isn’t buying that conspiracy theory, but he’s deep into another-- that Democrats were behind last month’s white nationalist riots in Charlottesville, Va. Oh, and calling them white nationalist riots is a liberal media deceit, he said.

“It’s all baloney,” Rohrabacher said.

Under Rohrabacher’s scenario, a former “Hillary and Bernie supporter” got Civil War re-enactors to gather under the guise of protecting a Robert E. Lee statue there.

“It was a setup for these dumb Civil War re-enactors,” Rohrabacher said. “It was left-wingers who were manipulating them in order to have this confrontation” and to “put our president on the spot.”

Those of you who are fans of conspiracy connoisseur and conservative commentator Alex Jones, host of Info Wars, will recognize that scenario as one of his dreamscapes, which is “Pants on Fire” groundless, according to the nonpartisan Politifact.

The bizarre claim seems to have shocked Rouda as much as it did people up and down the 48th district, regardless of partisan feelings. People are starting to question Rohrabacher's mental stability and wondering if it ins't time for him to finally retire and start relaxing. Rouda told me that "Rohrabacher's latest conspiracy theory is deplorable. Since 1939 Americans have been resolute-- Nazis are not welcome here. There is no other way to say it; the violence we saw in Charlottesville is simply unAmerican. For all of Dana Rohrabacher's antics, being a Nazi apologist is the most disgusting."

 

Over the years, the intelligence community has felt Rohrabacher has been, probably inadvertently, a Russian dupe. They have warned him that Russian spies have tried to recruit him. Does Russian really do stuff like that? Well, they know he's a crackpot and are expert in seducing crackpots. The new issue of the New York Times Magazine has an exhaustive piece by Jim Rutenberg on Russia's New Theory of War; stuff they take seriously but American voters don't. Political figures in the West, perceived by the Kremlin to be hostile to Russian ambitions are systematically targeted in a deadly "information war," like the one Putin directed against Hillary Clinton.

After RT and Sputnik gave platforms to politicians behind the British vote to leave the European Union, like Nigel Farage, a committee of the British Parliament released a report warning that foreign governments may have tried to interfere with the referendum. Russia and China, the report argued, had an “understanding of mass psychology and of how to exploit individuals” and practiced a kind of cyberwarfare “reaching beyond the digital to influence public opinion.” When President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia visited the new French president, Emmanuel Macron, at the palace of Versailles in May, Macron spoke out about such influence campaigns at a news conference. Having prevailed weeks earlier in the election over Marine Le Pen-- a far-right politician who had backed Putin’s annexation of Crimea and met with him in the Kremlin a month before the election-- Macron complained that “Russia Today and Sputnik were agents of influence which on several occasions spread fake news about me personally and my campaign.”

But all of this paled in comparison with the role that Russian information networks are suspected to have played in the American presidential election of 2016. In early January, two weeks before Donald J. Trump took office, American intelligence officials released a declassified version of a report-- prepared jointly by the Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation and National Security Agency-- titled “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections.” It detailed what an Obama-era Pentagon intelligence official, Michael Vickers, described in an interview in June with NBC News as “the political equivalent of 9/11.” “Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election,” the authors wrote. “Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton and harm her electability and potential presidency.” According to the report, “Putin and the Russian government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.”

The intelligence assessment detailed some cloak-and-dagger activities, like the murky web of Russian (if not directly government-affiliated or -financed) hackers who infiltrated voting systems and stole gigabytes’ worth of email and other documents from the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign. But most of the assessment concerned machinations that were plainly visible to anyone with a cable subscription or an internet connection: the coordinated activities of the TV and online-media properties and social-media accounts that made up, in the report’s words, “Russia’s state-run propaganda machine.”

...One way of looking at the activities of Russia’s information machine is as a resumption of the propaganda fight between the United States and the U.S.S.R. that began immediately following the Second World War. In the late 1940s, the Marshall Plan, the herculean development project helmed by Secretary of State George Marshall, flooded postwar Europe with money and advisers to help rebuild cities, advance democracy and form an integrated economic zone. Joseph Stalin immediately saw it as a threat — and saw propaganda as one of his best weapons to contain it.

In 1947, Stalin formed the Communist Information Bureau (Cominform), a Belgrade-headquartered forum to coordinate messaging among European Communist parties. Cominform used Communist newspapers, pamphlets and posters to paint the Marshall Plan as an American plot to subjugate Europe. A representative Soviet poster distributed in Vienna showed an American-- identified by American-flag shirt cuffs-- offering aid packages with one hand while plundering Austria’s gold with the other. Radio Moscow-- the state-run international broadcaster-- and Soviet-supported newspapers throughout Europe accused the “imperialist” United States of pursuing a plan of “dollar domination” to make the Continent dependent on American goods and services, and of conscripting local youth to fight American proxy wars elsewhere.

Writing in the New York Times that year, the correspondent Anne O’Hare McCormick recounted false reports in the Red Army newspaper in Vienna that the locals were afraid to walk the streets at night lest American soldiers rob and mug them-- propaganda, she wrote, that “may not convince, but it adds to the confusion between truth and falsehood and fosters that darkness of the mind in which dictatorships operate.” In a 1947 letter to George Marshall’s undersecretary, Robert A. Lovett, William C. Chanler, a wartime Defense Department official, urged a response, warning that “we are making the same mistake that was made with Hitler.”

...It’s hard to imagine Russia’s state-backed media getting any traction in the United States if there wasn’t already an audience for it. For some subset of Americans, the intelligence report singling out RT and Sputnik was just another attack from the supposed “deep state” that Breitbart, for instance, had been fuming about for months-- and it was less than surprising when, this spring, Sputnik hired a former Breitbart reporter, Lee Stranahan, to start a radio show in Washington. As Stranahan told The Atlantic, though his paycheck might now come from the Russians, “Nothing about it really affects my position on stuff that I’ve had for years now.”

A couple of nights ago I had dinner with an old colleague from my days at Warner Bros. He's working as a TV producer now and he was telling me about a new TV project he's working on. As a promotional tool for the show, he had just signed contracts with half a dozen "social media influencers," random people with huge followings on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. They'll be getting 6-figure salaries to hype the show. I was fascinated and asked more about them. One, he described as a woman who posts pictures of herself showing large nipples in wet t-shirts. She has millions of followers in the show's target demographic. I think they got her to sign an exclusive deal with them. What they're doing is not that different from what Putin is doing-- although with less resources and without ill intent. So-- going back to Republican Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy's widely circulated charge about the Kremlin paying Rohrabacher-- what exactly does he get from the Russians? And what about Devin Nunes, another Kremlin tool from the California Republican delegation.



Although the Establishment is running a very conservative, Republican-lite Democrat against Devin Nunes in the Hispanic-plurality Central Valley district that goes from Clovis and the outskirts of Fresno down through Dinuba to Visalia, Tulare and Lindsay, there is a solid progressive in the race as well, Ricardo Franco. Franco is running on a jobs, healthcare, education and water platform but he told us this morning that "The American people should not have a lot of confidence in a man like Nunes to be handling an investigation of this importance. He's shown a serious lack of judgment in handling information. Nunes was part of Trump's transition team and we've seen various members of that team come under scrutiny. I trust Mueller will do a fair, impartial job in his investigation, but I do not see how Nunes' participation can add anything to the investigation at this point."

Senator Ed Hernández And Congresswomen Jackie Speier And Grace Napolitano Buck The Machine To Endorse Eloise Reyes

This pathetic mess somehow "forgot" to mention to California progressives that he's been begging the corrupt, anti-working family New Dems to endorse him

Dr. Ed Hernández, former president of the California Optometric Association, is the state Senator representing the 24th district, which stretches from East L.A. through Monterey Park, Rosemead, and El Monte out to Azusa and Covina. Hernández is chairman of the Senate Health Committee and one of the most respected Los Angeles legislators in Sacramento and a powerful advocate for working families. Last night he stood with a growing list of anti-corruption public officials against an attempt by Steve Israel and his Los Angeles lackey, Eric Bauman, to force ex-lobbyist Pete Aguilar down the throats of Democrats in the Inland Empire (CA-31) again.

In recent weeks, former CA-31 Congresswoman and ex-Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis, endorsed Reyes, as did House Democratic Caucus Chairman Xavier Becerra and progressive East L.A./Downey Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard. Aside from Senator Hernández, yesterday, as the California Democratic Party convention was beginning in Los Angeles, one of the most powerful and eloquent voices for women's equality on Capitol Hill, San Mateo Congresswoman Jackie Speier, came out loud and proud for Eloise Reyes.

Rep. Speier: "I am endorsing Eloise Gomez Reyes today because the working families of the 31st District need a fighter like Eloise to stand up to special interests. We thought 2012 would be the year we would turn the seat from Red to Blue but it slipped away. We can’t let that happen again. Eloise has proven herself the strongest candidate in the race and it’s a plus that another woman will be joining us in Congress where only 18% of the members are women. I am proud to endorse her."

Yes, clearly Pete Aguilar is not "another woman." He is also the furthest thing a politician can be from "a fighter to stand up to special interests." When the corrupt Chamber of Commerce Republicans who ran the Redlands City Council needed a shill to front for their greed-and-selfishness agenda, they appointed fake Democrat Pete Aguilar, a failed and corrupt bank lobbyist, to the council to do their bidding. Tailor made for Steve Israel, who drafted him to run in 2012, empty suit Aguilar promptly lost an open D+5 seat to not one, but two Republicans, giving the Inland Empire the shame of being the bluest district anywhere in America with a Republican congressman.

Israel then made up some ridiculous story that Pete lost because his ill father, Herman, had died on primary day and peddled it to the Beltway media so he could recruit Aguilar again for 2014. And Israel did recruit him again-- but the story has no basis in fact. His father wasn't ill and didn't die on primary day-- or any other day. Herman Aguilar is very much alive and well. A bunch of bozos in Congress believed Israel's bullshit too and allowed him to use their names as Aguilar endorsers. Several have told me they were considering withdrawing their endorsements of Aguilar but seemed afraid of Israel's wrath. They can do what Rep. Grave Napolitano did last night. She did a dual endorsement-- though not of Aguilar, of course.

Napolitano, who represents a largely Hispanic district that includes Covina and much of eastern L.A. County, is an old friend of former Congressman Joe Baca and felt she couldn't not endorse him. But yesterday, she also endorsed Eloise. "Eloise, like myself, has had a long career in the private sector before running for office," she explained. "Congress needs more women who can relate to working families and their daily struggle to balance work and family… While I have also endorsed former Rep. Joe Baca, a friend and former colleague, I am not rescinding his endorsement. Eloise is a strong and viable candidate."

There was a not so subtle message there that Baca is not "a strong and viable candidate." And Aguilar has already proven that he wasn't by losing so baldy in 2012. Upshot: L.A.'s Boss Tweed, Eric Bauman, delivered an empty endorsement at the convention today for Steve Israel's empty suit.

Help fight the Machine? Help elect Eloise Reyes here.

Meanwhile, across the continent, the Republican Party's right-wing fringe-- about half the party, at least-- held their annual CPAC straw poll. And despite the GOP Establishment having raised the price to keep riffraff (Libertarian Paulistas) out, Rand Paul won-- by a landslide and by a lot more than the 25% with which he won last year, crush Ted Cruz. Here are the final results:

• Rand Paul- 31%
• Ted Cruz- 11%
• Ben Carson- 9%
• Chris Christie- 8%
• Scott Walker- 7%
• Rick Santorum- 7%
• Marco Rubio- 6%
• Paul "Brown Paper Bag" Ryan- 3%
• Rick Perry- 3%
• Bobby Jindal- 2%
• Condoleeza Rice- 2%
• Mike Huckabee- 2%
• Sarah Palin- 2%

House Republicans Celebrate War On Poverty By Gutting The Food Stamps Program

Thursday afternoon, all but 15 Republicans voted to take $40 billion out of the food stamps program. It will never pass the Senate or be signed by the President, but it was a way for Republicans to reassure their crazy Tea Party base that they're as greedy, selfish and filled with hatred as the people who vote for them are. Progressive Caucus co-chairs Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) and Keith Ellison (D-MN) and CPC Whip Barbara Lee (D-CA), like every Democrat in the House, voted NO. Grijalva: "Some of my Republican colleagues want to cut food assistance for needy families instead of closing business tax loopholes as a way to save money. There's a basic question of fairness and who our country looks out for here. If you think more corporate tax cuts are the answer, go ahead and say so, but don't take food out of children's mouths while you're doing it."

Ellison: "Food assistance for working families fulfills a promise we make to each other: if you fall on hard times, your neighbors, friends and fellow Americans will help you get a meal. Eighteen companies dodged $92 billion in taxes last year, which is more than double the cut passed by Republicans today. Let’s cut corporate waste, not meals for our nation’s children."

Lee: "The proposed $40 billion in cuts to our nation’s first line of defense against hunger, SNAP, are heartless, unbelievable, and immoral. We cannot balance our budget on the backs of our country’s children, seniors, veterans, and disabled. As a former recipient of public assistance, I know that I would not be where I am today if it were not for the vital lifeline that was extended to me by the American people. SNAP serves as a bridge over troubled waters, and at a time when we are still recovering from the Great Recession, we must protect our nation’s vulnerable, not push them aside."

I also asked some of the candidates Blue America is backing how they felt about their own congressmembers voting to cut the food stamp program. Tom Guild is running against a junior member of the Republican leadership, right-wing extremist James Lankford (R-OK). Guild seemed personally affront by his vote: "My brother and I survived on government commodities in our early childhood.  We would have likely starved without the generous help from the government, and the generosity of the American people. It is despicable that Mr. Lankford voted to take food away from hungry children, and the beleaguered working poor. He should be ashamed of himself."

Nick Ruiz is running against a worthless old hack, John Mica (R-FL), who just does whatever Boehner tells him to do. "In voting to cut food aid to citizens who need it most," asked Nick, "what exactly does John Mica hope to prove? That he's heartless? That he doesn't care about the health of citizens who are having difficulty providing basic nutritional food for themselves or their families? There's no greater sign of weakness and dishonor than to prey upon the weak or downtrodden: today John Mica has proven his worthlessness as a representative of all American families."

Danielle Adams, a supervisor on the Durham Soil and Water Conservation District Board, is running for a rural North Carolina congressional seat currently held by Howard Coble. Coble, unlike North Carolina Republican neighbor Walter Jones, voted for the drastic cuts to food stamps. Right after he voted, Danielle told us that "In a district with over 10% of it's constituency depending on SNAP funding for assistance I believe it is cruel, deplorable and unacceptable for Congressman Coble to support cuts to this program. Over 17,000 households with children under the age of 18 will find themselves in the position of how to feed their children with less resources while drought and flooding drive up the costs of food. These families expect more and deserve more than a Congressman that turns his back on them. Congress created the circumstances that allowed for the economic climate that we are in and instead of closing tax loopholes and asking the 1% to pay their fair share the conservative right is choosing to punish children, the elderly, and the disabled. There is no honor in punishing the poor for being poor. None."

In all likelihood, the next House candidate Blue America will be endorsing is Jason Ritchie, the progressive running for the central Washington state seat Dave Reichert is sitting in. Call it part of the vetting process, but we asked Jason what he made out of his opponent's vote. He seemed surprised that Reichert didn't offer any explanation for his vote and didn't propose an alternative. "He simply walked in lock step with his fellow House GOP colleagues to destroy an essential social safety net. We must never forget this betrayal. We are the richest country in the world but we cannot afford to provide supplemental food aid to the most needy in our country? We should be ashamed of ourselves for electing this majority and their ill-conceived priorities. We cannot stand by and allow the House GOP to turn their backs on the needy simply as an excuse to balance the budget. A balanced budget at the expense of hungry children does is a fraud. How many corporate tax loop holes need to be closed to fund SNAP? How many pork-barrel projects need to be killed to fund SNAP? Can we build a few less bombers, fighters and jets so that we can feed our needy citizens? We must find a solution that supports those most vulnerable in our country.

"We will be judged by future generations by how we help those who need help. If our elected representatives will not do the right thing, we will use the ballot box to reclaim our dignity and insure that we can stand tall in the light of history."

Up in Michigan, Paul Clements is running for the 6th district seat held by multimillionaire Fred Upton who inherited his family's ownership of Whirlpool. Whirlpool has helped devastate the economies of two states: Arkansas and Michigan. But the people impacted by Whirlpool's selfish, grubby policies aren't people that Fred Upton ever knew. His policies and his personal economic agenda have helped send countless people onto the unemployment lines-- and now he voted against them being able to feed themselves until then can get back on their feet. Paul told us that this kind of behavior is "deeply un-American. He voted for a bill that kicks 3.8 million people out of the food stamps program by 2014. Michigan still has 9% unemployment, many people have used up their unemployment benefits, and our food banks can’t keep up with demand. Many children in Fred Upton’s district already struggle with hunger. I wonder how much time Fred Upton has spent with children who don’t have enough to eat? We do not need more hunger in America. Mr. Upton, in America we can afford to feed our people."

Republican policies crashed the economy and then hampered Obama in everything he tried to do to improve it. Now they blame people thrown out of work by their policies and demonize them for feeding their families with food stamps. And in states controlled by Republicans it's been far worse than in the rest of the country. The average household in Michigan saw its income drop by a whopping 19.1 percent, from $57,963 a year in 2000 to $46,859 a year in 2012. In Mississippi, the median income plunged from $43,664 in 2000 to $37,095 in 2012, a 15 percent decrease. Household incomes fell by at least 10 percent in Georgia, Indiana, Tennessee, Nevada, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina and South Carolina.

Sexual Assault Training Oversight And Prevention Act-- Preventing Members Of The U.S. Military Being Raped

McKeon is also wrong on rape

If you followed this blog during the election, you probably noticed that one of our most important objectives was to defeat reactionary and corrupt House Armed Services Committee chairman Buck McKeon. Close but no cigar. Progressive surgeon Lee Rogers came closer to beating McKeon-- despite no help whatsoever from the DCCC or the California Democratic Party (a motley tail the DCCC wags in congressional matters)-- than anyone else ever has. Hopefully, he'll run again in 2014 and finish the job he started. McKeon took 56% of the votes and Rogers won 44%, although Rogers beat him in the Democratic-leaning Antelope Valley section of the district.

One of the issues we looked at during the election was McKeon's role in covering up an epidemic of rapes of military personnel on U.S. bases. He's still the key figure in the cover-up. Keep in mind that most members of the Armed Forces who get raped are women-- but there are lots of backward, illiterate Southerners in the military-- so some of the victims are also men. I mention this because I don't want you to think that this is just an issue about women. Rape is rape, something Republicans still haven't learned, despite their losses in the 2012 election.

The Department of Veteran Affairs estimates that over half a million veterans have now experienced military sexual trauma (MST). One year ago, Congresswoman Jackie Speier introduced the Sexual Assault Training Oversight and Prevention Act-- or STOP Act (H.R. 3435) to help fix this epidemic. The MST legislation has 133 co-sponsors (including one Republican, Walter Jones) and hundreds of veterans supporting it, but McKeon adamantly refuses to allow it to be heard by the House Armed Services Committee. This is a statement made yesterday by Nancy Parrish president of Protect Our Defenders:

“Victims of sexual assault in the military are required to report their attack to a superior, not law enforcement or medical personnel. This has been and remains a recipe for disaster. A year ago, Protect Our Defenders brought survivors to Washington to celebrate the introduction of the STOP Act-- a solution to this epidemic supported by 133 representatives.

"Since the legislation was introduced a year ago, it is estimated that more than 19,000 service members have been raped or sexually assaulted. And only 13.5% of those victims will come forward, primarily out of fear of retaliation, and of those few who come forward, more than 80% if given the chance would not do so again. During the past year, there has been a powerful new film, The Invisible War with the personal stories behind the shocking statistics, a wide-ranging military sexual abuse scandal at Lackland Air Force Base and military brass has told Congress what they have been doing to address the epidemic of sexual assaults in our military is 'not working.'

"Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has announced several reforms to address what he calls a ‘silent epidemic’ of military sexual assaults, like bumping the reporting of rape and sexual assault further up the chain of command. But, it does little to address the problem. Many survivors, have made it clear that senior commanders are just as capable of covering up assaults and they frequently do. Commanders are incentivized to sweep problems under the rug, as their careers can be adversely affected if a rape or sexual assault is reported on their watch. And the DOD reports, ‘39% of women report that the perpetrator was a military person of higher rank and 23% indicated the offender was someone in their chain of command.’

"Congress has the power to fix the problem, but they have not.

"For real change to take place, our elected leaders must legislate fundamental reform. The STOP Act addresses the core issue. It removes the reporting, oversight, investigation, and victim care from the normal chain of command and places it in the hands of an unbiased office comprised of civilian and military experts. But, the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Buck McKeon has yet to allow the STOP Act to even be heard by his committee. Today, we ask Rep. McKeon to honor our men and women in uniform and let the STOP Act and real solutions to the epidemic in our armed forces be heard.

"Congress has held 17 hearings over the past 25 years, but incremental steps taken by the Pentagon to address the problem of rape, sexual assault and harassment have failed. The prevalence of rape of both men and women in our military, the failure to prosecute perpetrators and the retaliation against victims continues to undermine readiness, unit cohesion and morale.”

Please watch this short clip below and then think about taking the pledge that the Protect Our Defenders Foundation has started as a way to not let McKeon worm out of this again. More info and the pledge campaign are here.

CRUDE HOUSE REPUBLICANS GIVE JACKIE SPEIER A TASTE OF WASHINGTON ON HER FIRST DAY IN CONGRESS

California has a new congresswoman and she's off to a great start. Jackie Speier won a landslide special election victory Tuesday and is already in DC working. Right after being sworn in she took the floor for her maiden speech. Predictably, she spoke about Bush's war against Iraq-- flipping out many of her Republican colleagues who decided it would be a good time to remind everyone that they don't believe in evolution, mostly because they're side of the species never went through it. Several Republicans booed and hissed and generally acted like chimpanzees. Reportedly, the loudest boo-er was Darrell Issa, last in the news for denigrating the victims of 9/11. Apparently leading the booing was a way to get back into the good graces of his pitiful and shrinking caucus. If you'd like to watch the whole thing on video, it's here and it's interesting-- from swearing in to Pelosi asking the chimps to try behaving like gentlemen.

It is clear that, as today's San Francisco Chronicle points out, "she would not be afraid to make waves in Washington." Jackie, interviewed on the phone, told them that "The truth is, I think it was a minority of Republicans that were booing-- and they represent a minority of Americans who still support the war."

DEMOCRATIC SWEEPS IN SPECIAL ELECTIONS HAVE THE GOP JITTERY

Did he get a boner in his eye or is he just back from a fortune teller?

Before last night's expected win for Andre Carson in Indiana, recent special elections in New York, Florida, and Illinois lead to upset victories for Democrats in Republican districts, districts that, in fact, had been gerrymandered specifically to provide safe red seats. This morning's Congressional Quarterly surveys 4 special elections coming up to fill empty House seats in Louisiana (one to replace Bobby Jindal whose resigned to run for governor and one for Richard Baker who resigned to cash in as a lobbyist), Mississippi (where Roger Wicker resigned so he could be appointed to Trent Lott's seat who had resigned so he could jump over to a lucrative K Street position to skirt an ethics deadline) and California (where moderate Democrat Tom Lantos passed away).

Because of the vacancies and losses, the Republicans only have 198 seats in the 435-member House, a low number, though likely a low number they will be pining for after the expected tsunami of disgust with them and their policies in November. The deep red nature of the 3 open GOP seats is unlikely to present any changes though-- and the Democratic open seat just south of San Francisco isn't about to change hands either. The only race viewed as vaguely competitive is in Louisiana's 6th district, Baker's old Baton Rouge-based seat. There's an April 5th primary runoff for both parties and a May 3rd general election. LA-06 would normally be considered a safe Republican seat-- Kerry only managed 40% of the vote in 2004-- but in the hotly contested March 8 primary 47,600 Democarts showed up to vote, as opposed to a mere 29,900 dispirited, disgruntled Republicans.

We'll see if that's the making of an upset after the run-off primaries between Democratic state Reps Don Cazayoux and Michael Jackson and between the two Republicans, ex-state Rep Woody Jenkins and businesswoman Laurinda Calongne. The RSCC will pour whatever resources they can muster into holding the seat and ending the impression that the GOP is on an unstoppable downhill electoral spiral.

The Republicans should have a much easier time in Louisiana's other open district, to replace Jindal. There's a Republican Party primary runoff on April 5 between state Sen. Steve Scalise and state Rep Tim Burns and the winner of that will face Democrat Gilda Reed, a psychologist whose campaign is viewed as quixotic by political insiders because of the solidly Republican nature of the 80% white, upscale New Orleans-area district where Kerry only managed 28% against Bush. The PVI is R +18 (where the more competetive Baton Rouge seat is "only" R +7).

Northern Mississippi's open seat is another KKK/GOP district where Kerry scored 37% and the PVI is R +10. There are 4 Republicans, 2 Democrats and a Green Party independent running in a single-ballot first round on April 22 and on May 13 there'll be a run-off between the 2 top vote-getters (regardless of party) to determine who the next congressmember will be.

April 18 is the election to fill Tom Lantos' old seat (CA-12) and progressive state Senator Jackie Speier is viewed as a sure thing.