Midnight Meme Of The Day!

by Noah

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) isn't on my list of favorite Senators. But he's right this time. We are now into a three week agreement that, more properly should be called a truce or a temporary cease-fire, instead of being trumpeted as an end to the shutdown. End? When the truce was announced, our severely psychotic president wasted no time in threatening another shutdown at the end of the three weeks if his demand for wall money isn't met in any new agreement.

Sen. Warner is right in saying that if Trump ever got his way as a result of shutting down the government, there's no telling what hostages he would take or what he would shut down the government for in the future. How far would Trump go in his well-demonstrated complete insanity? Would he demand end to the Mueller Investigation, and any congressional or state investigations as well. Would it be "No regulations for anything?" Hooters waitresses delivering his food to the oval office? Quota numbers of kids to be placed in cages? A 5-Star General's uniform for him to waddle around in? $20 billion in gold bullion delivered to Trump Tower? $30 billion? This isn't really a joke. Trump isn't just a Manchurian President; he is stark, raving mad. It's been obvious since his campaign began, if not before. A child can see it. Yet the majority of the public and the media outlets they listen to dance all around that, at best. They don't want to confront it. They walk fast past the graveyard. America can't admit to itself that it has placed a psychotic humanity-hating lunatic in control of their lives. The sooner we admit, as a society, what we have in the White House, the better. If we don't, we'd better get used to the idea of the United States being the next Nicaragua.

Putin-Gate Continues To Plague Trump As He Goes To Meet His Master In Helsinki

Yesterday Mark Warner (D-VA) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) penned an OpEd for USAToday sure to infuriate Trumpanzee if he gets wind of it over in Scotland, where he's being boo-ed everywhere he goes. Next stop is Helsinki, where he'll be meeting with the man who put him in the White House. As Donald Trump meets Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, we'll be meeting with allies in Washington to show Russia its plans to divide and attack us won't work.

The Senate Intelligence Committee issued a report last week concurring with the U.S. intelligence community’s unanimous assessment that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a massive influence campaign aimed at the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The attack included the targeting of election infrastructure, email hacks, weaponized leaks, overt propaganda and a covert, large-scale disinformation effort on social media feeds like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

In many ways, this threat is not new. The Kremlin has been conducting information warfare or “active measures” against the West for decades. What is new, however, are social media tools with the reach and power to magnify propaganda and false information with a scale and precision that would have been unimaginable back in the days of the Berlin Wall.

The Soviet Politburo could only have dreamed of the capability Russia now has to target voters directly in the U.S., Europe and other democracies with propaganda, misinformation and disinformation. Twenty-first century social media tools have the potential to further erode public confidence in western institutions and undermine the shared sense of facts that is supposed to be the foundation of honest political debate.

In 2016, we were taken by surprise. In 2018, there are no excuses. We must be ready.

Message to Russia as Trump meets Putin

That is why we are teaming up with legislators from Canada and Europe to sound the alarm. Following this week’s NATO summit, parliamentarians from across Europe and North America will meet Monday in Washington, D.C., the same day President Donald Trump and Putin meet in Helsinki.

Our goal must be to demonstrate to the world that the community of democratic nations does not intend to accede to Putin’s or any other authoritarian’s view of the world. We will resist Russia’s aggression. As legislators, we have a responsibility to address that threat-- particularly on social media.

First, as elected officials, we have a duty to use our positions to shine a light on Russia’s actions and capabilities. Utilizing our investigative tools and public platforms, legislators must expose the full scale and scope of Russia’s schemes to weaken democracies.

The two of us are currently engaged in a bipartisan effort in the Senate Intelligence Committee to uncover Russia’s activities during the 2016 elections and publicly detail its array of asymmetric capabilities. Similarly, our colleagues in the British Parliament, led by Damian Collins, are conducting an inquiry on “fake news” and how it was used by both foreign and domestic actors to influence the Brexit vote.

But it is not enough simply to shine a bright light on Russian aggression. As legislators, we also are responsible for crafting and passing laws to protect our democracy while also preserving freedom of expression.

This is the summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee's initial findings, a committee controlled by Republicans. The members are Chair Richard Burr (R-NC), James Risch (R-ID), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Susan Collins (R-ME), Roy Blunt (R-MO), James Lankford (R-OK), Tom Cotton (R-AR), John Cornyn (R-TX), Vice Chair Mark Warner, (D-VA), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Angus King (I-ME), Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kamala Harris (D-CA).

The Committee finds that the Intelligence Community met President Obama’s tasking and that the ICA is a sound intelligence product. While the Committee had to rely on agencies that the sensitive information and accesses had been accurately reported, as part of our inquiry the Committee reviewed analytic procedures, interviewed senior intelligence officers well-versed with the information, and based our findings on the entire body of intelligence reporting included in the ICA.

The Committee finds the difference in confidence levels between the NSA and the CIA and FBI on the assessment that "Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump's election chances" appropriately represents analytic differences and was reached in a professional and transparent manner.

In all the interviews of those who drafted and prepared the ICA, the Committee heard consistently that analysts were under no politically motivated pressure to reach any conclusions. All analysts expressed that they were free to debate, object to content, and assess confidence levels, as is normal and proper for the analytic process.

As the inquiry has progressed since January 2017, the Committee has seen additional examples of Russia's attempts to sow discord, undermine democratic institutions, and interfere in U.S. elections and those of our allies.

Russian Efforts to Influence the 2016 Election

The ICA states that:

Russian efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the U.S.-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operation.

• The Committee found that this judgment was supported by the evidence presented in the ICA. Since its publication, further details have come to light that bolster the assessment.

• The ICA pointed to initial evidence of Russian activities against multiple U.S. state or local electoral boards. Since the ICA was published, the Committee has learned more about Russian attempts to infiltrate state election infrastructure, as outlined in the findings and recommendations the Committee issued in March 2018.

• While the ICA briefly discussed the activities of the Internet Research Agency, the Committee's investigation has exposed a far more extensive Russian effort to manipulate social media outlets to sow discord and to interfere in the 2016 election and American society.

Russian Leader Intentions

The ICA states that:

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S . presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump

• The Committee found that the ICA provided a range of all-source reporting to support these assessments.
• The Committee concurs with intelligence and open-source assessments that this influence campaign was approved by President Putin.

• Further, a body of reporting, to include different intelligence disciplines, open source reporting on Russian leadership policy preferences, and Russian media content, showed that Moscow sought to denigrate Secretary Clinton.

• The ICA relies on public Russian leadership commentary, Russian state media reports, public examples of where Russian interests would have aligned with candidates' policy statements, and a body of intelligence reporting to support the assessment that Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for Trump.

The ICA also states that:


We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him.

How Many More GOP Seats Did Trump Lose With His Vile Tweet About Andy McCabe?

Neither my old friend Cynthia in L.A. nor my even older friend Helen in Westchester is a rambunctious kid, at least not any more. Helen is pushing 70 and Cynthia passed that goal post some time ago. Every day, Cynthia says things about Señor Trumpanzee that I hope and pray the Secret Service isn't hearing. And Helen... she hates Trump even more than Cynthia does. I've been worrying about Helen because she tells me she stays up nights tossing and turning and fretting about what he's doing to the country. I know these two gracious ladies aren't the only Americans in this exact frame of mind-- from from it.

Take legal scholar Jeffrey Tubin, for example. "If you wanted to tell the story of an entire Presidency in a single tweet, you could try the one that President Trump posted after Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired Andrew McCabe, the deputy director of the F.B.I., on Friday night. Every sentence is a lie. Every sentence violates norms established by Presidents of both parties. Every sentence displays the pettiness and the vindictiveness of a man unsuited to the job he holds."

In his statement, McCabe spoke with bracing directness. “Here is the reality: I am being singled out and treated this way because of the role I played, the actions I took, and the events I witnessed in the aftermath of the firing of James Comey,” he said. In other words, McCabe was fired because he is a crucial witness in the investigation led by Robert Mueller, the special counsel. The firing of Comey is the central pillar of a possible obstruction-of-justice case against the President, either in a criminal prosecution or in an impeachment proceeding. By firing McCabe, Trump (through Sessions) has attempted to neuter an important witness; if and when McCabe testifies against Trump, he will now be dismissed by the President’s supporters as an ex-employee embittered by his firing. How this kind of attack on McCabe plays out in a courtroom, or just in the court of public opinion, remains to be seen.

What’s clear, though, is the depth of the President’s determination to prevent Mueller from taking his inquiries to their conclusion, as his personal attorney, John Dowd, made clear. In an interview with the Daily Beast, Dowd said, “I pray that Acting Attorney General Rosenstein will follow the brilliant and courageous example of the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility and Attorney General Jeff Sessions and bring an end to alleged Russia Collusion investigation manufactured by McCabe’s boss James Comey based upon a fraudulent and corrupt Dossier.” Of course, notwithstanding Dowd’s caveat that he was speaking only for himself, Rosenstein is on notice that his failure to fire Mueller might lead to his own departure. And Sessions, too, must know that his craven act in firing McCabe will guarantee him nothing. Trump believes that loyalty goes only one way; the Attorney General may still be fired at any moment.

Former CIA Director John Brennan tried to send his message in the language Trumpanzee understand: Tweetese: "When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America... America will triumph over you."

Barry McCaffrey is one of the most highly decorated 4-star generals in America. Trump isn't fit to wipe his ass. I suspect it wasn't easy for him to tweet Friday "Reluctantly I have concluded that President Trump is a serious threat to US national security. He is refusing to protect vital US interests from active Russian attacks. It is apparent that he is for some unknown reason under the sway of Mr Putin."

Unlike most sane Americans, former FBI Director Jim Comey never refers to Trumpanzee as a pile of dung or something along those lines, and he still addresses him with the inappropriate monicker "Mr. President," as in "Mr. President, the American people will hear my story very soon. And they can judge for themselves who is honorable and who is not."

Sen. Mark Warner is a very conservative Democrat from Virginia. I rarely find myself agreeing with him on much--but this tweet is important: "Every member of Congress, Republican and Democrat, needs to speak up in defense of the Special Counsel. Now." Unfortunately, the Republicans are utterly devoid of any semblance of moral leadership. The only Republicans who are speaking up are the ones who have already announced their voluntary retirements-- like Charlie Dent (R-PA), who went on CNN Saturday morning and "harshly criticized the Trump administration’s decision to fire former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, adding that he doesn’t think it bodes well for his party. 'Candidly, it looks like retribution and a bit vindictive,' Dent said. 'And I think it’s unfortunate. The man said he’s resigning, and on a Friday night before his 50th birthday, he’s fired to take away his pension? I don’t like the optics of this. I really don’t.' Dent said he thinks the attorney general made the decision under pressure from President Trump. Trump has repeatedly publicly demanded that Sessions fire McCabe, who is potentially a key witness in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into the president for possible obstruction of justice."

The best realistic outcome we can hope for at this point is that something like 100 House Republicans-- some of the ones not speaking up (especially Paul Ryan)-- lose their seats in November. Sounds far-fetched? Not nearly as far-fetched as a candidate as mediocre as Conor Lamb in a district as red as PA-18 (R+11) could have beat Trump, Pence and Ryan's $10 million. Now, that's far-fetched! Don't listen to the media. They have no clue what's going on with electoral politics until the day after the election-- if then. Instead, be proactive: speak to friends-- persuade someone who wouldn't otherwise vote that his or her country needs them-- or volunteer on a campaign or contribute to a solid progressive candidate who is going to be vigilant against Trumpist tyranny and kakistocracy in general. (If you want to contribute... that's what that thermometer on the right is for. Click on it and give what you can-- even if you've never done so before.)

Friday night, by the way, I tweeted as well... in response to NBC host Andrea Mitchell:

By early Saturday morning congressmen Mark Pocan (D-WI) and Jamie Raskin (D-MD) + Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) had already offered to hire Andrew McCabe in their congressional offices. We need more like them in Congress... and fewer like Paul Ryan and Kevin McCarthy. Joe Walsh is a hate talk radio host and a former far right-- far, far right-- congressman from Chicagoland. The way his former colleagues are enabling Trump is even too much for him! Today he fulminated that "Republicans have no freaking clue about what is going to hit them in November. They're in denial."

NY Daily News sports commentator Mike Lupica, hit the nail on the head for a lot of us yesterday: "People keep saying that Trump will never fire Mueller, because that would touch off a constitutional crisis the likes of which we haven’t seen since Richard Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre in the heat of Watergate, when Nixon fired independent prosecutor Archibald Cox, which led to the resignations of his own attorney general and deputy attorney general. But every time you read or hear that, you have the same thought: What, we’re not having a constitutional crisis already?" And mainstream conservatives are losing their shit-- like Nicolle Wallace, former Communications Director for the George W. Bush White House and then a senior strategist for McCain.

A First Family Rotting From Corruption-- Ivanka's Own Personal Swamp

Once Ivanka's job was to shield her idiotic corrupt father; now she has an added burden: her idiotic corrupt husband. Early Saturday, Virginia Heffernan reported an interesting quote from one of the Putin-Gate hearings, going back half a year, by Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse: "Corrupt kleptocrats and international criminals make themselves rich in criminality and corruption. Then at some point they need the legitimate world in order to protect and account for their stolen proceeds." Was he referring to Putin? Or Trump? He was sketching "a new bipolar world order, in which the so-called legitimate world, which includes the United States, is not at war with, but rather deeply enmeshed in, the corrupt one, where governments are built on bribery, kleptocracy, electoral fraud, slush funds, legal plunder and nepotism." Sound familiar?

The witness was William F. Browder, the hedge funder turned global finance reformer and he "didn't mince words. 'The legitimate world, and America in particular, are failing in an absolute way. [The corrupt] steal the money, commit their crimes and kill the people, and then come here in the legitimate world with the rule of law, with the property rights, and with all the protections and keep their money.'" Again, Putin or Trump?

Crooks seeking legitimacy are not fenced out in America. The U.S. is teeming with enablers champing at the bit to serve rich thugs: lawyers, lobbyists, bankers, security firms, consultants and PR people.

The enabler sector now boasts several household names. Among them are the lobbyist and onetime Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, who has been indicted for financial crimes; and Trump's favorite child, Ivanka, who holds an indeterminate public-facing position in the White House-- or in real estate, or maybe fashion.

Oh, Ivanka. Her livelihood is as opaque as her full-coverage foundation, but she plays a critical role in her father's administration-- and in the broader danse macabre of corruption and legitimacy.



The so-called first daughter proves that "laundering" applies to more than money. She washes and gilds just about everything she touches. Consider her warehouses upon warehouses of petroleum-based separates, many of them sewn for poverty pay in sweatshops. When you call this schmatte smorgasboard the Ivanka Trump Collection it does brisk business-- if not on Rodeo Drive, then in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

She has the same magic touch with the multitudes of flesh-and-blood rogues who flock to her for redemption. It's Ivanka who first brought Gen. Michael "Lied to the FBI" Flynn into the administration, according to the New Yorker; she praised him for his "amazing loyalty" and offered him his choice of positions at a transition-team meeting. One person present said, "It was like Princess Ivanka had laid the sword on Flynn's shoulders and said, 'Rise and go forth.'"

The laying on of that princess sword seems to be Ivanka's favorite pastime. In 2006, when she was 25, she toured Moscow with Felix Sater, who in 1998 pleaded guilty to a $40-million stock fraud scheme run by the Russian mafia. She also collaborated with the Soviet-born businessman Tamir Sapir, whose top aide in 2004 pleaded guilty to a racketeering conspiracy with the Gambino crime family.

It's impossible to keep track of all the gangsters Ivanka has palled around with. But what's truly damning are the shady real-estate projects she has made rise and go forth.

In 2006, she oversaw the development of the Trump Ocean Club International Hotel and Tower in Panama City. The project was connected to a Brazilian money launderer later arrested for fraud and forgery as well as a Russian investor who'd previously been jailed in Israel for kidnapping. On Wednesday, a dispute between Trump's company and the building's owner turned violent. The journalist Marcy Wheeler has suggested the fight concerns records that may show Ivanka knew the property was laundering money. Police in riot gear stormed the hotel that Ivanka once hyped as "exemplary of the grandeur in which we like to enter a market."

Ivanka was also a ranking official on the Trump SoHo, which has since shed the name Trump. In 2010, as ProPublica and WNYC have reported, the Manhattan District Attorney's office began building a criminal case against Ivanka and Donald Trump Jr. for using inflated sales figures to defraud prospective buyers. After receiving a visit from Trump family lawyer and campaign donor Marc Kasowitz, then-DA Cyrus Vance Jr. backed off.

Just Thursday, CNN reported that FBI counterintelligence officials are investigating another Trump real-estate deal, the 63-story Trump International Hotel and Tower in Vancouver, which opened after Trump became president.

Ivanka has been described as "point person" on the development, which features an Ivanka Trump-branded spa. No one yet knows why it caught the FBI's eye, but Ivanka's long-awaited top-secret security clearance may turn on what the agents find out.

When an organization exists not to build buildings but to brand them, its business is optics. And Ivanka has long window-dressed the Trump Organization's deals. She was born to make the shoddy look cute, to legitimize corruption.

And if it's the coverup and not the crime that will ultimately bring down the Trump syndicate, Ivanka may turn out to be the point person for its demise.

The First Daughter indeed-- and wife of the the putzy little Kushner-in-law, who no longer is allowed to read the President's Daily Brief, looks forever out of his depth. Did you know Ivanka and Jared double-dated with Hope Hicks and Rob Porter? On Thursday, the editorial board of Murdoch's Wall Street Journal wrote that "[H]e and President Trump would both [be] better off if Mr. Kushner were out of the White House" and fast. Now the Kush is dead meat-- and Ivanka is fighting over what's left with John Kelly, as Señor Trumpanzee whines that his son-in-law is "a high quality person." He isn't-- and never has been. And Ivanka may not have too much time to put into saving her blundering, drowning husband, now that her own shady businesses are being targeted by the FBI. These guys are brave!

US counterintelligence officials are scrutinizing one of Ivanka Trump's international business deals, according to two sources familiar with the matter.

The FBI has been looking into the negotiations and financing surrounding Trump International Hotel and Tower in Vancouver, according to a US official and a former US official. The scrutiny could be a hurdle for the first daughter as she tries to obtain a full security clearance in her role as adviser to President Donald Trump.

It's standard procedure to probe foreign contacts and international business deals as part of a background check investigation. But the complexity of the Trump Organization's business deals, which often rely on international financing and buyers, presents a challenge.

The FBI has been looking closely at the international business entanglements of both Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner, to determine whether any of those deals could leave them vulnerable to pressure from foreign agents, including China, according to a US official.

The development-- a 616-foot beacon dotting the Vancouver skyline and featuring a trademarked Ivanka Trump spa-- opened in February 2017, just after Trump took office.

The Trump Organization does not own the building. Instead, like other Trump projects, it receives licensing and marketing fees from the developer, Joo Kim Tiah. A scion of one of Malaysia's wealthiest families, Tiah runs his family's Canada-based development company Holborn Group. President Trump's June financial disclosure form said the Trump Organization made more than $5 million in royalties and $21,500 in management fees from the Vancouver property.

...For the Trumps, deal-making is a family affair. The developer in Vancouver, Tiah, bonded with Donald Trump Jr. But Ivanka Trump played a key role in getting the deal off the ground in 2013, two years before Trump officially launched his presidential bid.

Tiah flew to New York for a meeting at Trump Tower. In the board room featured on The Apprentice, they hammered out the contours of the deal.

"One of the senior vice-presidents pulled me aside and said: 'Joo Kim, it's really important in your presentation that you connect with Ivanka. In other words: no one else is in the room, you have to understand that," Tiah recalled at the October 2015 launch of a "Trump Luxe" VIP service for condo residents. "In that meeting, it was clearly just me and Ivanka talking about the project," he recalled.

After an agreement was reached, Ivanka Trump recalled at the same event that she worked closely with Tiah: "We were working on a lot on the design elements and really forming the vision."

"Ivanka and myself approved everything, everything in this project," Tiah added.

Just as she had in the Trumpist money laundering operation in Baku, capital of the kleptocracy of Azerbaijan. And, like all Trump business partners, the Tiah family reeks of corruption. Tiah's father, the money behind the deal, "has a checkered business history, including securities laws violations and false statements to the Kuala Lumpur stock exchange." Everyone in business with Trump is a criminal; it's always been that way, in country after country. Trump didn't extricate himself from his and Ivanka's Baku deal until the FBI warned him-- then a candidate for president-- that it was, in part, a front for weapons smuggling to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

While it is not known whether Ivanka Trump's business deals are of interest to the special counsel's investigation, Mueller has been examining her husband's interactions with foreign investors.

Any information that arises during the FBI's security clearance checks that could be relevant to the special counsel's investigation would be automatically shared, according to a US official.

So far, the first daughter-- one of the President's closest confidants-- has largely managed to escape the glare of the Russia investigation. She has not been called to testify on Capitol Hill. She told NBC she has not met with Mueller for an interview.

"Consistently we have said there was no collusion. There was no collusion," Ivanka Trump said in an interview this week with NBC News. "And we believe that Mueller will do his work and reach that same conclusion."

But her low profile, particularly when it comes to Mueller's investigation, is baffling to some legal experts.

"Why is he not interviewing Ivanka? The answer is, beats me," said Michael Zeldin, a CNN legal analyst and former prosecutor who previously worked for Mueller at the Justice Department.

"Either he's just biding his time," Zeldin said, "or he has obtained this evidence elsewhere and he doesn't need her, or he appreciates the possibility of a major eruption were he to do that."

Ivanka Trump accompanied the President as two key events unfolded that Mueller is looking into as part of an obstruction of justice investigation: the firing of then-FBI Director James Comey and the misleading statement about the Trump team's meeting with a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer in Trump Tower in June 2016.

While it's unclear what role she played in either of those instances, she may have been privy the President's thinking at the time.

Trump's first-born daughter has long served as a trusted adviser, and she and her father often speak several times a day. She worked closely with her father and siblings in the family real estate business and counseled Trump throughout the presidential campaign and transition. She resigned from the Trump Organization in January 2017 and officially joined the White House staff in March.

For the most part, congressional investigators have also shown little interest in speaking with Ivanka, although some have pressed for her testimony.

Last month, Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said he'd like to speak with Ivanka Trump. But GOP members of the committee haven't backed his request to interview her.

"I think it would be valuable for her to testify and come before the committee," Schiff said.

If Trump Is Selling Out America To Putin, Would A Firing Squad Be Appropriate? Just Asking For A Friend

Dan Coats was a right-wing Republican senator from Indiana (twice) before Trump appointed him Director of National Intelligence. He had a reputation of taking his orders from leadership and not being very independent or making any waves-- perfect for a Trumpanzee looking for enablers. Yesterday, I imagine Trumpanzee flipped out when he watched him and FBI head-- another of his own appointees-- Christopher Wray, being questioned in open session by the Senate Intelligence Committee. What they did the Senate get out of them? That they're concerned that Trump's Kremlin allies-- the ones he colluded with-- are working to steal the 2018 midterms for the GOP, just the way the stole the 2016 election for Trump by micro-targeting sensitive precincts in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan (and possibly Ohio, North Carolina and Florida).

Coats' prepared statement said that Russia is both capable and aggressive when he appeared with Wray and CIA Director Mike Pompeo. Coats: "Moscow seeks to create wedges that reduce trust and confidence in democratic processes. We assess that the Russian intelligence services will continue their efforts to disseminate false information via Russian state-controlled media and covert online personas about U.S. activities to encourage anti-U.S. political views."

The testimony underscores continued unanimity among American intelligence agencies that Russia conducted an extensive campaign to meddle in the 2016 presidential campaign. President Donald Trump has dismissed the continuing investigation into Russian interference as a “witch hunt,” especially the suggestion that anyone close to him colluded in the effort.

Senator Mark Warner, the Intelligence Committee’s top Democrat, said in his opening statement that “we’ve had more than a year to get our act together and address the threat posed by Russia and implement a strategy to deter future attacks. But we still do not have a plan.”

Trump “hasn’t even tweeted a single concern,” he said.

Coats said that while Russia would aim to cooperate with the U.S. in areas that advance its interests, intelligence officials expect Moscow-- “at a minimum”-- to continue using propaganda, social media, “false-flag personas,” sympathetic spokesmen and other venues to “try to exacerbate social and political fissures” in the U.S.

From missiles to cyberattacks, the intelligence assessment paints a world where China and Russia seek to upend U.S. influence as allies uncertain of American commitment may turn away from Washington.

“The risk of interstate conflict, including among great powers, is higher than at any time since the end of the Cold War,” Coats said in the prepared testimony. “The most immediate threats of regional interstate conflict in the next year come from North Korea and from Saudi-Iranian use of proxies in their rivalry. At the same time, the threat of state and non-state use of weapons of mass destruction will continue to grow.”

Anyone think Trump is the right commander-in-chief under these conditions? What if Putin offered Trump a billion dollars? Ten billion dollars? Does Trump have a price? Coats also said that "There should be no doubt that Russia perceives that its past efforts have been successful and views the 2018 midterm US elections as a potential target for Russian influence operations. Frankly, the United States is under attack." Trump is probably plotting to fire him right now. He just admitted that Russia helped Trump win and that Putin would try to help the GOP win in November.

I watched Jack Reed (D-RI)-- who I don't think is on the Committee, but is the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee-- question Wray about whether Trump is directing the FBI to prevent Russia from meddling in 2018. Wray danced around the question at first but when pressed, admitted Trump isn't at all. Trump still considers any talk of Kremlin interference in the election as a hoax being perpetrated by his political enemies although only traitors to America like California Republicans Devin Nunes and Dana Rohrabacher go along with that. Intel Committee Vice Chair Mark Warner (D-VA) said that Senor Trumpanzee "inconceivably continues to deny the threat posed by Russia... He didn't increase sanctions on Russia when he had a chance to do so... This threat demands a whole-of-government response, and that needs to start with leadership at the top... We've had more than a year to get our act together and address the threat posed by Russia and implement a strategy to deter further attacks. But I believe we still don't have a comprehensive plan."

Is The Donald A Punk Rocker? More Than A Few People Think So

Johnny Rotten ended the last Sex Pistols show— at Winterland in San Francisco— exactly the way Rotten's current day hero, Señor Trumpanzee should exit the national stage: "Ever get the feeling you’ve been cheated." (I was standing with Bill Graham at the side of the stage, each of us eager for the band to exit so we could pick up all the quarters that were tossed at the band by the audience.)

Friday, the NY Times carried a piece by Sean Howe about that Pistols tour and why a film of it has languished for 4 decades. Howe wrote that “After seven electrifying, antagonistic performances, the band broke up.” A journalist interviewed me last week about the tour and I think its coming out next week. He found an old review I had done of the show in Atlanta, which I can’t remember writing, let alone having been at. But I do remember the penultimate show at Winterland. The write told no one liked that show except me and one other journalist.

Lech Kowalski filmed the tour without permission from the band… or anyone else. It’s called DOA: A Right of Passage. It only showed a few times at the Waverly Theater in NY (1981) and “has since existed as a cult totem, popularized by word of mouth and circulated illicitly in degenerated quality. The film briefly appeared on videotape, issued by HarmonyVision in 1983, before separate clearances for home video were de rigueur, but it quickly went out of circulation. This month, almost four decades after filming began, it finally got an official home video release from MVD Rewind, but Mr. Kowalski, 65, is reluctant to speak about it.”

They financing the movie, Tom Forcade, founder of High Times magazine, “hought the Sex Pistols were the first sign of the Armageddon and the complete disillusionment with the American government, and this was going to be the beginning of chaos. And it wasn’t a mercenary kind of thing-- he really thought he was filming a documentary on the collapse of Western civilization.” The tour manager had his security team throw them out [of that first show in Atlanta]. Johnny Rotten later wrote in Anger in an Energy about his suspicions that High Times was a front for the C.I.A. The crew was thrown out of every show but managed to bribe its way back in each time.

The subsequent interview that Mr. Kowalski landed with Sid Vicious was nearly incoherent, an intimate but harrowing glimpse into the heroin-doomed lives of the bassist and his girlfriend, Nancy Spungen. Sid Vicious was arrested and charged with killing Spungen in October 1978. Mr. Forcade shot himself in November. Sid Vicious died from a heroin overdose in February 1979.

It sounds like the Trump Regime. Out the same day as Howe’s Pistols piece, the New Yorker ran one by Steve Coll, The Distrust the Trump Relies On. “Since the 1970’s,” he wrote, “Gallup has been polling Americans annually about their confidence in their country’s institutions— the military, the Supreme Court, Congress, the Presidency, organized religion, the health-care establishment, and public schools, among others. Over all, the project describes a collapse in trust over time, even though the surveys started amid the disillusionment of Watergate and the failed war in Vietnam. In 1973, more than four in ten Americans had ‘a great deal’ or ‘quite a lot’ of confidence in Congress. This year, the figure was twelve per cent. Trust in churches and other religious institutions has fallen from sixty-five per cent to forty-one per cent in the same period. Confidence in public schools has dropped from fifty-eight per cent to thirty-six per cent. The loss of faith in the ‘medical system’ has been particularly dramatic— a decline from eighty per cent in 1975 to thirty-seven per cent this year. There are a few exceptions to the broad slide. Confidence in the police has held steady at just above fifty per cent. Confidence in the military has increased, from fifty-eight per cent in the aftermath of the Vietnam War to seventy-two percent this year. Otherwise, it isn’t clear where citizens have redirected their faith, or whether they have at all.”

No one would claim Vladimir Putin was behind any of this… until this year, as America began reaping his machinations that put an utterly incompetent, unprepared and psychologically deranged chief executive into the White House. Huge payoff for Russia!

Even in a stable constitutional republic, a cynical or unmoored citizenry presents an opportunity for demagogues and populists. As much as stagnant wages in former manufacturing regions, glaring economic inequality, or white backlash after the Obama Presidency, the country’s disillusionment with institutions enabled Donald Trump’s election. Trump had a sound instinct as he took office that public disgust with élites, including those running the Republican Party, ran so deep that he—even as a New York billionaire—could get away with outrageous attacks on people or agencies previously believed to be off limits for a President, because of the political backlash that the attacks would generate. After his Inauguration, for example, Trump did not hesitate to denigrate the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies for promoting their independent judgment that Russia had sought to aid his campaign. And the President’s opportunistic assaults on less popular institutions— such as the news media and Congress— have riled his base.

All this suggests the need for a certain realism and vigilance about the rising volume of attacks by Trump and his allies on Robert Mueller, the special counsel leading the investigation into possible Russian interference in the election and (increasingly) related issues, and on the F.B.I., whose agents carry out much of the investigative work. Presidents Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton all denigrated the counsels who investigated them. Nixon went so far as to fire some of those he saw as his tormentors, in the infamous Saturday Night Massacre. Judging by the indictments of certain Trump associates, such as his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, and the coöperation agreements by others, notably Michael Flynn, his former national-security adviser, it is conceivable that during the next year Trump will face a choice between radical action— issuing preëmptive pardons, firing Mueller or the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein— and allowing someone close to him, perhaps even a family member, to face criminal charges. It is hard to imagine him reacting to that dilemma with care or caution.

On Wednesday, Senator Mark Warner, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, apparently alarmed by the attacks on Mueller, delivered a warning in a speech on the Senate floor. “Any attempt by this President to remove Special Counsel Mueller from his position or to pardon key witnesses in any effort to shield them from accountability or shut down the investigation would be a gross abuse of power and a flagrant violation of executive-branch responsibilities and authorities,” Warner said. “These truly are red lines, and we simply cannot allow them to be crossed.” The White House attorney Ty Cobb responded that “no consideration” was being given to firing Mueller, but, given Trump’s record of saying one thing and doing another, and of overruling his spokespeople, it was hardly a persuasive denial.

Warner said he hoped that senators and members of Congress from both parties would speak out similarly, to make clear that his position represented an institutional consensus, not a partisan attack. That seems unlikely. Many establishment Republican leaders might be pleased if the facts uncovered by Mueller so damaged Trump that it weakened his grip on the Party and discredited his nativist, America First movement. But, if a significant number of Republicans challenge Trump in public during the 2018 midterm cycle to defend the prerogatives of Congress or the F.B.I., they would be showing a kind of courage that few members have offered since Trump won their party’s nomination, in 2016.

It is tempting to think that an institution like the F.B.I. enjoys such credibility and public support that its agents and officials— and Mueller himself— can rely on cross-party backing in a crisis, even if Republicans remain silent now. Perhaps. But this was a party that refused to challenge Trump’s backing of Roy Moore in Alabama’s Senate race. And an understanding of what core Trump supporters believe about the F.B.I. and Mueller has to take into account Gallup’s trend lines. While celebrating this new year, it will require a certain degree of evidence-light optimism to be convinced that the center will hold.

Do You Think Mueller Will Have A Couple Of Flynns Arrested This Week Or Next Week?

Yesterday, NBC broke the news most of all have surmised, namely that Mueller has enough evidence on Flynn to bring charges against him and his crackpot son (the one who was pushing the story about Hillary running a child prostitution business from the basement of a popular DC pizzeria (that has no basement). Their team of reporters asserts flatly that Mueller's team has "gathered enough evidence to bring charges in their investigation of President Donald Trump's former national security adviser and his son as part of the probe into Russia's intervention in the 2016 election, according to multiple sources familiar with the investigation... Mueller is applying renewed pressure on Flynn following his indictment of Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort." The big point of leverage has to do with Flynn lying to investigators about his money-laundering, serious charges that could land him and his son in prison. Meet The Press was all over Putin-Gate yesterday too. Senators Warner (D-VA) and Lankford (R-OK):

Mueller's team is also examining whether Flynn attempted to orchestrate the removal of a chief rival of Turkish President Recep Erdogan from the U.S. to Turkey in exchange for millions of dollars, two officials said.

...Flynn's son, Michael G. Flynn, who worked closely with his father, accompanied him during the campaign and briefly worked on the presidential transition, could be indicted separately or at the same time as his father, according to three sources familiar with the investigation.

If the elder Flynn is willing to cooperate with investigators in order to help his son, two of the sources said, it could also change his own fate, potentially limiting any legal consequences.

...Investigators also revealed Monday that former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos had pleaded guilty to lying to federal officials and had been cooperating with Mueller's investigation.

If the senior Flynn is charged, he would be the first current or former Trump administration official formally accused of criminal wrongdoing by the Mueller team.

So far, the probe has only ensnared campaign officials, and the White House has argued that the connection to the president is minimal. An indictment of the president's former national security adviser and his son would scramble that dynamic.

...The FBI is also investigating former CIA Director Jim Woolsey's account to the Wall Street Journal-- which he confirmed to MSNBC-- that Flynn and Turkish officials discussed a potential plan to forcibly remove Gulen from the country in September 2016, according to sources close to Woolsey, who say the former director has spoken to FBI agents working for Mueller about the matter.

Flynn was fired in February following public revelations that he had lied to Vice President Pence about his dealings with the Russian ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak.

Most hated occupant of the White House ever

Bob Corker (R-TN)-- Free To Tell The Truth... Other Senators Should Give It A Try. They Owe It To The Country

Bob Corker is a mainstream conservative-- a wealthy businessman who served as the mayor of Chattanooga from 2001-05 and was then elected to the U.S.Senate in 2006, beating corrupt conservative Blue Dog Harold Ford, Jr. Rather than face the wrath of the Mercer/Bannon Machine, possibly backed by Trump, he announced a couple of weeks ago that he will not be seeking reelection in 2018. That came as a surprise since he had already amassed a $6,574,792 campaign war-chest. But now he's speaking out in a way that he might not do if he were worried that Trump would come after him in an election cycle. When he said-- on the above tape of an impromptu interview Wednesday-- that White House Chief of Staff, Defense Secretary James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson are the "people that help separate our country from chaos," it can't be taking as anything other than a rebuke of their crackpot and criminal boss who thrives on chaos. When pressed by a reporter if he was referring to Trump when he said "chaos," he responded that they "work very well together to make sure the policies we put forth around the world are sound and coherent. There are other people within the administration that don't. I hope they stay because they're valuable to the national security of our nation." And he knows; he's the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. You notice he wouldn't deny that Trump is the agent of chaos he was talking about and a danger to anything "sound" or "coherent."

Corker made it clear a couple of months ago that he doesn't consider Trump either stable or competent, an assessment shared by most Republican senators-- and all Democratic senators-- but that no one wants to say out loud. Reporting for the Washington Post Wednesday, Aaron Blake noted that Corker is speaking more candidly-- frankly and truthfully-- than he and others have until now. Blake writes that his latest comments about chaos go even further than the ones about stability and competence.

Suggesting that there would be “chaos” if not for the generals and Tillerson is to suggest that not only is Trump not a steady leader, but that things are basically ready to unravel behind the scenes. This reinforces a whole lot of reporting and what a whole lot of people already believe about the administration, but it's striking to hear it directly from a GOP senator who, according to his Tennessee colleague, has talked to Trump more than any other senator.

Corker also didn't dispute that he was talking about Trump when he referenced “chaos.” He seemed to be choosing his words carefully, and he even laughed nervously when he made the “other people in the administration” comment.

But when Corker says that Tillerson is “not being supported in the way I would hope a secretary of state would be,” it's difficult not to attach that to Trump's reportedly limited interaction with Tillerson. Their relationship has seemed frayed for a while now, most recently culminating in Trump's very public second-guessing of Tillerson's announcement of talks with North Korea last week.

Given that, Corker's past commentary on Trump and what Corker said Wednesday, it's pretty clear whom he was talking about when he referenced “chaos.”

There's increasing unease among serious-minded Republicans, ones like Corker, that Trump can-- and will-- do irreparable damage to the country. Nicholas Fandos' reporting in Wednesday's NY Times, Senate Intelligence Heads Warn That Russian Election Meddling Continues addresses the same kinds of concerns, this time from very conservative Democrat Mark Warner (VA) and even more conservative Richard Burr (R-NC). Trump blew up when he woke up yesterday-- look at that time stamp on his tweet-- with their statements on his addled mind. What infuriated Señor Trumpanzee is that Burr and Warner together "broadly endorsed the conclusions of American spy agencies that said President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia directed a campaign of hacking and propaganda to disrupt the 2016 presidential election," something Trump is still telling his ignorant, moronic base is "fake news."

“The Russian intelligence service is determined-- clever-- and I recommend that every campaign and every election official take this very seriously,” Mr. Burr said.

“You can’t walk away from this and believe that Russia’s not currently active,” he added.

American intelligence agencies have concluded that Mr. Putin initially wanted to hurt Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, but later tried to explicitly help Donald J. Trump’s insurgent campaign. The senators said they have reached no conclusion on whether anyone around Mr. Trump was part of that effort.

“The issue of collusion is still open,” Mr. Burr said.

The news conference was the most extensive since the committee began its investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election early this year and the first time the senators have detailed so fully the trajectory of their secretive investigation and their sense of the stakes. Both men come from swing states where the presidential campaign was fought aggressively.

That appeared to have made an impression.

“There needs to be a more aggressive whole-of-government approach in terms of protecting our electoral system,” Mr. Warner said. “Remember, to make a change even in a national election doesn’t require penetration into 50 states.”

He added, “You could pick two or three states in two or three jurisdictions and alter an election.”

Trump and his Regime of misfits is an existential threat to American democracy, the most dangerous malignancy this country has faced since I've been alive. At some point Congress is going to have to stop dancing around it and start facing up to it and to their duty.

Deep State by Nancy Ohanian

Did Putin's Hacking Place Trump In The Oval Office? No One Will Ever Admit It... Or Will They?

One thing that "has been decided," apparently, is that no one in a position of authority is ever going to undermine the U.S. electoral system by admitting the Kremlin really hacked the election itself-- like the shitty very hackable electronic voting machines. The entire national security establishment always, always claimed the Russians didn't tamper with the voting results. But, as I've said all along, they didn't know what they were talking about. An exhaustive report at The Intercept yesterday-- based on a Top Secret leaked document (that resulted in the immediate arrest of the leaker, 25 year old Reality Leigh Winner)-- proves the Russians could have done plenty-- which makes me think they probably did switch a few key counties for Trump. (Putin, of course, denied everything to Megan Kelly. Question: does Vladimir Putin lie as much as Trump? Answer: Yes-- or even more.)

Short version: According to the purloined document, the GRU (Russian Military Intelligence, so, not random "patriots") "executed a cyberattack on at least one U.S. voting software supplier and sent spear-phishing emails to more than 100 local election officials just days before last November’s presidential election... [part of] a months-long Russian intelligence cyber effort against elements of the U.S. election and voting infrastructure."

The report indicates that Russian hacking may have penetrated further into U.S. voting systems than was previously understood. It states unequivocally in its summary statement that it was Russian military intelligence, specifically the Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate, or GRU, that conducted the cyber attacks described in the document:

Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate actors … executed cyber espionage operations against a named U.S. company in August 2016, evidently to obtain information on elections-related software and hardware solutions… The actors likely used data obtained from that operation to … launch a voter registration-themed spear-phishing campaign targeting U.S. local government organizations.

...The NSA analysis does not draw conclusions about whether the interference had any effect on the election’s outcome and concedes that much remains unknown about the extent of the hackers’ accomplishments. However, the report raises the possibility that Russian hacking may have breached at least some elements of the voting system, with disconcertingly uncertain results.

...The NSA has now learned, however, that Russian government hackers, part of a team with a “cyber espionage mandate specifically directed at U.S. and foreign elections,” focused on parts of the system directly connected to the voter registration process, including a private sector manufacturer of devices that maintain and verify the voter rolls. Some of the company’s devices are advertised as having wireless internet and Bluetooth connectivity, which could have provided an ideal staging point for further malicious actions.

As described by the classified NSA report, the Russian plan was simple: pose as an e-voting vendor and trick local government employees into opening Microsoft Word documents invisibly tainted with potent malware that could give hackers full control over the infected computers.

But in order to dupe the local officials, the hackers needed access to an election software vendor’s internal systems to put together a convincing disguise. So on August 24, 2016, the Russian hackers sent spoofed emails purporting to be from Google to employees of an unnamed U.S. election software company, according to the NSA report. Although the document does not directly identify the company in question, it contains references to a product made by VR Systems, a Florida-based vendor of electronic voting services and equipment whose products are used in eight states [California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, New York, North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia].

The spear-phishing email contained a link directing the employees to a malicious, faux-Google website that would request their login credentials and then hand them over to the hackers. The NSA identified seven “potential victims” at the company. While malicious emails targeting three of the potential victims were rejected by an email server, at least one of the employee accounts was likely compromised, the agency concluded. The NSA notes in its report that it is “unknown whether the aforementioned spear-phishing deployment successfully compromised all the intended victims, and what potential data from the victim could have been exfiltrated.”

...[T]he hackers apparently got what they needed. Two months later, on October 27, they set up an “operational” Gmail account designed to appear as if it belonged to an employee at VR Systems, and used documents obtained from the previous operation to launch a second spear-phishing operation “targeting U.S. local government organizations.” These emails contained a Microsoft Word document that had been “trojanized” so that when it was opened it would send out a beacon to the “malicious infrastructure” set up by the hackers.

The NSA assessed that this phase of the spear-fishing operation was likely launched on either October 31 or November 1 and sent spear-fishing emails to 122 email addresses “associated with named local government organizations,” probably to officials “involved in the management of voter registration systems.” The emails contained Microsoft Word attachments purporting to be benign documentation for VR Systems’ EViD voter database product line, but which were in reality maliciously embedded with automated software commands that are triggered instantly and invisibly when the user opens the document. These particular weaponized files used PowerShell, a Microsoft scripting language designed for system administrators and installed by default on Windows computers, allowing vast control over a system’s settings and functions. If opened, the files “very likely” would have instructed the infected computer to begin downloading in the background a second package of malware from a remote server also controlled by the hackers, which the secret report says could have provided attackers with “persistent access” to the computer or the ability to “survey the victims for items of interest.” Essentially, the weaponized Word document quietly unlocks and opens a target’s back door, allowing virtually any cocktail of malware to be subsequently delivered automatically.

According to Williams, if this type of attack were successful, the perpetrator would possess “unlimited” capacity for siphoning away items of interest. “Once the user opens up that email [attachment],” Williams explained, “the attacker has all the same capabilities that the user does.” Vikram Thakur, a senior research manager at Symantec’s Security Response Team, told The Intercept that in cases like this the “quantity of exfiltrated data is only limited by the controls put in place by network administrators.” Data theft of this variety is typically encrypted, meaning anyone observing an infected network wouldn’t be able to see what exactly was being removed but should certainly be able to tell something was afoot, Williams added. Overall, the method is one of “medium sophistication,” Williams said, one that “practically any hacker can pull off.”

The NSA, however, is uncertain about the results of the attack, according to the report. “It is unknown,” the NSA notes, “whether the aforementioned spear-phishing deployment successfully compromised the intended victims, and what potential data could have been accessed by the cyber actor.”

...At a December press conference, President Obama said that he told Russian President Vladimir Putin in September not to hack the U.S. election infrastructure. “What I was concerned about in particular was making sure [the DNC hack] wasn’t compounded by potential hacking that could hamper vote counting, affect the actual election process itself,” Obama said. “So in early September, when I saw President Putin in China, I felt that the most effective way to ensure that that didn’t happen was to talk to him directly and tell him to cut it out and there were going to be serious consequences if he didn’t. And in fact we did not see further tampering of the election process.”

Yet the NSA has now found that the tampering continued. “The fact that this is occurring in October is troubling,” said one senior law enforcement official with significant cyber expertise. “In August 2016 warnings went out from the FBI and DHS to those agencies. This was not a surprise. This was not hard to defend against. But you needed a commitment of budget and attention.”

The NSA document briefly describes two other election-related Russian hacking operations. In one, Russian military hackers created an email account pretending to be another U.S. election company, referred to in the document as U.S. company 2, from which they sent fake test emails offering “election-related products and services.” The agency was unable to determine whether there was any targeting using this account.

In a third Russian operation, the same group of hackers sent test emails to addresses at the American Samoa Election Office, presumably to determine whether those accounts existed before launching another phishing attack. It is unclear what the effort achieved, but the NSA assessed that the Russians appeared intent on “mimicking a legitimate absentee ballot-related service provider.” The report does not indicate why the Russians targeted the tiny Pacific islands, a U.S. territory with no electoral votes to contribute to the election.

...All of this taken together ratchets up the stakes of the ongoing investigations into collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives, which promises to soak up more national attention this week as fired FBI Director James Comey appears before Congress to testify. If collusion can ultimately be demonstrated-- a big if at this point-- then the assistance on Russia’s part went beyond allegedly hacking email to serve a propaganda campaign, and bled into an attack on U.S. election infrastructure itself.

Whatever the investigation into the Trump campaign concludes, however, it pales in comparison to the threat posed to the legitimacy of U.S. elections if the infrastructure itself can’t be secured. The NSA conclusion “demonstrates that countries are looking at specific tactics for election manipulation, and we need to be vigilant in defense,” said Schneier. “Elections do two things: one choose the winner, and two, they convince the loser. To the extent the elections are vulnerable to hacking, we risk the legitimacy of the voting process, even if there is no actual hacking at the time.”

Throughout history, the transfer of power has been the moment of greatest weakness for societies, leading to untold bloodshed. The peaceful transfer of power is one of the greatest innovations of democracy.

“It’s not just that [an election] has to be fair, it has to be demonstrably fair, so that the loser says, ‘Yep, I lost fair and square.’ If you can’t do that, you’re screwed,” said Schneier. “They’ll tear themselves apart if they’re convinced it’s not accurate.”

So what did Putin get for his efforts? First and foremost a dysfunction, stressed-out America coming apart at the seams and incapable of leading the free world. Writing for USAToday this morning, Nicholas Burns, a former under secretary of State serving in both Democratic and Republican administrations, showed how Trump is delivering Putin's #1 policy objective-- wrecking the U.S. alliance with Europe.

And Mark Warner (D-VA) says the report from The Intercept doesn't even get to how much the Russians were meddling with the electoral process all over the country (not just in those 8 states). He said the extent of the Russian attacks were much broader than has been reported-- and that the hacking is on-going. (June 20, for example, is the date of the special election in GA-06 and the state's voting system was hacked, probably at Putin's orders though the Georgia Republican Party doesn't seem in the slightest bit concerned and refuses to use paper ballots to insure election integrity.)

America and Europe are experiencing their most significant crisis in decades. President Trump’s recent visit to NATO and the EU was the least successful of any U.S. president in seven decades, exposing deep ideological divisions and a widening gulf of trust across the Atlantic. Last weekend’s terrorist attacks in London had the same effect. Trump repeatedly criticized London Mayor Sadiq Khan for telling citizens not to be alarmed by the attacks, when Khan actually said they should not be alarmed by a heavy police presence. Trump’s tweets did not go down well in stoic Britain, where the World War II maxim, “keep calm and carry on,” still holds.

The policy differences alone are profound. European leaders want a historic free trade agreement with America, but Trump’s nationalist economic strategy led him to reject it. German Chancellor Angela Merkel is determined to maintain tough EU and U.S. sanctions on Russia over its occupation of Ukraine. Trump appears more interested in a rapprochement with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The chasm is deepest and most emotional on climate change. Trump’s announcement that America will pull out of the historic 2015 Paris Agreement is deepening distrust among European citizens and their governments, which consider it an urgent priority.

When I served as U.S. ambassador to NATO, America had a bruising argument with France and Germany over the Iraq War in 2003. We buried the hatchet eventually by joining forces in Afghanistan and negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran. We knew the NATO alliance was worth preserving. Trump has downplayed the importance of those longstanding ties-- according to Politico, even to the point of removing from his prepared speech an affirmation of NATO's Article 5, the commitment by member nations to defend one another.

That is why the current crisis is far more threatening to the long-term future of the alliance than past disagreements. Trump’s ambivalence about NATO and skepticism about the EU are seen by European leaders as an open break with 70 years of U.S. commitment to the continent.

The heart of the problem is Trump’s view of Europe, and Germany in particular, as an economic competitor rather than a strategic partner. This is a sea change in American attitudes towards Europe. All of Trump’s predecessors dating to President Truman have prized Europe’s political and military alliance with America. Trump’s boorish behavior in Brussels and his intemperate tweets criticizing Merkel (and now Khan) have only reinforced the doubts about him in Europe.

If Trump sticks to this course, there will be real costs for the United States. Europe remains our leading trade partner and the most important investor in the U.S. economy. The 27 European members of NATO remain the largest group of U.S. allies in the world. On nearly every important U.S. global priority, Europe is a key partner. We need the United Kingdom, France and Germany to persuade Iran to adhere to the 2015 nuclear deal. Trump may soon ask Europe to contribute additional troops to NATO’s Afghan mission. The U.S. fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria will be seriously undermined without British and French support. America needs NATO allies to hold the line against Putin’s territorial ambitions in Eastern Europe.

...Trump’s bull-in-a-china-shop approach has backfired. He would do better to push the allies in private but acknowledge publicly that the majority of them actually increased defense spending after Putin’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. All, including Germany, have pledged to reach the 2% target by 2024. Pushing on this open door would have been more effective than lecturing leaders such as Merkel in an election year... Trump’s bumbling Europe strategy could turn out to be one of the most significant U.S. foreign policy failures of the post-World War II era.

And exactly why Putin took-- and is still taking-- the risks he took to put Trump in the White House-- and to keep him in power.

photo by N. Ohanian