Is Trump Targeting Elijah Cummings Because Cummings Is Onto The Worst Trump Family Swamp Yet?

Most Americans outside of Washington and other than his own constituents in Baltimore had never heard of Elijah Cummings before Trump went on a week-long tirade against him. Can you recall Trump being more consistently vitriolic against any other member of Congress? Not Pelosi, not Schumer, not Adam Schiff, not Maxine Waters, not AOC, not Justin Amash, not Frederica Wilson, not Rashida Tlaib... Maybe Ilhan. But he's really been on an uncontrollable tear over Cummings. And now pretty much everyone knows something about Elijah Cummings, the son of sharecroppers from South Carolina, who, unlike the low-IQ "president," became a Phil Beta Kappa member and graduated college around the same time as Trump, but with honors. Trump lashed out at him blindly at first, accusing him, for example, of never visiting his district, even though Cummings home in Baltimore is his only home and where he sleeps every single night. But after Trump was made into a laughing stock for that comment, he assigned a team of White House aides (taxpayer paid) to start digging up dirt on Cunnings, like the video Trump, attempted to confuse people about the phrase "rat-infested" instead of "drug-infested", tweeted yesterday of Cummings making a plea for funds to solve solve drug problems in inner-city neighborhoods.

I'm The Least Racist Person There Is In The World by Nancy Ohanian

So why is Trump going after Cummings the way he is? Well, with Trump, it's always personal. Everything-- every single thing he does, every single breathe he takes, every move he makes, every bond he breaks, every step he takes, every smile he fakes, every vow he breaks, every claim he stakes-- is entirely self-serving. So... Cummings subpoenaing slumlord Kushner-in-law? the obscure personal bond Trump once had, briefly, with Cummings. It's more than just Trump's racism. But what?

How about Saudi Arabia? More than anything else, Trump is a greedy crook looking for a score. Saudi Arabia is that big score, more so than Russia. Ever since Trump met the Saudi dictator over that crystal ball, he's been trying to sell the regime there nuclear plants, not an idea any sane person approves of. The Daily Beast reports that "an underground coalition" of nuclear energy executives and lobbyists and apparatchiks they buy, is promoting an American nuclear energy comeback, a comeback that "would come via Saudi Arabia and would rely on using President Trump and his son-in-law Jared Kushner’s cozy relationship with the country’s de facto ruler Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman. Riyadh had launched its Vision 2030-- a project to decrease the country’s reliance on oil by building up its other economic sectors, including nuclear-- and it was looking for tenders to build its first reactors." The Daily Beast also asserts that it is this coalition is trying to persuade Trump. I'm not so sure, though. Is the "underground coalition" working for Trump rather than trying to influence him?

If the administration backed American nuclear enterprises in Saudi it could fulfill one of its main policy goals-- countering Russia and China. The coalition leaned on Trump officials to help them push forward its case, including former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and Trump adviser Tom Barrack. Barrack is now under investigation in New York for his lobbying work. The New York Times reported that investigators have asked Barrack about his work related to the Saudi nuclear deal. Flynn, who left the administration in February 2017, was later indicted by Robert Mueller’s special counsel’s office and plead guilty to charges of lying to the FBI about his communications with then Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak.

...The coalition’s secret campaign to win over the Trump administration is concerning officials and Capitol Hill who are fearful that the plans for Saudi Arabia will move forward despite the fact that they raise legal concerns and could potentially threaten U.S. national security, according to two senior administration officials and more than half a dozen lawmakers. Congress is currently wrapping up an investigation into the origins of the coalition’s plans.

...The report into the House Oversight Committee’s congressional investigation into the coalition’s plan and its development is set to be released in the coming days.

House Oversight Committee? Who chairs that again? OK, let's look at a report from ABC News' Ben Siegel and Matt Mosk, House Dems blast Trump insider in new report, allege profit motive in push for Saudi nuclear plan. House Dems? Well... Oversight Committee Dems... Cummings. And who are they going after? Long time crooked Trump crony Tom Barrack who was the one pushing the proposal to build dozens of nuclear power plants in Saudi Arabia while seeking to avoid restrictions on the transfer of U.S. nuclear technology and, likely to profit gigantically for... himself and... Señor Trumpanzee? Would it surprise you? It wouldn't surprise Elijah Cummings, who said "Today's report reveals new and extensive evidence that corroborates Committee whistle-blowers and exposes how corporate and foreign interests are using their unique access to advocate for the transfer of U.S. nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia."

The 50-page report, which relied on 60,000 documents and statements from whistle-blowers inside the administration, was made public Monday. It focuses on the actions of Thomas Barrack, a wealthy Los Angeles businessman who oversaw President Donald Trump's inaugural committee, as well as earlier efforts by retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn to push a Saudi nuclear energy plan. Investigators said they found evidence that "private parties with close ties to the President wield[ed] outsized influence over U.S. policy towards Saudi Arabia."

"These new documents raise serious questions about whether the White House is willing to place the potential profits of the President's friends above the national security of the American people and the universal objective of preventing the spread of nuclear weapons," according to the report.

...The investigation focuses on company called IP3 International, which is run by a group of retired American generals, and their years-long effort to promote a plan to sell dozens of nuclear power plants to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries. The company has been aided in its efforts by two well-known Trump advisers: Flynn and Barrack, a California investment executive who has deep ties in the Middle East.

The report alleges that Flynn and later Barrack helped push the proposal during the 2016 campaign, in the White House and later during briefings with senior White House officials including Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner and ultimately President Trump. IP3 officials also briefed cabinet officials including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, according to the report.

Barrack promoted the effort as part of what he called a "Middle East Marshall Plan" despite concerns from some White House officials and lawmakers that Saudi Arabia's true goal was to obtain technology for nuclear weapons, which could heighten tensions in the unstable region.

Ahead of the report's release, a spokesman for Barrack spoke with the New York Times about allegations that the longtime Trump friend used his connections to assist foreign interests, telling the newspaper Barrack had no incentive to lobby on behalf of any particular country or countries in the Persian Gulf because his business interests and policy concerns span the entire region.

...Barrack met with Trump at the White House about the Middle East Marshall Plan on the same day the president met with Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the White House, correspondence between Barrack's secretary and the White House cited in the report shows.

Barrack told a business associate he briefed Trump before and after his meeting with the Saudi deputy crown prince and helped facilitate the prince's visit, according to text messages cited in the report. Those text messages also indicate that Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law and a White House senior adviser, participated on a call with Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al-Nahyan, the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi and leader of the United Arab Emirates who is closely aligned with Saudi Arabia.

Barrack later emailed Kushner about his potential role in the administration.

"After thinking through our discussion this week, it might be an interesting idea to have the Special Envoy position hold responsibility for implementing the economic agenda and related action items that will arise out of your Saudi-sponsored summit," he wrote, according to the report.

Barrack texted a business associate in UAE that he had floated the idea, which he said would be "to make me a special envoy to the Middle East to help them with Saudi, UAE and gulf USA cooperation…"

In the days following Trump's meeting with the Saudi deputy crown prince, IP3 leaders engaged with senior Trump administration officials to promote the nuclear proposal, including former Defense Secretary James Mattis, Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross.

In a March 17, 2017, letter to the Saudi leader, the IP3 officials said the "agreements" between the president and the Saudi ruler "established the framework for our unique opportunity to take the next steps with IP3 and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia." The letter also referenced a "partnership" to acquire Westinghouse Electric, a U.S.-based company that manufactures nuclear reactors.

Soon after, Barrack began corresponding with top officials at IP3 about a plan to bid for Westinghouse in what Democrats believe to be the Saudi Public Investment Fund, a sovereign wealth fund. IP3 officials met with Kushner in August on their proposal to acquire Westinghouse, which, under the agreement, would be the main partner in the effort to build more than 30 nuclear reactors in Saudi Arabia.

In a memo to Stephen Schwarzman, the CEO of Blackstone, one of the private equity firms he contacted about potentially bidding, Barrack said Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates "have committed to invest in the Westinghouse acquisition and are willing to concurrently lock in Westinghouse as their primary partner on the 30+ reactors expected to be constructed… in the coming decade." Blackstone declined to partner with Colony.

While that bid for Westinghouse was unsuccessful, Barrack in January of 2018 began corresponding with a top official at Brookfield Asset Management, the firm that acquired Westinghouse, according to emails cited in the report, offering his assistance.

More than a month later, an employee at Barrack's firm firm Colony NorthStar sent a slide presentation to another associate, suggesting it had been invited to contribute $50 million to Brookfield's bid for Westinghouse.

On Aug. 1, 2018, Brookfield completed its acquisition of Westinghouse after securing final government approval for the deal from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a review board filled by Cabinet secretaries. It's not clear whether Barrack's company participated in the successful bid.

The House report notes that just two days later Brookfield agreed to a 99-year lease of 666 Fifth Avenue, a distressed building owned by Kushner Companies, Jared Kushner's family real estate firm. The property was a financial burden on Kushner Companies and the group was facing a $1.4 billion mortgage payment the following February.

Cummings is lucky Trump didn't have him eliminated. Or kill a member of his family.

Today Facebook announced it had removed Saudi manipulative endeavors on its platforms. "This week," wrote Nathaniel Gleicher, their Head of Cybersecurity Policy, "we removed multiple Pages, Groups and accounts that were involved in coordinated inauthentic behavior on Facebook and Instagram. We found two separate operations: one of which originated in United Arab Emirates and Egypt, and another in Saudi Arabia. The two campaigns we removed were unconnected, but both created networks of accounts to mislead others about who they were and what they were doing. We have shared information about our findings with law enforcement, industry partners and policymakers."

We also removed 217 Facebook accounts, 144 Facebook Pages, five Facebook Groups and 31 Instagram accounts that were involved in coordinated inauthentic behavior originating from Saudi Arabia that focused primarily on the Middle East and Northern Africa, including Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Egypt, Morocco, Palestine, Lebanon and Jordan.

The individuals behind this activity posed as locals in countries targeted by this campaign-- often using fake accounts-- and created fictitious personas to run Pages and Groups, disseminate their content, increase engagement and drive people to an off-platform domain. They managed Pages that masqueraded as local news organizations. The Page admins and account owners typically posted in Arabic about regional news and political issues, including topics like the Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, his economic and social reform plan “Vision 2030,” and successes of the Saudi Armed Forces, particularly during the conflict in Yemen. They also frequently shared criticism of neighboring countries including Iran, Qatar and Turkey, and called into question the credibility of Al-Jazeera news network and Amnesty International. Although the people behind this activity attempted to conceal their identities, our review found links to individuals associated with the government of Saudi Arabia.

• Presence on Facebook and Instagram: 217 Facebook accounts, 144 Facebook Pages, 5 Facebook Groups and 31 Instagram accounts.
• Followers: About 1.4 million accounts followed one or more of these Pages, about 26,000 accounts joined at least one of these Groups, and around 145,000 people followed one or more of these Instagram accounts.
• Advertising: Around $108,000 spent on Facebook and Instagram ads paid for in Saudi riyal and US dollars.

Will Trump Be Impeached For Selling Nuclear Technology To Saudi Arabia?

A Saudi riyal is worth about a quarter. Do you know what one looks like? Take a closer look at what Kushner-in-law is counting and pocketing in the photo above. And some think Trump's big score isn't going come from deals in Russia but from solicited bribes (and deals) with the Saudis. In fact, one top Senate staffer told me last night that if Trump goes through with a sale of nuclear technology to the Saudis, it could be the last straw among some Republicans to give Pelosi the thumbs up to move forward with impeachment.

"If he goes forward with this without explicit backing from Israel," the staffer for a high profile senator told me, "he's going to set loose a chain reaction among Republicans that could lead right to impeachment. Pelosi knows how to count votes-- even Senate votes."

Early Monday morning Erin Banco reported for the Daily Beast what many on Capitol Hill have been buzzing about for some time: Trump's push for a Saudi nuclear deal. "In 2017," wrote Banco, "Team Trump worked to clinch a nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia-- and an independent investigative agency wants to know what happened behind closed doors."

The Office of the Special Counsel-- not Mueller-- is investigating whether officials (whistleblowers) were retaliated against for raising concerns about Trump's nuclear deal with the Saudis. Banco: "As part of that investigation, OSC has also reviewed allegations about potentially improper dealings by senior members of the Trump administration in their attempt to map out a nuclear deal with Riyadh, according to two sources with knowledge of OSC’s work." Congress is also on the same track after Elijah Cummings issued a report outlining allegations about efforts inside the White House to rush the transfer of highly sensitive U.S. nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia-- a potential violation of the Atomic Energy Act and without review by Congress.

The Cummings report said IP3-- a firm that includes former top military officers, diplomats, and energy experts-- had developed a proposal for Saudi Arabia that was simply “a scheme for these generals to make some money.” That report said former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn had ties to the firm during his time working in the Trump administration.

Sources with direct knowledge of the IP3 plans today say the firm is focused on providing security for nuclear-related projects and in finding ways to compete with Russia and China to secure those projects throughout the Middle East.

In the wake of the Cummings announcement, the Daily Beast reported that U.S. companies and officials in the administration were moving forward in their conversations with Riyadh about a nuclear deal and the transfer of nuclear technology.

The Department of Energy then approved seven U.S. companies to conduct nuclear-related work in Saudi Arabia. (Federal law stipulates that companies obtain clearance from the U.S. government for exporting nuclear technology to or engaging in the production or development of special nuclear material in the kingdom.)

That news has prompted intense questioning by lawmakers in hearings with U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Energy Rick Perry.

“One thing that is in our interest is to prevent Saudi Arabia from getting a nuclear weapon,” Rep. Brad Sherman, a California Democrat, said. “What I’ve seen in this administration recently... is an effort to evade Congress and to some extent evade your department and provide substantial nuclear technology and aid to Saudi Arabia while [the country] refuses to abide by any of the controls we would like to see regarding reprocessing, enrichment.”

A cohort of lawmakers is ready to reveal next week a new piece of legislation that would stop the Trump administration from bypassing Congress on the transfer of nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia.

Congress is also increasingly concerned about Jared Kushner’s relationship with Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman and his recent trip to Riyadh, especially because of the news that his security clearance was denied last year in part because of concerns about foreign influence. Engel is demanding a briefing from Pompeo on Kushner’s trip to Saudi Arabia last month that included a senior State Department official but otherwise left American diplomats in the dark.

Long Island Congressman Tom Suozzi isn't going for any of this talk about nuclear proliferation. "If the Saudis," he told me this morning, "can’t be trusted with a bone saw, they can’t be trusted with nuclear weapons. Regardless of any relationship this administration may think they currently enjoy with the Saudis, giving them nuclear technology is a bad idea in the short term and, especially over the long term."

Ted Lieu (D-CA), a very active member of both the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the House Judiciary Committee, isn't feeling any more sanguine and comfortable about this than Suozzi is. This morning he growled that "Trump wants to transfer nuclear technology to a regime that has committed war crimes, tortured activists and cut up a journalist with a bone saw. What could possibly go wrong?"

Would Trump And His Cronies Really Sell Nuclear Technology To The Saudis?

Michael Flynn by Nancy Ohanian

The Republicans put Gym Jordan in as ranking member of the House Oversight and Reford Committee, basically to obstruct oversight and reform. He has 17 GOP members behind him, although two of his members, Justin Amassh (R-MI) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) are know to sometimes weigh things from a patriotic, rather than a partisan perspective. Not that it matters that much. Chairman Elijah Cummings is backed by 23 Democrats. And it's not just the number disparity that favors the Dems. Look who's on the committee: Ro Khanna (D-CA), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Jimmy Gomez (D-CA), Jackie Speier (D-CA), John Sarbanes (D-MD)... FIRE. CRACKERS. And the committee is about to come front and center.

If there's a group who can confound the fascist-oriented new "legal" theory by crackpot wing nuts David Rivkin and Elizabeth Price Foley that Congress can't investigate Trump because there are too many crimes, Cummings has the team. And, like the House Judiciary Committee, they're taking one crime at a time. I'm particularly interested in something that has caught Ro Khanna's attention: a plot my Trump insiders to subvert the law by transferring nuclear technology to the Saudis.

Flynn may be headed to prison and I've been predicting that eventually Trump crooked billionaire crony Tom Barrack would eventually follow him. But now the two of them appear to be at the heart of this scheme to sell the Saudis and other Middle East players nuclear technology as Trump was being sworn in to his illegitimate "presidency." NBC has been reporting the story for 3 days and it's being picked up widely now. But there are still some important at the center of this that will have to be answered by Cummings and Khanna, if not Mueller. Were the whistleblowers encouraged by Netanyahu-- or someone else within the Israeli establishment-- for example?

This morning Ro Khanna told me that "It’s is deeply concerning given the financial interests Tom Barrack has that he was driving our policy in selling nuclear secrets to the Saudis. For context, Barrack has defended the murder of Khashoggi as legitimate. He raised $100 million plus for Trump’s inaugural and he would stand to gain millions from the sale of nuclear technology to the Saudis."

What Ken Dilanian reported for NBC News is that "whistleblowers" from within Trump's National Security Council have told the Oversight Committee that "efforts by former national security adviser Michael Flynn to transfer sensitive nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia may have violated the law, and investigators fear Trump is still considering it."

The House Oversight Committee has formally opened an investigation into the matter, releasing an interim staff report that adds new details to previous public accounts of how Flynn sought to push through the nuclear proposal on behalf of a group he had once advised. Tom Barrack, a prominent Trump backer with business ties to the Middle East, also became involved in the project, the report says.

Just days after Trump's inauguration, backers of the project sent documents to Flynn for Trump to approve, including a draft Cabinet memo stating that the president had appointed Barrack as a special representative to implement the plan and directing agencies to support Barrack's efforts, the report says.

Career national security officials objected to the plan, citing what they deemed Flynn's conflict of interest, and also that the proposal sought to bypass a policy review that is required whenever nuclear technology is transferred to another country, the report says.

The proposal, which involved enlisting the U.S. nuclear power industry to build nuclear plants across the Middle East, was backed by a group of retired generals who formed a firm called IP3. Flynn described himself in financial disclosure filings as an "advisor" to a subsidiary of IP3, IronBridge Group Inc., from June 2016 to December 2016 — at the same time he was serving as Trump's national security adviser during the presidential campaign and the presidential transition, the report says.

The report quotes one senior Trump official as saying that the proposal was "not a business plan," but rather "a scheme for these generals to make some money," and added, "OK, you know we cannot do this."

"The whistleblowers who came forward have expressed significant concerns about the potential procedural and legal violations connected with rushing through a plan to transfer nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia," the report says.

"They have warned of conflicts of interest among top White House advisers that could implicate federal criminal statutes. They have also warned about a working environment inside the White House marked by chaos, dysfunction, and backbiting."

The Oversight Committee, led by Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., said its investigation of the plan "is particularly critical because the administration's efforts to transfer sensitive U.S. nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia appear to be ongoing."

On Feb. 12, the report notes, Trump met with nuclear power developers at the White House about sharing nuclear technology with countries in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia. Next week Trump son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner is set to embark on a tour of Middle Eastern capitals-- including Riyadh-- to discuss the economic portion of the administration's Middle East peace plan.

"Experts worry that transferring sensitive U.S. nuclear technology could allow Saudi Arabia to produce nuclear weapons that contribute to the proliferation of nuclear arms throughout an already unstable Middle East," the report says.

Khanna has been reminding people that "the Saudis have a track record of providing weapons to America’s enemies-- such as Al Qaeda In Yemen. We should be very concerned about the threat of nuclear proliferation if the Saudis were to acquire sensitive nuclear technology." He added when we spoke that he "will work on the Oversight Committee to get to the bottom of the financial interests that are driving the Administration’s policy to sell nuclear technology to the Saudis. I also will work to make sure Congress opposes under the Atomic Energy Act any such sale to the Saudis."

In a press release from Cummings office Tuesday, there were two highlighted sections:

and, ominously...

Aside from a letter to Señor Trumpanzee's clownish Chief of Staff, Cummings sent letters to multiple entities involved with promoting this plan, including the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Energy, State, and Treasury; the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the Central Intelligence Agency; Flynn Intel Group; IP3; ACU Strategies; Colony NorthStar; and Mr. Barrack.

Haven’t Enough to Keep You Awake At Night? Try The Doomsday Clock For A Truthful State Of The Union

The Swamp by Nancy Ohanian

-by Skip Kaltenheuser

Tick Tock. The good folks at the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists have returned to wind their Doomsday Clock. Last Thursday at the National Press Club a group of well-credentialed speakers, including former California Governor Jerry Brown and former Secretary of Defense William Perry, underscored the organization’s warning that we have established residence in “the new abnormal.” Watch the press conference and supportive videos here.

The Doomsday Clock was set last year at a two-minutes until midnight, (midnight being the endgame), and there it now remains. There’s little comfort to be had in standing on what University of Chicago astrophysicist Robert Rosner characterized as a precipice we’d best quickly leap back from. Bulletin president and CEO Rachel Bronson stressed that the clock remaining where it is, the closest it has been to world catastrophe, is not stability, but “a stark warning to leaders and citizens around the world.”

William Perry said the organization views our current situation as precarious as it was in 1953, in the gloom of the Cold War while the Korean War still raged. Jerry Brown said, “The blindness and stupidity of the politicians and their consultants is truly shocking in the face of nuclear catastrophe and danger….the business of everyday politics blinds people to the risk, we’re playing Russian Roulette with humanity,” with the danger of an incident that will kill millions if not igniting a conflict that will kill billions.

Brown told journalists while they may love the Trump tweets and news of the day, “the leads that get the clicks,” the final click could be a nuclear accident, a mistake. “It’s hard to even feel or sense the peril and danger we are in, but these scientists know what they’re talking about, and I can say, based on my understanding of the political process, the politicians, for the most part, do not.” Referring to Congress’s inaction on related matters, Brown called it “massive sleep walking all over the place.” He committed to spending the next few years doing everything he can to “sound the alarm and get us back on the track to dialogue, collaboration and arms control.”

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists and the Doomsday Clock are creations of a group of scientists who participated in the Manhattan Project. The clock’s current position was determined by a group of scholars and scientists that includes fifteen Nobel Laureates. These are serious people. It is heartening to see their avoidance of political talking points or partisan tilt in favor of Joe Friday’s focus on “just the facts, ma’am.” Just the chilling facts that let the chips fall where they may. About thirty-three minutes into the conference Jerry Brown gave a Dutch uncle talk to Democrats who maintain the attack mode on Putin on all matters without holding open the option for nuclear dialogue. It brought to mind the discussions of Washington’s bipartisan War Party prompted by William Atkin’s recent critique of NBC and MSNBC.

The Bulletin has been criticized for going beyond the original nuclear realm to include a number of other perils. But it seems if there is one thing we’re learning now from climate and polar ice studies and being slapped around by extreme weather events, it’s that seemingly unrelated factors cascade and overlap, interacting and accelerating in ways we hadn’t understood. No doubt more surprises will come. Certainly the impacts of climate change on food and water supplies, on ocean health and on migration will bear on political systems and on future tensions and conflicts. Perhaps it is too far afield, but a case could be made to include prospects of financial meltdowns from bankers behaving badly. Economic calamities have lit a lot of fuses throughout history.

Stanford cyber expert Herb Lin focused on the ongoing debasement of institutions that hold leaders accountable. While nuclear risks and climate change lead the concerns, that witches brew is now put into the blender by the misinformation on steroids enabled by the Internet. Says Lin, "Events in 2018 have helped us to better understand an ongoing and intentional corruption of the information environment. Our leaders complain about fake news and invoke alternative facts when reality is inconvenient. They are shamelessly inconsistent.”

So we have Information warfare combining with information overload to compromise the public’s ability to absorb and analyze critical issues. Among other things, information warfare delegitimizes the values and truths embodied by science, causing a cheapening and distrust of all information, opening a Pandora’s Box of distortions that allow the public and politicians to avoid grappling with the serious issues before them.

Fine by me if the experiences of the past few years inoculate the public with a healthy cynicism, offering some protection from the gatling guns spewing talking points. But if the public discards the legitimacy of scientific thought and proof, not so good.

Here’s a few excerpts from The Bulletin statement on the Doomsday Clock:

Humanity now faces two simultaneous existential threats, either of which would be cause for extreme concern and immediate attention. These major threats-- nuclear weapons and climate change-- were exacerbated this past year by the increased use of information warfare to undermine democracy around the world, amplifying risk from these and other threats and putting the future of civilization in extraordinary danger.

In the nuclear realm, the United States abandoned the Iran nuclear deal and announced it would withdraw from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), grave steps towards a complete dismantlement of the global arms control process. Although the United States and North Korea moved away from the bellicose rhetoric of 2017, the urgent North Korean nuclear dilemma remains unresolved. Meanwhile, the world’s nuclear nations proceeded with programs of “nuclear modernization” that are all but indistinguishable from a worldwide arms race, and the military doctrines of Russia and the United States have increasingly eroded the long-held taboo against the use of nuclear weapons.

On the climate change front, global carbon dioxide emissions-- which seemed to plateau earlier this decade-- resumed an upward climb in 2017 and 2018. To halt the worst effects of climate change, the countries of the world must cut net worldwide carbon dioxide emissions to zero by well before the end of the century. By such a measure, the world community failed dismally last year. At the same time, the main global accord on addressing climate change-- the 2015 Paris agreement-- has become increasingly beleaguered.The United States announced it will withdraw from that pact, and at the December climate summit in Poland, the United States allied itself with Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait (all major petroleum-producing countries) to undercut an expert report on climate change impacts that the Paris climate conference had itself commissioned.

Amid these unfortunate nuclear and climate developments, there was a rise during the last year in the intentional corruption of the information ecosystem on which modern civilization depends. In many forums, including particularly social media, nationalist leaders and their surrogates lied shamelessly, insisting that their lies were truth, and the truth “fake news.” These intentional attempts to distort reality exaggerate social divisions, undermine trust in science, and diminish confidence in elections and democratic institutions. Because these distortions attack the rational discourse required for solving the complex problems facing humanity, cyber-enabled information warfare aggravates other major global dangers-- including those posed by nuclear weapons and climate change-- as it undermines civilization generally.

First clock, 1947

Worrisome nuclear trends continue. The global nuclear order has been deteriorating for many years, and 2018 was no exception to this trend. Relations between the United States and both Russia and China have grown more fraught. The architecture of nuclear arms control built up over half a century continues to decay, while the process of negotiating reductions in nuclear weapons and fissile material stockpiles is moribund. The nuclear-armed states remain committed to their arsenals, are determined to modernize their capabilities, and have increasingly espoused doctrines that envision nuclear use. Brash leaders, intense diplomatic disputes, and regional instabilities combine to create an international context in which nuclear dangers are all too real.

A number of negative developments colored the nuclear story in 2018.

First, the United States abandoned the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the multilateral agreement that imposed unprecedented constraints on Iran’s nuclear program and allowed unprecedented verification of Iran’s nuclear facilities and activities. On May 8, President Trump announced that the United States would cease to observe the agreement and would instead launch a campaign of “maximum pressure” against Iran. So far, Iran and the other parties have continued to comply with the agreement, despite the absence of US participation. It is unclear whether they will keep the agreement alive, but one thing is certain: The Trump administration has launched an assault on one of the major nuclear nonproliferation successes of recent years and done so in a way that increases the likelihood of conflict with Iran and further heightens tensions with long-term allies.

Second, in October the Trump administration announced that it intends to withdraw from the INF Treaty, which bans missiles of intermediate range. Though bedeviled by reciprocal complaints about compliance, the INF agreement has been in force for more than 30 years and has contributed to stability in Europe. Its potential death foreshadows a new competition to deploy weapons long banned. Unfortunately, while treaties are being eliminated, there is no process in place that will create a new regime of negotiated constraints on nuclear behavior. For the first time since the 1980s, it appears the world is headed into an unregulated nuclear environment-- an outcome that could reproduce the intense arms racing that was the hallmark of the early, unregulated decades of the nuclear age.

…even as arms control efforts wane, modernization of nuclear forces around the world continues apace. In his Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly on March 1, Russian President Vladimir Putin described an extensive nuclear modernization program, justified as a response to US missile defense efforts. The Trump administration has added to the enormously expensive comprehensive nuclear modernization program it inherited from the Obama administration.

Andrew Wheeler by Nancy Ohanian

Ominous climate change trends. The existential threat from human-caused global warming is ominous and getting worse. Every year that human activities continue to add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere irreversibly ratchets up the future level of human suffering and ecosystem destruction that will be wrought by global climate disruption. The key measure of improvement on the climate front is the extent of progress toward bringing global net carbon dioxide emissions to zero. On this measure, the countries of the world have failed dismally.

Global carbon dioxide emissions rates had been rising exponentially until 2012 but ceased growing from 2013 to 2016. Even if this emissions plateau had continued, it would not have halted the growth of warming. Net emissions need to ultimately be brought to zero to do so, given the persistence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for up to thousands of years. The ominous news from 2017 and 2018 is that world emissions appear to have resumed their upward climb.

Even nations that have strongly supported the need to decarbonize are not doing enough. Preliminary estimates show that almost all countries contributed to the rise in emissions. Some countries, including the United States and some members of the EU, increased their emissions after years of making progress in reducing them.

The United States has also abandoned its responsibilities to lead the world decarbonization effort. The United States has more resources than poorer nations have; its failure to ambitiously reduce emissions represents an act of gross negligence. The United States stood alone while the other G20 countries signed on to a portion of a joint statement reaffirming their commitment to tackle climate change. Then in 2018, at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Poland, the United States joined with Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait-- all major oil producers-- to undercut a report on the impacts of climate change.

Freedom of the Press, Money and the Media by Nancy Ohanian

The threat of information warfare and other disruptive technologies. Nuclear war and climate change threaten the physical infrastructure that provides the food, energy, and other necessities required for human life. But to thrive, prosper, and advance, people also need reliable information about their world-- factual information, in abundance.

Today, however, chaos reigns in much of the information ecosystem on which modern civilization depends. In many forums for political and societal discourse, we now see national leaders shouting about fake news, by which they mean information they do not like. These same leaders lie shamelessly, calling their lies truth. Acting across national boundaries, these leaders and their surrogates exacerbate existing divisions, creating rage and increasing distrust in public and private institutions. Using unsupported anecdotes and sketchy rhetoric, denialists raise fear and doubt regarding well-established science about climate change and other urgent issues. Established institutions of the government, journalism, and education-- institutions that have traditionally provided stability-- are under attack precisely because they have provided stability.

In this environment, communication inflames passions rather than informing reason.

Many countries have long employed propaganda and lies-- otherwise known as information warfare-- to advance their interests. But a quantitative change of sufficient magnitude qualifies as a qualitative change. In the Internet age, the volume and velocity of information has increased by orders of magnitude. Modern information technology and social media allow users easy connectivity and high degrees of anonymity across national borders. This widespread, inexpensive access to worldwide audiences has allowed practitioners of information warfare to broadcast false and manipulative messages to large populations at low cost, and at the same time to tailor political messages to narrow interest groups.

By manipulating the natural cognitive predispositions of human beings, information warriors can exacerbate prejudices, biases, and ideological differences. They can invoke “alternative facts” to advance political positions based on outright falsehoods. Rather than a cyber Armageddon that causes financial meltdown or nationwide electrical blackouts, this is the more insidious use of cyber tools to target and exploit human insecurities and vulnerabilities, eroding the trust and cohesion on which civilized societies rely.

The Enlightenment sought to establish reason as the foundational pillar of civilized discourse. In this conception, logical argument matters, and the truth of a statement is tested by examination of values, assumptions, and facts, not by how many people believe it. Cyber-enabled information warfare threatens to replace these pillars of logic and truth with fantasy and rage. If unchecked, such distortion will undermine the world’s ability to acknowledge and address the urgent threats posed by nuclear weapons and climate change and will increase the potential for an end to civilization as we know it. The international community should begin multilateral discussions that aim to discourage cyber-enabled information warfare and to buttress institutions dedicated to rational, fact- based discourse and governance.

Particularly regarding the 2016 election, Russia and fake news have become inseparable to many. My lingering view remains that any impact from Internet mischief the Russians did during elections was a blip next to all the rot that’s been flying about for years, much of it funded by homegrown dark money and most of it owing to good old-fashioned American lack of integrity. On the other hand, I don’t have a cell phone, am not on cable and have never been on Facebook, so maybe I’m just clueless about how easily people are significantly swayed by a select few of the gazillion bits of information firehosing them, even those bits that people happily cobble into personal echo-chambers. But it seems that folks who are birthers and such don’t have to depend on the far flung for nonsense readily available and riding down a hotel escalator. The American realm of carefully calculated election misinformation from incognito sources is wonderfully underscored by the POV film Dark Money. It shows how dark money, ramped up by Citizens United, distorted elections in Montana, targeting both Democrats and Republicans who didn’t do a sufficient kowtow to the big money. Not to Putin’s druthers, but to the big money, to polluters, Koch brothers allies, ALEC objectives and such. But I digress, because that’s the beauty of a blog post.

Back to bombs. According to the Federation of American Scientists, nine nations together have about 15,000 nuclear bombs, most far more powerful than those used on Japan, 1,800 of those possessed by the US and Russia are kept on high-alert status. Ride along with Major Kong here, and sing along with Vera Lynn here on “We’ll Meet Again,” as humanity exits stage left. Here’s a version picking some of the 331 atmospheric tests the US conducted from 1945 to 1962. Try the comfort of the largest bomb exploded, the Tsar Bomba, aka Ivan, aka Vanya, here. If you’d like to explore the impacts of a single one megaton bomb, (eighty times larger than the Hiroshima bomb but tiny compared to some modern bombs), as well as the global impacts of an exchange of 100 Hiroshima-sized bombs, perhaps a conflict between Pakistan and India, here you go. Perhaps pass these along to George W. Bush so he has a better idea of how to look for a WMD, maybe at a correspondents dinner.

By the way, do you think kids in the Fifties might have had a few issues to work out later?

Actions and statements by Trump figure significantly in the clock’s advancement in 2017 to two and a half minutes before midnight. A then-incoming President Trump made alarming statements regarding nuclear proliferation, the prospect of using nuclear weapons and his opposition to US commitments on climate change. And in 2018 he helped move the clock ahead thirty seconds with actions like pulling out of the Iran agreement. By the way, that idiocy is greased by nuclear power Israel, Sheldon Adelson and their American neocon minions like John Bolton. Invading Iraq wasn’t enough horror.

Trump also announced his intent to scrap the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) that for decades was a lynchpin for global arms control.

I do wish Trump luck for a good follow-through with North Korea that might relax the minute hand a bit. The world needs a win.

Trump recently reincarnated the illusion of a global defense system. A worthy critique by Joe Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund, is his essay Donald Trump’s Mission Impossible: Making His Unrealistic Missile Plan Work, is here.

That man behind the curtain has nothing on Trump. Now we have the news of Trump’s latest misdirection, Venezuela. In 1975 I traveled overland to South America. Two impressions of Venezuela linger, the startling transition over a few hours going from snow in the Andes to the streamy tropics below, and the surreal feel while waterskiing between the oil derricks in Lake Maracaibo. Like slicks on the water, oil money was everywhere, a pleasant-looking lifestyle for many of the privileged youths darting about in convertibles filled with cheap gas. I can’t grasp the changes since then. Whatever way out of the miseries of a failed state might be found, it’s hard to imagine lighting the fuse for a civil war would prove beneficial. Perhaps Venezuelans will come knocking seeking asylum, quoting Trump’s description of their plight, never mind contributing US pressures. In any case, Venezuela should give us pause at how fast things can change.

Tick Tock.

Summit With North Korea: We've Been Here Before

by Reese Erlich

Police wearing Darth Vader helmets and carrying shotguns mounted with tear gas launchers lined up ready for battle. Fifty yards away, tens of thousands students and workers placed iron bars and Molotov cocktails on the street preparing for battle. At the appointed hour both sides charged, with police clubbing and firing tear gas barrages.

It was 1991 in Seoul, and I was on assignment for the Christian Science Monitor newspaper covering the widespread protests against the authoritarian South Korean government. Demonstrators protested increasing poverty and the continued U.S. troop presence in their country. Many Koreans saw those troops as an occupying force.

Twenty-seven years later those issues have not gone away. During the June 12 U.S.-North Koran summit, President Donald Trump even called for the withdrawal of the 30,000 U.S. troops at some undetermined time.

"I want to bring our soldiers back home," he said. "But that's not part of the equation right now. I hope it will be eventually."

Far from being a defensive force, the U.S. troops project U.S. power in the region aimed at challenging China and making sure pro-U.S. regional governments stay in power, according to Christine Ahn, co-founder of the Korea Policy Institute.

"The bases insure U.S. political, military and economic interests," she told me. "There's always the threat of a U.S. military incursion to advance corporate interests."

The withdrawal of troops is just one of many contentious issues that must be resolved in negotiations between the United States and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). The summit didn't resolve that or any other issues, although the two sides took a small step forward by simply holding the meeting.

A joint United States-DPRK statement declared, "President Trump committed to provide security guarantees to the DPRK, and Chairman Kim Jong Un reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula."

But neither side defined what those commitments mean. And the Democratic and Republican hawks in Washington are already trying to make sure there's no meaningful peace accord. After all, that's what happened with every previous peace effort.

Over the past 30 years, the United States and DPRK have held numerous talks and agreed to denuclearization several times. But all ultimately failed because Washington hasn't been interested in guaranteeing DPRK's security. The North Koreans want to keep some nuclear weapons as a deterrent against a U.S. attack or attempt at regime change. Unfortunately, a very strong faction in Washington doesn't support any peace agreement and instead seeks to overthrow the DPRK government.

  In the 1990s North Korea had not yet developed nuclear weapons. In 1994 President Bill Clinton negotiated the "Agreed Framework" that guaranteed the DPRK would not build nuclear weapons and, in return, the United States would help North Korea develop nuclear generated electric power.

The DPRK agreed to stay within the Non Proliferation Treaty, which prohibits development of nuclear weapons.  North Korea shut its Yongbyon reactor as verified by international inspectors. The United States agreed to facilitate building two light water nuclear reactors, which could generate nuclear fuel for power generation but not weapons. The United States agreed to lift economic sanctions and provide heavy fuel oil to operate the DPRK's electric power grid.

But Republican and Democratic hawks in the U.S. Congress thought the president made too many concessions and wanted to sabotage the Agreed Framework. They refused to fund the fuel oil. The Clinton administration also slow walked lifting of sanctions.

When George W. Bush administration took office in 2001, hardliners such as Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld and Under Secretary of State John Bolton opposed the deal. By 2002, the Agreed Framework was dead.

That year Bush declared North Korea to be part of the "Axis of Evil," which also included Iran and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. After the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, Korea feared it could be the next target for regime change. The DPRK withdrew from the Non Proliferation Treaty and began a sprint towards developing a nuclear weapon.

In the mid 2000s, negotiations resumed, dubbed the Six Party Talks. Participants included both Koreas, the United States, China, Japan and Russia. In September 2005 the parties agreed that DPRK would "abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs."

But the following month, the Bush administration accused Banco Delta in Macau of money laundering, which froze $25 million in DPRK funds. U.S. hardliners saw this as a pressure tactic; North Korea saw it as another example of U.S. bullying.

"The U.S. policy led to North Korea withdrawal from the talks," said analyst Ahn. The DPRK held its first atomic test in 2006.

Today Trump faces a similar problem because leaders of the opposition party oppose a peace agreement with the DPRK.

Seven Democratic Party hawks, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Shumer and Senator Dianne Feinstein, indicated they would vote against any agreement unless the DPRK eliminates all nuclear and biological weapons, dismantles all ballistic missiles, and allows intrusive inspections anywhere in the country.

The DPRK is not going to accept such demands and the Democratic leadership position guarantees no agreement will be reached, noted Jonathan Granoff, president of the Global Security Institute.

"I am very concerned partisanship undermines our national security," he told me. "It's a toxic approach. They should favor diminished tensions and bringing North Korea into the family of nations."

Today the DPRK has an estimated 15-60 nuclear bombs. It has short and long range ballistic missiles capable of hitting Asia and the continental United States. It's not clear if North Korea has been able to fit nuclear warheads on the missiles.

In my view, the United States should guarantee the DPRK's security by signing a peace treaty ending the Korean War, establishing normal diplomatic relations and accepting a limited number of North Korean nukes with guarantees that no more will be produced. We should get busy pulling all U.S. troops out of Seoul.

Official Washington would ask how can we trust a brutal dictatorship that oppresses its own people and failed to live up to past commitments?

"The government of North Korea is tyrannical," said Global Security Institute's Granoff. "But should we be in a state of war with all tyrants?"

Signing agreements with the DPRK "won't make them a progressive state." But it will help set the conditions for progress. Political change and eventual reunification of North and South Korea can't be imposed from the outside, he said. "The process must be led by the Korean people themselves."

Trump, Of Course, Was Lying About Iran, The Same Way He Lies About His Renoir

Two fakes-- intention is always to deceive

Trump has a Renoir? No. He has a cheap knockoff of Renoir's Two Sisters on the Terrace, a masterpiece hanging in the Chicago Art Institute... but he's been lying to everyone who sees it for decades, claiming his junk is real. His junk is fake and everyone knows it. Trump is a fake. Too bad so many low-IQ voters addicted to prescription drugs were unable to figure that out last year. And now we're all suffering because of it.

Friday the governments of Britain, France and Germany issued a joint statement affirming Iran's compliance with the JCPOA agreement and their continued support for it. British Prime Minister Theresa May, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel said they “stand committed to its full implementation by all sides... The nuclear deal was the culmination of 13 years of diplomacy and was a major step towards ensuring that Iran’s nuclear program is not diverted for military purposes. We encourage the US administration and Congress to consider the implications to the security of the US and its allies before taking any steps that might undermine the JCPOA, such as re-imposing sanctions on Iran lifted under the agreement. Our governments are committed to ensuring the JCPOA is maintained." Even Trump's ally in the Kremlin weighed in against him, criticizing Señor Trumpanzee's "aggressive and threatening rhetoric" and asserting that the asshole's pique and foolishness "“would not have a direct impact on the implementation of the deal" but was "an element of (US) domestic debate."

The rest of the world saw right through Trump's lies on Iran and called him out on them. But what about here in the U.S. So far Republicans have either been mum or, in the case of a few right-wing crackpots, have agreed with Trump. American voters have noticed-- as every poll on the question has noted, that Trump is a congenital liar and doesn't tell the truth about anything. Few Americans-- basically his ignorant and drug-addicted shriveling base-- trust him as a source of reliable information. Over the weekend, the Washington Post fact checked his lie-filled speech on Iran. Glenn Kessler looked at some of the specific lies:

“The previous administration lifted these sanctions, just before what would have been the total collapse of the Iranian regime, through the deeply controversial 2015 nuclear deal with Iran.”

There is little evidence that the Iranian government was on the verge of “total collapse,” though it was certainly struggling because of international sanctions. The Obama administration had been able to win broad international support for crippling sanctions precisely because it convinced Russia and China, two major Iranian partners, that the pressure was designed to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions and force the government into negotiations. If the government had started to totter because of the sanctions, especially if it was perceived as part of an American campaign of regime change, that support likely would have been withdrawn.

JCPOA “also gave the regime an immediate financial boost and over $100 billion its government could use to fund terrorism. The regime also received a massive cash settlement of $1.7 billion from the United States, a large portion of which was physically loaded onto an airplane and flown into Iran.”

Trump often suggests the United States gave a $100 billion to Iran, but these were Iranian assets that had been frozen. The Treasury Department has estimated that once Iran fulfills other obligations, it would have about $55 billion left. (Much of the funds were tied up in illiquid projects in China.) For its part, the Central Bank of Iran said the number was actually $32 billion, not $55 billion. Iran has also complained that it cannot actually move the money back to Iran because foreign banks won’t touch it for fear of U.S. sanctions and their U.S. exposure.

As for the $1.7 billion in cash, this was related to the settlement of a decades-old claim between the two countries. An initial payment of $400 million was handed over on Jan. 17, 2016, the same day Iran’s government agreed to release four American detainees, including the Washington Post’s Jason Rezaian. The timing-- which U.S. officials insisted was a coincidence-- suggested the cash could be viewed as a ransom payment.

But the initial cash payment was Iran’s money. In the 1970s, the then-pro-Western Iranian government under the shah paid $400 million for U.S. military equipment. But the equipment was never delivered because the two countries broke off relations after the seizure of American hostages at the U.S. Embassy in Iran.

Two other payments totaling $1.3 million-- a negotiated agreement on the interest owed on the $400 million-- came some weeks later.

“The deal allows Iran to continue developing certain elements of its nuclear program and, importantly, in just a few years, as key restrictions disappear, Iran can sprint towards a rapid nuclear weapons breakout.”

JCPOA has been in place for two years. Certain provisions of the nuclear aspects of the deal do not last indefinitely, but virtually all phase out between years 10 and 25. It’s doubtful Iran would have agreed to an indefinite ban on nuclear activities, given that it has a right to have a nonnuclear program under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Critics of the agreement argue that Iran’s past behavior suggests it will cheat in any case and thus has forfeited its rights.

Trump does not mention that under the agreement, Iran is permanently prohibited from acquiring nuclear weapons, and will be subject to certain restrictions and additional monitoring indefinitely. (Readers may also be interested in a previous fact check we did on whether Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons; we found the claim dubious.)

It’s unclear why Trump refers to a “few years” before a potential nuclear breakout. Nonnuclear provisions having to do with arms-related transfers to and from Iran will expire in three years, or possibly sooner. In six years, U.N. Security Council restrictions end on any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons.

“Those who argue that somehow the JCPOA deals only with nuclear matters and should be judged separate from the restrictions in [U.N.] resolution 2231 fail to explain that a nuclear weapon is a warhead and a delivery system,” noted David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, in testimony before Congress. “Today, the delivery vehicle of choice is a ballistic missile.”