Obama, Trump and Russia

The news about the Obama administration trying to combat Russia's hacking in 2016 is an important story and many details about motivations are sure to be filled in. The main thrust is US intelligence discovered the hacking and that it was intended to hurt Clinton and help Trump and investigate what was done in response. There were public discussions of the Russian threat and covered in the news last year - but some ignored it or did not understand its import. One of those was, of course, the so-called President.

Here is the key point: if Obama announced in late 2016 that Russia was trying to hack our actual voter files in numerous states and help Trump, it would have been seen by many as mere "partisan politics" designed to help Clinton and hurt Trump. So they did not publicize this.

The Obama administration noted "that by August it was too late to prevent the transfer to WikiLeaks and other groups of the troves of emails that would spill out in the ensuing months. They believe that a series of warnings — including one that Obama delivered to Putin in September — prompted Moscow to abandon any plans of further aggression, such as sabotage of U.S. voting systems."

Also a number of cyber weapons were planted by the U.S. in response in Russian systems as well. But it was too late and probably not possible to do anything about the flood of fake news coming out of Russia or the bots they used to spread this news. News or ideas, like those of Al Qaeda or ISIS, are difficult to eradicate.

But now the graceless so-called President attacks Obama for not using the Russian hacks to effect the Presidential race - he criticizes Obama for not publicizing the fact of Russian interference in our election that the so-called President still refuses to acknowledge!

The so-called President wants to have it both ways: he wants to deny the fact of the Russian hacks while criticizing Obama for not doing something about the hacks. Also, the so-called President is behaving as if he is just learning about all of this when he has had access to security briefings since he became the nominee and and certainly since he became President 5 months ago. What is he talking about? From the Washington Post: "Trump tells Fox News contributor Pete Hegseth in an interview set to air Sunday that he “just heard today for the first time” that former President Barack Obama “knew about Russia a long time before the election, and he did nothing about it.”" Wait a minute - you, the so-called President have had access to this info for 5 months, probably more and you found out only now?

This is the most incompetent person ever to be President.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?utm_term=.823b1e7553e4

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-latest-trump-questions-obamas-handling-of-russia-intel/2017/06/23/e85916b0-5865-11e7-840b-512026319da7_story.html?utm_term=.915a56929273

It's not the so-called President - it's us, stupid!

To put it succinctly; the problem is not that the so-called President is a serial liar and seemingly has little ability to discern fact from fantasy and seems to believe his own lies; or that he has bragged about sexually assaulting women and indeed that a number of women have accused him of doing what he has bragged about; or he is the most conflicted President ever elected with business interests that could directly profit based on the decisions he makes in office;  or that he has promoted false racist memes; or has promoted religious bigotry in the name of national security or some kind of religious entitlement; or has been willing to make health care unaffordable for tens of millions of Americans for the sake of cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans; or seems to embrace or admire murderous autocrats around the world while criticizing and insulting trusted allies; or displays little intention of studying the important policy issues of the day or being informed of the real state of the world and how his own government works; and has an over-sized ego that has become the textbook definition of a kind of pathological egomania.  No, the real problem is that he was elected President, albeit via an election game that makes no logical sense and only superficially resembles a democratic process.

No, the real problem is that as many people voted for him as they did.  The fact that he received around 46% of the popular vote is the problem.  And that is the problem that needs solving.

Without the ability to read people's minds, as if the minds of many persons were actually coherent and readable, we can at best only speculate as to the reasons why a person would vote for someone like the so-called President.

If you were to ask someone of they would willingly and happily vote for a sexual assaulter, most would say "no."

If you asked a voter if they would vote for someone who repeatedly lied, had numerous conflicts of interest, would threaten the existence of their own health care, promoted racist ideas, targeted religious minorities, and did not want to do the difficult policy work of being President, an overwhelming majority would say "hell, no!"  But as it turned out, 46.1% of those who voted did vote for someone as just described.  How come?

My educated guess is that there are four overriding reasons:

1) Some people actually are OK with lying, sexism, racism, etc.  These are good attributes for them.  This is what a real leader is expected to do for some people.

2) Some people willing to overlook these obvious contemptible attributes in the hopes of some policy action that would personally benefit them, such as a tax cut for the wealthy.  This is selfishness in my book.

3) Others are simply incoherent.  They have drunk the Kool-Aid and are fans of the so-called President and can either rationalize away his incontestable faults or choose to not believe they are real.  As the so-called President has said, "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters."  Well, he might lose some voters, but definitely he would not lose all of them.  Go to http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/23/politics/donald-trump-shoot-somebody-support/  .

4) Some actually thought that the alternative choice for President was worse.  Some people actually believed that Secretary Clinton had conspired to kill various persons, see http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp .  Some truly believed that she lied about Benghazi. Go see the Snopes web site:  http://www.snopes.com/?s=benghazi for objective info. Some people believed that the conflicts of interest due to the Clinton foundation were worse than the conflicts of the eventual so-called President despite the Clintons releasing numerous past tax returns and the so-called President releasing none.  Go to https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680 and https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478 and https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16764 .  The Clintons made no money via their charity, did much good work and no evidence of policy influence has ever been evidenced.  Most of the bad things people believe about the Clintons can be classified as fake news, spin and mammoth exaggeration.  This is not a 100% right wing fringe problem - it turns out that many Bernie Sanders supporters were targeted by a disinformation campaign designed to discourage them for voting for Secretary Clinton. It worked.  Go see:  http://www.salon.com/2017/03/31/fake-news-websites-targeted-trump-bernie-sanders-supporters-to-spread-conspiracy-theories/  .

It is the last category where the most possible work needs to be done.  I am not talking about rehabilitating the image of the Clintons - I am talking about combating fake news and the inability of too many persons - enough to swing elections - to be influenced by fake news and their inability to discern between fact and obvious lies.

The work begins with promoting reason, evidence and skepticism while exposing irrationality, blind faith and  cynicism.  That is a topic for another day.

Breitbart, The Blaze and others spread fake news? I'm Shocked!

Here is the Breitbart Headline: "Democrats in Congress refused to stand while a Navy SEAL’s widow was acknowledged by President Trump in his speech before a joint session of Congress Tuesday night."  They followed this headline with the following accusation:  "Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sen. Al Franken (D-MN), Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), and Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), among others, remained firmly seated and did not applaud at all while the rest of the room gave Carryn Owens a standing ovation, IJR reported."

Notice the weasel phrase, "IJR reported."  This is a tactic used by fake news outlets to report a story that they could easily verify or debunk but would prefer not to because the story, as it stands, supports their world view.  So instead of reporting it themselves which they could have done, or discrediting it altogether, they merely repeat the unverified story because it hurts - the Democrats.

But of course, the story was false.

Snopes investigated and found the video, on the White House web site that showed Democrats standing and applauding.  The fake news outlets used photos of Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Keith Ellison from other unrelated parts of the so-called President's speech to the  joint session of Congress.  Go to http://www.snopes.com/democrats-stand-seal-widow/.

For the fake news, take a look at http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/01/democrats-refuse-stand-navy-seals-widow-received-standing-ovation-trump-speech/ or http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/03/01/meet-the-democrats-who-refused-to-stand-and-applaud-the-widow-of-a-fallen-navy-seal/  .

Definition of a Hypocrite

Wikipedia says: Hypocrisy is the contrivance of a false appearance of virtue or goodness, while concealing real character or inclinations, especially with respect to religious and moral beliefs; hence in a general sense, dissimulation, pretense, sham.  A person who indulges in hypocrisy is a hypocrite.

In the past, Donald Trump has tweeted, "An 'extremely credible source' has called my office and told me that @BarackObama's birth certificate is a fraud."  4:23 PM - 6 Aug 2012.

He also tweeted, "Congratulations to @RealSheriffJoe on his successful Cold Case Posse investigation which claims @BarackObama's 'birth certificate' is fake."  8:56 AM - 18 Jul 2012

How about one of Trump's hallucinations, recounted on George Stephanopoulos' TV show:
TRUMP: “Hey, I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering.”
STEPHANOPOULOS: “You know, the police say that didn’t happen and all those rumors have been on the Internet for some time. So did you misspeak yesterday?”
TRUMP: “It did happen. I saw it.”  (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/11/22/donald-trumps-outrageous-claim-that-thousands-of-new-jersey-muslims-celebrated-the-911-attacks/?utm_term=.613338efd378 )

He also said this, "There was a picture on the front page of the National Enquirer, which does have credibility," Trump said to a room of volunteers and staffers in Cleveland, adding that the tabloid "should be very respected."  In May, Trump had said to Fox News, "You know, his father was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald's being -- you know, shot....Right prior to his [Kennedy's] being shot, and nobody even brings it up. I mean, they don't even talk about that. That was reported and nobody talks about it."  (Go to http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-defends-linking-ted-cruzs-father-to-lee-harvey-oswald/ )

Here's a delusional Trump tweet for you: "In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally."  3:30 PM - 27 Nov 2016

Now Donald Trump wouldn't promote the existence via a tweet of a "sex" tape unless it actually had sex in it and it the person he was accusing was actually in it, would he?  Oh yes he would:  "Did Crooked Hillary help disgusting (check out sex tape and past) Alicia M(achado) become a U.S. citizen so she could use her in the debate?"  5:30 AM - 30 Sep 2016

Let us not forget Trump's favorite target, Hillary Clinton and the charitable Clinton foundation in a campaign statement: "Hillary Clinton is the defender of the corrupt and rigged status quo... The Clintons have spent decades as insiders lining their own pockets and taking care of donors instead of the American people.  It is now clear that the Clinton Foundation is the most corrupt enterprise in political history.  What they were doing during Crooked Hillary’s time as Secretary of State was wrong then, and it is wrong now. It must be shut down immediately.”

And that brings us to today, January 11, 2017, with Trump dismissing any possible conflicts of interest and complaining about "fake news" and the "media" being unfair...

Although Trump demanded Clinton close down her charitable foundation from which she made no money (we know this because we have seen her tax returns) and has done much good work with 87% of monies going to the needy, "He told a news conference he had formally given 'complete and total' control to them in a bid to avoid conflicts of interest.  Mr Trump's lawyer, Sheri Dillon said the President-elect had 'isolated' himself from his businesses.  But the Office of Government Ethics said Mr Trump's plan didn't 'meet the standards' of former presidents.  The organisation's director Walter Shaub said the office's primary recommendation was that Mr Trump 'divest his conflicting assets'."  (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-38587628 )

And of course, now he sees "fake news" everywhere (except for coming from himself):
"That's something that Nazi Germany would have done," he said.  He was replying to unsubstantiated allegations that his election team colluded with Russia and there were salacious videos of his private life... Mr Trump said the information "should have never been written and certainly should never have been released...   It's all fake news, it's phony stuff, it didn't happen," he said, adding that "sick people" had "put that crap together... it's an absolute disgrace". (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38586626 )

Trump was not happy that an allegedly "fake news" story damaging to him made it into print and was complaining about it being leaked by Buzzfeed while at the same time falsely accusing CNN of linking to the report, which it did not.  He threatened to throw out a CNN reporter from today's news conference.  I guess CNN is no National Inquirer.

Please note that this "fake news" was actually a privately created report given to John McCain and the intelligence community and in no way was it classified material.  If it is "leaked" to Buzzfeed, there is no culpability necessarily on the part of the intelligence community.  They had no ability to keep the report secret if someone in private life had decided to send it to Buzzfeed.  It's a private report; anyone could have written it, gotten it and forwarded it.  The sources of the report apparently had enough credibility to inspire a John McCain and others to consider it to be worth investigating by the intelligence community.  That is not "fake new" - it's real news.  The report may prove to be false itself, but the fact that this report is being investigated is real news and its leak may be perfectly legal.  Its leaking certainly is as ethical as Trump's birther claims, his claims about Ted Cruz's father and other lies that Trump has promoted.

Unfortunately the President elect seems to have no ability to discern "fake new" from real news, and sadly a large minority of Americans cannot as well.  And even before the inauguration, that a large minority of Americans are learning to accept gross hypocrisy and lies on a scale even more grand than I could have ever imagined is the biggest real news of the day.