Answer: the Democrats.
No matter who is really the victim, who is really the beneficiary, who was asleep at the switch and who was vigilant, the Democrats are going to get blamed.
I have inserted below a couple of comments I have received in the past 24 hours from Thad Guyer. They are untypical of my incoming comments in the sense that they are full of citations from the news media, and Thad Guyer operates at a higher level of emotional intensity than my other correspondents. Most of my other correspondents reflect denial and defeat: the Republicans win every battle, they make Democrats look weak, they sell lies, they blame us for everything and they sell it.
People in the blue bubble (Washington Post, the NY Times, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, Democracy Now, university towns, the east and west coast cities, Bernie Sanders, advanced degrees in something, Prius-Honda Civic-Suburu, racial-ethic-gender toleration world) were shocked by the election result. They cannot believe that their reality--the real reality of official good behavior--misunderstood the reality. It was the feeling people had after 9-11, disbelief. We can be bombed and die? I thought we were the ones who did the bombing and killing. Planes are bombs? I thought planes carried bombs, and if planes are bombs then there are bombs everywhere!
Blue bubble Democrats are sad, confused, inclined to hide out. Not Thad Guyer.
Blue bubble Democrats are sad, confused, inclined to hide out. Not Thad Guyer.
Guyer lives mostly in Vietnam so he is out of the bubble and he foresaw an ass-whipping that people in the bubble did not, and he was angry about it and angry at Democratic failures and angry at Democratic tone of weakness and angry that Democrats appeared to him to be tone deaf to certain common sense realities. He said--as did I, only more temperately--that Democrats were going off course. It is OK to validate that people do not want to be killed. Democrats did not need to feel sheepish in identifying bad behavior when it really is bad behavior. Some people on the Democratic "team", i.e. blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, women, professors do really bad or stupid or dangerous things. It only weakens the Democratic message when we deny the obvious and defend the indefensible. And this blog said repeatedly, and says now, that the problem with identity politics of rallying blacks, Hispanics, immigrants, gays, and women on the basis of identity is that it coalesces the other side: whites. White working class men making 12-15 dollars an hour do not feel like king of the hill oppressors and they resent being considered that.
Hillary handled identity politics poorly, pushed voters away, and didn't have a clear message of economic change to sell. This blog attempted to be clear and dispassionate about it. Guest Posts by Guyer tended to sound angry to some of my readers.
He hasn't cooled off yet.
Hillary handled identity politics poorly, pushed voters away, and didn't have a clear message of economic change to sell. This blog attempted to be clear and dispassionate about it. Guest Posts by Guyer tended to sound angry to some of my readers.
He hasn't cooled off yet.
As I have written, a week ago the head of intelligence of the Defense Department spoke to a group of 40 and he got no hostile questions about being asleep at the switch. I spoke to the director of the Harvard Kennedy School program after class. What is wrong with your students, I asked. I predicted to him that our speaker is going to go through hell shortly when the world wakes up to the fact that the Russians hacked our election on his watch, and he should be going through hell right now by Congressional Committees asking why he was asleep at the switch.
He said the students are young or mid-career and on the way up and they are respectful. You and I are jaded, he said, and just aren't as polite as they are. I predicted the mess would hit the fan. I was a week early.
 |
| The Breitbart version |
Our intelligence people are going to go through a very rough patch. Here is why:
1. They were in fact asleep at the switch. America was hacked and we didn't stop it, and if we couldn't stop it we didn't respond as if it were attack and sound a loud angry alarm.
2. The information is always a little bit indecisive, that being the nature of cyber warfare, so there will always be questions. Even things that happen in the bright lights (the moon landing, the Sandy Hook shooting of school kids)
3. The FBI appears to disagree with the CIA a little and maybe a lot. The CIA says the Russians were involved and were attempting to help Trump. The FBI says the Russians were probably involved and they were attempting simply to mess with American confidence in our institutions. The lack of agreement means there is reason to argue and investigate, then argue and investigate some more.
4. The Republicans have clarity of purpose. They want to defend Trump's victory and to hurt Democrats. They are divided on what kind of threat Russia is, with the old guard cold warriors hating Russia and Trump looking for a rapprochement, but they are united in wanting Democrats to look bad.
5. The Democrats don't have a leader yet. Warren and Sanders represent the left; Schemer represents the establishment left. The Centrist-establishment left represented by Hillary Clinton is discredited. The next generation has not yet emerged.
6. Republicans are better at attacking than Democrats are. Republicans are happy to make an unsubstantiated charge that is unpatriotic and disreputable and then to stick with it, and those people get promoted. Retired General Michael Flynn says Obama and Hillary are crooks and traitors and his staff is appalled by how intemperate he is and he becomes National Security Advisor. Ambassador John Bolton accuses the Democrats of hacking themselves to frame Republicans and he is made Deputy National Security Advisor. Kellyanne Conway ignores obvious contradictions in what Trump says and insists that her truth is valid, to great effect. Democrats are more relative, less absolute, better at explaining than de-legitimizing. No one is as good as Trump at selling a version of things. The version that will be sold is that Obama's team is corrupted and incompetent and the Russians walked all over them and it is good for America that we have a new president who can introduce some competence.
This blog post was introduced by noting that Thad Guyer communicates at a higher level of intensity than I do. As readers will note below, he says about what I intended to say, only much more vividly. But don't trust my characterization of Guyer. It is just my opinion. Decide for yourself:
"Russiagate investigations and Hillary call for national security briefings of electors are going to blow up in our (Dem) faces and NYT WP. Banging on Trumpist cages is going to go very badly for Dems, far beyond what is being envisioned. We are seeing the supercharging of the most imperial presidency imaginable in my lifetime."
On August 8, 2016, every media outlet led the news with headlines like these: “50 GOP national security experts oppose Trump” (CNN, https://goo.gl/RbVR1i), and “50 G.O.P. Officials Warn Donald Trump Would Put Nation’s Security ‘at Risk” (NY Times, https://goo.gl/jFhTWv). That a contingent of the national security establishment has politicized its disaffection with Trump is not even debatable. The question now is how far that politicizing of national intelligence issues has gone in the present “Russian helped Trump get elected” conspiracy allegations.
Investigations of Russian interference obviously must and will go forward. Obama has already ordered it. Congressional leaders have announced it as well. But those investigations should and are going to spiral into much broader inquiries as to the role and motives of the national security establishment in the whole affair. The “50 GOP national security experts” politicizing the anti-Trump national security view, and the FBI press statements that hurt Clinton, guarantee a very broad and politically charged scope of investigation. It will not be a scandal of the Trump administration. It will be yet another scandal of the Obama administration, far bigger and sensational than Benghazi and the State Department, and Secretary Clinton’s email abuses. Three branches of Republican government will be investigating the past Democratic administration.
Here are three questions that are going to investigated:
(1) Was it the Russian Government? There is a fundamental difference between politically or technically powerful hackers and governmental action. Edward Snowden was a contractor employee for the NSA. Yet his acts were not those of the NSA. The legitimacy of this Russian “governmental” speculation will be investigated, and if confirmed, the question will be “how did Obama and Democrats allow the DNC hack to happen?”
(2) Did Russia Have the RNC Emails to Release? Thus far, other than media statements, no evidence has been released showing the RNC was hacked. To the contrary, two days after the DNC was hacked, the RNC requested FBI review of its systems. The RNC stated then, and states now, that the FBI informed it that the security review found no evidence of a breach, but only of unsuccessful efforts. If this is true, the entire theory of Russia trying to help Trump is hobbled. That theory explicitly relies on the Russians having RNC emails of both parties, but releasing only those of the DNC. If Russia failed to get the RNC’s emails, then the Trump preference theory is fake news. The source and veracity of the claims that the RNC was successfully hacked will be investigated. Also asked will be “why did Obama officials, Democrats and disloyal #neverTrumpers put out this fake news?”
(3) If Wikileaks Had RNC Emails, Did it Withhold Them? Perhaps the most unsubstantiated speculation to date is that if Wikileaks had RNC email, then it would have timely published them. Like the alleged RNC hacking, the entire theory of Russian preference assumes objectivity by Wikileaks. Yet, Wikileaks is strongly anti-Obama/Clinton, and regards the Obama intelligence sector as an anti-democratic cyber criminal enterprise. Why would American intelligence base an election fraud theory on the fairness of its arch-enemy Wikileaks. This will be investigated, and “why would Obama, Democrats and disloyal #neverTrumpers publish a theory that relied on Wikileaks having revealed all it had gotten from the Russians?”
Commander in chief Trump will review the investigation reports, order more investigations, and decides what punishment will be sought against whom. Prepare to see an Obama era FBI and CIA house cleaning, and perhaps criminal prosecutions. But count on immense damage to the Democratic Party from the investigations, and American public opinion questioning our loyalty and consorting with #neverTrumper former intelligence officials.
Wait! There is even more. Thad Guyer, an attorney representing whistleblowers, and I discuss the transition. Sit back and hear us talk about the optics of the transition and how Trump is handling the media. Peter says he is "winning" the little battles where the media objects to his conflicts of interests and the numbers of the Carrier jobs saved. Guyer reviews the new personnel in detail.
Click Here for the New Podcast
3. The FBI appears to disagree with the CIA a little and maybe a lot. The CIA says the Russians were involved and were attempting to help Trump. The FBI says the Russians were probably involved and they were attempting simply to mess with American confidence in our institutions. The lack of agreement means there is reason to argue and investigate, then argue and investigate some more.
4. The Republicans have clarity of purpose. They want to defend Trump's victory and to hurt Democrats. They are divided on what kind of threat Russia is, with the old guard cold warriors hating Russia and Trump looking for a rapprochement, but they are united in wanting Democrats to look bad.
 |
| Dick Durbin, one of many Democrats |
6. Republicans are better at attacking than Democrats are. Republicans are happy to make an unsubstantiated charge that is unpatriotic and disreputable and then to stick with it, and those people get promoted. Retired General Michael Flynn says Obama and Hillary are crooks and traitors and his staff is appalled by how intemperate he is and he becomes National Security Advisor. Ambassador John Bolton accuses the Democrats of hacking themselves to frame Republicans and he is made Deputy National Security Advisor. Kellyanne Conway ignores obvious contradictions in what Trump says and insists that her truth is valid, to great effect. Democrats are more relative, less absolute, better at explaining than de-legitimizing. No one is as good as Trump at selling a version of things. The version that will be sold is that Obama's team is corrupted and incompetent and the Russians walked all over them and it is good for America that we have a new president who can introduce some competence.
This blog post was introduced by noting that Thad Guyer communicates at a higher level of intensity than I do. As readers will note below, he says about what I intended to say, only much more vividly. But don't trust my characterization of Guyer. It is just my opinion. Decide for yourself:
 |
| Guyer |
Email from Guyer: "Kaboom!!!"
"Russiagate investigations and Hillary call for national security briefings of electors are going to blow up in our (Dem) faces and NYT WP. Banging on Trumpist cages is going to go very badly for Dems, far beyond what is being envisioned. We are seeing the supercharging of the most imperial presidency imaginable in my lifetime."
Comment from Guyer: Criminal Prosecution of Obama Era FBI and CIA Officials in Our Future?”
On August 8, 2016, every media outlet led the news with headlines like these: “50 GOP national security experts oppose Trump” (CNN, https://goo.gl/RbVR1i), and “50 G.O.P. Officials Warn Donald Trump Would Put Nation’s Security ‘at Risk” (NY Times, https://goo.gl/jFhTWv). That a contingent of the national security establishment has politicized its disaffection with Trump is not even debatable. The question now is how far that politicizing of national intelligence issues has gone in the present “Russian helped Trump get elected” conspiracy allegations.
Investigations of Russian interference obviously must and will go forward. Obama has already ordered it. Congressional leaders have announced it as well. But those investigations should and are going to spiral into much broader inquiries as to the role and motives of the national security establishment in the whole affair. The “50 GOP national security experts” politicizing the anti-Trump national security view, and the FBI press statements that hurt Clinton, guarantee a very broad and politically charged scope of investigation. It will not be a scandal of the Trump administration. It will be yet another scandal of the Obama administration, far bigger and sensational than Benghazi and the State Department, and Secretary Clinton’s email abuses. Three branches of Republican government will be investigating the past Democratic administration.
Here are three questions that are going to investigated:
(1) Was it the Russian Government? There is a fundamental difference between politically or technically powerful hackers and governmental action. Edward Snowden was a contractor employee for the NSA. Yet his acts were not those of the NSA. The legitimacy of this Russian “governmental” speculation will be investigated, and if confirmed, the question will be “how did Obama and Democrats allow the DNC hack to happen?”
(2) Did Russia Have the RNC Emails to Release? Thus far, other than media statements, no evidence has been released showing the RNC was hacked. To the contrary, two days after the DNC was hacked, the RNC requested FBI review of its systems. The RNC stated then, and states now, that the FBI informed it that the security review found no evidence of a breach, but only of unsuccessful efforts. If this is true, the entire theory of Russia trying to help Trump is hobbled. That theory explicitly relies on the Russians having RNC emails of both parties, but releasing only those of the DNC. If Russia failed to get the RNC’s emails, then the Trump preference theory is fake news. The source and veracity of the claims that the RNC was successfully hacked will be investigated. Also asked will be “why did Obama officials, Democrats and disloyal #neverTrumpers put out this fake news?”
(3) If Wikileaks Had RNC Emails, Did it Withhold Them? Perhaps the most unsubstantiated speculation to date is that if Wikileaks had RNC email, then it would have timely published them. Like the alleged RNC hacking, the entire theory of Russian preference assumes objectivity by Wikileaks. Yet, Wikileaks is strongly anti-Obama/Clinton, and regards the Obama intelligence sector as an anti-democratic cyber criminal enterprise. Why would American intelligence base an election fraud theory on the fairness of its arch-enemy Wikileaks. This will be investigated, and “why would Obama, Democrats and disloyal #neverTrumpers publish a theory that relied on Wikileaks having revealed all it had gotten from the Russians?”
Commander in chief Trump will review the investigation reports, order more investigations, and decides what punishment will be sought against whom. Prepare to see an Obama era FBI and CIA house cleaning, and perhaps criminal prosecutions. But count on immense damage to the Democratic Party from the investigations, and American public opinion questioning our loyalty and consorting with #neverTrumper former intelligence officials.
Wait! There is even more. Thad Guyer, an attorney representing whistleblowers, and I discuss the transition. Sit back and hear us talk about the optics of the transition and how Trump is handling the media. Peter says he is "winning" the little battles where the media objects to his conflicts of interests and the numbers of the Carrier jobs saved. Guyer reviews the new personnel in detail.Click Here for the New Podcast
No comments:
Post a Comment