RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Mueller Is Steadily Working His Way Up the Food Chain Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Saturday, 24 February 2018 15:02

Pierce writes: "So, on Friday, Rick Gates, without whom Paul Manafort could not have fluffed and folded a single dollar, copped a plea in federal court. This brings Robert Mueller's investigation even closer to the king fixer, who absolutely has no place to go right now."

Robert Mueller. (photo: James Berglie/TNS)
Robert Mueller. (photo: James Berglie/TNS)


Mueller Is Steadily Working His Way Up the Food Chain

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

24 February 18


After Rick Gates and Paul Manafort, the air up there gets pretty thin.

A hound it was, an enormous coal-black hound, but not such a hound as mortal eyes have ever seen. Fire burst from its open mouth, its eyes glowed with a smouldering glare, its muzzle and hackles and dewlap were outlined in flickering flame.
—The Hound Of The Baskervilles

o, on Friday, Rick Gates, without whom Paul Manafort could not have fluffed and folded a single dollar, copped a plea in federal court. This brings Robert Mueller’s investigation even closer to the king fixer, who absolutely has no place to go right now. He is on a spit over an open flame and it’s turning ever faster. The skin is starting to crackle and Paul Manafort is almost done and ready for serving. And Manafort, unless he’s an idiot, which nobody thinks he is, has to be pretty close to serving up the only person he can serve up.

Twice I have with my own ears heard the sound which resembled the distant baying of a hound.

Yeah, the spectral hound is circling the South Lawn as we speak.

Gates’s surrender undoubtedly is connected to the massive new 32-count indictment that Mueller dropped on him and Manafort a couple of days ago. The information submitted behind those charges was positively astonishing in its scope, and in the amount of money that had gone through the Manafort-Gates Launderama. Per CNN:

In total, more than $75,000,000 flowed through the offshore accounts. MANAFORT, with the assistance of GATES, laundered more than $30,000,000, income that he concealed…

I don’t know about Gatesor Manafortbut being charged with laundering 30 million bucks on top of all the other charges would get me speed-dialing my legal counsel. (Or, as apparently was the case with Gates, I would find me a new attorney with a rep for cutting deals with federal prosecutors.)

Just from the elbows, I’m betting that a lot of Mueller’s attention is being directed at the very strange period in the summer of 2016 when Manafort was the president*’s campaign manager until, oops, he wasn’t any more. During that time, he wrangled the delegates who would hand the president* the nomination, keeping them in line while the party establishment pretended to faint at the very prospect of being led by a comic-opera grifter. (For a brief time, this wasn’t a sure thing.)

More to the point, last June, he was central to the famous Trump Tower meeting at which it is alleged that a Kremlin-connected lawyer offered hacked oppo concerning Hillary Rodham Clinton to the Trump campaign. He also was running things when the Republican platform was softened as regards the Russian actions against the Ukraine, Manafort having had extensive business dealings with the Kremlin-aligned elements in that country. He ran the campaign from June until August. Most of what interests Mueller probably happened during that slice of time.

Anyway, the events on Friday should come as no surprise to anyone, not even the fellow in the Oval Office. Mueller has proven to be dogged and patient. He’s not going anywhere except steadily up the food chain. Gates has copped a plea. Manafort is done like dinner, and the fog is beginning to set in over the Great Grimpen Mire, distant sounds echoing ever louder.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: The 9/11 Hijackers Were Iraqis, Right? Teaching in a Time of Wars Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=31568"><span class="small">Rebecca Gordon, TomDispatch</span></a>   
Saturday, 24 February 2018 12:08

Gordon writes: "I was teaching the day the airplanes hit the World Trade Center. It was the second meeting of 'The Communist Manifesto for Seminarians,' a course for my fellow graduate students. By the time I got to class, both towers had collapsed."

Smoke-filled skies loom over an American tank destroyed during a firefight with Iraqis on the south side of Baghdad. (photo: Carolyn Cole/LA Times)
Smoke-filled skies loom over an American tank destroyed during a firefight with Iraqis on the south side of Baghdad. (photo: Carolyn Cole/LA Times)


The 9/11 Hijackers Were Iraqis, Right? Teaching in a Time of Wars

By Rebecca Gordon, TomDispatch

24 February 18

 


It’s been a long time since I stood in a classroom and taught anyone anything, but each June for years I’ve appeared before classes of college seniors to give a graduation address ushering them into our grim world. True, those speeches didn't take place before flesh-and-blood audiences but on what I’ve come to call “the campus of my mind” (and were then posted at TomDispatch). Still, I faithfully tried to usher class after class of graduates into an ever more godforsaken American world. The other day, however, I realized just how deeply the age of Trump had gotten to me.  In 2017, I seem not to have had the urge to give such a speech and so graduated no one into anything. 

That led me back to my last attempt to do so: June 5, 2016, a moment when Donald Trump already had every media eye in America glued to his orange comb-over, his incipient “authoritarianism” had become an issue, and I was imagining the possibility that he might indeed be elected president.  With that in mind, I gave an address to that year's graduates, which I titled “Donald Trump Is the Mosquito, Not the Zika Virus.” In it, I said: “Few bother to consider the ways in which the foundations of authoritarianism have already been laid in this society -- and not by disaffected working class white men either.  Few bother to consider what it means to have a national security state and a massive military machine deeply embedded in our ruling city and our American world... or what it means for that state within a state, that shadow government, to become ever more powerful and autonomous in the name of American ‘safety,’ especially from ‘terrorism’ (though terrorism represents the most microscopic of dangers for most Americans)...

“It’s clear enough... that our American system is morphing in ways for which we have no names, no adequate descriptive vocabulary.  Perhaps it’s not just that we have no clear bead on what's going on, but that we prefer not to know.”  And I then implored the Class of 2016 to step into that world and “tell us who we are and where we are.”

So, more than a year and a half later, who are we?  Where are we?  Barely a week after the latest mass slaughter by a disturbed teenager carrying an AR-15 assault rifle into a Florida school, I’m not sure I even want to know.  Fun fact: you need to be 21 in Florida to legally purchase alcohol, but only 18 to get that combat rifle.  Fun fact: in February 2017, by rescinding an Obama-era regulation, President Trump made it easier for people with mental problems to buy guns. Fun fact: Thanks to the killing of 17 students and teachers in Parkland, Florida, Columbine is no longer the worst high school mass killing in our history. Fun fact: In the United States, there is now, on average, a “mass shooting” (four or more people shot) nine out of every 10 days of the year.  Talk about terror!  Talk about terrorism!  And so it goes in the age of The Donald.

It’s hardly surprising, then, that my urge to graduate anyone into such a world hit rock bottom last year, which is why I find something heartwarming about today’s piece by TomDispatch regular Rebecca Gordon -- about, that is, anyone willing at this moment to face the daunting task of helping the young learn how to navigate an American world that seems more unnerving and unbalanced by the day. So here’s a small bow to Gordon and the students who take the journey with her onto what is increasingly an alien planet damaged in ways that should deeply disturb us all. 

-Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch


The 9/11 Hijackers Were Iraqis, Right?
Teaching in a Time of Wars

was teaching the day the airplanes hit the World Trade Center. It was the second meeting of “The Communist Manifesto for Seminarians,” a course for my fellow graduate students. By the time I got to class, both towers had collapsed. A few hours later, Building 7 came down as well. We dispensed with a planned discussion about what Marxists mean by “idealism” and “materialism” and talked instead about the meaning of this particular example of the “propaganda of the deed.”

We already sensed that, with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in the White House, the attacks would mean war. But like the rest of the world, we didn’t yet have the faintest idea how long that war would last. And 16 years on, we still don’t know.

A few years later, I found myself in front of 40 undergraduates on the first day of the first ethics course I would ever teach. You know how sometimes you have no idea what you’re going to say until the words are out of your mouth? That day, I opened my mouth and this came out: “I was so excited about this class that I couldn’t sleep last night.” Eighty horrified eyes stared back at me. “I guess it wasn’t like that for you,” I added, and felt the blush creep up my face. Most of them had the grace to laugh.

Thirteen years later, I still have trouble sleeping the night before a new semester begins. It’s not exactly stage fright, but knowing that I’ll only have a few chances to convince a new crop of students that they really do want to examine their deepest values -- the things they care most about -- and even talk about them in front of their peers.

In fact, most of them do care deeply and about important things, too, like how they should treat their friends, their parents, and their sexual and/or romantic partners. They care about their friends who drink and drug too much and appreciate the friends who get them home safe when they do the same. They care about economic inequality, especially when they’re trying to find a place they can afford to rent in this city of soaring prices, San Francisco, or when contemplating the massive debt most of them will be carrying for years, if not a lifetime, after they graduate.

Some of them regularly turn out to be Milton Friedman-style economic libertarians. Almost invariably, more are reflexively anti-capitalist. More than half of them are young people of color. They and the majority of their white peers care deeply about racism. They don’t think the police should shoot unarmed black men and they tend to believe that people of color face institutional barriers that white people never even see. Slavery, they know, was a terrible idea, but many of them are fuzzy about when it started in this country and how it ended.

Quite a few of them are immigrants or the children of immigrants. Some are undocumented or DACA recipients, so not surprisingly they care about immigration laws and policies. Their fellow students would never turn them in to the authorities. They may not know exactly why, but they have the feeling it would be unethical.

Some of them are in the Reserve Officer Training Corps, or ROTC. Some are veterans. U.S. military adventures affect them directly. While the rest of the students do care about war and peace, most of their lives are touched more lightly by America’s wars than were those of their peers a decade ago.

They care about so much, but there’s a lot they just don’t know.

Don’t Know Much About History...

The first hint I got about the gaps in my students’ background knowledge came early on in my teaching career. In a homework assignment a student wrote that Aristotle had quoted Shakespeare. Another thought that when that Greek philosopher mentioned a theater, he was talking about going to the movies.

I wasn’t surprised that those students knew little about ancient Athens; there’s no reason to expect them to arrive at college versed in Greek philosophy. But something far more basic was missing: a sense of the sweep of what Americans call “western” history -- a chronological grid on which to pin the key movements and events that shape today’s world. I soon found myself putting a giant timeline on the blackboard on which the students would try to place the authors we were reading. Then we’d fill it in with other world events.

Even the relatively short history of the United States occupies a strangely flattened state in many of their imaginations. In their minds, for instance, all of the country’s wars -- especially those of the twentieth century -- seem to run together, making it hard to understand how one war can lead to another.

My pre-collegiate history education was not really much better than theirs, but it was somewhat different. I grew up in Washington, D.C., in the days when Congress ran the city directly, including defining the curriculum for elementary and secondary school students.  We were required to take three cracks at American history (in fifth, eighth, and twelfth grade). Repeatedly, we spent so much time on the 13 original colonies that, by the day school let out for the year, we had barely reached World War I. I never did find out what happened after that, not in school anyway. Nowadays, schools have speeded things up a bit and the war they never get to happened in Vietnam.

I’m certainly not the first person to discover that, for new generations, foundational events in her own life -- the Civil Rights movement, the Vietnam War, the women’s liberation movement, even the first Gulf War -- are, to the young, history almost as ancient as the Civil War. Why should they know about such things? They weren’t even born yet.

But here’s a surprising development -- surprising because this last decade and a half seems to have flown past so quickly. I’m now encountering students who have no memory of an event that has shaped their lives, this country, and much of the world for the last 16 years: the 9/11 attacks.

The Early Years

The first undergraduates I taught were already in their teens on 9/11, which meant that those attacks formed a historic dividing point in their lives. For them, as for the coterie of men who would lead this country to the “dark side” (to use Vice President Dick Cheney’s admonitory phrase), there was a “before 9/11 and an after 9/11.”  

After 9/11, they lived in a nation “at war.” The United States was suddenly fighting an enemy that, as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told “Meet the Press” less than a month after the attacks, “is not just in Afghanistan. It is in 50 or 60 countries and,” he added, “it simply has to be liquidated.” Little did they -- or the rest of us -- know that the liquid this protean enemy most resembled was a blob of mercury, which multiplies into hundreds of separate droplets when you hit it.

Recently, former CIA director and retired general David Petraeus admitted to Judy Woodruff of the PBS NewsHour that the war on terror’s first battlefield, Afghanistan, has become the locus of a “generational struggle,” one that more than a decade and a half later is not “going to be won in a few years.”

I’ve watched that generational struggle as it developed in the classroom.  My first students had friends and relations fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. One young woman’s uncle, a man in his late forties, was a surgeon who had been “reactivated” and sent to Iraq years after completing his active service. In fact, it turns out that everyone who joins the military signs on for eight years, whether they know it or not. Any of those years not spent on active duty or in the “drilling” Reserves still leaves you in the “Individual Ready Reserves,” as many were surprised to discover when the U.S. Army ran short of personnel to fight two simultaneous land wars.

A few students had partners fighting overseas and their worry was painful to observe. Soon enough, I had women students whose male partners were returning from those wars as changed -- and dangerous -- men. Several confided (either to me privately or to an entire class) that they’d had to move out because they feared for their safety.

And soon one of our school’s graduates, Jennifer Moreno, died in combat.

Every September, the Army would appear on campus. Arriving in gleaming Hummers, they’d erect a portable climbing wall and pass out glossy recruitment literature, encouraging students to join ROTC. Once, I was stunned by the courage of four young women, who stood off to the side of the show holding up homemade antiwar signs. Then one fall, the recruiters didn’t show up at all. I never knew whether it was because the wars had fallen out of favor with the board of my Jesuit university or because troop drawdowns had eased recruitment pressure. All I knew was that it probably wasn’t thanks to those brave students with their hand-drawn signs.

In the early years, more than one ROTC member admitted to me (or our class) that he or she doubted the Bush administration’s rationale for the war in Iraq. One young man from Guam explained that, having accepted a scholarship (“my ticket off the island”), he was duty-bound to fight in Iraq despite his doubts. “I know that in basic training, they try to take you apart as a person and then put you back together as a soldier,” he told me. “I want you to know that I’m not going to let that happen to me.” I’ve often wondered what did happen to him.

Here’s another thing I remember from those early years.  To my surprise, many of my students supported torture -- less as an interrogation method than as punishment for truly heinous crimes (torture, that is, as righteous vengeance). Terrorists should be tortured, some argued, as payback for 9/11, but perhaps because their own childhoods were still so near in time and memory, a number of them thought that those most deserving of torture were not political terrorists, but child abusers.

Just about all of them were certain of one thing: the men who flew the planes on 9/11 were Iraqis.

When Johnny (and Janie) Come Marching Home Again...

Eventually, of course, war veterans began to appear in my classes. They were older and in many cases more mature than the other students in ways that didn’t just reflect their age.  I often teach an ethics class in which students work with a community-based organization. One veteran chose to do this “service learning” with Swords to Plowshares, which provides services for vets. They’d helped him when he first got out, and he wanted to return the favor. “If anyone tells you they came back whole from Iraq or Afghanistan,” he assured me, “they’re either lying or they just don’t know yet.”

He was right, I think. One thing I’ve noticed over the years: like many survivors of war, those vets never volunteer to talk about what they’ve seen. Nor do their fellow students show much curiosity about it, and I don’t ask directly. But some, like the young man who’d served five years as a sniper in Iraq and Afghanistan, are clearly in pain. He’d suffered a broken back and brain trauma when an improvised explosive device blew up his Humvee. He was bitter about the war and his own role in it, certain that he’d been lied to by his government. Since leaving the military he had learned a lot of history. Now, he sat in the last row of the classroom, back to the wall, one leg bouncing uncontrollably up and down. Usually he left early. The anxiety of being in a room with that many people, he explained to me, was more than he could endure.

Such veterans, however, are classroom oddities, rare exceptions to the general rule that the U.S. can fight an endless war on terror without pain, sacrifice, or even, in recent years, much attention at all. These days, my students live in a country that has been at war almost since they were born, and yet, as is true with most of their fellow citizens, the fighting could be happening on Mars for all the impact it has on them. Most of them no longer know people directly affected. Their friends and family, of course, aren't among the tens of millions of Iraqis, Syrians, Afghans, or Yemenis made refugees by those American wars and their consequences.

Most of them haven’t yet realized that, if their government hadn’t spent $5.6 trillion and counting on those very wars, there might have been federal money available to relieve them of the school debt they will carry for decades.

Those Who Fail to Learn...

It’s not an accident that my students arrive at college with little understanding of U.S. history or, for that matter, knowledge of how their government works. Nor is it their fault. Education is crucial to citizenship in a democracy and, for many years, those on the right in this country have done their best to defund and dismantle public education. Under President Trump we have a secretary of education who makes no secret of her belief that, like other public goods, education is best left in the tender hands of the market.

The other day I asked my “Ethics: War, Torture, and Terrorism” class to name the countries where the United States is currently involved in some military action. They were able to come up with Iraq and Afghanistan. A veteran then added Djibouti, where U.S. Africa Command has a key base. “Syria?” someone wondered. A ROTC member mentioned Yemen. No one even thought of Somalia or Libya. No one had heard of the West African country of Niger, where Sergeant LaDavid Johnson died in an ambush set by an ISIS affiliate. (If asked, some might have remembered that when Donald Trump called Johnson's widow, he made news by struggling to remember her husband’s name and suggesting that Johnson had known “what he signed up for.”)

Nor could they name any of the other countries, 76 in all, affected in some fashion by their country’s undeclared, never-ending “generational” war on terror.

The good news is that they want to learn.

The bad news: nowadays, they tend to think that the men who flew those planes on 9/11 were from Iran.



Rebecca Gordon, a TomDispatch regular, teaches at the University of San Francisco. She is the author of American Nuremberg: The U.S. Officials Who Should Stand Trial for Post-9/11 War Crimes. Her previous books include Mainstreaming Torture: Ethical Approaches in the Post-9/11 United States and Letters from Nicaragua.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Alfred McCoy's In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power, as well as John Dower's The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II, John Feffer's dystopian novel Splinterlands, Nick Turse's Next Time They’ll Come to Count the Dead, and Tom Engelhardt's Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Putin's Useful Idiots Print
Saturday, 24 February 2018 11:41

Milbank writes: "Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III's indictment of 13 Russians over their alleged efforts to elect Donald Trump set off a presidential paroxysm of self-exoneration."

Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. (photo: Reuters)
Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. (photo: Reuters)


Putin's Useful Idiots

By Dana Milbank, The Washington Post

24 February 18

 

pecial counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s indictment of 13 Russians over their alleged efforts to elect Donald Trump set off a presidential paroxysm of self-exoneration.

“The results of the election were not impacted. The Trump campaign did nothing wrong — no collusion!” President Trump proclaimed in one of his saner tweets of the past four days.

In fact, the Mueller investigation is ongoing and has offered no such conclusions. But what Mueller did expose last week should sicken us all: Vladimir Putin has played Americans across the political spectrum for suckers. In particular, the Russian dictator has turned Trump supporters into the useful idiots of the 21st century.

The phrase “useful idiots,” often attributed to an earlier Vladimir, referred to Westerners who had been successfully manipulated by Soviet propaganda. But even Lenin would have to smile at the way Putin exploited Americans in 2016 to support Trump, or at least to oppose Hillary Clinton. Mueller’s indictment is full of nauseating detail about how Putin made fools of Americans.

Using Facebook groups such as “Being Patriotic,” they organized “March for Trump” and “Down with Hillary” rallies in New York, “Florida Goes Trump” rallies in Florida and “Miners for Trump” rallies in Pennsylvania, among others.

They attracted more than 100,000 followers to a Twitter account falsely claiming to be controlled by the Tennessee Republican Party, @TEN_GOP, and got hundreds of thousands of online followers for groups they created such as “Army of Jesus” and “South United.”

They paid Americans to build a cage on a flatbed truck and to wear a Clinton-in-prison-garb costume. To whip up anti-Muslim fervor to Trump’s benefit, they created a Facebook group called “United Muslims of America” and promoted a rally called “Support Hillary. Save American Muslims,” at which they recruited an actual American to hold a sign saying, “I think Sharia Law will be a powerful new direction of freedom.”

They promoted Trump-friendly hashtags (#MAGA, #Hillary4Prison), created pro-Trump accounts (“Trumpsters United”) and paid for election ads saying, among other things, “Vote Republican, vote Trump, and support the Second Amendment!” and “Hillary is a Satan, and her crimes and lies had proved just how evil she is.”

Putin’s meddling, now exposed, should shame us and unify us in a response. But that won’t happen, because the most useful idiot of all happens to be the president, who is focused only on himself.

In his fit of self-absolution over the holiday weekend, Trump pointed fingers in every direction except Moscow. He went after Barack Obama, Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), Clinton, his own national security adviser, the FBI, CNN — even Oprah Winfrey. He used foul language. He made up facts. He retweeted a cartoon from a now-suspended account already famous for a racist cartoon during the election.

Rather than condemning or countering what the Russians themselves called “information warfare against the United States,” Trump decided to respond with his own pro-Trump information warfare. Upon hearing that there had been a Russian “troll farm” sowing crops in America, he reacted by reminding everybody that he is the Cargill of troll farming.

Perhaps, given the president’s level of intellectual curiosity, he heard Russian “troll farm” on cable news and assumed these trolls were similar to those gentle creatures in the 2016 DreamWorks animated film “Trolls.” But these Russian trolls are not adorable figurines with colorful hair, and their attack on the United States cannot be answered with hugs. These trolls paid actual Americans to attend rallies. They bought ads to allege that Clinton “committed voter fraud.” They manipulated the Black Lives Matter movement by creating groups and accounts such as “Blacktivist” and “Woke Blacks,” attempting to persuade African Americans to support the Green Party’s Jill Stein or not to vote rather than “to vote Killary.” The Russians even had the nerve to charge real Americans to post promotional material on the phony accounts.

The Russians also used fake identities “to communicate with unwitting members, volunteers, and supporters of the Trump Campaign involved in local community outreach, as well as grassroots groups that supported then-candidate Trump.”

“Unwitting.” Trump and his defenders take that as exoneration, even though it is limited to just this aspect of the probe. But it’s another way of saying they were useful idiots.

Thanks to Mueller, they are now witting. Trump, in his refusal to respond to this Russian attack, continues to play the useful idiot, because it suits his selfish purposes. Will his supporters also continue to let Putin play them for fools?


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Donald Trump Will Never Cross the NRA Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=6853"><span class="small">Frank Rich, New York Magazine</span></a>   
Saturday, 24 February 2018 09:48

Rich writes: "By unleashing a wave of student anger and activism, the slaughter in Parkland may be shaking up the intractable American gun debate."

Donald Trump. (photo: Jabin Botsford/Getty Images)
Donald Trump. (photo: Jabin Botsford/Getty Images)


Donald Trump Will Never Cross the NRA

By Frank Rich, New York Magazine

24 February 18


Most weeks, New York Magazine writer-at-large Frank Rich speaks with contributor Alex Carp about the biggest stories in politics and culture. Today: Trump’s listening sessions with the families of mass-shooting victims, the meaning of Mueller’s latest indictments, and lessons of Black Panther’s box-office success.

he White House hosted families from Parkland, Newtown, and Columbine for an emotional “listening session” with President Trump Wednesday afternoon, and will have another one with law enforcement officials today. Is this a signal that Trump may be genuinely interested in gun control — or is he just trying to saving face after his disappointing response last week?

By unleashing a wave of student anger and activism, the slaughter in Parkland may be shaking up the intractable American gun debate. But make no mistake about Trump: However much “listening” he purports to do, he will do absolutely nothing to remedy the epidemic of violence that is literally and figuratively consuming the country. Trump, who was endorsed by the NRA even before he won the presidential nomination and then benefited from $30 million of NRA campaign spending, is even now giving the gun lobby still more of what it paid for. Yesterday he called for more guns, not fewer, in schools, and he reiterated this nostrum with this incredible tweet this morning: “If a potential ‘sicko shooter’ knows that a school has a large number of very weapons talented teachers (and others) who will be instantly shooting, the sicko will NEVER attack that school. Cowards won’t go there…problem solved.” Let us repeat this: Problem solved!

As Trump won’t cross the NRA — he saluted Wayne LaPierre and his colleagues as “Great American Patriots” in another tweet today — so he won’t cross his base on this issue any more than he did on immigration. His sympathetic noises about the victims of gun violence are as empty as his repeated claims that he sympathized with Dreamers and wanted to help them. But the hopeful news post-Parkland — tentatively hopeful, needless to say — is that the enraged student protesters are for the moment frightening Trump and the other NRA pawns of the GOP. That’s why Trump held his “listening” session. That’s why Florida state legislators exited through side doors when students stormed the state capitol in Tallahassee yesterday. That’s why Florida’s governor, Rick Scott, was a no-show at the town hall on guns broadcast by CNN last night. That’s why internet trolls are spewing out videos and tweets — some of them endorsed by Donald Trump Jr. — sliming the most outspoken Parkland students as frauds and plants. That’s why that great moralist Bill O’Reilly — remember him? — blamed the media for ginning up public sentiment for gun control by showcasing Parkland teenagers “in an emotional state.” These teenagers are scaring the Second Amendment zealots as adult gun reformers rarely have.

If the students don’t retreat, if their ranks expand, and if they follow through on their pledge to organize and vote, they may actually get some of the results that have eluded gun-control advocates for decades. But they will be up against daunting obstacles. Those obstacles include not only the NRA, Trump and his base, and nearly every Republican officeholder, but also supposedly “adult” conservatives who give cover to the gun lobby by calling for patience and moderation. Such voices have been out in force since the Parkland bloodbath. In the Times, Ross Douthat called for “a moral bridge between the civic vision of the Second Amendment advocates and the insights of their critics.” (This gives new meaning to “the bridge to nowhere.”) David Brooks echoed by recommending this proven dead end as the way forward to reform: “It’s necessary to let people from Red America lead the way, and to show respect to gun owners at all points.” At The Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan attributed the gun-violence epidemic to the internet, porn, video games, “violent entertainment culture,” and of course “the abortion regime.” Her legislative solution: “Trade banning assault weapons for banning late-term abortion.” Problem solved! This is the same kind of thinking that prompted John Kelly — once thought of as a supposed moderate in Trump’s inner circle — to argue that “the lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War.”

Compromise is not going to end the rising wave of mass murder in America any more than it ended slavery. With all our focus on the mental illness of crazed killers like Nikolas Cruz and Stephen Paddock, we tend to lose sight that it’s another sign of mental illness that American political leaders and their apologists do nothing while the country literally destroys itself with gun violence.

Trump responded to Mueller’s indictment laying out Russian election interference last week with a weekend tweetstorm that the Washington Post described as “unhinged,” and which included profanity, misspellings, and basic factual errors. What does this meltdown say about his ability to weather Mueller’s revelations going forward?

Mueller’s indictment of 13 Russians made it clearer than ever that Trump will not weather the results of this investigation, and that the cost of firing Mueller now would be more politically catastrophic than ever. It’s revelatory that Trump didn’t initially figure this out. He originally and delusionally hailed the indictment as a vindication. He might still be doing so had Parkland not intervened. The gravity of the shooting forced him for appearances’ sake to forsake golf at Mar-a-Lago over the weekend and instead cower indoors binge-watching cable TV and letting loose with his insane tweetstorm. Clearly those around him hadn’t had the guts to tell him how devastating the news of Mueller’s indictment was for him and those around him, including his son and son-in-law, so cable talking heads did so instead.

If you read the indictment, it’s clear that Mueller’s team knows in granular detail virtually everything that went on during the 2016 election, and is steadily laying out the criminality one step at a time. Trump defenders who keep saying there’s no there there now have to see (whether they acknowledge it or not) that there was a huge there there: what even Trump’s national security adviser H. R. McMaster felt compelled to describe as “incontrovertible” evidence of the Russian effort to sabotage American democracy at its heart, the ballot box. By proving that crime, the indictment lays the groundwork for charging those who attempted to obstruct the investigation of the crime. Meanwhile, Mueller keeps dealing out new cards, including a reported plea deal for Paul Manafort’s deputy Rick Gates and a reported investigation of a Chicago banker who may have been promised a White House job by Manafort in exchange for $16 million in loans. Manafort may soon have to decide whether he wants to spend the rest of his life in prison or start squealing on Trump. Still to come: the fruits of Mueller’s investigation into the Russian hacking of Clinton and DNC emails.

Another thing Trump may have belatedly figured out while gorging on Big Macs in front of his flat screen over the weekend: When his lawyer Ty Cobb last year told him that Mueller would wrap up his investigation by Thanksgiving, he meant Thanksgiving 2018.

Black Panther crushed box-office records in its opening weekend, taking in more then $400 million in global ticket sales. Will its success knock down the Hollywood myth that stories anchored in black culture, or with mostly black casts, can’t find global audiences?

Money is the only language that talks in Hollywood, and one would hope that the unassailable success of Black Panther will galvanize more industry bets on black filmmakers and the stories they want to tell. What’s more, Black Panther, though undoubtedly the kind of “violent entertainment culture” that Peggy Noonan would blame for school shootings, is an imaginative and uncompromising story of African-American empowerment, achieved not through sermonizing but within the transporting mythology of Marvel. Still, there have been so many articles celebrating the film as a commercial and cultural milestone that one wants to add a word of caution: It wasn’t that long ago that an even bigger victory in the mass marketplace, Barack Obama’s election as president, was seen as a breakthrough ushering in a post-racial America. When it comes to intransigent American conflicts — whether over race or guns — we have to be careful not to let hope blind us to the battles still ahead.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Why Does the CIA Prefer Corporate Media? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=36478"><span class="small">John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Friday, 23 February 2018 14:17

Kiriakou writes: "The Central Intelligence Agency last week told a federal judge, in response to a lawsuit, that it had a right to leak classified information to selected journalists and then to deny release of exactly the same information to other journalists requesting it under the Freedom of Information Act."

Pedestrians pass in front of the New York Times Co. building in New York. (photo: Michael Nagle/Bloomberg)
Pedestrians pass in front of the New York Times Co. building in New York. (photo: Michael Nagle/Bloomberg)


Why Does the CIA Prefer Corporate Media?

By John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News

23 February 18

 

he Central Intelligence Agency last week told a federal judge, in response to a lawsuit, that it had a right to leak classified information to selected journalists and then to deny release of exactly the same information to other journalists requesting it under the Freedom of Information Act.

The suit was filed by independent journalist Adam Johnson, whose work is frequently published in The Nation, Alternet, and on other progressive sites. Johnson noticed that in a 2012 information release request to the CIA by then-Gawker journalist John Cook for correspondence between the CIA and a number of prominent journalists, many of the responses to those journalists were redacted. Why, Johnson wondered, would the CIA send emails to some journalists and then withhold the same information from others? Why was preferential treatment being given?

For the record, the journalists who received preferential treatment were Jo Becker and Scott Shane of The New York Times; David Ignatius of The Washington Post; Ken Dilanian and Brian Bennett of the Los Angeles Times; Matt Apuzzo and Adam Goldman of the Associated Press; and Siobhan Gorman and Evan Perez of The Wall Street Journal. Most have since moved on to other outlets.

In one example that Johnson cited in his suit, The Wall Street Journal’s Gorman wrote to the CIA’s Office of Public Affairs, “I’m told that on runs, Director Petraeus’s security detail hands him bottles of water, relay-style, so as not to slow him down. And you mentioned the director’s running a 6-minute mile, but I was told that the agency-wide invitation was that if you could run a 7-minute mile, you can come run with the director. I wanted to make sure both are is [sic] accurate. On the chart, it’s accurate to say that the congressional gym and the Pentagon gym ranked high, right? And I was just told that the facilities at the black sites were better than the ones at CIA. Don’t know whether that’s something you want to weigh in on, but I thought I’d see if you did.”

The CIA responded the same day. “Siobhan …” The rest of the document is redacted. In closing, the CIA added, “We can chat more on Monday, hope this helps.” That’s it. The entire response was deemed to be too classified for you and me. But it was okay for Siobhan Gorman. She quickly responded, “Thanks for the help. I hope I wasn’t the cause of your dental appointment delay. This is very helpful as I try to tie up loose ends on this story. Sometimes ‘fun’ stories take as much work as their ‘less fun’ brethren. Sorry for all the qus [sic].”

The CIA argued that limited, selective disclosures of classified information to journalists are perfectly legal. The National Security Act of 1947, they said, only requires protection of intelligence sources and methods from “unauthorized” disclosure, not from authorized disclosure. And because the disclosures at issue were actually intended to protect intelligence sources and methods, they were fully authorized.

That was nonsense, according to Chief Judge Colleen McMahon. She said that Johnson’s question “is a good one. The issue is whether the CIA waived its right to rely on otherwise applicable exemptions to FOIA disclosure by admittedly disclosing information selectively to one particular reporter or to three.” She ordered the CIA to prepare a “more rigorous” justification of its legal position. Johnson may then respond to the CIA’s response by March 1.

The CIA has a long and ugly history with journalists. From the early 1950s to the mid-1970s, the CIA carried out something called “Operation Mockingbird.” The purpose of the operation was, in part, to recruit journalists and to manipulate the news media for propaganda purposes, including the propagandizing of the American people. Then-CIA director George H.W. Bush restricted the program in early 1976, and by the time the Church Committee was ready to release its report on CIA wrongdoing around the world, Operation Mockingbird was over.

But routine and regular contact with journalists never ended.

If the CIA wants to be an equal opportunity leaker, well, I guess there’s not much to stop it. But the issue is far more serious, and that’s because the legal definition of espionage is “providing national defense information to any person not entitled to receive it.” That came from Judge Leonie Brinkema in US v. Kiriakou. She couldn’t have been any more clear about it.

So why does the CIA get to commit espionage? Because there’s nobody to stop them. I’ve said countless times in this venue that the Congressional oversight committees are cheerleaders and lemmings and will never challenge the CIA on these issues, at least not with the current lineup. Meanwhile, the CIA can leak whatever it wants to whomever it wants with impunity. There won’t be any espionage trials for the CIA’s Office of Public Affairs.

We can talk in more detail about former CIA director Leon Panetta leaking classified information to a Hollywood producer and writer and getting away with it. We can talk about Panetta publishing his memoir without putting it through the CIA’s Publications Review Board, leaving it chock full of classified information and paying no price. We can talk about former CIA director David Petraeus leaking classified information, including the names of ten covert operatives, to his girlfriend, who was writing his hagiography. He pleaded to a misdemeanor. And the list goes on and on.

But what good would that do? The fix is in. The CIA can do whatever it wants. The rest of us have to follow the rules. There is one glimmer of hope, though. It’s Judge Colleen McMahon and those jurists like her. Maybe she’ll use this case to give Washington a lesson in respect for the law, freedom of the press, and separation of powers. Maybe.




John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior investigator with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. John became the sixth whistleblower indicted by the Obama administration under the Espionage Act – a law designed to punish spies. He served 23 months in prison as a result of his attempts to oppose the Bush administration's torture program.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 Next > End >>

Page 1331 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN