RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Trump and Republicans Discover the Perils of Touting the Stock Market Print
Tuesday, 06 February 2018 09:24

Excerpt: "President Trump and congressional Republicans have spent much of the past year trying to connect a giddy stock market rally with their economic agenda, but stocks' precipitous plunge in the past five days has delivered a sobering reality: What goes up can come back down."

The New York Stock Exchange. (photo: Ben Hider/NYSE Euronext)
The New York Stock Exchange. (photo: Ben Hider/NYSE Euronext)


Trump and Republicans Discover the Perils of Touting the Stock Market

By Damian Paletta and Erica Werner, The Washington Post

06 February 18

 

resident Trump and congressional Republicans have spent much of the past year trying to connect a giddy stock market rally with their economic agenda, but stocks’ precipitous plunge in the past five days has delivered a sobering reality: What goes up can come back down — quickly and with little warning.

With Monday’s steep fall, Trump has presided over the biggest stock market drop in U.S. history, when measured by points in the Dow Jones industrial average. The free fall began in earnest Jan. 30 and snowballed Friday and Monday, for a combined loss of almost 2,100 points, or 8 percent of the Dow’s value.

It is also unclear if the past week will amount to a small correction or the beginning of a painful slide that many investors said was overdue.

Trump’s economic team is largely untested in periods of economic uncertainty. Many investors and lawmakers are watching the actions of Trump’s newly sworn-in pick for Federal Reserve chairman, Jerome H. Powell, to see how quickly he is willing to raise interest rates in the face of rising inflation.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin briefed Trump on the market’s fall Monday during a trip to Ohio, where the president made no mention of the financial troubles in public remarks. Mnuchin is a close Trump adviser, but his views on how the government should respond to market volatility are not well-known since he had little experience in Washington before joining the administration.

Stock market spikes and blips are not uncommon, though the swing in the past week was highly unusual because of its sustained fall.

And Republicans’ repeated swooning about the stock market’s performance in the past year opened them to criticism that they should take some responsibility for the past week’s poor performance. Some of the investor anxiety is directly related to heightened fears about the growing budget deficit, which is widening under the new GOP-backed tax law.

“Any time you claim credit for an increasing stock market, you risk having to take the blame for one that decreases,” said Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.). “Markets move in strange ways.”

The fall began on the same day as Trump’s State of the Union speech, in which he boasted that “the stock market has smashed one record after another, gaining $8 trillion in value.”

The stock market closed Monday at its lowest levels since early December, though it is still up substantially since Trump’s inauguration.

Many analysts had warned that the stock market was overheated and due for a correction. But White House officials continued to boast about its performance, particularly as Trump’s approval ratings lagged for much of 2017. The stock market was one measuring stick that they sought to connect closely with his time in office, believing that Americans would eventually come around if they felt the economy was getting better.

“The reason our stock market is so successful is because of me,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One in November.

There have been signs in recent weeks that Trump’s approval rating has improved, particularly as he and other Republicans have worked to portray decisions by a number of companies to offer bonuses and raise wages as a direct result of the tax cuts. Sustained stock market losses, however, could undermine the president’s effort to take credit for a growing economy ahead of the midterm elections in November.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll in January found 58 percent of respondents rating the economy positively, up seven points in the past year and the highest level in 17 years. But fewer than 4 in 10 said Trump’s administration deserves significant credit for the economy’s condition, compared with half who said the Obama administration does.

“The perception of a growing and healthy economy is key to Trump’s success as president,” said Neil Newhouse, a Republican pollster. “The unnoticed number that people haven’t paid attention to is the improving mood of the country, the right-direction number. When that goes up, presidential approval goes up, and the condition of the economy is tied very strongly to that right-direction number.”

There have been numerous signs that the economy was continuing to improve, but again and again, Trump kept coming back to the stock market as his primary barometer for success. That focus could complicate the White House’s efforts to distance the president from the reversal.

“The tricky part of claiming credit for the stock market is the stock market can go up and the stock market can go down,” said Andy Laperriere, a partner at Cornerstone Macro, a Wall Street advisory firm.

He said there was a sense among many investors that the stock market had become overvalued and that much of the recent increase was what he referred to as “air.”

“And once the air comes out, people are headed for the exits,” he said.

It’s unclear how much more air will come out, which is one of the reasons investors are so wary. The stock market surged last year because of sustained global growth combined with enthusiasm for Trump’s tax plan and his effort to pare regulations. But there are new worries about inflation, higher debt levels and rising interest rates that have fueled volatility in recent days.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Tex.) told reporters Monday that the stock market fall reflected good news about the economy, as it showed that higher wages were adding to inflationary pressures that the Fed would need to address.

“Corrections like this are normal,” Brady said.

Trump delivered a speech on his economic agenda Monday that didn’t mention the stock market once, a rare occurrence for him. After tweeting incessantly about the stock market in 2017, Trump has stopped since Jan. 20.

“The President’s focus is on our long-term economic fundamentals, which remain exceptionally strong, with strengthening U.S. economic growth, historically low unemployment, and increasing wages for American workers,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement. “The President’s tax cuts and regulatory reforms will further enhance the U.S. economy and continue to increase prosperity for the American people.”

In 2017, the economy grew at a slightly better clip than the year before, but job creation appeared to plateau and wage gains remained modest. The Dow, which grew 25 percent last year, was a bright spot for White House officials, reflecting what they believed was robust enthusiasm for Trump’s agenda.

In a Dec. 19 Twitter post, Trump wrote: “DOW RISES 5000 POINTS ON THE YEAR FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER — MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” It was the 58th time since taking office that he had mentioned the stock market on Twitter.

The last time he mentioned the stock market on Twitter was on Jan. 20, a day after the Dow closed at 26,072. The 30-stock index has fallen more than 1,700 points since.

Trump used to ridicule the stock market before taking office, saying in September 2016 that recent gains in the market were a result of a “big, fat, ugly bubble” that would pop once interest rates increased.

The stock market’s steep fall in the past week has prompted a number of Democrats to pounce, saying Trump should shoulder some of the blame.

President Barack Obama took office when the economy was cratering, and he saw the stock market bottom out several months into his first term. The stock market would more than double before he left office, but his economic team was often cautious about wading into speculation on how the stock market would perform.

Jay Carney, Obama’s former press secretary, wrote on Twitter on Monday: “Good time to recall that in the previous administration, we NEVER boasted about the stock market — even though the Dow more than doubled on Obama’s watch — because we knew two things: 1) the stock market is not the economy; and 2) if you claim the rise, you own the fall.”

Brian Riedl, a former adviser to Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and two GOP presidential candidates, said presidents frequently try to highlight good economic news, opening themselves to criticism when bad news emerges.

“All presidents take credit for good economic news, whether it’s economic growth or the stock market,” he said. “And as a result they are going to get the blame when the party ends.”

Some key members of Trump’s economic team are in transition. White House National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn, a former president at Goldman Sachs, could leave soon, and it is unclear if Trump would bring in another markets expert to replace him. Decisions by Powell, the new Fed chair, about how and when to raise interest rates could also have a direct effect on the stock market’s performance.

Trump has told advisers that the economy would be the GOP’s calling card heading into elections in 2018 and 2020. He has said the stock market’s increase has led to a ballooning of 401(k) and other retirement accounts, a connection that has made some aides wary because many of his supporters don’t hold such investments.

He often asks about the market several times a day, aides said, and he will occasionally flip his television to CNBC to check for himself.

Stephen Moore, who served as an economic adviser to Trump during the campaign and has cheered the new tax law, said Monday that the stock market is still up sharply from the day Trump was elected in 2016. But he conceded that it is unclear whether the recent plunge is the beginning of a downturn.

“The Dow gyrates much more than these other economic statistics,” Moore said. “Who knows? The Dow could be up 500 points tomorrow. Or it could fall 500 points.”


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
6 Tortured Arguments Republicans Are Making About the Nunes Memo Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=25952"><span class="small">Aaron Blake, The Washington Post</span></a>   
Monday, 05 February 2018 14:57

Blake writes: "Whatever you think about the memo or the issues that underlie it, its most ardent proponents - including Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) himself - have spent the three days since its release making some rather strained, counterfactual and even historically inaccurate arguments."

Devin Nunes. (photo: AP)
Devin Nunes. (photo: AP)


6 Tortured Arguments Republicans Are Making About the Nunes Memo

By Aaron Blake, The Washington Post

05 February 18

 

f your case is only as strong as your weakest argument, then the Nunes memo is as big a flop as its critics allege.

Whatever you think about the memo or the issues that underlie it, its most ardent proponents — including Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) himself — have spent the three days since its release making some rather strained, counterfactual and even historically inaccurate arguments.

Below are a few of them that jumped out.

1. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) to Fox News on Friday night: “I would say that this is far bigger than Russia or Donald Trump, or even the Mueller probe. This is the first time in American history that politics has weaponized the FBI.”

In Gaetz's defense, at 35 years old, he did not live through any part of J. Edgar Hoover's nearly five decades in charge of the FBI and its predecessor.

But even before Hoover, what was then called the Bureau of Investigation was founded by Theodore Roosevelt in 1908 to assist in Roosevelt's trust-busting efforts. As the FBI's own website says today, the bureau “was not yet strong enough to withstand the sometimes corrupting influence of patronage politics on hiring, promotions, and transfers.” By the 1920s, the FBI's website recalls, it “had a growing reputation for politicized investigations. In 1923, in the midst of the Teapot Dome scandal that rocked the Harding Administration, the nation learned that Department of Justice officials had sent Bureau agents to spy on members of Congress who had opposed its policies.”

Hoover took over the bureau in 1924 on the promise to reform it. That ... didn't exactly happen. And for anybody who needs a refresher, read up on what the Church Committee found in the 1970s.

2. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Nunes to “Fox and Friends” on Monday: “As far as we can tell, Papadopoulos never even knew who — never even had met with the president.”

There is a photo of then-Trump adviser George Papadopoulos at a March 2016 meeting with Trump. It was put out by Trump's own Twitter account. And according to a New York Times report, Trump even asked Papadopoulos questions.

Trump also told The Washington Post's editorial board in an interview that Papadopoulos was an "excellent guy."

3. Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.): “Finally, there needs to be a discussion as to whether the Mueller investigation is truly needed, seeing that the main premise that launched the investigation turned out to not be credible and was both directed and funded by political opponents.”

This argument is directly contradicted by the Nunes memo itself. As The Post's Karen Tumulty and Rosalind S. Helderman detailed Friday, the memo says, “The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok.” This refers to Papadopoulos telling an Australian diplomat in London that Russia had dirt on Hillary Clinton — a conversation that was later reported to American authorities — and it happened three months before the FISA application to monitor Carter Page.

In other words, the memo confirms the investigation was launched months before the thing Duncan alleges was the “main premise” for its launch.

4. Nunes to Fox News on Friday: “I don't believe that somebody like Mr. Page should be a target of the FBI, especially using salacious information paid for by a political campaign like this dossier ...”

To say that the FISA application to monitor Page was faulty and didn't disclose enough is one thing; to argue that Page didn't merit being monitored is quite another.

Back in 2013, for example, the FBI interviewed Page after Russian spies had attempted to recruit him. What's more, two days after Nunes said this, Time magazine reported that Page had boasted in a 2013 letter that he had served as an informal adviser to the Kremlin.

The dossier included a number of unverified claims, including about Page, but there was plenty of other information out there that clearly made him of-interest to the FBI and U.S. intelligence. He had been on their radar for years, in fact. Nunes seems to be arguing rather strangely that Page is just a guy who was railroaded for no reason, but that ignores lots of publicly known evidence.

5. More Gaetz: “We do know what Andrew McCabe said, and he's no, you know, talking head for the Republican Party. And Andrew McCabe said, but for this dossier, there never would've been a FISA memo. ... That is a verifiable fact.”

This may be a verifiable fact, but it hasn't been verified yet — not hardly. As I wrote Saturday, McCabe's exact comments to the House Intelligence Committee in December are disputed by Democrats, and the memo didn't provide a direct quote.

There have been plenty of calls for an exact transcript of what McCabe, who was then the deputy FBI director, said to the committee. Until we see that, though, we're relying on a partisan document that for some reason opted not to quote him.

6. Nunes on “Fox and Friends”: “If Papadopoulos was such a major figure, why didn't you get a warrant on him? ... Being drunk in London and talking to other diplomats saying you didn't like Hillary Clinton, I think it's kinda scary that our intelligence agencies would take that and use that against an American citizen.”

Yet again, Nunes seems to be not just raising concerns about the FISA application, but suggesting a key player — in this case, Papadopoulos — is being railroaded.

Unfortunately, his summary of events is woefully slanted. Papadopoulos's comments didn't raise red flags with the Australian diplomat because he said he “didn't like Hillary Clinton;” they raised red flags because he claimed to have knowledge that the Russians had dirt on Clinton.

That would later be revealed to be more than just idle chatter and the ramblings of an inebriated adviser. Dirt on Clinton was also promised in exchange for Donald Trump Jr. setting up that June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, after all.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Black Lives Matter: Philadelphia Super Bowl Riots Reaction 'Glaring Example of White Privilege' Print
Monday, 05 February 2018 14:55

Da Silva writes: "In the aftermath of the chaos that erupted in Philadelphia as Eagles fans tore through the streets celebrating their Super Bowl victory, many could not help but notice the difference in how the public and officials reacted to riots by fans compared to those prompted by civil unrest."

Philadelphia Super Bowl riots. (photo: Getty Images)
Philadelphia Super Bowl riots. (photo: Getty Images)


Black Lives Matter: Philadelphia Super Bowl Riots Reaction 'Glaring Example of White Privilege'

By Chantal Da Silva, Yahoo News

05 February 18

 

n the aftermath of the chaos that erupted in Philadelphia as Eagles fans tore through the streets celebrating their Super Bowl victory, many could not help but notice the difference in how the public and officials reacted to riots by fans compared to those prompted by civil unrest.

"Somehow, it seems there's a line drawn in the sand where destruction of property because of a sports victory is OK and acceptable in America. However, if you have people who are fighting for their most basic human right, the right to live, they will be condemned," Black Lives Matter New York President Hawk Newsome told Newsweek.

Emergency responders struggled to keep up with rioters as they marched through Philadelphia streets leaving destruction in their wake. Revelers reportedly ripped down light posts, caused entire structures to collapse, and damaged vehicles and store buildings as they celebrated the Eagles' 41-33 victory.

But officials appeared slow to condemn the destruction caused by rioters, offering seemingly gentle requests for everyone to "go home."

"Still going strong in the [Office of Emergency Management]. But, if everyone could go home that would be great," Philadelphia Police Sergeant Brian Geer wrote on Twitter at 9:30 p.m., adding: "We have to get some rest to start planning a parade in the morning."

Meanwhile, Philadelphia's City Council thanked emergency responders "for their hard work" amid the riots, stating: "This is the start of some long days and nights for them."

Newsome called the lack of condemnation from officials "a glaring example of white privilege."

"You can riot if you're white and your team wins, but if you're black and being killed, you can't speak out," he added.

Black Lives Matter, which works to raise awareness around racial inequality and police brutality, first came under the public spotlight after organizing protests in response to the death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, a black teenager, who was fatally shot by George Zimmerman, a white man, while walking home from a convenience store with a bag of Skittles and a drink.

Since then, the group has faced strong opposition from law enforcement and groups like Blue Lives Matter and All Lives Matter. A recent survey conducted last year also found that 57 percent of people in America had an "unfavorable view" of BLM, with the majority of those opposed to the group being white.

"It makes me think about Baltimore because I was there the day the riots started," Newsome said. "You could feel the tension in the air. "

Riots broke out in Baltimore in 2015, after the death of Freddie Gray, a black 25-year-old resident who died after sustaining injuries to his neck and spine while being transported in a police vehicle after officers arrested him.

Gray's death was ruled by a medical examiner to be a homicide, resulting in six officers being charged with multiple offenses, including second-degree murder.

During the protests, some rioters smashed storefronts and damaged a number of police vehicles. At least 34 people were reportedly arrested, and a number of police officers were injured.

"They were just so angry they didn't know how to express themselves any other way. That's why they were rioting. It's not like they were doing it in the name of fun," Newsome said.

"I wish they wouldn't riot, but I can't condemn them and neither can anyone else, especially not the media, especially not politicians when they condone people who are just drunk and destroying property because their team won," he added.

A number Twitter users were also quick to point out the contrast between how officials responded to the riots compared to protests held over racial inequality or police brutality.

"The next time someone comes at you about black people "rioting" for justice, point them at this hashtag chronicling the aftermath of a sports team winning a big game," screenwriter Michael Starrbury wrote on Twitter, referring to the #phillypolicescanner hashtag.

Twitter users flooded the social media site with the hashtag sharing shocking reports allegedly made by officers over police scanners as rioters climbed buildings, tore down light poles and took over downtown streets.

"We laugh about white people doing things like this for a team, but look down on black and brown people upset over a killing," one commenter tweeted.

"I agree that there is a clear and consistent double standard about rioting. A riot with mostly white people often gets turned into jokes," another wrote. "Imagine the blowblack if the majority of these people were black. I'm just saying, be consistent about it."

Another commenter drew comparisons between reactions to the destruction caused by rioters and widespread criticisms calling the "take a knee" movement "disrespectful" after a number of NFL players, led by Colin Kaepernick, began taking a knee during the U.S. national anthem to protest police brutality and racial inequality in America.

He quoted police reports allegedly made over the Philadelphia police scanner, including "a guy in a four-wheeler just ran over a cop" and "we need more shields and riot gear," before adding: "But football players kneeling is disrespectful."

President Donald Trump has been one of the most outspoken critics of the "take a knee" movement, repeatedly rebuking Kaepernick and fellow NFL players.

In September, the president called on NFL owners to fire players who kneel during the national anthem and encouraged fans to walk out on games where players protested.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Sharia Law: It's Not What You Think It Is Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=36478"><span class="small">John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Monday, 05 February 2018 13:16

Kiriakou writes: "Sharia law has become a buzzword around the world. But what, exactly, is Sharia law?"

John Kiriakou. (photo: The Washington Post)
John Kiriakou. (photo: The Washington Post)


Sharia Law: It's Not What You Think It Is

By John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News

05 February 18

 

ormer congressman, senator, and Kansas governor Sam Brownback, an evangelical Christian and extreme conservative, was confirmed by the Senate last week as the State Department’s Ambassador-at-Large for Religious Freedom. The vote was 49-49, with Vice President Pence, himself a conservative evangelical Christian, breaking the tie. Right-wing Christian leaders praised the nomination and confirmation, saying that Brownback would work hard to protect Christian minorities in the Middle East and South Asia.

LGBTQ proponents pointed to Brownback’s long history of opposition to gay rights as an example of hypocrisy and said that he would do nothing more than export the Trump administration’s hate agenda. I think they’re right. And I’ll go one further. Brownback will do nothing to protect the rights of Shia Muslims in majority Sunni countries and vice versa. I believe that Brownback hates and fears Muslims. Look what he did in his own state of Kansas.

In 2012, when he was governor of Kansas, Brownback supported – and signed into law – a bill to ban Islamic law. Specifically, it forbade courts and state government agencies from using Islamic or other non-US laws when making decisions. (This was a non sequitor. No court or government agency in America uses Islamic law when making decisions. The bill was meant only to mollify those Kansans who hate people not like them – white and Christian.)

Supporters of the law said that it would reassure “foreigners” (e.g., any Muslim, foreign or not) living in Kansas that the Constitution would protect them. Opponents said that it singled out Muslims for ridicule and was irrelevant anyway, because everybody is supposed to be protected equally under US law.

Sharia law has become a buzzword around the world. It conjures up images of beheadings, amputations, and radicals shouting “Allahu Akbar” while burning the American flag. Even Greece, a country as open and welcoming of other cultures and faiths as any, recently passed a law to limit Sharia because it was being used in the country’s Islamic courts (which have jurisdiction among the country’s Muslim minority in northern Greece) to discriminate against women in inheritance cases.

But what, exactly, is Sharia law? The word Sharia literally means a “road” or “path.” In the religious context, it means a path to faith. (I speak Arabic and have a degree in Middle Eastern Studies, with a concentration in Islamic theology. I studied Islam under the noted theologian Sayyid Hossein Nasr.)

Traditional Islamic jurisprudence recognizes four bases for Sharia: the Quran, which Muslims believe is the literal word of God; the sunnah, which are the verbally transmitted teachings, deeds, and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad; qiyas, which is the process of deductive analogy in which the teachings of the Hadith (a collection of traditions based on the sayings of Muhammad) are compared with those of the Quran in order to apply a known injunction to a new circumstance, similar to the way US courts apply precedent; and ijma, which is judicial consensus, or a “meeting” of judicial minds.

Historically, Sharia was interpreted by independent judges, called “muftis,” who issued rulings called “fatwahs.” Since the middle of the 20th century, however, most Muslim countries have replaced the mufti system with a system of courts based on the European (primarily French) model. In almost all cases (with Saudi Arabia and Iran being the primary outliers), capital punishment such as stoning and beheading were banned, and criminal cases are heard in a civilian, non-religious court.

Almost every Muslim-majority country uses Sharia law only to settle issues of personal and family law: marriage, divorce, child support, inheritance, contracts, and property disputes. In some countries (Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan, for example), the Sharia court also handles cases of apostasy, but these are rare.

Islam does have its fundamentalist strain, just like Christianity and every other religion does. And some fundamentalist Muslim imams argue that Sharia should be the absolute law of the land. But that view has gained traction only in Afghanistan.

Two of the major complaints against Sharia are that it is inconsistent with Western views on universal human rights and with democratic governance. Indeed, most Muslim countries have rejected the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, instead recognizing the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, drafted by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which, they say, calls for respect for both human rights and Muslim paternalistic hierarchy.

But in the United States, all of this is neither here nor there. Sharia law in the US is entirely community-based, and the structure of Sharia jurisprudence in the US is very similar to that exercised by the Rom, formerly known as “gypsies.” That is, a plaintiff and a defendant will approach a Sharia court judge with their dispute, lay out the facts, and hear a decision. These are not issues of human rights, of apostasy or blasphemy. They are issues like Person A and Person B went into business together, the partnership fell apart, and they want to end it in accordance with Islamic law. Or Person A died and did not leave a will (which is very common among Muslim families). How is the property to be divided among the surviving family members?

There is no harm in allowing communities to settle their own disputes, based on their own beliefs, when it doesn’t impinge on anyone’s human, civil, or constitutional rights. Live and let live. But Sam Brownback’s hateful ideology does impinge on individual freedoms. He and people like him have no right to interfere with anybody’s religious beliefs as long as they do not harm anyone. Kansas’ anti-Sharia law, and others like it in North Carolina, Oklahoma, Louisiana, South Dakota, and Tennessee, are paperwork exercises that have no impact in real life outside their clearly and narrowly-defined communities.

Sam Brownback’s interference, and the interference of others like him, will result only in further misunderstanding, distrust, and hatred. That’s not what our country needs. And it’s not what an American ambassador should do.



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
 
FOCUS: 'Deep State' Fantasy Is Just as Dangerous as the 'Fake News' Myth Print
Monday, 05 February 2018 12:34

Cooper writes: "The Devin Nunes memo may have been a dud, but it did reveal one major issue: Politicians feel more than fine about destroying trust in our institutions."

Devin Nunes. (photo: Daily Beast)
Devin Nunes. (photo: Daily Beast)


'Deep State' Fantasy Is Just as Dangerous as the 'Fake News' Myth

By Rory Cooper, The Daily Beast

05 February 18


The Devin Nunes memo may have been a dud, but it did reveal one major issue: Politicians feel more than fine about destroying trust in our institutions.

or weeks, we have been sold the idea that a “memo” written by Republican staffers of the House Select Committee on Intelligence was a damning piece of evidence of political bias in the intelligence-gathering process. Members of Congress, most of whom had not yet read the memo or the underlying FISA application, called for its release and stoked the flames of suspicion.

Did the memo offer the truths we were promised?

No, it didn’t.

We now have more questions than answers, except on one front where we did get additional clarity: The Trump era has been especially irresponsible and unfair to the law enforcement and intelligence communities and, frankly, unfair to the audience for which it is intended.

For generations, the Republican Party has properly existed with a healthy skepticism of government. But the current climate of politically stoked fear is leaning toward an outright rejection of it altogether. That’s not healthy, and it’s not well-informed.

It’s similar to how the earned skepticism of the mainstream media has become warped by the constant drumbeat of “fake news” cries. Conspiracy peddlers like InfoWars and the cafe.dot.wordpress.right.patriot sites infecting Facebook have been enabled while more traditional outlets aren’t trusted, regardless of facts and reporting.

We are being pushed into a state of continuous paranoia, told to reject both the very notions of an independent press or an independent law enforcement community. The “Deep State” is the new “Fake News.” And it’s all being done to score political points.

We hear “Deep State” offered as an answer in itself. It lurks there eroding the confidence Republicans once had in our national security apparatus. First thrown around by the likes of Sean Hannity and Breitbart News, now members of Congress who should know better, like Congressmen Duncan Hunter and Francis Rooney. There’s also Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL). But it’s not clear if he does, in fact, know better, based on his appearance with Alex Jones, a fringe conspiracy theorist.

Some of these same voices were responsible for peddling the idea that a “secret society” existed within the FBI, aimed at undermining the president, based on a tongue-in-cheek text.

The end result is alarming: a complete and illogical lack of faith in our systems and institutions. The federal bureaucracy is somehow both incompetent and ingenious. Incapable of running a health care website and yet capable of engineering national elections and masterminding criminal conspiracies without detection.

Many will argue that transparency is exactly what is needed. In theory, sure. But not when a little bit of transparency goes the wrong way. Not when it’s just enough to damage our institutional integrity but not enough to fix anything.

To that point, what is next? Sane and well-tempered leaders went along with this memo hype and now must bear the burden of its outcome. Will they release the Democratic memo? Will they release the full FISA application? How much classified information can be declassified without serious harm? One would hope they asked themselves these questions before this memo was released. I’m not so confident they did.

Fortunately, the Senate intelligence committee is keeping an arm’s reach from all of this. They are conducting serious investigations in a way that can produce serious outcomes, not dueling narratives. They know that effective oversight requires that they work in good faith with the law enforcement and intelligence communities.

But they, unfortunately, represent the minority view now, at least within Republican circles. A new poll from Survey Monkey shows that just 38 percent of Republican voters now have a favorable opinion of the FBI.

Republicans correctly admonished Secretary Hillary Clinton for being cavalier and untrustworthy with our national security. Yet the careless, self-preserving, and politically motivated attitude they once decried seems to have been infectious.

If there are legitimate abuses of power, Republicans should always demand accountability, but there has to be a better way of going about that than this circus.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 Next > End >>

Page 1350 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