RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
The Silence of the Hacks Print
Saturday, 18 February 2017 09:39

Krugman writes: "The story so far: A foreign dictator intervened on behalf of a U.S. presidential candidate - and that candidate won."

Economist Paul Krugman. (photo: Forbes)
Economist Paul Krugman. (photo: Forbes)


The Silence of the Hacks

By Paul Krugman, The New York Times

18 February 17

 

he story so far: A foreign dictator intervened on behalf of a U.S. presidential candidate — and that candidate won. Close associates of the new president were in contact with the dictator’s espionage officials during the campaign, and his national security adviser was forced out over improper calls to that country’s ambassador — but not until the press reported it; the president learned about his actions weeks earlier, but took no action.

Meanwhile, the president seems oddly solicitous of the dictator’s interests, and rumors swirl about his personal financial connections to the country in question. Is there anything to those rumors? Nobody knows, in part because the president refuses to release his tax returns.

Maybe there’s nothing wrong here, and it’s all perfectly innocent. But if it’s not innocent, it’s very bad indeed. So what do Republicans in Congress, who have the power to investigate the situation, believe should be done?


READ MORE

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Donald Trump Has Brought Forth the Worst Group of Cabinet Nominees in the Modern History of Our Country Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=44519"><span class="small">Bernie Sanders, Bernie Sanders' Facebook Page</span></a>   
Friday, 17 February 2017 14:58

Sanders writes: "Worst of the worst. Donald Trump has brought forth the worst group of cabinet nominees in the modern history of our country."

Senator Bernie Sanders. (photo: Getty)
Senator Bernie Sanders. (photo: Getty)


Donald Trump Has Brought Forth the Worst Group of Cabinet Nominees in the Modern History of Our Country

By Bernie Sanders, Bernie Sanders' Facebook Page

17 February 17

 

orst of the worst. Donald Trump has brought forth the worst group of cabinet nominees in the modern history of our country. People who want to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and give huge tax break to billionaires. Nominees who will ignore the needs of women, children, the sick and the poor, while bending over backwards for Wall Street and corporate America. But in many ways, Scott Pruitt, the nominee for EPA administrator, is the worst of the worst. At a time when the scientific community is virtually unanimous in telling us that climate change is real, is caused by human activity and is causing devastating problems in this country and around the world, Mr. Pruitt refuses to recognize that reality. At a time when we have to transform our energy system away from fossil fuels and move to energy efficiency and sustainable energy, Mr. Pruitt wants to increase our reliance on fossil fuel. At a time when we have to strengthen environmental protection, Mr. Pruitt will be working overtime to dismember the EPA. For the sake of our children. grandchildren and the future of this planet are there not at least four Republicans who understand that Mr. Pruitt must not be confirmed as head of the EPA.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: The Flynn Scandal Hits the Foundation of Our Democracy. We Must Investigate Print
Friday, 17 February 2017 12:38

Abramson writes: "As the threads of the Michael Flynn scandal are pulled, each one reveals a deeper pit of Russian intrigue and raises more questions about the integrity of the 2016 election. Now, it is time to ask the central questions at the rotten core of the Flynn imbroglio: did Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin engage in a plot to interfere with the 2016 election and, if so, was Flynn their middleman?"

Michael Flynn, Trump's former national security advisor. (photo: Getty)
Michael Flynn, Trump's former national security advisor. (photo: Getty)


The Flynn Scandal Hits the Foundation of Our Democracy. We Must Investigate

By Jill Abramson, Guardian UK

17 February 17

 

Did Trump tell Flynn to reassure the Russians that the new administration, once in office, would go easy on them? Only an investigation can tell

s the threads of the Michael Flynn scandal are pulled, each one reveals a deeper pit of Russian intrigue and raises more questions about the integrity of the 2016 election. Now, it is time to ask the central questions at the rotten core of the Flynn imbroglio: did Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin engage in a plot to interfere with the 2016 election and, if so, was Flynn their middleman?

This is not the stuff of conspiracy nuts. Respectable, experienced Democratic national security experts, including the former ambassador and state department official Daniel Benjamin, are among those giving credence to such questions.

They doubt Flynn would have called Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak without being instructed to, by someone much higher up in Trumpworld. Similarly, they doubt Flynn would have been in contact with Kislyak during the campaign, as he reportedly was, without having been asked by higher-ups. The New York Times reported Tuesday night that other campaign officials and Trump associates were also communicating with senior Russian intelligence officials.

I met Benjamin, who now directs Dartmouth’s John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding, when he left the Clinton administration and was writing a book, The Sacred Age of Terror. I was then the Washington bureau chief of the New York Times and leading coverage of al-Qaida, Benjamin’s specialty.

As someone who knows Flynn, Benjamin, in an important article he penned for Politico, pointed out that Flynn was an unusual choice for the post of national security adviser. A former general, he had no diplomatic experience and was known for recent undiplomatic, even erratic behavior. (Barack Obama fired him as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency).

Nonetheless, Flynn’s admirers were surprised when he signed on as an early adviser to Trump in February 2016. At the Republican convention in Cleveland, some were dumbfounded and disgusted by his shrill partisan display, leading chants of “Lock Her Up” against Hillary Clinton.

The hacking of DNC emails became known four days later, on the eve of the Democratic convention, when Wikileaks published them. The embarrassing messages disrupted the start of the convention and cost DNC chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a big Clinton ally, her job.

Before the November election, Obama was informed by intelligence officials that Russia was almost certainly behind the DNC hack, as well as the theft of emails from top Clinton campaign officials. Both incidents looked like a bold, hurtful effort to derail Clinton and help get Trump elected.

Obama blamed Putin directly. On 29 December, he announced sweeping sanctions on Russia for interfering in the US election.

It is unclear how well Putin and Flynn knew each other or whether they ever discussed Trump’s candidacy. They sat next to each other in late 2015 when Flynn was paid to appear on a panel at an anniversary celebration in Moscow for Russia Today, the state-backed broadcasting network. Flynn did communicate with ambassador Kislyak before 8 November, although it isn’t known how many times they spoke.

After Obama ejected Russian diplomats and issued his sanctions, Trump did not directly comment on the matter. He said he’d meet with intelligence officials, adding: “It’s time for our country to move on to bigger and better things.”

The flurry of conversations between Flynn and Kislyak came the same day Obama punished Russia. Although Flynn initially denied it, the calls did involve the sanctions and were recorded by US intelligence. The very next day, Putin surprised the world by not retaliating and Trump praised him on Twitter for being “smart”.

Was this the Smoking Tweet?

At Trump’s suggestion, did Flynn reassure the Russians that the new administration, once in office, would go easy on them? If so, it could be a violation of the Logan Act.

Soon after Putin surprised the world by not retaliating immediately, Trump was appointing Russia-friendly people to top administration jobs, including Flynn, whose position did not require a Senate confirmation.

Now that Flynn has had to resign just hours after Kellyanne Conway said he had the president’s “full confidence”, this sordid chain of events is only beginning to be understood.

The new disclosures of wider communications between Trump confidantes and the Russians during the 2016 campaign raise questions of whether there might have been collusion on the hacking. But, at least “so far”, the Times’ intelligence sources, “have seen no evidence of such cooperation”.

Can we expect to get more information from the FBI, led by James Comey, who himself is under investigation for election interference by reviving the Clinton email scandal 10 days before the campaign ended? How about the zealous Republican Congress, which investigated Benghazi and Clinton ad nauseam?

“I think that situation has taken care of itself,” said Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, about Flynn. But it really has not.

Under mounting pressure, from the press and the public, they may have to mount a serious investigation or find an independent body to do so.

It’s clear what needs to be investigated. As Daniel Benjamin succinctly asked on Tuesday: “Who Told Flynn to Call Russia?” That’s a question we all deserve an answer to.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Trump's Repeal of Bipartisan Anti-Corruption Measure Proves He's a Fake Print
Friday, 17 February 2017 09:46

Taibbi writes: "The man who ran as an outsider and champion of the common man plays the stooge for industry."

During his campaign, Donald Trump released a 100-day 'action plan' that supposedly targeted 'special interest corruption.' (photo: Mandel Ngan)
During his campaign, Donald Trump released a 100-day 'action plan' that supposedly targeted 'special interest corruption.' (photo: Mandel Ngan)


Trump's Repeal of Bipartisan Anti-Corruption Measure Proves He's a Fake

By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

17 February 17

 

The man who ran as an outsider and champion of the common man plays the stooge for industry

n October 13th of last year, in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, Donald Trump gave a desperate speech at a desperate moment. A week after the surfacing of the infamous "grab them by the pussy" video, Trump presented himself as the common man's only defense against a vast conspiracy of global financial interests:

"There is nothing the political establishment will not do," he said, "and no lie they will not tell, to hold on to their prestige and power at your expense."

Including running Donald Trump as an anti-corruption candidate! He went on:

"For those who control the levers of power in Washington, and for the global special interests they partner with, our campaign represents an existential threat," Trump said. "It's a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class ... and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities."

In conjunction with this speech, which was sold as the "crossroads of history" address (and triggered a new hashtag, #TrumpTheEstablishment), Trump released a 100-day "action plan" that supposedly targeted "special interest corruption."

Among the measures proposed: new restrictions on lobbying, including a five-year ban on White House and congressional officials becoming lobbyists after leaving office.

Months later, with the self-proclaimed "existential threat" to special interests in office, the "establishment" has it better than ever. Not only has the money-over-principle dynamic not changed inside the Beltway, it's ascendant. Under "outsider" rule, Washington has never been more Washington-y.

Tuesday, for instance, Trump signed a repeal of a bipartisan provision of the Dodd-Frank bill known as the Cardin-Lugar Amendment. The absurd history of this doomed provision stands as a perfect microcosm of how Washington works, or doesn't work, as it were.

The election of a billionaire president who killed the anti-corruption measure off is only the brutal coup de grace. The rule was stalled for the better part of six years by a relentless and exhausting parade of lobbyists, lawyers and other assorted Beltway malingerers. It then lived out of the womb for a few sad months before Trump smothered it this week.

Section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Act was created by Maryland Democrat Ben Cardin and then Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar. Passed in 2010, the rule was simple: It required oil, gas and mining companies to disclose any payments above $100,000 made to foreign governments.

The law was designed to prevent energy companies from bribing foreign dictators. The simple goal was to ensure that the wealth of resource-rich countries would be enjoyed by their citizens, and not converted into obscene personal collections of yachts, mansions, sports cars and Michael Jackson memorabilia – as, for instance, it was when oil was discovered in Equatorial Guinea, and the brutal dictator Teodoro Obiang started doing business with Rex Tillerson's ExxonMobil.

The provision originally passed in the summer of 2010 and became law when Dodd-Frank was signed later that year. But it didn't go into effect right away. As hotshot Wall Street lobbyist Scott Talbott of the Financial Services Roundtable cracked, "When [Obama] signed the financial reform law, that was halftime."

After passage, the law went back to the SEC for the rule-writing process, where it spent two years being bandied around while special interest groups harangued the agency with suggestions and comment letters.

Those first years of SEC rule-writing included multiple meetings and rule addendum suggestions from trade groups like the American Petroleum Institute (API), as well as with executives from companies like ExxonMobil. (Exxon VP Pat Mulva and Corporate Securities and Finance Coordinator Brian Malnak met with the SEC twice in November of 2010.)

Then, on August 22nd, 2012, a version of the rule passed the commission by a vote of 2-1. Success! Yet shortly after the rule passed – on October 10th, 2012, to be exact – the aforementioned API, along with the Chamber of Commerce, filed a lawsuit against the SEC to block the provision.

The suit charged that the SEC "failed to conduct an adequate cost-benefit analysis as required by law" (this was a trick used multiple times to block Dodd-Frank provisions) and that the agency "grossly misinterpreted its statutory mandate to make a 'compilation' of information available to the public."

Industry whined that the rule would prohibit deals in countries where local laws prohibited disclosure of such payments, and that it would force firms to "sell their assets … at fire sale prices." The basic idea was that international capitalism would grind to a halt if they had to make public which dictator's yachts they were buying, and for how much.

The legal Hail Mary worked, naturally, as such suits nearly always do in Washington, and the rule was struck down by a D.C. district court in 2013. The court ruling required the SEC to either write a new rule or come up with a new justification for the old one.

This commenced another years-long slog of meetings, letters and suggestions. The oil-and-gas people, of course, pretended the whole time that they didn't want to kill the provision, exactly, just improve it.

"As we discussed," the API wrote to the SEC on November 7th, 2013, "API strongly believes an effective and workable result can be achieved that accomplishes the transparency objectives of the statute while also protecting investors from significant harm."

API then proceeded to offer 16 maddening pages of suggestions that would ostensibly improve the provision. The SEC would ultimately cave on a number of these industry requests, resulting in a rule that in the end was significantly more convoluted than the original version.

This is why laws like Dodd-Frank end up being unwieldy monstrosities of thousands and thousands of pages: On the road to trying to kill a law outright, lobbyists usually try to weigh it down first by adding exceptions and verbiage. Ironically, this ends up driving the industry's own compliance costs higher in the meantime, but it's worth it, as it stalls the process.

Another irony here is that the public perception that nothing ever gets done in Washington is driven by this very dynamic. The public becomes impatient for action when every tiny provision of every bill gets bogged down as fat-cat lawyers fight for years on end over the definition of words like "compilation" and "project."

This is the ultimate in overpaid busywork for the overeducated. The ongoing bureaucratization of the legislative process is really just a high-priced welfare program for corporate lawyers.

And while lawyers make fortunes pushing commas around and adding mountains of words to already overwritten laws, ex-middle-class workers in places outside of the Beltway keep finding their slice of the pie smaller and smaller.

This leads to frustration with Washington inaction. And as we've seen, this leads to political support for big talkers like Trump who promise, hilariously, to cut through the red tape and "get things done."

To make a long story short, the Cardin-Lugar provision ended up being delayed time and time again. At one point, the SEC had be kicked into action by Oxfam, which sued the agency essentially to force it to complete the rule.

Only after settling with the human rights organization (like many human rights advocates, Oxfam's interest here was in preventing bribes to repressive regimes) did the SEC finally go back to completing its court-ordered and congressionally mandated work.

Despite all of the delays and wrangling, however, it did finally pass last June. But in yet another lurid example of how idiotic our system is, the provision was upended by an asinine law called the Congressional Review Act.

This obscure Gingrich-era statute (signed into law by Bill Clinton), which seems to exist entirely for the purpose of allowing newly elected officials to overturn the work of their predecessors, permits the government to reconsider any piece of legislation within a window of 60 session days after implementation.

The CRA mechanism was put to use shortly after Trump's inauguration. There were a few hours of debate in the Senate, a brief debate in the House, and then Cardin-Lugar was "executed at dawn," as the Lugar Center put it, in an unusual early-morning Senate session that began at 6:30 a.m. on February 3rd.

"Congress," the center noted, "took fewer than five days from the beginning of the legislative process to the end." There were no subcommittee reviews, no hearings, nothing. After six grueling years being pushed uphill, in a process that cost God knows how much in billable hours, the rule was scuttled in Congress and sent to Trump's desk to be wiped out in a matter of weeks.

Ask Trump supporters about this episode, and many would say they won't weep for the loss of any government regulation.

But they should ask themselves if, when they were whooping and hollering for the man who promised to end special interest and lobbyist rules in Washington, they imagined the ExxonMobil chief in charge of the State Department cheering as the new president wiped out anti-bribery laws. The "establishment" sure is on the run, isn't it? 

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Trump Plots to Keep Palestinians Stateless Forever Print
Thursday, 16 February 2017 15:09

Cole writes: "Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has pledged that the Palestinians will have no such rights as along as he is prime minister. So what is Trump going to do about this human rights travesty?"

U.S. president Donald Trump (R) and Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu hold a joint news conference at the White House in Washington, U.S., February 15, 2017. (photo: Carlos Barria/Reuters)
U.S. president Donald Trump (R) and Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu hold a joint news conference at the White House in Washington, U.S., February 15, 2017. (photo: Carlos Barria/Reuters)


Trump Plots to Keep Palestinians Stateless Forever

By Juan Cole, Informed Comment

16 February 17

 

he Trump-Netanyahu Show on Wednesday was par for the course in American and right wing Israeli discourse about the Palestinians.

Nobody brought up that the British colonialists conquered Palestine during World War I and instead of preparing it for statehood, as they promised the League of Nations they would do, they set the Palestinians up for destruction as a people. These actions contrast with Iraq, e.g., which the British did bequeath to the Iraqi nation.

No one brought up that 60% of Palestinian families were kicked out of their homes in 1948 by militant European Jewish colonialists brought there by colonial Britain, and that these families are still homeless and stateless whereas the Israeli perpetrators have never paid a dime in reparations for the billions of dollars worth of property they stole from the Palestinian people.

No one brought up that Europeans who committed the Holocaust have not borne the cost of that monstrous crime against humanity but rather the innocent Palestinians have.

The fact is that by about 1300 AD there were virtually no Jews in Palestine. And yes, there was a Palestine– a recognized geographical concept, coins with “Filistin” written on them, diaries of Palestinian travelers who said they missed ‘Palestine;’ and a distinctive Palestinian dialect of Arabic. The people who lived there were almost all Christians and Muslims, 1300-1850. My recollection is that the French found about 3,000 Jews there in 1799 when Bonaparte invaded, when the general population must have been around 200,000.

(photo: Informed Comment)

No one brought up that the Palestinians are the largest stateless group in the world, lacking basic human rights and lacking rights of citizenship. Their private property is daily and brazenly stolen from them by Jewish squatters coming over into Palestine from Israel proper. This grand larceny on a cosmic scale is secretly encouraged and sometimes even funded by the Israeli government. Militant armed settlers have murdered dozens of Palestinians and routinely commit sabotage against their olive orchards and crops.

Israeli propaganda depicts Palestinians as violent, but Israelis killed nearly 7,000 Palestinians 2000-2014 whereas Palestinians in that period were responsible for about 1,000 Jewish deaths. Given what is being done to the Palestinians by the far right wing squatters, they have reacted with amazing forbearance and peacefulness.

The only resolution of the conflict is for Palestinians to attain the rights of citizenship in a state and the right firmly to own property and to control their land, air and water.

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has pledged that the Palestinians will have no such rights as along as he is prime minister.

So what is Trump going to do about this human rights travesty?

Here is what he said:

TRUMP: As far as settlements, I’d like to see you hold back on settlements for a little bit. We’ll work something out but I would like to see a deal be made, I think a deal will be made. I know that every president would like to — most of them have not started till late because they never thought it was possible and it was impossible because they didn’t do it but Bibi and I’ve known each other a long time.

Smart man, great negotiator, and I think we’re going to make a deal. It might be a bigger and better deal than people in this room even understand. That’s a possibility so let’s see what we do.

I predict that Netanyahu will not in fact pause land theft by the Israeli squatters. I also predict that Netanyahu will keep his campaign promise to keep the Palestinians stateless and little better than prisoners in their own land. The only deal to be had from Netanyahu is to screw the Palestinians over even harder than ever before.

Then a journalist posed a question:

QUESTION

Thank you very much. Mr. President, in your vision for the new Middle East peace, are you ready to give up of the notion of two-state solution that was adopted by previous administration? And will you be willing to hear different ideas from the prime ministers as some of his partners are asking him to do, for example, annexation of parts of the West Bank and unrestricted settlement constructions? . . . And Mr. Prime Minister, did you come here tonight to tell Mr. — the president that you’re backing off the two-state solution? Thank you.

DONALD TRUMP

So, I’m looking at two-state and one-state and I like the one that both parties like. I’m very happy with the one that both parties like. I can live with either one. I thought for a while the two-state looked like it may be the easier of the two but honestly, if Bibi and if the Palestinians — if Israel and the Palestinians are happy, I’m happy with the one they like the best.

We know that Netanyahu, who has boasted about destroying the Oslo Peace accords and has pledged no Palestinian state, does not actually want a two-state solution.

But Netanyahu does not want a one-state solution in the sense of having to give Palestinians citizenship rights in Israel.

He wants a continuation and expansion of the status quo, with the Palestinians under the Israeli jackboot and helpless and stateless. So for Palestinians, a ‘no-state solution.’ I.e. he wants Apartheid. Just as the white nationalists of South Africa took citizenship rights away from the Black African majority and tried to consign them to artificial Bantustans, so Netanyahu wants to keep Palestinians in Bantustans.

In offering to relinquish a two-state solution, Trump shredded decades of American policy. But since there isn’t going to be a two-state solution, it is just as well. Realistically, there is no place to put a Palestinian state any more.

What Trump was really offering was some polite fiction where the Palestinians could be parceled out to Jordan, Egypt and Israel itself, even as they remain stateless, and economic investments would seek to depoliticize them and improve their per capita GDP. The white nationalists in South Africa tried something like that with their Black African population. It didn’t last.

In other words, it would be Apartheid, but an attempt would be made to implicate Egypt and Jordan in it. I predict failure in that regard.

Later on, the Israeli prime minister said this:

NETANYAHU

“I told you what are the conditions that I believe are necessary for an agreement. It’s the recognition of the Jewish state and Israel’s — Israel’s security control of the entire area. Otherwise, we’re just fantasizing. Otherwise, we’ll get another failed state, another terrorist Islamist dictatorship that will not work for peace, but work to destroy us, but also destroy any hope for a peaceful future for our people.”

So there you have it. Netanyahu insists on Israeli security control of neighboring Palestine, insists that the Palestinians be kept stateless, and even goes so far in typically racist fashion to allege that Palestinians are congenitally incapable of erecting a state.

And since Trump seems to believe whatever the last person he talked to alleged, likely Netanyahu will win out.

The only problem is that there is no scenario in which millions of Palestinians are kept under martial law and deprived basic citizenship rights and go on being stolen from– there is no scenario in which this story ends well.

Juan Cole

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 Next > End >>

Page 1728 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