Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

We're in a permanent coop

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • We're in a permanent coop

    Americans might soon wish they just waited to vote their way out of the Trump era


    I’ve lived through a few coups. They’re insane, random, and terrifying, like watching sports, except your political future depends on the score.

    The kickoff begins when a key official decides to buck the executive. From that moment, government becomes a high-speed head-counting exercise. Who’s got the power plant, the airport, the police in the capital? How many department chiefs are answering their phones? Who’s writing tonight’s newscast?

    When the KGB in 1991 tried to reassume control of the crumbling Soviet Union by placing Mikhail Gorbachev under arrest and attempting to seize Moscow, logistics ruled. Boris Yeltsin’s crew drove to the Russian White House in ordinary cars, beating KGB coup plotters who were trying to reach the seat of Russian government in armored vehicles. A key moment came when one of Yeltsin’s men, Alexander Rutskoi – who two years later would himself lead a coup against Yeltsin – prevailed upon a Major in a tank unit to defy KGB orders and turn on the “criminals.”

    We have long been spared this madness in America. Our head-counting ceremony was Election Day. We did it once every four years.

    That’s all over, in the Trump era.

    On Thursday, news broke that two businessmen said to have “peddled supposedly explosive information about corruption involving Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden” were arrested at Dulles airport on “campaign finance violations.” The two figures are alleged to be bagmen bearing “dirt” on Democrats, solicited by Trump and his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani.

    Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman will be asked to give depositions to impeachment investigators. They’re reportedly going to refuse. Their lawyer John Dowd also says they will “refuse to appear before House Committees investigating President Donald Trump.” Fruman and Parnas meanwhile claim they had real derogatory information about Biden and other politicians, but “the U.S. government had shown little interest in receiving it through official channels.”

    For Americans not familiar with the language of the Third World, that’s two contrasting denials of political legitimacy.

    The men who are the proxies for Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani in this story are asserting that “official channels” have been corrupted. The forces backing impeachment, meanwhile, are telling us those same defendants are obstructing a lawful impeachment inquiry.

    This latest incident, set against the impeachment mania and the reportedly “expanding” Russiagate investigation of U.S. Attorney John Durham, accelerates our timeline to chaos. We are speeding toward a situation when someone in one of these camps refuses to obey a major decree, arrest order, or court decision, at which point Americans will get to experience the joys of their political futures being decided by phone calls to generals and police chiefs.

    My discomfort in the last few years, first with Russiagate and now with Ukrainegate and impeachment, stems from the belief that the people pushing hardest for Trump’s early removal are more dangerous than Trump. Many Americans don’t see this because they’re not used to waking up in a country where you’re not sure who the president will be by nightfall. They don’t understand that this predicament is worse than having a bad president.

    The Trump presidency is the first to reveal a full-blown schism between the intelligence community and the White House. Senior figures in the CIA, NSA, FBI and other agencies made an open break from their would-be boss before Trump’s inauguration, commencing a public war of leaks that has not stopped.

    The first big shot was fired in early January, 2017, via a CNN.com headline, “Intel chiefs presented Trump with claims of Russian efforts to compromise him.” This tale, about the January 7th presentation of former British spy Christopher Steele’s report to then-President-elect Trump, began as follows:
    Classified documents presented last week to President Obama and President-elect Trump included allegations that Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump, multiple US officials with direct knowledge of the briefings tell CNN.
    Four intelligence chiefs in the FBI’s James Comey, the CIA’s John Brennan, the NSA’s Mike Rogers, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, presented an incoming president with a politically disastrous piece of information, in this case a piece of a private opposition research report.

    Among other things because the news dropped at the same time Buzzfeed decided to publish the entire “bombshell” Steele dossier, reporters spent that week obsessing not about the mode of the story’s release, but about the “claims.” In particular, audiences were rapt by allegations that Russians were trying to blackmail Trump with evidence of a golden shower party commissioned on a bed once slept upon by Barack Obama himself.

    Twitter exploded. No other news story mattered. For the next two years, the “claims” of compromise and a “continuing” Trump-Russian “exchange” hung over the White House like a sword of Damocles.

    Few were interested in the motives for making this story public. As it turned out, there were two explanations, one that was made public, and one that only came out later. The public justification as outlined in the CNN piece, was to “make the President-elect aware that such allegations involving him [were] circulating among intelligence agencies.”

    However, we know from Comey’s January 7, 2017 memo to deputy Andrew McCabe and FBI General Counsel James Baker there was another explanation. Comey wrote:
    I said I wasn’t saying this was true, only that I wanted [Trump] to know both that it had been reported and that the reports were in many hands. I said media like CNN had them and were looking for a news hook. I said it was important that we not give them the excuse to write that the FBI has the material or [redacted] and that we were keeping it very close-hold.
    Imagine if a similar situation had taken place in January of 2009, involving president-elect Barack Obama. Picture a meeting between Obama and the heads of the CIA, NSA, and FBI, along with the DIA, in which the newly-elected president is presented with a report complied by, say, Judicial Watch, accusing him of links to al-Qaeda. Imagine further that they tell Obama they are presenting him with this information to make him aware of a blackmail threat, and to reassure him they won’t give news agencies a “hook” to publish the news.

    Now imagine if that news came out on Fox days later. Imagine further that within a year, one of the four officials became a paid Fox contributor. Democrats would lose their minds in this set of circumstances.

    The country mostly did not lose its mind, however, because the episode did not involve a traditionally presidential figure like Obama, nor was it understood to have been directed at the institution of “the White House” in the abstract.

    Instead, it was a story about an infamously corrupt individual, Donald Trump, a *****-grabbing scammer who bragged about using bankruptcy to escape debt and publicly praised Vladimir Putin. Audiences believed the allegations against this person and saw the intelligence/counterintelligence community as acting patriotically, doing their best to keep us informed about a still-breaking investigation of a rogue president.

    But a parallel story was ignored. Leaks from the intelligence community most often pertain to foreign policy. The leak of the January, 2017 “meeting” between the four chiefs and Trump – which without question damaged both the presidency and America’s standing abroad – was an unprecedented act of insubordination.

    It was also a bold new foray into domestic politics by intelligence agencies that in recent decades began asserting all sorts of frightening new authority. They were kidnapping foreigners, assassinating by drone, conducting paramilitary operations without congressional notice, building an international archipelago of secret prisons, and engaging in mass warrantless surveillance of Americans. We found out in a court case just last week how extensive the illegal domestic surveillance has been, with the FBI engaging in tens of thousands of warrantless searchesinvolving American emails and phone numbers under the guise of combating foreign subversion.

    The agencies’ new trick is inserting themselves into domestic politics using leaks and media pressure. The “intel chiefs” meeting was just the first in a series of similar stories, many following the pattern in which a document was created, passed from department from department, and leaked. A sample:
    • February 14, 2017: “four current and former officials” tell the New York Times the Trump campaign had “repeated contacts” with Russian intelligence.
    • March 1, 2017: “Justice Department officials” tell the Washington Post Attorney General Jeff Sessions “spoke twice with Russia’s ambassador” and did not disclose the contacts ahead of his confirmation hearing.
    • March 18, 2017: “people familiar with the matter” tell the Wall Street Journal that former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn failed to disclose a “contact” with a Russian at Cambridge University, an episode that “came to the notice of U.S. intelligence.”
    • April 8, 2017, 2017: “law enforcement and other U.S. officials” tell the Washington Postthe secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge had ruled there was “probable cause” to believe former Trump aide Carter Page was an “agent of a foreign power.”
    • April 13, 2017: a “source close to UK intelligence” tells Luke Harding at The Guardian that the British analog to the NSA, the GCHQ, passed knowledge of “suspicious interactions” between “figures connected to Trump and “known or suspected Russian agents” to Americans as part of a “routine exchange of information.”
    • December 17, 2017: “four current and former American and foreign officials” tell the New York Times that during the 2016 campaign, an Australian diplomat named Alexander Downer told “American counterparts” that former Trump aide George Papadopoulos revealed “Russia had political dirt on Hillary Clinton.
    • April 13, 2018: “two sources familiar with the matter” tell McClatchy that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office has evidence Trump lawyer Michael Cohen was in Prague in 2016, “confirming part of [Steele] dossier.”
    • November 27, 2018: a “well-placed source” tells Harding at The Guardian that former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort met with Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
    • January 19, 2019: “former law enforcement officials and others familiar with the investigation” tell the New York Times the FBI opened an inquiry into the “explosive implications” of whether or not Donald Trump was working on behalf of the Russians.

    To be sure, “people familiar with the matter” leaked a lot of true stories in the last few years, but many were clearly problematic even at the time of release. Moreover, all took place in the context of constant, hounding pressure from media figures, congressional allies like Democrats Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell, as well as ex-officials who could make use of their own personal public platforms in addition to being unnamed sources in straight news reports. They used commercial news platforms to argue that Trump had committed treason, needed to be removed from office, and preferably also indicted as soon as possible.

    A shocking number of these voices were former intelligence officers who joined Clapper in becoming paid news contributors. Op-ed pages and news networks are packed now with ex-spooks editorializing about stories in which they had personal involvement: Michael Morell, Michael Hayden, Asha Rangappa, and Andrew McCabe among many others, including especially all four of the original “intel chiefs”: Clapper, Rogers, Comey, and MSNBC headliner John Brennan.

    Russiagate birthed a whole brand of politics, a government-in-exile, which prosecuted its case against Trump via a constant stream of “approved” leaks, partisans in congress, and an increasingly unified and thematically consistent set of commercial news outlets.

    These mechanisms have been transplanted now onto the Ukrainegate drama. It’s the same people beating the public drums, with the messaging run out of the same congressional committees, through the same Nadlers, Schiffs, and Swalwells. The same news outlets are on full alert.

    The sidelined “intel chiefs” are once again playing central roles in making the public case. Comey says “we may now be at a point” where impeachment is necessary. Brennan, with unintentional irony, says the United States is “no longer a democracy.” Clapper says the Ukraine whistleblower complaint is “one of the most credible” he’s seen.

    As a reporter covering the 2015–2016 presidential race, I thought Trump’s campaign was disturbing on many levels, but logical as a news story. He succeeded for class reasons, because of flaws in the media business that gifted him mass amounts of coverage, and because he took cunning advantage of long-simmering frustrations in the electorate. He also clearly catered to racist fears, and to the collapse in trust in institutions like the news media, the Fed, corporations, NATO, and, yes, the intelligence services. In enormous numbers, voters rejected everything they had ever been told about who was and was not qualified for higher office.

    Trump’s campaign antagonism toward the military and intelligence world was at best a millimeter thick. Like almost everything else he said as a candidate, it was a gimmick, designed to get votes. That he was insincere and full of it and irresponsible, at first at least, when he attacked the “deep state” and the “fake news media,” doesn’t change the reality of what’s happened since. Even paranoiacs have enemies, and even Donald “Deep State” Trump is a legitimately elected president whose ouster is being actively sought by the intelligence community.

    Trump stands accused of using the office of the presidency to advance political aims, in particular pressuring Ukraine to investigate potential campaign rival Joe Biden. He’s guilty, but the issue is how guilty, in comparison to his accusers.

    Trump, at least insofar as we know, has not used section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to monitor political rivals. He hasn’t deployed human counterintelligence “informants” to follow the likes of Hunter Biden. He hasn’t maneuvered to secure Special Counsel probes of Democrats.

    And while Donald Trump conducting foreign policy based on what he sees on Fox and Friends is troubling, it’s not in the same ballpark as CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post and the New York Times engaging in de facto coverage partnerships with the FBI and CIA to push highly politicized, phony narratives like Russiagate.

    Trump’s tinpot Twitter threats and cancellation of White House privileges for dolts like Jim Acosta also don’t begin to compare to the danger posed by Facebook, Google, and Twitter – under pressure from the Senate – organizing with groups like the Atlantic Council to fight “fake news” in the name of preventing the “foment of discord.”

    I don’t believe most Americans have thought through what a successful campaign to oust Donald Trump would look like. Most casual news consumers can only think of it in terms of Mike Pence becoming president. The real problem would be the precedent of a de facto intelligence community veto over elections, using the lunatic spookworld brand of politics that has dominated the last three years of anti-Trump agitation.

    CIA/FBI-backed impeachment could also be a self-fulfilling prophecy. If Donald Trump thinks he’s going to be jailed upon leaving office, he’ll sooner or later figure out that his only real move is to start acting like the “dictator” MSNBC and CNN keep insisting he is. Why give up the White House and wait to be arrested, when he still has theoretical authority to send Special Forces troops rappelling through the windows of every last Russiagate/Ukrainegate leaker? That would be the endgame in a third world country, and it’s where we’re headed, unless someone calls off this craziness. Welcome to the Permanent Power Struggle.
    I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
    - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

  • #2
    While you might not like coops, they're one way to sort out the pecking order. Someone has to rule the roost, you know.
    1011 1100
    Pyrebound--a free online serial fantasy novel

    Comment


    • #3
      Author is Taibbi at Rolling Stone.
      I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
      - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

      Comment


      • #4
        We should all plan ahead for a potential change in leadership; it's not wise to put all your eggs in one basket.
        1011 1100
        Pyrebound--a free online serial fantasy novel

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Elok View Post
          While you might not like coops, they're one way to sort out the pecking order. Someone has to rule the roost, you know.
          Well he uses the 1991 Russian Coup as an example, but that was an authoritarian system collapsing. This would be a Republic collapsing.

          I think Italy maintains a very divided Democratic system but we don't know if that can be stable in the US.
          I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
          - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

          Comment


          • #6
            Too lazy to come up with another chicken pun so I'll answer seriously: you might want to include links or at least bylines in the future. Taibbi's a respectable and insightful journalist in my experience, but all we see up there is a textwall from who-knows-who.
            1011 1100
            Pyrebound--a free online serial fantasy novel

            Comment


            • pchang
              pchang commented
              Editing a comment
              Eggsactly

              Does that count?

          • #7
            So america is now the worlds largest co-op?
            I am not delusional! Now if you'll excuse me, i'm gonna go dance with the purple wombat who's playing show-tunes in my coffee cup!
            Rules are like Egg's. They're fun when thrown out the window!
            Difference is irrelevant when dosage is higher than recommended!

            Comment


            • #8
              Taibbi's article should be in the impeachment vote thread in support of 'no'

              Comment


              • #9
                For what it matters I doubt there ever will be an official impeachment vote even though Trump’s guilt is obvious at this point. Dems know Republicans win the Senate will never vote to convict no matter how compelling the evidence is then Trump will once again lie and claim he was vindicated. Pelosi was scared by the far left saying unless there was impeachment then they would not support any Democratic candidates. Thus why they have an unofficial inquiry to distract the extremists and to rally their voter base.

                When all cards are on the table that is all they will do. They will just keep saying the word impeachment over and over without ever actually voting to impeach.
                Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                Comment


                • #10
                  I posted the link but then the post required approval. After it was approved the link was gone. It's written by Taibbi, who writes for the Rolling Stone. But it's not at the Rolling Stone. It's at his Twitter account and on a blog that I got it from.

                  But yeah I don't post links sometimes for the simple fact that every frickin time there is a stupid comment about the source.
                  I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
                  - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

                  Comment


                  • #11
                    https://taibbi.substack.com/p/were-in-a-permanent-coup

                    Link
                    I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
                    - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

                    Comment


                    • #12
                      Adam Schiff has 2 aides who worked with whistleblower at White House

                      by Kerry Picket
                      | October 11, 2019 02:04 PM

                      House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff recruited two former National Security Council aides who worked alongside the CIA whistleblower at the NSC during the Obama and Trump administrations, the Washington Examiner has learned.

                      Abigail Grace, who worked at the NSC until 2018, was hired in February, while Sean Misko, an NSC aide until 2017, joined Schiff's committee staff in August, the same month the whistleblower submitted his complaint.

                      The whistleblower was an NSC official who worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and who has expertise in Ukraine, theWashington Examiner has reported.

                      A career CIA analyst with Ukraine expertise, the whistleblower aired his concerns about a phone conversation between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to a House Intelligence Committee aide on Schiff’s staff. He had previously informed the CIA’s legal counsel's office.

                      Schiff initially denied he knew anything about the complaint before it was filed, stating on Sep. 17: “We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower. We would like to."

                      But it later emerged that a member of his staff had spoken to the whistleblower before his complaint was submitted on Aug. 12. The Washington Post concluded that Schiff "clearly made a statement that was false."

                      Grace, 36, was hired to help Schiff’s committee investigate the Trump White House. That month, Trump accused Schiff of "stealing people who work at White House." Grace worked at the NSC from 2016 to 2018 in U.S.-China relations and then briefly at the Center for a New American Security think tank, which was founded by two former senior Obama administration officials.

                      A Schiff aide commented in February: "We have hired staff for a variety of positions, including the committee's oversight work and its investigation. Although none of our staff has come directly from the White House, we have hired people with prior experience on the National Security Council staff for oversight of the agencies, and will continue to do so at our discretion." Schiff himself said, "If the president is worried about our hiring any former administration people, maybe he should work on being a better employer."

                      Misko, 37, workedin the Obama administration as a member of the secretary of state’s policy planning staff under deputy chief of staff Jake Sullivan, who became Hillary Clinton's top foreign policy official during her 2016 presidential campaign. In 2015, Misko was thedirector for the Gulf states at the NSC, remaining there into the Trump administration’s first year.

                      A source familiar with Grace's work at the NSC told the Washington Examiner, “Abby Grace had access to executive privilege information, and she has a duty not to disclose that information. She is not authorized to reveal that information.”

                      The same source said that Misko had not been trusted by Trump appointees. "There were a few times where documents had been signed off for final editing before they go to the national security adviser for signature," the source said. "And he actually went in and made changes after those changes were already finished. So he basically tried to insert, without his boss' approval.

                      "There were meetings in which he protested very heavily, and next thing you know, there's an article in the paper about the contents of that meeting."

                      Misko often clashed with other NSC personnel at meetings, another source said. Both Grace and Misko were close to Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, Trump's national security adviser from Feb. 2017 until May 2018.

                      Misko was a CNAS fellow in 2014. Misko's name surfaced in the Hillary Clinton email controversy when he worked in the State Department during the Obama administration.

                      In a Dec. 1, 2009, email released by Judicial Watch,Clinton adviser Huma Abedin sent classified information regarding foreign military contributions to the Afghanistan war effort to her private email account. That email originated with Misko, who wrote to Sullivan that he initially “accidentally” sent it on the “high side” (secure) but was sending the email again.

                      The intelligence committee did not respond to a request for comment.
                      https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...mpression=true

                      All this **** needs to be investigated.
                      Last edited by Kidicious; October 13, 2019, 03:32.
                      I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
                      - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

                      Comment


                      • #13
                        If I post the article without the link it doesn't need approval. But when I put the link in it's blocked. That's the Washington Examiner.
                        I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
                        - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

                        Comment


                        • #14
                          When the chickens come home to roost.....
                          It's never too late to shut the **** up and hope for the best. - Kentonio
                          If social security were private, it would be prosecuted as a Ponzi scheme. - me
                          Check out https://shauchi.wixsite.com/fire

                          Comment


                          • #15
                            Seems about right given how much crap has been piling up.
                            "tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner"

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X