The Counterattack Against President – Elect Trump By Walrus.


At least as I was taught and trained, it is standard military practice, on taking an enemy position, to immediately begin defensive preparations to receive an almost inevitable counterattack. I hope for the sake of America, that President – Elect Trump and his team have made the adequate preparations for the counterattack because in my opinion the Hilary backers are now upon them.

I refer to Four events; Two are courtesy of the Washington Post and obviously made with the approval of its owner.

The first was the denigration by the Washington Post of websites not sympathetic enough to the Clinton candidacy as "Fake News" – deliberate Russian propaganda in favour of Trump. The article was written around the construct of a list of 200 websites that are labelled as either Russian propaganda outlets or Lenins "useful Idiots" who repeat propaganda without checking. In support of this attack were some media moguls who joined in. This suggests to me that the "cure" for "fake news" under a Clinton regime might be an attack on free speech. There are numerous articles on the web dissecting this story.

Then we have Jill Steins petition for a Wisconsin recount – apparently funded very adequately by public subscription to the tune of several million dollars.

Then we have a statement by Hilarys lawyer that the Clinton DNC team will participate in the recount although according to the spokesman the decision was made in sorrow rather than anger as not much is expected to change. 

Then today we have a Washington Post op-ed by Lawrence Lessig calling for the Electoral College not to elect Trump:

"Conventional wisdom tells us that the electoral college requires that the person who lost the popular vote this year must nonetheless become our president. That view is an insult to our framers. It is compelled by nothing in our Constitution. It should be rejected by anyone with any understanding of our democratic traditions  — most important, the electors themselves…….

…….if the electoral college is to control who becomes our president, we should take it seriously by understanding its purpose precisely. It is not meant to deny a reasonable judgment by the people. It is meant to be a circuit breaker — just in case the people go crazy."

The obvious implication is that crazy people voted for Trump and sane people voted for Clinton.

In my opinion, it may be possible to dismiss these events as just a little rabble rousing to improve newspaper circulation prior to the inauguration (will Trump get elected???) – at which point the media focus again changes (now what will President Trump do????). Conversely, this may be a structured attempt to put Clinton on the throne, in which case all hell breaks loose.

I also note that in the UK. Tony Blair has lifted the lid of his casket and again stalks the streets of London aiming to reverse Brexit. Do we see a pattern here? International elites none too happy with revolting peasants on both sides of the Atlantic?

I leave it to the committee to discuss what we are seeing here. I guess it stands to reason that if Trump really plans to "drain the swamp" there are going to be a lot of alligators after him. What comes next I know not. 

This entry was posted in Current Affairs, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

168 Responses to The Counterattack Against President – Elect Trump By Walrus.

  1. Chris Chuba says:

    Regarding the Washington Posts endorsement of the braintrust at ‘PropOrNot’, Glenn Greenwald did a brilliant takedown of that organization on ‘The Intercept’.
    I usually excerpt portions of articles that I post but in this case, just read it if you hate the thought police. He does a deep dive into PropOrNot.
    I see great irony that there has been an avalanche of articles by the MSM denouncing ‘fake news’ and Russian propaganda for weeks now. The MSM marches in lockstep and says the exact same thing on all of their outlets and then denounces others are propagandists. In Dante’s Inferno, there would be an appropriate punishment constructed for that. Have these people ever heard of a mirror?

  2. William RAISER says:

    The Borg will fight back (are fighting back) with all their vast resources — media in particular. Trump is not a great standard bearer for the concerned Americans; but, for the moment, he’s all we have. We need more “centerist/ordinary” Americans knowledgeable and active.

  3. Lemur says:

    “It is not meant to deny a reasonable judgment by the people”
    Our so called ‘democracy’ is defined according to a standard of ‘reasonableness’ propagated by the elite organs that manufacture consent. ‘The sovereign is he who decides the exception.’ – Carl Schmidt. In a Republic, sovereignty lies with the people. Lessig prefers the dictatorial interpretation.

  4. Freudenschade says:

    Can I assume that you believe that Russia did not mount a propaganda offensive to influence the US election? What would be evidence that disproves your hypothesis, or is such evidence not possible?

  5. Green Zone Café says:

    It has begun to look like a coordinated campaign to me. Undoubtedly with better OPSEC and COMSEC than the DNC had.
    38 Trump electors would have to flip. Someone has a spreadsheet with all of the Electors’ names, addresses, jobs, families, public social media links. There are biographies, profiles, the secrets.
    They would look for those close to Romney and the NeverTrumpers first. A PAC at arm’s length from Clinton does the work.
    It would be legal to approach and attempt to persuade. It would be legal to promise jobs in a Clinton administration, to Electors or their associates.
    On the dark side, bribes and blackmail are possible. Nothing would surprise me this year.

  6. Jeff Roby says:

    I am a Green Party member, and proud of it. That said, I am embarrassed no end by Jill Stein’s move to challenge in 3 states. She did so despite the Green Party National Committee having voted against such a move, and it even being (reportedly) opposed by Ajamu Baraka, Stein’s running mate.
    Despite some fancy verbal footwork about electoral integrity, it is patently a move by some Greens to put Hillary in the White House. Stein has caved in to the hysteria generated by the liberal Democrats who are trying to pin Hillary’s loss on the Green Party, a la Nader, and a chance to grab some cash.
    At first, she put out that any funds raised in excess of those used for recount would be used to campaign for “electoral integrity.” That was apparently improper. Now she states, “I will do a recount in any state where the deadline has not passed. Help my staff find state deadlines,” thus setting in motion a recount train with no end. The appeal itself is ridiculous, as she is hiring high-powered lawyers for all this, but seems to be designed to mollify outraged Greens, that her purpose is NOT to elect Hillary.
    What happens when people start asking for their money back? What happens when Trump’s lawyers starts digging into the donor’s list (is that a matter of public record?).
    All I can say is, don’t blame the Green Party. This is the action of a renegade clique which is flouting its own party, the apparent brainchild of David Cobb, the mastermind of the Green Party “safe-states” strategy which calls for NOT running in races where the Green Party could harm the prospects of a Democrat.
    Sorry, folks. What the hell do you think an independent party is for?

  7. Peter Reichard says:

    Trump will take the oath of office, his enemies are grasping at straws. The recount needs to flip all three states, highly unlikely, and will prove to be a good thing as it will reassure the public that the election was fair. For Hillary to win when the Electoral College meets requires that 37 renegade Republican electors out of 306 vote for her. Ain’t gonna happen.
    On the other hand the Washington Post “fake news” article represents the first shot in a new war by the Operation Mockingbird pseudo Fourth Estate against the real Fourth Estate,the alt media blogs, which include this forum as well as the named Blacklisted News, Liberty Blitzkrieg, Consortium News, Moon of Alabama and Zero Hedge among others. This incipient censorship movement is an extremely dangerous threat to freedom of the press.

  8. Pundita says:

    [laughing] Ah see B’rer Podesta has thrown B’rer Trump in de briar patch. All these creatures coming out to attack reminds me of that scene in “Raiders of the Lost Ark” when they’re opening the ark and Indy tells Marion, “Shut your eyes! Don’t look!”
    I think that’s good advice for the present situation. This is the time to clean the garage and do other chores that have been put off.
    As for what the undead are doing on the other side of the Atlantic — I saw a quote from John Major. Something to the effect, ‘We must not give in to the tyranny of the majority.’
    It’s going to be a long winter.

  9. Former 11B says:

    The problem is, the Media lost its credibility. Any attempt to deny Trump now will result in a civil war. Fortunately no one will listen to the WP or the NYT. Those idiots still don’t get it.

  10. JLCG says:

    There is something rich in irony in this electoral and post electoral process. For many years we have read that Islam needed a Reformation and now Capitalism is in the very process of Reformation. Trump has preached a return to the great America, something like a return to the roots of Christianity. The Capitalist Church, all system of thought and action has a religious content, is corrupt and inefficient, let’s drain its swamp. May the Clinton Foundation be compared to the Renaissance papal court with its pay for indulgences and now pay to play? It is said that the invention of the printing press made the instruction of the masses possible and the masses rebelled against the religious order. Now the internet offers us a superior and instantaneous mechanism of information.
    There is now a list of Fake News sources. Will a list of Index of Blogorum Prohibitorum be far behind? And a new council that will attempt to reform the corrupt system? I leave that to the imagination.

  11. Eric Newhill says:

    Proving a negative? Are you a graduate of the Rumsfeld Skool of Logic? And when did you stop beating your wife anyhow?
    Pathetic desperation

  12. turcopolier says:

    You don’t really expect anyone to prove that Russia DID NOT tamper with the election, do you? Surely you don’t mean that. pl

  13. Prem says:

    On the recount/faithless electors fronts, they are wasting their time and energy. Let them do it.
    The WaPo story is just part of the inevitable attempt to deligitimise the election result. We saw the same thing with Brexit – nonsense stories about a supposed spike in hate crimes (some were hoaxes, most were common or garden English hooliganism). The idea was to paint all Leavers as racists.

  14. turcopolier says:

    IMO most of the “counterattack” discussions center on the mindless attack on the electoral college system. It seems that a lot of Americans have never read the constitution and do not understand that although the mechanism exists for amendment of the US Constitution the achievement of something like this is beyond the reach of the big states and their megacities. The electoral college system is embedded in detail in Article 2 and the 12th Amendment. This system was created to prevent the domination of the small states by the larger. Without the electoral college and the Great Compromise the US Constitution would not have been agreed to by the smaller states. The US Constitution contains what amounts to a “dead man’s switch” that was created to ensure the viability of the constituent states as states rather than administrative districts like French departments. That “switch” is the requirement that 38 states, as states, approve a change to the constitution for it to become effective. That means that in the approval of amendments, Rhode Island and California have the same weight. Now I ask you, pilgrims, what is the chance that 38 of the smaller states are going to give their assent to amendments that lessen their autonomy and power? As someone said here earlier, the electoral college is the essence of The Union. So, fugget abowd it! pl

  15. Macgupta123 says:

    The Swamp remains the Swamp; alligators might be replaced by pythons, the panther by the jaguar; Trump appointees so far are representative of the Swamp.

  16. James Loughton says:

    1) The MSM is concerned that their monopoly on the fake news market is coming to and end.
    2) The MSM is terrified that their ability to edit out real news that does not support their agreed narratives is being challenged.
    3) laissez le bon temps rouler.

  17. irf520 says:

    >>what is the chance that 38 of the smaller states are going to give their assent to amendments that lessen their autonomy and power?
    Well, they did agree to the 17th amendment …

  18. It’s pretty clear that RT, Sputnik and other Russian sources favored Trump over Hillary, but it is also equally clear that the vast majority of MSM sources in the West heavily favored Hillary over Trump. Why is it only called ‘propaganda’ when the other side does it?

  19. Freudenschade,
    The propaganda campaign which mattered in this election was the one accurately described in the account of why Trump won by the inimitable Fred Reed:
    (See .)
    ‘Interestingly, his critics have no slight idea why he won. The reason is obvious: He won because everybody was campaigning for him, in particular the media, Hillary, Black Lives Matter, Obama, Democrats, and far leftists. Everybody worked for Trump. He couldn’t lose.
    ‘The election was a referendum on Marie Antoinette’s court.’
    Perhaps someone needs to update the classic study of ‘Propaganda’ by Bernays with a new concluding chapter: ‘The Art of the Own Goal.’

  20. jonst says:

    This entire episode is a big fraud. Here is as good a take down of the WAPO article, and the entire Dem/Bezos establishment as your going to see.

  21. I know exactly how you feel, Jeff. I also voted for Stein, but I am outraged at this high-handed decision of hers. Dammit, if I had wanted Hillary to be president, I would have voted for her, not Stein. This is just pathetic–beyond farce.

  22. jonst says:

    I think what most Americans are seeing is/was Turkey (the kind ya eat), Family, college students home, Pro and College Football, albeit down for the former, but still mighty. And now it is on to winter and the Holiday Season. I think that is what the vast majority of Americans, sans intellectuals (that is not meant to be pejorative) and media types anxious to keep the political ratings on cable and in print up. This dynamic will be so, in fact intensify, as Christmas draws closer. Now if it ever truly comes to something, then there will be hell to pay to whomever tries to change this election. But till then, a very limited impact.

  23. Eric Newhill says:

    When you have gotten someone to hold diametrically opposing beliefs, you own their minds (e.g. we are rioting in the streets because Trump is a fascist that doesn’t respect democracy, we hate religious bigots that bash on women and gays/we love Islam). That is the essence of brainwashing.
    The learned helplessness is increased by 1) changing what is acceptable think often 2) getting them to overlook history – even recent history – and your own glaring contradictions (e.g. Trump is dangerous for not vowing to accept election results, but now I don’t accept election results and I am good). When all of this is operating without question, you own them. Own them.

  24. turcopolier says:

    Popular election of the two US Senators within each state does not diminish the autonomy of the states. If an amendment had been proposed to give the states a number of senators based on population you would have seen a very different result in the ratification process. pl

  25. Tosk59 says:

    Was surprised at some of the sites on the list e.g. Perhaps the Propornot folks worried about their precious bodily fluids –

  26. ex-PFC Chuck says:

    Bruce Dixon at the Black Agenda Report has a piece on the “why” of the Jill Stein recount efforts, which the author supports. Along the way he makes the case for past Democratic Party fecklessness when it came to standing up for electoral integrity when the Party’s losses were the Borg’s desired outcomes. e.g. 2000 and 2004.

  27. eakens says:

    I’ve stopped buying crap on Amazon. Hard to do given the convenience but screw Bezos.

  28. LeaNder says:

    SP, I agree, from the Russian perspective a support of Clinton wouldn’t have made the least sense. Trump at least offered a glimpse of hope.
    Let’s see.

  29. Don’t tangle with our Mr Major. Russian diplomats of earlier times were said to gain their point by drinking their opponents under the table. Mr
    Major did it by sending them to sleep. His legendary ability to remain the last man awake won him many a battle. I’d keep clear.
    On the substantive point, it looks good from here. The more potshots at Trump now the fewer later. And if it’s more than potshots then better to sort it out at the beginning. To borrow the Colonel’s military analogy, at the least you’ll know more about the disposition of the enemy forces. One could wish things were that clear cut with Brexit.
    English Outsider

  30. LeaNder says:

    my condolences. 😉
    Made it into the news over here too. Simply bad taste.

  31. JMH says:

    If there is a dust up between now and Jan 20th, Trump will prevail for the same reason he prevailed in the general election. He relishes combat while HRC and her crew do not. That is why they had to live in a fake 3-5 point bubble during the campaign and were therefore unable to adjust to actual reality.

  32. Chris Chuba says:

    James Woolsey throws in with PropOrNot
    I just watched Woolsey interviewed on Maria Bartiromo’s program this morning and he went all in on Russia’s disinformation program to alter history. He claimed that Russia has hundreds of thousands of people employed to create fake news all over the world and then use that as a source to impact other news sites. He said that at one point [1979] this staff even outnumbered their military. He first heard of this from a senior Romanian Intelligence officer who defected in 1979 [citing as a source from 1979 for present day operations, time warp much?]
    He specifically said that this is not the usual effort to spin news [interviewer’s clarification] but to spread anti-Semitism, undermine our electoral process, the west [kill bunny rabbits, …]
    Sigh, with people like this I don’t see how Trump can succeed. Did someone ring a bell? It’s amazing how many outlets are suddenly pushing the same narrative, classic projection. As we all know, Russia has the GDP of Rhode Island, okay, I’m exaggerating but they don’t have the money to waste on an operation of this scale. This is such a specious accusation, it needs to be proven, not refuted.

  33. Lesly says:

    I support the recount effort even if a successful recount doesn’t change the outcome thanks to her campaign ignoring Rust Belt states. Were we looking at another Clinton presidency and the GOP noticed Wisconsin voting totals in favor of Clinton exceeded the number of total eligible county voters, there would be much pearl-clutching and gum-smacking about the need to double down on laws targeting voter fraud. Concern trolling is a GOP legislative tactic to compartmentalize the Democratic Party’s power so Republican voters can be thankful this incident alone would not spur the newly re/elected state Republicans to call election boards in order to present legislation that targets their voting habits.
    In the meantime, the comedy show flips from the hysterical hypocrisy of Clinton supporters demanding an end to the EC system (the same system she betted on!) to Trump supporters fuming at Clinton for doing the exact same thing Trump threatened in the event he lost: challenge the legitimacy of the election results.
    As for draining the swamp it’s looking like a Grant administration with (maybe) a wall running through it and more neocon exceptionalism.

  34. Sam Peralta says:

    And here was Origin projecting and decrying that “Trump engenders a resurgence of the old feelings and habits of privilege that seem to trump all other ideas.”
    The MSM and their left/Democrat aligned punditry have become hysterical since they were unable get their Borg Queen across the finish line. They are grabbing at straws while their credibility continues to get shredded.
    Unfortunately when PCness has run amok for decades there is no longer the language to articulate accurately.

  35. Sam Peralta says:

    That only reduced the power of their legislatures not the states.

  36. Sam Peralta says:

    Cognitive dissonance is on the Richter scale. The status quo punditry is falling apart as their influence has proven to be not much despite their high decibel bleating.

  37. Freudenschade says:

    It’s actually proving a positive. In other words, what evidence would show that there was a propaganda campaign?

  38. Freudenschade says:

    Maybe we have a problem with definition of terms. Propaganda usually is biased or misleading. Did the “MSM” report misleading stories about Trump? Are the Russians “the other side?” If so, what side are we?

  39. Freudenschade says:

    An interesting read, but I’m not sure it has anything to do with propaganda. We’re the stories published by WaPo, NBC, etc., about Trump misleading and biased?

  40. crf says:

    Recounts are important to demonstrate to voters that the system works fairly. Don’t dismiss a recount as just a partisan tool.

  41. Freudenschade says:

    The article you cite is light on facts and heavy on pejorative adverbs and adjectives. Of course, it may be disgraceful and cowardly for me to point that out.

  42. charly says:

    38 need to flip without Clinton electors flipping to Trump and with half the electors legally unable to flip. That is something like 30% of flip-able Trump electors. He isn’t insane enough for that to not kill democracy in the US. A wait-and-see policy with impeachment/bullit as backstop seems to me the more likely road to be taken. Besides knowing Trump would indicate to me that impeachment won’t exactly be searching for reasons.

  43. Freudenschade says:

    leave aside the partisanship for a moment and imagine that this is not about tearing down Trump. Take a look at rt,com and form your own opinion about whether that is a Russian propaganda site, the digital equivalent of Isvestya and Pravda. The Russian intelligence budget is a small fraction of the US intelligence budget, but they have an avantage in manpower, as the average Russian salary is only $300/month.
    Like the Russian military, Russian intelligence has a long history and a continuous school of thought and practice. Looking at how they operated in 1979 is not a useless endeavor. Those who ignore history, etc.

  44. turcopolier says:

    What do you think we do with USIA and the many black propaganda operations conducted by the DO? pl

  45. Fred says:

    I remind my liberal friends every time they bring up fake news that the Rolling Stone fake rape story was really the work of the Russians. I haven’t gotten any response from them. “Did someone ring a bell?” Yes, the conformists in the press heard the cha-ching of the cash register and if they don’t repeat the party diversity line they’ll be out of work.

  46. Freudenschade says:

    Quite the opposite. What evidence would prove that they did attempt to tamper with the election? Obviously a video of Putin giving orders to do just that would be dispositive. But there are several areas of evidence that suggest that they did tamper:
    1. The history of Russia tampering with the elections of other nations in Central and Western Europe. (
    2. The evidence that some of the wikileaks documents made their way through Russian language computers.
    3. The opinion of the US intelligence community that Russia is attacking institutions of US democracy (DNC, voter rolls, etc.).
    4. The overt propaganda operations at and sputnik.
    Leaving aside the emotional reactions of many of the pro-Trump partisans in this committee of correspondence, I think the idea that the Russian government has used social media and other vectors to influence opinions in the US is uncontroversial and obvious.

  47. Freudenschade says:

    Is there any evidence that Russia was involved?

  48. Tyler says:

    Ah, I see you’re doing your usual “pretend to be obtuse” when the facts don’t fit your paradigm.

  49. Lesly says:

    (Not sure comment made a few hours ago posted correctly.)
    I support the recount effort even if a successful recount doesn’t change the outcome thanks to her campaign ignoring Rust Belt states. Were we looking at another Clinton presidency and the GOP noticed Wisconsin voting totals in favor of Clinton exceeded the number of total eligible county voters, there would be much pearl-clutching and gum-smacking about the need to double down on laws targeting voter fraud. Concern trolling is a GOP legislative tactic to compartmentalize the Democratic Party’s power so Republican voters can be thankful this incident alone would not spur the newly re/elected state Republicans to call election boards in order to present legislation that targets their voting habits.
    In the meantime, the comedy show flips from the hysterical hypocrisy of Clinton supporters demanding an end to the EC system (the same system she betted on!) to Trump supporters fuming at Clinton for doing the exact same thing Trump threatened in the event he lost: challenge the legitimacy of the election results.
    As for draining the swamp it’s looking like a Grant administration with (maybe) a wall running through it and more neocon exceptionalism.

  50. Tyler says:

    I might get a Trump victory after giving out Pinochet Helicopter Rides. Ah, my cup runneth over.
    The Progs are playing with fire here, and their only tactic of “double down” is going to end with them in front of a firing squad.

  51. Freudenschade says:

    We do just that. I think we are a march behind the Russians, however, when it comes to social media. I’ve been following their activities in central and Western Europe since 2014. There’s no reason they wouldn’t employ the same game plan in the US.
    I am very apprehensive at how powerful the effect of their US operations seems to be.

  52. Tyler says:

    Yeah, which is why we’re only doing recounts in the states Trump won versus the 3K margin in states like NH.
    CTR shill gonna shill.

  53. Laura says:

    Trump won Wisconsin by 1%…well within the margin of error in a recount. I’m sure he would have funded a recount had the shoe been on the other foot. This is not the same as refusing to concede. A recount on these margins will give all a sense of faith in our system. FYI: Earlier today we reported that three precincts in the Wisconsin county of Outagamie had revised their vote totals downward for Donald Trump by more than a thousand votes combined, with local officials insisting to their local ABC News affiliate that it was a mere arithmetic error. But as more revisions come in throughout the state, a total of nearly five thousand Trump votes in Wisconsin have now been taken off the official board because they apparently never existed to begin with.
    At the end of election night the New York Times reported that Donald Trump had won the state of Wisconsin with a total of 1,409,467 votes, giving him a winning margin of 27,257 votes over Hillary Clinton’s total of 1,382,210. These numbers were based on what the individual counties and precincts were reporting that night. But now seventeen days later, based on various Wisconsin precincts revising their own totals, Dave Wasserman of the respected Cook Political Report has updated the totals. Donald Trump now has 1,404,536 total votes in Wisconsin, while Hillary Clinton now has 1,382,011 total votes.
    Two things immediately jump out, as first spotted by music critic Dave Greenwald. The first is that, even ahead of the forthcoming recount in Wisconsin, Donald Trump’s lead has already shrunk to just 22,525 votes. That means 18% of his “lead” has already vanished, based on precincts catching some of their own incorrect numbers, and internet gawkers catching others. But the second thing that jumps out is that the revisions have served to erase thousands of votes from Trump, while affirming that Clinton’s vote total was essentially correct to begin with.
    Donald Trump has gone from originally having 1,409,467 votes to now having just 1,404,536 votes in Wisconsin. In other words, a total of 4,931 votes were reported for Trump on election night that never existed. In contrast Hillary Clinton has gone from 1,382,210 votes down to 1,382,011 votes, a difference of less than two hundred votes. In other words, Wisconsin essentially had Clinton’s vote total correct all along, but is now acknowledging that nearly five thousand of the supposed votes for Trump simply never existed. (And this is before the recount.)

  54. Patrick Armstrong says:

    AS to the Russians hacking/leaking and so on, we first heard the story when the DNC leaks came out. I would suggest that a full investigation of Seth Rich and his murder would shed a lot of light on the story. It’s a big swamp.

  55. Patrick Armstrong says:

    Get a grip! RT is a news agency. It is funded by the Russian govt. It has a Russian POV. BBC is a news agency. It is funded by the British govt. It has a pro-UK/West POV. DW ditto. AFP ditto. And so on. Lots of them around. The point is to read a lot of sources and triangulate using your judgement. You can’t do that with the Western media anymore. Maybe you never really could on certain subjects.
    PS I follow Sputnik pretty heavily and I’ve hardly ever found an error of fact. As to the WMSM these days on subjects like Syria, Russia, Putin, jihadism I’ve hardly ever found a truth.

  56. turcopolier says:

    I am an actual human. I moderate the comments and do not sit here all day waiting for your next thoughts. pl

  57. VietnamVet says:

    I think that this smells like an attempt to derail the Trump Presidency. The cognitive dissonance is off the scale. Today the Washington Post had five articles on welcoming Muslim refugees yet complete silence on estimated 1.3 million casualties and the million refugees flooding Europe due to the West’s War on Terror. The rise of the Islamic State is the direct response of Sunnis being attacked for 25 years and returning to their fundamental religion and tribal roots for safety. The carnage cannot be isolated to the Middle East. Only by uniting and ending the wars and the looting does mankind have any chance for peace.
    Brexit, Trump and rise of populists’ movements through the West are a direct response to the Globalist’s four basic principles of free movement of persons, goods, services and capital. The neo-liberal-cons turned Greece into a debtor’s prison and the Mid-West into the Rust Belt. I fear that the elite will not give up their plundering of the little people without a fight. This will the first battle in a World Civil War if Donald Trump is not inaugurated on January 20, 2017.

  58. different clue says:

    I was going to say something like this but I see you already have.
    Yes . . . both of Bezos’s properties should be extermicotted. Amazon should be extermicotted to begin to dry up the revenue streams which are the source of Bezos’s power. The Washington Post should be extermicotted to deprive Bezos of his breathtakingly powerful DC FedRegime-allied propaganda organ.
    It makes me wish I had ever even used Amazon or the Washington Post to begin with so that I could make a statement by boycotting them now.

  59. not Mike Allen says:

    Michael Moore concurs with Fred. Actually, Moore has been saying this for quite some time.
    “Michael Moore Explains Why Donald TRUMP Will Win US Presidential Election 2016”

  60. robt willmann says:

    After the election, the street protests, and then the attempts to persuade or intimidate electors (which is probably still going on), have so far not dislodged Trump. The jabbering attacks against him and the electoral college will continue, as part of laying a base for a long term attempt to minimize or block him, and change the electoral college. Removing the electoral college will be extremely difficult since it is clearly created in the constitution and the language is not as vague as in other provisions.
    Plenty of academic research has been done on changing public opinion. Making a change in a cultural or societal belief is not easy, but always starts with at least one person who preferably is not wearing a tinfoil hat to publicly say or write the unmentionable or address the taboo subject. An example and case study is the Project for a New American Century group which progressed to getting members into the Bush jr administration, and then, with the help of mass media, promoting an aggressive war on Iraq, getting the Congress to pass an “authorization” to use military force (although it delegated its authority to Bush jr), and then getting the war itself launched in 2003.
    Now, Jill Stein is making moves to get vote recounts in three important states. Raising the money is getting funny, and others have in the last few days obtained archived web pages and “screen shots” documenting the project and how the desired total amount has increased. For example–
    As of this time today, Stein says they have raised $6,131,111.33 toward the “goal” of $7 million, although she points out that the filing fees are $1.1 million (Wisconsin), $0.5 million (Pennsylvania), and $0.6 million (Michigan)–
    Hillary Clinton’s election law attorney, Marc Elias, is the equivalent to Don McGahn, who has advised Trump and is going to now be the White House counsel. Mr. Elias is also a member of a large firm, Perkins Coie–
    As the Jill Stein money raising operation got the dough, Mr. Elias wrote a statement, with amusingly slippery language, that Hillary is going to participate in the recount after all–
    More interesting and applicable than the issue of the electoral college is Trump and the “emoluments clause” of the constitution, Article 2, section 1, paragraph 7–
    “The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.”
    Since governmental law is mostly vocabulary and definitions, this presents a nice little exercise. We have the two parts to the emoluments clause above. Furthermore, Title 18, United States Code, is a major source of federal criminal law. Chapter 11 is useful–
    Title 18, section 202, contains definitions, and subsection ‘c’ lets the president and vice president off the hook with respect to sections 203 and 209–
    “(c) Except as otherwise provided in such sections, the terms ‘officer’ and ’employee’ in sections 203, 205, 207 through 209, and 218 of this title shall not include the President, the Vice President, a Member of Congress, or a Federal judge.”
    But sections 201 and 219 can still be scrutinized. Section 201, on bribery–
    “(b) Whoever–…
    (2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
    (A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;
    (B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
    (C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;….”
    “(c) Whoever—…
    (1) otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty—…
    (B) being a public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such official or person; ….”
    Section 219–
    “(a) Whoever, being a public official, is or acts as an agent of a foreign principal required to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 or a lobbyist required to register under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 in connection with the representation of a foreign entity, as defined in section 3(6) of that Act shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.”
    All of this relates to Trump’s business projects and from whom and where the financing for each one came from, as well as whether any foreign government has invested in any project, or provided tax breaks to him, or rents space in a building he has inside or outside of the U.S., and so forth. Will any act he may take as president impact, influence, or affect any business project in which he has any kind of interest? What is the applicability, if any, of the emoluments clause, Title 18 of the U.S. Code, and other laws in this regard?

  61. kooshy says:

    All in all IMO this a good news, by way of this article, the US/Western MSM is justifying to their owners (The Borg) why they couldn’t deliver the candidate of Borg’ choice, Clinton.
    It also means they are acknowledging they no longer possess full control on information flow. Which IMO is a good thing.

  62. Laura says:

    Lesley, I also support the recount. I think we will all learn something about our various election systems. Because they vary from state-to-state, a recheck will gives us all a better handle on how good they are and how they compare to each other.

  63. different clue says:

    If enough bitter recounts can destroy public faith in digital elections so thoroughly and totally that the system is forced to go back to Legal Paper Ballots in those jurisdictions which currently use digifraudulent touchscreen machines, then that will be a gain right there.
    Also, if recounts appear to give the Clintonites some reason to claim they “won” but for fraud, I would like to see the Bernie Movement sue to retro-invalidate the Democratic Primaries and the Democratic Convention because of the Clintonite-DemParty fraud involved in engineering the Clinton Nomination

  64. Eric Newhill says:

    Huh? How so?
    “[prove Russia] did not mount ….What would be evidence that disproves ”
    I think I read you correctly the first time.
    C- attempt at playing the “garbled in transmission/you didn’t read me correctly” hand.

  65. Freudenschade says:

    OK, I’ll bite.
    1. What is my paradigm?
    2. What facts don’t support it?
    3. How am I being obtuse?

  66. Dr. Puck says:

    Trump will be inaugurated.
    The Electoral College won’t be violated.
    But, the swamp isn’t going to be drained. Nobody whatsoever has offered a theory as to what that actually means, and how it would be able to be accomplished, especially under circumstances of absolute opacity, and, of great amounts of ring kissing.

  67. Freudenschade says:

    I paraphrased his hypothesis as Russia did *NOT* mount a propaganda campaign. Disproving this hypothesis involves that they *DID* mount a propaganda campaign. So disproving his hypothesis would involve affirmatively proving that Russia did mount a propaganda campaign.
    BTW, you can prove a negative in many situations. And “have you stopped beating your wife” is a fallacy known as a loaded question, a wholly different sort of animal. Here were merely talking about a falsifiable hypothesis. If a hypothesis isn’t falsifiable, it is vacuous.

  68. Nancy K says:

    We are having a recount in our state, NC, fit Governor. It is annoying but completely legal. Is it legal for Jill Stein to request a recount, if so why the uproar? If it is not legal why is the state allowing it?

  69. doug says:

    The recount efforts will fail. Too big a lead in the EC to overcome. But perhaps that’s not the goal.
    The contempt of the elites at Trump’s election is unprecented. But what is to be done? (Can’t resist that classic line). If they garner enough faithless electors to vote Hillary in or, for that matter shift the election into the House (that may actually require a smaller number of flips) there will be relief amongst the elites but a lot of unrest amongst the great unwashed.
    The propornot group may be an effort to provide justification for a crackdown on unpopular (to the elites) outlets, First Amendment be damned. It’s odd that they are using McCarthy tactics, are given wide MSM credence, and yet they do so anonymously. This so goes against the grain of most journalists that one can only imagine the cognitive dissonance required. It’s an indication of just how upset the media elites are.
    I now see a small, but increased, probability that we will adopt China like internal internet monitoring/censorship. Pretty much inevitable if things deteriorate to the point we have our own Tiananmen square moment.
    There are probably innumerable countries, including Russia, that would like to see that.
    We live in interesting times.

  70. Laura says:

    Jeff, I think Jill Stein is just trying to make sure that the vote counting process WAS honorable. Wisconsin changed Trump’s vote total by 5,000 DOWN just in a routine re-check without a recount. Now he is only up by 22,000 +. (Hillary’s count was unchanged in the precincts checked as that count was accurate.)
    This is Wisconsin which is highly GOP-politicized. I think we all need to know that the counts were accurate. I’m grateful that Jill Stein is doing this…no matter what the outcome. We need to understand how these votes get counted and if there are any systemic problems…especially in these swing states.

  71. Nancy K says:

    Trump could request a recount in NH if he were so inclined. Maybe he could even show some evidence that he would have won the popular vote if millions has not voted illegally.

  72. Laura says:

    Oops, did not copy the citation…yes, it is Bill Palmer. And, before posting, I went to the Wisconsin electoral site to check those totals. He is correct.

  73. ISL says:

    The only way your statement makes sense is if 1. you are an ideologue, or 2. were in a coma for 2016. I suggest 15 seconds of google research.
    Or, try reading this:
    and see if you still agree with the propaganda from the mainstream media, even (shock shock) as it continues.
    Spoiler alert – it lays out a lot of “facts” that induce cognitive dissonance in true believers of the mainstream media narrative. I highly recommended.

  74. ISL says:

    Well, the supreme court made it legal for foreign entities to interfere in our elections (by allowing US based foreign subsidiaries to contribute unlimited funds). I surmise our oligarchs simply believe that the US will always outbid foreign investors (in our elections).
    But very sadly, its worse, the Clinton Foundation accepted 12 million from Monaco a few days before she announced. Was that an effort to interfere in our election? Of course, but also to interfere in our govt after the election no matter who won (Bush or Hillary). Did the media note it as a perversion of democracy – one US citizen one vote? Nope.
    Brings to my mind the types of corruption in the later Roman Republic.
    Chinese was the lingua fraca in Firefly, I think, for very good reasons.

  75. Crf says:

    They should in nh too. What do you have against the principle of recounting votes?

  76. Stumpy says:

    Exactly. As the pressure on the California SOS mounted during the primaries, it’s not hard to imagine the degree of hanky panky conducted throughout all primaries, esp. wrt the ability of Bernie Sanders to fill stadia while Hillary did the “fake moon-landing thing” with bussed-in supporters. Lawsuits were filed. Every election official must have felt the heat going into the National, knowing that a blown election scandal would be a career-killer.
    But, Chad’s been hanged enough.

  77. turcopolier says:

    Let them count so long as the state and taxpayers do not pay for it. If they re-count perhaps there will be some leftists who will be forced to accept the truth of alack of “hacking” from abroad. pl

  78. Jay M says:

    so is this regime change sort of Cataline? have to rearrange the
    Sulla book?

  79. Chris Chuba says:

    Freudenschade and others,
    I was so floored by what Woolsey said that I found the FOX video, snipped out the 2 minute portion that was relevant and uploaded it to youtube for all of you to look at for yourselves without the taint of my interpretation …
    Woolsey unplugged …
    Freudenschade, Woolsey is NOT alleging normal propaganda, he is talking about the Russians going hardcore, full up Cold War on us as if we are innocent lambs coming late to the party.
    Please note the nature of his allegations.
    1. Spreading anti-Semitism (I read those forbidden websites and I don’t see it).
    2. Attacking the Church (70’s time warp again, Putin is notoriously pro-Church, another anti-Putin fanatic accuses him of being an Orthodox Jihadist)
    3. Staffing HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of people, WORLDWIDE, creating fake stories and then using those stories as evidence to UNDERMINE the west, our elections, and our institutions, and re-writing history. As the interviewer said, this is not run of the mill spin (or lies) to make yourself look good at someone else’s expense. Woolsey is accusing the Russians of pretty much being at war with us.
    I never hear the Russians talk like this about us and I read their ‘propaganda’. Am I overreacting? I just do not see another way to interpret his comments. If they are expending this much effort in their campaign over ‘many years’ as he puts it then boy, they are doing a terrible job. We got 95% of Ukraine to their 5%. They are spending at least 8% of their GDP to attack the west (including all defense and intelligence budget) vs our 4.5% for Defense. KGB operatives aren’t that cheap and that is what Woolsey called them.

  80. Swamp Yankee says:

    And here I thought that bell above was a Pavlov joke, Fred! Given that the press seem to be the lackeys and running dogs of the powers that be (Borg), maybe it isn’t the worst mistake on my part. Then again, maybe the bell the dogs are conditioned to salivate at is that of a cash register — yes, perhaps that captures it most of all.
    All I can say is: thank God and the Colonel for this website at this time in our history. A place we can reason together about “public things” (res publica) without the idiocy of various Borgist organs. A rarity. Best wishes to all the members of the Committee from Plymouth Bay.

  81. Fred says:

    The Russian agent involved is named Haven Monahan. The handler is named “Pepe”.

  82. Fred says:

    Come now; everyone here believes in ballots. Just compare the protest crowds in the US versus what they have in Korea and you can see the left isn’t going to protest this thing only the Establishment.

  83. Valissa says:

    Great comment Jeff!
    I have no problem with the recounts in principle, but why didn’t Hillary’s team take the lead on this to begin with instead of somehow inveigling Stein to do her dirty work? It would have been more honest. Perhaps Hillary really is no longer capable of that.
    What the public is getting from Team Hillary and Stein & crew in explaining why they are doing this, sounds like doublespeak to me. Meanwhile increasing Trump’s stature as a “winner.” Hillary remains tone deaf.

  84. Freudenschade says:

    I’ll defer to someone who knows more about this than I, but everything I have read about KGB tradecraft indicates that they invest substantial resources in disinformation. See for an example. Social media is just a much better vehicle for introducing these stories into the west. This year the campaign has been to the detriment of the Democrats. Next year? Will they begin to target other institutions such as the church?

  85. Freudenschade says:

    Many of the electronic voting machines have serious security issues, which have gone unaddressed for years. Wired had a good summary of the vulnerabilities this past August. (
    Most of the vulnerabilities require physical access to voting machines. Coordinating a campaign to tamper with enough machines to sway an election seems unlikely.
    But some of the machines have no paper record of the vote, so tampering would be hard to detect and the original vote count could not be reconstructed. The evidence for voting machine hacking has been based on predicted result in paper ballot versus voting machine areas. A recount would be unlikely to uncover hacking, even if it had occurred.
    Probably the most troublesome attack vector would be infiltrating software engineers into the voting machine vendors’ development staff. Depending on the level of professionalism of the vendors (which, based on the unpatched security flaws, isn’t high), it might be possible to deploy a malicious update, then cover your tracks.
    In any case, we should not be complacent.

  86. Brunswick says:

    While Trump is busy tweeting that if you discount the millions of illegal immigrant votes, he actually won the Popular vote,
    He hasn’t asked or is willing to pay for a recount in NH.
    During the election, Trump continually claimed the elections were rigged, so what’s wrong with a recount?
    LMAO, mostly with Trump staffing up like the CPA, and we all know how well that worked in Iraq.

  87. Freudenschade says:

    That’s a half an hour of my life I’ll never get back. The article addressed questions of white supremacy and Trump. It addressed Russian propaganda efforts not at all. Do you have anything relevant to add, or are you still beating the Clinton vs Trump hobby horse?

  88. Valissa says:

    Apparently many Stein supporters agree with you and Jeff.
    Jill Stein is Being Roasted By Her Own Supporters Over Recount Effort

  89. F-35 says:

    RT is a far better news source than anything else out there. Sure it has a Russian POV coloring to it, but so what? Which outlet doesn’t have some bias? They all do… You don’t RT – don’t watch it, but don’t tell everyone else what media they should consume.

  90. crf says:

    Swamp roughly means Washington insiders. Examples:
    Chu and Moniz: not from the Swamp.
    Kerry and Clinton: from the Swamp.
    Preibus: from the Swamp
    De Vos: not from the Swamp.
    Trump’s not draining the Swamp any more than Obama did. And in all honesty, maybe you’d want a swamp thing for your chief of staff, for example.

  91. Green Zone Café says:

    The state law constraints on the Electors are minimal – small fines are the penalties, not imprisonment. The state laws are also possibly unconstitutional.
    “A number of electors have violated their state’s law binding them to their pledged vote. However, these violators often only face being charged with a misdemeanor or a small fine, usually $1,000. Many constitutional scholars agree that electors remain free agents despite state laws and that, if challenged, such laws would be ruled unconstitutional.”
    Not saying it’s likely to happen, but it is surely being considered by the Clinton people and could be attempted.

  92. Tyler says:

    1) “The Russians stole the election!”
    2) There is no proof the Russians somehow hacked election machines that weren’t connected to the internet
    3) “Hurr what do you mean prove a negative?”
    You would have been thrown out of the Birchers with this level of Russia hysteria.

  93. Tyler says:

    Glad to see that in a world of doubt and uncertainty, I can always rely on you to be a solid shill for whoever has a D next to their name.

  94. Tyler says:

    Nancy K,
    Well the fact that California gives a driver’s license to everyone and automatically registers you to vote is kind of a huge bit of evidence. As I said before, provisional ballots and Chicago don’t mean you get to be President.
    You’re whining that chess is unfair because you got checkmated even though you had more pieces.

  95. Tyler says:

    Because the principle isn’t to “recount votes”, you shill. Its to make sure that vote counts aren’t certified so that their electors can’t be allowed to sit in the Electoral College, therefore throwing the thing to the House.
    This isn’t about “muh sacred elections”, especially from the people who screamed that Trump was the death of democracy because he refused to say he would simply accept the election. There is more evidence of urban (i.e. Democrat) fraud then there is of the Left’s new boogeyman “Russian hackers”, but we’re supposed to believe a media that did everything in it’s power to drag Borg Queen’s corpse across the finish line, and failed.

  96. Tyler says:

    I’m annoyed by the hypocrisy, but also not going to stop the Left in this country from portraying itself as a bunch of hysterical crybabies living in their own bubble and confirming for every union guy that pulling the lever for Trump was the right thing to do now, and again in 2020.

  97. Tyler says:

    You’re linking to globalist shill FP and pretend it’s unbiased, quoting “Evidence” that amounts to “YEAH WE REALLY WANT THIS”, running to an argument from authority with “the IC community”, and calling Russian media propaganda. Then you wonder why people are shaking their heads at you.
    “Emotional reaction” – it’s called being annoyed at hypocrisy. I get that, as you are someone with autism, its hard to realize what’s going on when dialectic and rhetoric are being blended, but that doesn’t mean that passion is incorrect.

  98. Tyler says:

    I love the people here beating their breasts about “muh sacred elections” while silent over the fact the Left has been publishing the addresses of EC electors and sending them death threats.

  99. Tyler says:

    There has been no hint of any sort of inaccuracies in the software, and the people who have been claiming that there are work hand in glove with George Soros.
    You are the weakest shill, 2/10.

  100. Tyler says:

    Trump’s enemies are giving him the pen and ink to write the proscription lists with the support of a public tired of being told by coastal elites that they’re too stupid to know who to support.

  101. Tyler says:

    I hope Trump sees that you cannot make nice with the Left in this country, and goes full root and branch on them.
    I’m talking hitting Soros for RICO charges for funding BLM riots, breaking apart media conglomerates as monopolies, siccing DHS on corporations and checking every I-9 form, taking away charitable tax donation status from every SPLC style “organization” out there that serves as another Leftist head of the hydra, declaring BLM as a domestic terror organization, refusing to service federal student loans for colleges that act as “sanctuary” orgs and admit illegal aliens, and enforcing the provisions of the INA that refer to “encouraging or harboring illegal aliens” by throwing every sanctuary city mayor in federal prison.
    And that’s off the top of my head. Referencing Jay M, I hope he goes full Sulla and some of you on here get to live the martyrdom LARP you’ve been playing on SST.

  102. Cee says:

    Most of the people are WOKE now and know better.

  103. Cee says:

    She may just want to find votes switched from HER to Clinton. Trump is still the victor.

  104. Mark Logan says:

    David Habakkuk,
    A working theory for CNN:
    They paid a pretty penny to Ted Turner to acquire CNN, about a billion IIRC. They have creditors so naturally ratings became and remain primary. After a short stint of messing around with journalism, they, with apologies to “Trainspotting”, “made a healthy informed democratic decision” to self-lobotomize.
    I have no experience in media myself, I am just guessing, but does this sound remotely plausible to you?

  105. Tel says:

    If the machines have been hacked then the recount will be a waste of time, it will reveal nothing. Once the true voter’s intention has been lost, there’s nothing more can be done to reconstruct that data from thin air.
    Possibly the hacker might have been careless and left some fingerprints, but that would require full forensic analysis which isn’t going to be done. Even then, should such an analysis find something that looks anomalous… so what then?

  106. LeaNder says:

    Tyler, I seriously don’t begrudge you your victory. I am in complete let’s see mode. …
    But, from my limited perspective the first that feared a possible vote tempering here on SST was Old Microbiologist, an ardent Trump supporter, expecting it would be done by the Democrats and via electronic hacking. Then Trump himself picked up on the theme a little later.
    Did the GOP ever demand a vote recount? I somewhat doubt.
    Hacking Democracy?
    Or increasing signs of polarization?

  107. Freudenschade,
    ‘The evidence that some of the wikileaks documents made their way through Russian language computers.’
    From an analysis by the cybersecurity consultant Jeffrey Carr entitled ‘Can Facts Slow the DNB Breach Runaway Train, back in July:
    ‘Raise your hand if you think that a GRU or FSB officer would add Iron Felix’s name to the metadata of a stolen document before he released it to the world while pretending to be a Romanian hacker. Someone clearly had a wicked sense of humor.’
    (See .)
    A follow-up in October was entitled ‘The Yandex Domain Problem, Or Who In Russian Intelligence Doesn’t Speak Russian?’, and dealt in detail with an e-mail sent by ‘Fancy Bear’. About whoever created the e-mail, Carr concludes:
    ‘He went with because all analysis stops with merely the name of a Russian company, a Russian IP address, or a Russian-made piece of malware. To even argue that a Russian intelligence officer let alone a paranoid Russian mercenary hacker would prefer a email to a email is mind-numbingly batshit insane.’
    (See .)
    This does not, repeat not, mean that one can exclude the possibility that hacked material has been obtained and disseminated by Russian intelligence, or Russian hacker groups working in cahoots with them.
    The man in overall charge of the GRU, which has been fingered as a ‘prime suspect’, is the Chief of the Russian General Staff, General Valery Gerasimov. For a very good analysis of his thinking by Charles K. Bartles of the ‘Foreign Military Studies Office’, entitled ‘Getting Gerasimov Right’, see
    The article brings out some reasons why it is quite conceivable that Gerasimov and Putin would manoeuvre to discredit Clinton.
    However, clues which appear to point to Russian origins, but do not withstand the kind of critical examination Carr provides, are patently not to be taken at face value. Rather they suggest someone attempting to cover up the real sources of the leaks.
    The plain truth about the approach to cybersecurity by Hillary, and others, is that it was so monstrously inept and careless that one has a surfeit of people with the means, opportunity, and motive to exploit this situation. In addition to this, of course, there is the possibility of insider leaking being disguised as hacking by outsiders.

  108. Freudenschade,
    Actually, I was more thinking about the ability of the MSM to write of Hillary Clinton in ways that could be expected to make very many people who don’t like Trump think – as I argued repeatedly here – that this election was a case of ‘better the devil you don’t know.’
    However, if you want a good example of straight McCarthyism in the NYT, you might try a column written in July by Paul Krugman from July, entitled ‘Donald Trump, the Siberian Candidate.’
    (See .)

  109. LeaNder says:

    Freudenschade, well sourced article by Kavitha Surana.
    The core problem in Europe seems to be the political confrontation between “the West” and Russia. There was a huge dissent concerning Russia and the Ukraine policy over here too. Not only on the right. Far from it. … Nuland’s leaked statement: “Fuck Europe” didn’t help in this context. Concerning refugees, what led to the dramatic peak? Did Russia cause it? The refugee flows increased dramatically in Summer 2015. Russia entered the war in November.
    Russia doesn’t even surface in the 8 reasons Liz Sly lists for the WAPO.
    My point would be. If Marie le Pen sides with Russia versus “the West’s” bringing democracy and its rules to rest of the world, effectively connecting it with her pet argument refugee flows to Europe, isn’t that mirroring present reality too? And aren’t “facts sacred and only opinion free?
    Now, die Russia bring all this about? It may have occasionally exploited it to its own benefit. Yes, but why not?

  110. Bandit says:

    Especially when Russia is staring down the barrel of WW3.

  111. LeaNder says:

    agree, irony, indeed.

  112. Macgupta123 says:

    Jill Stein is not breaking any laws.
    This is the standard adopted for Trump on taxes, business practices, the conflict of interest as POTUS, etc., by his supporters.

  113. Nancy K says:

    I’m not whining, as I said before I accept that my choice lost. What I am saying is if a recount is legal than why should Trump be whining or tweeting about it. Do you have proof that millions voted illegally or are you asking that a negative be proven that no illegal votes were cast.

  114. LeaNder says:

    All of this relates to Trump’s business projects and from whom and where the financing for each one came from, as well as whether any foreign government has invested in any project, or provided tax breaks to him, or rents space in a building he has inside or outside of the U.S., and so forth.
    robt, I only scanned Elias’ statements and did not look beyond the passages you cite. Do you feel Elias plans to target Trump’s business relations with Russia? Money from Russia “pouring in”, see article below?

  115. turcopolier says:

    I don’t think you understand how many different kinds of machines and paper ballots are in use in the US. The reason for this is that states and municipalities choose their systems. pl

  116. Freudenschade says:

    Now we’re getting somewhere.
    I do address the question of voting machines below. My conclusion? It is unlikely that the Russians or anyone else “hacked” the machines. If they or anyone else managed to infiltrate the development teams of voting machine vendors, it is further unlikely that a recount would reveal it.
    You and everyone else in this committee of correspondence keeps wanting to pull me into the Clinton vs Trump food fight. Sorry. I will pass on that. I do sympathize with your frustrations in the face of claims of Trumps illegitimacy and can see how you would interpret my remarks in that light. It’s certainly possible that Russian disinformation tipped the election to Trump, but, short of evidence of voting machine hacking, I don’t think that constitutes “stealing” the election.
    My paradigm (as opposed to my claim) is that the Russians attempt to undercut the democratic, governmental and religious institutions of its opponents. My claim is that the advent of social media has enabled the Russians to manipulate American public opinion as never before.
    Finally, I would submit that it is not my reaction that is hysterical, but rather yours — fighting a furious rear guard action to anything you think threatens the legitimacy of your preferred candidate. Be careful. The enemy of your enemy is not your friend. If you find yourself on the same “side,” as one other poster did, of the Russians against the MSM, what side are you really on?

  117. Eric Newhill says:

    And then you have tossed about a bunch of “evidence” that you seem to think supports the idea that Russia did mount an effective propaganda campaign, hacking, etc, and are basically saying that you have made your case and anyone who disagrees will have to prove the negative – that Russia did not do these things.
    However, all you have done is presented rumor, innuendo, biased opinion and crumby sources. So you’re saying I want to think this way and it’s up to everyone else to prove I’m thinking stupidly.
    There is no evidence for any of the things you and your elitist media handlers want to believe about Russia. None. And it’s kind of insulting, in an arrogant, albeit thoroughly delusional, kinda way, that you think half of the country is so stupid that it stumbles across some article with a Russian perspective (or something like that)on the internet and then suddenly they have become completely brainwashed to the point where they do something they would have never done otherwise, i.e. vote for Trump.
    Now, prove to me that you stopped beating your wife. My sources say you haven’t.

  118. Fred says:

    “A recount would be unlikely to uncover hacking, even if it had occurred.”
    Election hacked! Evidence, we’ll never uncover any evidence! You should at least get creative with your trolling.

  119. Freudenschade says:

    I know Jeffrey Carr by reputation. He is a substantial person. Here, however, I think he is splitting hairs. For example, the command and control IP used in both the Bundestag and DNC hacks indicates they were committed by the same party.
    A full reading of the report by Claudio Guarnieri, prepared for the Left Party in the German Bundestag, doesn’t support Carr and makes his citation look like cherry picking.

  120. Freudenschade says:

    ROTFL. Never let it be said that Fred doesn’t have a sense of humor.

  121. hemeantwell says:

    Perhaps only driven by a bad habit, I still occasionally go to Juan Cole’s site. Today, putting Trump in the spotlight, he has a piece on the conspiracy theory mindset, with much quoting from a Scientific American article. What’s interesting is that, on the face of it there’s a remarkable symmetry between the “monological,” one explanation fits all situations assumption of the conspiracy theorist and the “Russian propaganda machine” claim of the MSM/Dems.
    Now it may be that, in their cunning sophistication, the MSM/Dems don’t really believe in the theory and are simply dusting off scares left over from the Cold War to worry, if not scare the hell out of, the American people. But I wonder if at least some of them might simply be incapable of realizing that the openness of the Internet has allowed people of a wide range of political positions to more or less independently arrive at similar conclusions regarding HRC and her warmongering policies. Coming to grips with that idea might be too threatening, it risks exposing their own group-think. In any case, what we’re seeing now is a pot calling a kettle black. And, as US politics becomes more multitendential, we’ll likely see more of it as people try to find a guiding hand in what appears to be chaos.

  122. Freudenschade says:

    I didn’t realize you were so sensitive. Let me provide some right wing shill sources to smooth your ruffled feathers.
    Is there a particular flavor or ideology of publication you’d like me to cite?

  123. Freudenschade,
    To which ‘citation’ are you referring? Regrettably I haven’t had time to read the fully report.
    Of ‘Sofacy’, the summary explains:
    ‘Previous work published by security vendor FireEye in October 2014 suggests the group might be of Russian origin.’
    There is a discussion in the earlier Carr piece of the problems of the forensics relating to ‘Sofacy’. Was this ‘cherry picking’?
    Where however Guarnieri’s report definitively exonerates the Russian security services is in the following paragraph:
    ‘As the attackers appear largely unconcerned with hiding their tracks or maintaining long-term persistence access (for example, they didn’t appear to have attempted to create additional network administrator accounts), it is probable that the operation was intentionally planned to be executed quickly in order to opportunistically collect and exfiltrate as much data as possible.’
    If you think that the Russian security services would be ‘largely unconcerned with hiding their tracks’ in an attack like this, then frankly words fail me.
    We are dealing with competent intelligence services – this isn’t MI6.

  124. turcopolier says:

    “The Soviet was not a “left-wing” institution. It was a heavy-handed right-wing institution” In the USSR Democracy was defined as public ownership of the means of production. This is a right wing regime? China? When was the last time that an unrigged election was held in Communist China? Can Hong Kong secede from China if it votes to do so? pl

  125. Freudenschade says:

    The citation I refer to is the poorly attributed (an oversight, I’m sure) one to Guarnierri’s report.
    I’ve worked in medical devices, including security, for a number of years. Based on my own experiences and various white papers and reports I’ve read, the last decade and a half have seen the criminalization and professionalization of hacking. There’s money to be made! In the Russian orbit, the difference between government and criminal enterprises (in hacking) is not always clear cut. Although I have no evidence for it, I would not be surprised if the Russian intelligence services contracted some operations out to those entities.

  126. Freudenschade says:

    out of curiosity, are you related to Prof. John Habakkuk?

  127. ISL says:

    this is tiring. you said “Did the “MSM” report misleading stories about Trump?”

  128. Willy B says:

    Jeff, do you know where she got the money for the recount effort? Somewhere I read that she managed to raise about $3 1/2 million for the entire presidential campaign, but raised $5 million in just a few days for the recount? That seems awfully suspicious to me.

  129. Dr. Puck says:

    Trump’s crowds chanted “Drain the Swamp.”
    Isn’t this swamp populated by Washington insiders, and, isn’t the swamp about how special interests self-deal and work to favor their own at the expense of, for example, a thriving middle class?
    I put it this way because this would be the most common way Trump voters understood what Trump meant by ‘swamp;’ (even though, the concept has not received any kind of treatment able to deliver it from being a mere slogan.)
    Anyway, it seems to me that if there is a swamp that deserves to be drained for the sake of dialing back the impact of special interests, then it should be able to be described with regard to how it operates.
    So it would describe Washington insiders doing exactly what?

  130. Tyler says:

    I thought I had seen historical revisionism by the Left before, but this is amazing. You truly are up your own fourth point of contact.

  131. Tyler says:

    Nancy K,
    Moving the goalposts from “it never happens” to “where’s your investigation huh huh huh!” doesn’t change a thing. There’s a reason why there’s a couple of million “provisional” ballots in California right now.

  132. Tyler says:

    Yeah, verified by the Dem controlled SoS office. Excuse me if I’m not impressed by the cries of “nothing to see here”.

  133. Freudenschade and David Habakkuk,
    You described the situation well, Freud. The way the Chinese and Russian governments deal with independent hackers is very different than the U.S. response. The Chinese and Russians tolerate their hackers’ activities as long as they don’t cross the line. They also, at times, do pay for services/information provided by these hackers. They also suggest the direction that the hackers should take in their independent hacking activities. In effect, the hackers are issued a letter of marque just as the privateers of old. The viability and efficiency of this system is difficult for us in the West to grasp.
    I’ve run with these hackers for close to a decade and have seen the way they operate and interact with their governments. I base my assessment on that experience.

  134. Tyler says:

    Ah, liberal projection 101. You think the National Review – who declared that poor white communities “deserved to die” is right wing.
    Are you 12? You have such a facile understanding of politics that I think my autism shiv might have been more of a diagnosis at this point.
    Yes, quote a source that isn’t clamoring for a hot war with Russia/another head of the progressive-globalist hydra.
    Linking to National Review.. Goodness, you really are seeing Russians under your bed.

  135. Eric Newhill says:

    Now you say Russia didn’t hack the voting machines. Good. Maybe we’re getting somewhere after all.
    So, what exactly did they do to influence the election? Have the RT write some pieces leaning toward Trump? So what? As noted by others, biased media pieces were all over the place and most were against Trump. Is it somehow unusually insidious when Russia does it?
    You say they were probably involved in the hacked email releases. What if they were? Those wikileaks were very disappointing from this Trump supporter’s perspective. Clinton did vastly more damage to herself with her “deplorables” comment (and by collapsing on 9/11 and by having a private server, TPP support, taking $ from oppressive a-hole countries, taking money from wall st a-holes, generally being a disagreeable screeching lying bitch, etc, etc).
    Is that what this is all about? Your inability to accept that Clinton was a horribly and tragically flawed candidate with unpopular positions on key issues and support of other issues that at least half the populace – in the states that mattered – didn’t rate as being the ones that mattered most to them.
    Nah….couldn’t be that. Must be that dummies like Tyler and me were seduced by Russian propaganda. Yeah that’s it!
    I hope you and your comrades keep living that delusion. Then we will never have another Democrat in office again.

  136. Tyler says:

    No, we aren’t. You’re still doing your special pleading/deliberate obtuseness/prove my negative tap dance, now with the added benefit of faux unalignment. The fact you’re pretending you’re not a Clinton partisan when you so obviously are fits in with your greater pattern of disinformation.
    “Everyone is hysterical but me!” – the guy seeing Russians under the bed. My sides are dying here.
    But I’m still waiting for us to tell you when you stopped beating your wife. Pretty suspicious you didn’t answer Eric.

  137. steve says:

    Like you I voted for Stein, though as any sort of opposition party the Greens, to put it bluntly, suck.
    That said, as long as Wisconsin and other states have a legal procedure for recounting votes and Stein or for that matter Clinton wish to do so, I have no problem with that. The whole electoral process from the primaries through the general election reeks to high heavens–and imho the public would agree–so if actual ballot skullduggery exists no reason why it shouldn’t see the light of day.
    More generally, I think the US would be better served by paper ballots, hand counted in public.

  138. kao_hsien_chih says:

    Every country butts in the elections of another country, up to a point. We did send campaign consultants to help run Yeltsin’s campaign in late 1990s, among others. We fund and support all manner of “democracy activists” everywhere. These are pretty overt interference in elections of other countries on our part.
    I don’t think Russians had the capability to materially affect the election results. They probably did try to engage in some attempts to shape the election, but I don’t see it having much effect. Russians are NOT exactly good at elections–not a knock on the Russians, per se, just that it’s not something they have huge experience with. All the talk about allegations of Russian influence is red herring of the crudest and basest kind.

  139. jonst says:

    I disagree with your assertion that the article was “light” on facts. But if that is your take, that is your take. And please spare me, anyway, the self pity of your “disgraceful and cowardly”, in all my years on this site I only tore into someone that way, one time.
    No, “disgraceful and cowardly”, certainly not. Just clueless.

  140. Tyler says:

    Because AFAIK OMB wasn’t sweating Russian wizards somehow hacking devices not connected to the internet.
    The people declaring everyone who doesn’t agree with them is a Russian troll handwringing about “polarization” is pure chutzpah.

  141. Tyler says:

    Willy B,
    Stein’s website was getting 160k in donations on the hour, every hour, throughout the day and night. She is being advised by a Soros plant.
    The last desperate gasp of the Borg.

  142. Freudenschade says:

    Follow along. Up to this point in the thread I have not presented any evidence whatsoever, “crumby” or otherwise. 🙂

  143. Freudenschade says:

    I’d summarize that article as “if you squint hard enough, you can interpret some of Trump’s statements as not being racist.” Hardly a rollicking proof of MSM mendacity and bias. Try again?

  144. Freudenschade says:

    What makes it obvious that I’m a Clintonista? Thrill me with your acumen.

  145. Freudenschade says:

    Why don’t you give me a list of sources that are permissible in your information universe? 🙂
    I assume that in your world being concerned about the effectiveness of Russian disinformation means you are a neocon clamoring for a how war with Russia.
    OK, so now I am a Clintonista neocon. That still works. BTW, I took a dem ballot and voted for Sanders in the primary. Care to add another label?

  146. Anna says:

    A correspondent ftom Washington Post, Mr. Craig Timberg wrote an article where he listed “200 news sites that are “purveyors of Russian propaganda” designed to “undermine Americans’ faith in democracy.”
    Mr. Timberg included into the lists of the “subversives,” which brings some certainty about Mr. Timberg’ patrons and explains why he is so brazen in his slanderous opus.
    Here is something quite amusing re the “analysts and “experts” from PropOrNot that is the main source of Mr. Timberg’ accusations: “…Joel Harding, a current or retired brigadier general in the US Army and a self-described NATO advisor, heads a “team of dedicated internet trolls,” allegedly on the Pentagon payroll, who “openly libel and harass” journalists and authors whom the ever-vigilent Harding perceives to be Kremlin agents. No wonder PropOrNot wants its members’ identities kept secret!”

  147. jdledell says:

    I notice a lot of bile hurled at Clinton over the recount. Do any of you doubt for one minute that if the situation were reversed, Trump and his supporters would be screaming for recounts.

  148. Freudenschade says:

    You say “now” as if I’ve changed my point of view. I said it was unlikely to have happened in great enough numbers sway the election. Again, don’t drag me into your Hillary Rodham Trump food fight. At this point, I couldn’t care less who won or lost. Go argue with someone who cares.

  149. Freudenschade says:

    How would we measure its effectiveness (or effect)? My subjective impression is that the readership of Russian propaganda is quite widespread on social media. Further, they’ve spawned a number of financially motivated imitators. But short of exploiting my Facebook contacts, I don’t know how to measure this.

  150. Nancy K says:

    Trumps ego just cannot accept that the majority of Americans did not vote for him. He won the electoral can’t he just be satisfied with that.

  151. Freudenschade says:

    The privateer comparison is very apt.

  152. Fred says:

    Trump would not use Jill Stein as a proxy. What legal standing does she have in a state where she recieved 32,000 votes (Wisconsin) or 55,000 (Michigan). Does anyone believe Russian hacking – which Obama failed to defend the USA against – cost Jill Stein the presidency?

  153. Larry Kart says:

    To answer your question, of Wisconsin and Stein’s legal standing to seek a recount there, according to USA Today “Wisconsin law allows any candidate to seek a recount. The candidate has to pay if he or she lost by more than 0.25%, hence Stein’s fundraising.”
    I would assume that similar legal conditions prevail in Michigan and Pennsylvania, otherwise Stein’s requests for recounts there would have been shot down by now.

  154. Tyler says:

    First, tell me if the Russians did or didn’t hack the machines in your world.
    Second, I told your silly self – linking to Borg mouthpieces to reinforce seeing Russians under the bed isn’t convincing anyone.
    Third, if you expect me to believe anything that comes out of your dishonest mouth after seeing your tap dancing here, you’ve got another thing coming. You can say you voted for whoever you want to – I don’t believe you, and I don’t think I’m alone in not believing what a Clinton neocon thinks.
    Again, when did you stop beating your wife?

  155. Tyler says:

    There would be a better argument for it (Broward County, Philly, Chicago, California) than charges that Russian techno-mages hacked devices not connected to the internet and magically left no evidence behind of their hacking, proving that they were indeed hacked.

  156. irf520 says:

    “undermine Americans’ faith in democracy”
    Interesting choice of words. He’s not concerned about undermining democracy – the crooked politicians and journalists/propagandists have already done that. He’s concerned about people’s faith in it – i.e. in keeping the scam going.

  157. LeaNder says:

    David, can we be sure that he wrote the title in an op-ed. Or would you assume the guys/girls in charge of headlines don’t interfere if it’s Krugman?
    “Siberian Candidate” is no doubt an interesting choice.
    But from my limited perspective on the fence: I agree, he can be carelessly condescending, if he shifts to politics. I was pretty startled with the hate type of responses he produced on his blog in this context. …
    Since I know you watch those. What about this one? Third most popular.
    Matthew Carnicelli is a trusted commenter Brooklyn, New York July 22, 2016
    Paul, the more that I observe how he deliberately chooses to represent himself, the more that I believe the story that Ivana told during their divorce proceedings about Drumpf keeping a book of Hitler’s speeches beside his bed.

  158. LeaNder says:

    The people declaring everyone who doesn’t agree with them is a Russian troll handwringing about “polarization” is pure chutzpah.
    I agree, Tyler.
    But no, he wasn’t sweating about that:wasn’t sweating Russian wizards
    He was sweating more about the deviousness of his perceived enemies at that point. And as I recall, it was a minor deviation off his comment topic in context. …
    But no, not the least problem with him. Other then question-marks around claimed expertise. …

  159. Edward Amame says:

    Oh, sure. Nothing to see here. Everybody just keep moving along…
    FLORIDA — 29 Electoral Votes
    (numbers equal percentage points)
    Exit Polls: Clinton 47.7, Trump 46.4 — Clinton wins by 1.3
    Actual: Clinton 47.8, Trump 49.0 — Trump wins by 1.2
    Trump gain between exit polls and actual results: 2.5
    NORTH CAROLINA — 15 Electoral Votes
    Exit Polls: Clinton 48.6, Trump 46.5 — Clinton wins by 2.1
    Actual: Clinton 46.1, Trump 49.9 — Trump wins by 3.8
    Trump gain: 5.9
    PENNSYLVANIA — 20 Electoral Votes
    Exit Polls: Clinton 50.5, Trump 46.1 — Clinton wins by 4.4
    Actual: Clinton 47.6, Trump 48.8 — Trump wins by 1.2
    Trump gain: 5.6
    WISCONSIN — 10 Electoral Votes
    Exit Polls: Clinton 48.2, Trump 44.3 — Clinton wins by 3.9
    Actual: Clinton 47.6, Trump 48.8 — Trump wins by 1.2
    Trump gain: 5.1

  160. Edward Amame says:

    Pacifica Advocate
    Why before? Considering the fairly large discrepancies between the exit polls and final vote counts, if this election had taken place in, say, the ME, our gov’t wouldn’t accept the results.

  161. Freudenschade says:

    See my other posts on the matter of voting machines.

  162. The MSM have been publishing misleading stories on a great many subjects lately, Trump included. Two specifically involving Trump were:
    1.) The absurd accusation that he ‘threatened Hillary with assassination’. If you watched more of the speech on YouTube, it was clear from context that his use of the term “Second Amendment people” was a reference to the NRA and like-minded groups; it was NOT a call to armed vigilanteism.
    2.) Trump was also accused of ‘insulting our wounded vets’. Again, if you listened to more of the speech on YouTube, it was obvious from context that he was expressing sympathy for them, not insulting them.
    Both of these fake news stories were being spread by once prestigious ‘papers of record’ such the New York Times and the Washington Post. And let’s not forgot all the ludicrous Russian conspiracy theories these papers have been–and still are–trafficking in.
    That’s what I call propaganda.

  163. Jmc says:

    Im a bit confused with the interpretation that the electoral college is designed to protect the smaller states. I see this with the allocation of 2 senators per state regardless of size. Our founders envisioned a sedate, thoughtful senate that would temper the passions of the rabble in the house of reps.
    But representatives are based on a state’s population. And each state is allocated the same amount of electors as it has representatives.
    It appears that it is the extreme gerrymandering that is behind the fact that the loser in the electoral college will have a stunning two and a half MILLION more votes than the winner. Personally, I wasn’t thrilled with either candidate and I dont think a recount is going to change the outcome. But I do think that some analysis is warranted regarding how far the electoral college numbers and the popular vote totals are diverving. Al Gore had slightly more than a half million popular votes than Bush 2

  164. turcopolier says:

    Yes, you are confused and are mistaken. The number of electors from each state equals the number of members of the House plus the two senators. It seems that you would like a unitary United States. I would not. the present system weights the electoral college in favor of the citizens of the smaller states and I like it that way as did the framers who adopted this system as a brake on the power of the larger states. Would I not prefer an unlimited direct democracy? I would not. I find states like California and New York to be more alien in culture to me than a lot of foreign countries. I, like many other, deplorables, would not want to be ruled by alien megalopolis populations. In any event the Union is a union of the states and however much you might dislike that, you are stuck with it, forever I hope. pl

  165. Dwight says:

    It’s not leftists pushing the idea that Russians hacked the elections, nor is it leftists pushing the related idea that Russia-influenced “useful idiots” affected the election with “fake news.” It’s the failed Clinton campaign.

  166. different clue says:

    Jeff Roby,
    Are you sure that is the reason? Are you sure it isn’t the simpler reason of publicity-hound morality-stuff-strutting fame-seeking exposure on the part of Stein?
    I notice the Clintonite Obamacrat forces have been silent about this. Could it be that they and the Establishment and all the little voting machine elves tried to hack the machines in Clinton’s favor as hard as they could without getting caught? And that a real recount might turn up evidence of Clintobamacrat hacking which didn’t even quite work?

Comments are closed.