Sunday, December 18, 2016 6:43:55 PM
Ex-Russian Minister: Tillerson 'absolutely a gift for Putin'
Andrea Mitchell Reports
12/14/16
Trump touts State Department pick Rex Tillerson for his "friendship with countries we don't get along with." Amb. Mike McFaul says that business relationship may not work for state affairs. Duration: 5:30
©2016 NBCNews.com
http://www.msnbc.com/andrea-mitchell-reports/watch/ex-russian-minister-tillerson-absolutely-a-gift-for-putin-833008195977 , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDlKOP-ughk [with comments]
--
Full Show - Breaking: Obama Launching Coup To Install Hillary - 12/14/2016
Published on Dec 14, 2016 by The Alex Jones Channel [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg / http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel , http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel/videos ]
On this jam-packed Wednesday, Dec. 14 edition of the Alex Jones Show [with Roger Stone hosting the fourth hour with E. Howard Hunt's son Saint John as his guest], we break down a warning from Swedish officials to cities telling them to prepare for war as the migrant crisis spirals out of control. And it's that time of the year again when liberals are triggered by Christmas; this time a college campus claims the term “Holiday” parties is now not politically correct enough. Today we'll hear from guests such as comedian and former Fox contributor Steven Crowder, Clinton insider Larry Nichols, and Pastor David Manning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skeo2uA5IhA [with comments] [also at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_D_tg75mcY&t=349s (text taken from; with comments)]
--
The White House Press Corps Should Prepare For Big Changes Under Donald Trump
Incoming Chief of Staff Reince Priebus indicated changes are coming to the White House press corps.
“The traditions, while some of them are great, I think it’s time to revisit a lot of these things,” says incoming Chief of Staff Reince Priebus.
12/14/2016 Updated December 14, 2016
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/white-house-press-corps-donald-trump-reince-priebus_us_58516fb2e4b0e411bfd4b338 [with comments]
*
Chris Christie-Backed Bill Would Devastate Newspapers That Hold His Feet To The Fire
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and the local press have a testy relationship.
It could “wipe out hundreds of watchdogs,” one paper warns.
12/14/2016
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/chris-christie-newspaper-bill-public-notices_us_585175f5e4b0ee009eb4c5f4 [with comments]
--
Vladimir Putin’s Popularity Is Skyrocketing Among Republicans
According to a YouGov/Economist poll, Russian President Vladimir Putin is more popular among Republicans than Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and many other high-profile politicians.
The guy is accused of manipulating U.S. politics and enabling the killing in Aleppo, and his favorability rating goes up. Seriously?
12/14/2016
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/vladimir-putin-popularity-republicans_us_58518a3ce4b092f08686bd6e [with comments]
*
An Alt-Right Makeover Shrouds the Swastikas
Matthew Heimbach, who runs the Traditionalist Worker Party, at home in Paoli, Ind., with his son and wife. His group advocates replacing the United States with nation-states based on ethnicity and religion.
Ty Wright for The New York Times
A movement of many factions is trying to change its image now that its profile has risen, but its message — one of racial separation and supremacy — is unchanged.
By SERGE F. KOVALESKI, JULIE TURKEWITZ, JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN and DAN BARRY
DEC. 10, 2016
A small but determined political organization in Detroit began to worry that its official symbol was a bit off-putting. With the group’s central philosophy suddenly finding traction in the daily discourse, appearances mattered.
So in November, as the country’s divisive presidential campaign became ever more jagged, the National Socialist Movement [ https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/national-socialist-movement ], a leading neo-Nazi group, did away with its swastika. In its stead, the group chose a symbol [ http://www.adl.org/combating-hate/hate-on-display/c/othala-rune.html ] from a pre-Roman alphabet that was also adopted by the Nazis.
According to Jeff Schoep, the movement’s leader, the decision to dispense with the swastika was “an attempt to become more integrated and more mainstream.”
Let us pause. Not even two years ago, white supremacists like Mr. Schoep would rant from the fringe of the fringe, their attention-desperate events rarely worth mention. Today, though, the Schoeps of America are undergoing a rebranding, as part of the so-called alt-right: a grab bag of far-right groups generally united by the belief that white identity has become endangered in what they deride as this era of dangerous diversity and political correctness.
The deceptively benign phrase “alt-right” now peppers the national conversation, often in ways that play down its fundamental beliefs, which have long been considered intolerant and hateful. The term’s recent prevalence corresponds with the rise of President-elect Donald J. Trump; alt-right leaders say his inflammatory statements and Twitter habits in the campaign energized, even validated, their movement.
Nathan Damigo, who oversees Identity Evropa, a group that he described as a white nationalist “fraternity,” working on a college paper in Sonora, Calif.
Max Whittaker for The New York Times
The movement is also acutely image-conscious, seeing the burning crosses, swastikas and language of yesteryear as impediments to recruitment. Its adherents talk of “getting red-pilled,” a reference to the movie “The Matrix,” in which the protagonist ingests a tablet that melts away artifice to reveal the truth. New, coded slurs have emerged. Fewer pointed hoods, more khaki pants.
But the alt-right movement is hardly monolithic, despite a well-publicized gathering [ https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/alt-right-salutes-donald-trump.html ] last month in Washington — one that might have been mistaken for just another corporate conference were it not for the white-nationalist sentiments and the Nazi salutes. The factions within its ranks can differ on any number of subjects: white supremacy versus white nationalism, for example, or the vexing “J.Q.” — the “Jewish Question.”
James Edwards, a far-right talk radio host who describes himself as a “European-American advocate” — and who interviewed [ http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-extremists-idUSMTZSAPEC33G5QT8C ] the president-elect’s son Donald Trump Jr. this year — wrote in an email that the alt-right movement was “a group of marauding conservatives who reject both the failures of establishment conservatism and the false gods of political correctness.”
Race is the uniting factor, Mr. Edwards wrote. “One fundamental element of the Alt-Right that brings the disparate factions together is the awareness of the reality of race and the need for European Americans to have organizations and spokespeople that explicitly advocate for our unique group interests.”
For many years, the mix-and-match gaggle now called the alt-right existed in the shadowed alleys of American culture, sharing views through newsletters, online radio and crude websites. The news media often debated whether to cover their sparsely attended rallies, considering that any attention might grant the groups a veneer of legitimacy.
Mr. Damigo in his car in Sonora. He is aware of the importance of marketing for the alt-right movement.
Max Whittaker for The New York Times
Andrew Anglin, the founder of the neo-Nazi, alt-right website The Daily Stormer, described the current moment in a recent essay as “a reboot of the White Nationalist movement” — one infused with youthful energy. The foot soldiers of the movement are not old white supremacists marching under a new banner, Mr. Anglin explained, but a mostly younger generation drawn from various online cultures, including conspiracy theorists and that misogynistic stratum of the internet known as the “manosphere.”
Then came Mr. Trump, whose opening gambit as a presidential candidate included his promise to build a wall to keep out Mexican immigrants, whom he called rapists and criminals. The alt-right raised its collective head to listen.
“I’d been waiting to hear those words from a mainstream political candidate all my life,” said Gerald Martin, a retired public-school teacher from Dallas who grew up in a family that opposed desegregation.
He is a veteran of both the Army and a number of white supremacist movements, and name-drops the likes of William Luther Pierce III, a white supremacist who wrote “The Turner Diaries,” a novel about an underground band of white Americans who fight a liberty-crushing government controlled by Jews.
Before the Trump candidacy, Mr. Martin said, few in the alt-right were talking about politics; the movement was more about winning the battle of ideas. But once Mr. Trump began to talk, he said, “suddenly we’re all talking politics and we’re politically energized.”
Jared Taylor, the editor of the white nationalist publication American Renaissance, walking his daughter to the bus stop in Oakton, Va.
Greg Kahn for The New York Times
“We’re almost intoxicated,” Mr. Martin continued. “We don’t have any power — but now we’re close enough to smell it.”
Perhaps in another age, any candidate’s engagement with white supremacists and separatists would have resulted in an awkward news conference announcing the end of his campaign. But this is a new age, in which Mr. Trump went unscathed for engaging with Twitter users like WhiteGenocideTM, who listed his location as “Jewmerica” and used an image of the founder of the American Nazi Party as his Twitter profile’s photograph.
Mr. Trump brushed off his sharing of alt-right messages on social media as inconsequential — the sort of thing that just happens on Twitter. He also denied at one point the existence of any alt-right movement.
“Nobody even knows what it is,” he told CNN in August. “This is a term that was just given that — frankly, there’s no alt-right or alt-left.”
As if to clarify matters, members of the alt-right movement gathered in Washington about two weeks after Mr. Trump’s election for a conference sponsored by the National Policy Institute, an organization that describes itself as being “dedicated to the heritage, identity and future of people of European descent.” Its president, Richard B. Spencer, 38, is a prominent alt-right leader who wears his brown hair in an undercut style once popular among the Hitler Youth. It’s called a “fashy,” as in fascist.
Mr. Heimbach’s wife, Brooke, playing with their son, Nicholas, at home.
Ty Wright for The New York Times
Mr. Spencer said in an interview that as he saw it, the principles of American conservatism throughout most of the 20th century had been wrongly defined within the context of capitalism and its ideological battle with communism. The matter of European identity, he said, was assumed, but never stated outright.
“Race is real,” he said. “Race matters. Race is the foundation of identity.”
Not everyone in the movement appreciated the moment at the end of the conference when some in the audience raised stiffened arms, echoing the Nazi salute. Discussions afterward reflected the divisions in the loosely aligned ranks, as well as an acute awareness of public perception and the need to make their messages somehow more palatable.
Paul Ramsey, a blogger and retired computer programmer in Oklahoma, generally follows an alt-right ideology, though he said he did not believe in a white ethno-state. He said he had long feared a hijacking of the movement by the “neo-Nazi/K.K.K. element,” which would lead to vilification and a relegation back to the fringe.
Those salutes confirmed his fears, Mr. Ramsey said, and he is now disassociating from the alt-right movement, even though he understands that Mr. Spencer may believe in a big-tent, all-publicity-is-good philosophy.
“The new Nazism is very demonized and toxic, and associating your brand with that is crazy,” he said.
Gerald Martin, a retired teacher, decorating his home in Dallas last week for Christmas. Mr. Martin said President-elect Donald J. Trump’s ascent had “politically energized” the alt-right.
Brandon Thibodeaux for The New York Times
Mr. Martin, the retired teacher, who attended the conference, also didn’t care for the Nazi-like salutes, calling them “very foolish.” But he suggested that most of those raising their arms were using the salute as “their version of the middle finger” — a defiant gesture “to the media, to the Trump haters, to everybody they feel alienated from.”
Indeed, the movement has the feel of a dispossessed youth rising up. Hours of interviews with young alt-right leaders suggest a pattern toward their white-nationalist radicalization. Seeing domestic and global strife often rooted in racial and ethnic differences. Finding validation from like-minded people on the internet. Hearing a major presidential candidate echo their grievances.
“The political establishment has made an entire generation of young white men and women into fascists, and that’s a beautiful thing!” said Matthew Heimbach, 25, who runs the Traditionalist Worker Party out of his trailer in Indiana. His group advocates replacing the United States with nation-states based on races, ethnicities and religions.
In Northern California, a university student, felon and Marine veteran, Nathan Damigo, oversees a group called Identity Evropa, which he described as a “fraternity” of mostly young, college-educated men who celebrate European heritage — that is, an embrace of white identity and a rejection of multicultural coexistence.
Ever conscious of the importance of marketing, Mr. Damigo, 30, pointed out that Identity Evropa’s website “looks completely mainstreamed.” And it does, featuring men in business suits who also happen to be sporting the Hitler Youth-style haircut.
But for all the fresh approaches — the slick marketing, the internet savviness — the message remains the same. It is one of separation, of supremacy, of a refusal to recognize the equal worth of others who do not have the same skin tone or share the same religion.
The ascension of the alt-right has lifted some familiar names from the muck of the past, including David Duke, the white nationalist, Holocaust denier and former Louisiana state representative whose national profile has been resurrected.
When a reporter telephoned him recently to discuss the alt-right movement, Mr. Duke wasted little time with a question of his own: “Are you Jewish?”
Jack Begg contributed research.
Related Coverage
White Nationalists Celebrate ‘an Awakening’ After Donald Trump’s Victory
NOV. 19, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/us/politics/white-nationalists-celebrate-an-awakening-after-donald-trumps-victory.html
© 2016 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/10/us/alt-right-national-socialist-movement-white-supremacy.html
*
How a Putin Fan Overseas Pushed Pro-Trump Propaganda to Americans
James Dowson, a far-right political activist, ran a constellation of websites out of the United Kingdom.
Rex Features, via Associated Press
By MIKE McINTIRE
DEC. 17, 2016
The Patriot News Agency website popped up in July, soon after it became clear that Donald J. Trump [ http://www.nytimes.com/topic/person/donald-trump ] would win the Republican presidential nomination, bearing a logo of a red, white and blue eagle and the motto “Built by patriots, for patriots.”
Tucked away on a corner of the site, next to links for Twitter and YouTube, is a link to another social media platform that most Americans have never heard of: VKontakte, the Russian equivalent of Facebook [ http://www.nytimes.com/topic/company/facebook-inc ]. It is a clue that Patriot News, like many sites that appeared out of nowhere and pumped out pro-Trump hoaxes tying his opponent Hillary Clinton [ http://www.nytimes.com/topic/person/hillary-rodham-clinton ] to Satanism, pedophilia and other conspiracies, is actually run by foreigners based overseas.
But while most of those others seem be the work of young, apolitical opportunists cashing in on a conservative appetite for viral nonsense, operators of Patriot News had an explicitly partisan motivation: getting Mr. Trump elected.
Patriot News — whose postings were viewed and shared tens of thousands of times in the United States — is among a constellation of websites run out of the United Kingdom that are linked to James Dowson, a far-right political activist who advocated Britain [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/unitedkingdom/index.html ]’s exit from the European Union and is a fan of President Vladimir V. Putin [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/vladimir_v_putin/index.html ] of Russia [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/russiaandtheformersovietunion/index.html ]. A vocal proponent of Christian nationalist, anti-immigrant movements in Europe, Mr. Dowson, 52, has spoken at a conference [ https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/23/world/europe/right-wing-groups-find-a-haven-for-a-day-in-russia.html ] of far-right leaders in Russia and makes no secret of his hope that Mr. Trump will usher in an era of rapprochement with Mr. Putin.
His dabbling in the American presidential election adds an ideological element that has been largely missing from the still-emerging landscape of websites and Facebook pages that bombarded American voters with misinformation and propaganda. Far from the much-reported Macedonian teenagers running fake news factories solely for profit, Mr. Dowson made it his mission, according to messages posted on one of his sites, to “spread devastating anti-Clinton, pro-Trump memes and sound bites into sections of the population too disillusioned with politics to have taken any notice of conventional campaigning.”
An image from one of Mr. Dowson’s websites. He said his mission was to “spread devastating anti-Clinton, pro-Trump memes and sound bites.”
“Together [ http://knightstemplarinternational.com/2016/11/can-theres-place-kti-team-video/ ], people like us helped change the course of history,” one message said, adding in another: “Every single [ http://patriotnewsagency.com/2016/11/liberals-in-tears-following-devastating-hillary-defeat-thanks-to-all-of-you-who-helped-make-it-happen/ ] one of you who forwarded even just one of our posts on social media contributed to the stunning victory for Trump, America and God.”
In a recent email interview from Belgrade, where he has met with Serbian nationalists, Mr. Dowson explained how his decision to establish an American social media presence was similar to the move into European markets by Breitbart News, the conservative provocateur media operation run by Stephen K. Bannon, Mr. Trump’s chief strategist.
“Simple truth is that after 40 years of the right having no voice because the media was owned by the enemy, we were FORCED to become incredibly good at alternative media in a way the left simply can’t grasp or handle,” Mr. Dowson said. “Bottom line is: BREXIT, TRUMP and much more to follow.”
While it is easy to overstate the influence of fringe elements whose overall numbers remain very small, the explosion of fake news and propaganda sites and their possible impact on the presidential election have ignited alarm across the American political spectrum. A recent study [ http://ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=7497 ] found that most people who read fabricated stories on Facebook — such as a widely circulated hoax about Pope Francis endorsing Mr. Trump — were inclined to believe them.
Then there is the added element of Russian meddling. The Central Intelligence Agency has concluded that Moscow put its thumb on the scale for Mr. Trump through the release of hacked Democratic emails, which provided fodder for many of the most pernicious false attacks on Mrs. Clinton on social media.
Some of those attacks found a home on Russian websites such as the one for Katehon [ http://katehon.com/ ], a right-wing Christian think tank aligned with Mr. Putin. Katehon recirculated anti-Clinton conspiracies under headlines like “Bloody Hillary: 5 Mysterious Murders Linked to Clinton.”
Another Russian site that urged support for Mr. Trump, called “Just Trump It [ http://justtrumpit.us/ ],” is linked to the International Russian Conservative Forum, an annual gathering of far-right leaders in St. Petersburg that has featured Mr. Dowson, among others, as a speaker. The site, which seems mostly aimed at selling Trump T-shirts, was registered to an individual at a Russian company that trademarked a logo used to certify that merchandise was not made with migrant labor.
Some analysts see danger signs in the nexus of Russian interests and far-right agitators in Europe and the United States. Social media can amplify even the most obscure voices, giving them a stage from which to broadcast a distorted message to credulous audiences.
“These messages seep into the mainstream,” said Alina Polyakova, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council [ http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/ ], a nonpartisan international affairs institute in Washington. “They may have been extreme or fringe at one point in time, but they have been incredibly influential in shaping people’s views about key geopolitical events in a very specific direction.”
Russia is particularly adept at playing this game, Ms. Polyakova said. “Moscow specifically encourages and facilitates” the spreading of propaganda through proxies, she said, as well as through events like the Russian conservative forum, which showcases views and narratives favored by the Putin government.
At the inaugural forum in March 2015, Mr. Dowson praised Mr. Putin as a strong defender of traditional values, while belittling President Obama and the United States itself as “feminized men.” In the email interview, Mr. Dowson said he was not supported by Russia in any way, and he accused critics of trying to tar conservatives as dupes of Moscow.
Mr. Dowson spoke in 2015 at the International Russian Conservative Forum, a gathering of far-right leaders in St. Petersburg.
Ruslan Shamukov/TASS, via Newscom
“I look on this rebirth of McCarthy-type anti-Russian hysteria by the LEFT as a hilarious reaction born out of the left’s inability to realize THEY elected Trump, not me, not the Russians, not even the right,” he said via email.
A colorful if somewhat enigmatic figure in Britain — The Times of London recently described him [ http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/pastor-became-extremists-marketing-mastermind-nxls0lwhb ] as “the invisible man of Britain’s far right” — Mr. Dowson, at first blush, would not be an obvious mouthpiece for Russia.
Formerly a church minister in Northern Ireland and the father of nine, he became involved in anti-abortion campaigns, joined the British National Party in the mid-2000s and, later, founded Britain First, a stridently anti-immigrant group opposed to what it called a creeping Islamic threat to traditional British values. He publicly split with the group in 2014 after some of its leaders started invading mosques and threatening Muslims, which he criticized as un-Christian and counterproductive.
While involved with Britain First, Mr. Dowson made deft use of social media and websites to promote its work and convey the impression of a mass following. A British watchdog group called Hope Not Hate [ http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/ ], which has tracked Mr. Dowson’s online activities, concluded [ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/25/truth-britain-first-facebook-far-right-bnp ] that he has “a rather canny knack for building up protest groups and movements on the basis that it was your Christian duty to follow his work.”
Mr. Dowson claims to have reached millions of Americans across all of his online platforms in the run-up to the November presidential election, a number that could not be verified, in part, because he would not confirm all of his sites. Online visits to Patriot News [ http://patriotnewsagency.com/ ] did not come close to that, although when combined with several other sites that appear to be connected to Mr. Dowson, the total number edges above a million; most viewers were in Britain.
Whatever the precise numbers, there is little question that postings on the sites and Facebook pages linked to him were viewed and shared hundreds of thousands of times. Many of the postings appear to be lifted from other conspiracy websites, repackaged and launched back into the social media maelstrom. Another site that trafficked heavily in pro-Trump news was run by Knights Templar International [ http://knightstemplarinternational.com/ ], a militant religious group that Mr. Dowson is involved in, which has recently supported anti-immigrant militias patrolling border areas in Bulgaria and Hungary.
For Mr. Dowson, such activities are in keeping with his philosophy that traditional Christian values are under siege because of feckless leadership by America and European powers. The success of Mr. Trump, he said, is the logical result of voters’ rejection of the weakness of global elites.
Mr. Dowson has long been optimistic about the effectiveness of social media. During the 2015 conservative forum in Russia, he spoke presciently [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICR2Bu-AZ0g (next below; with comments)]
“We have the ability to take a video from today and put it in half of every single household in the United States of America, where these people can for the first time learn the truth, because their own media tell lies, they tell lies about Russia,” Mr. Dowson said then.
“We have to use popular culture to reach into the living rooms of the youth of America, of Britain, France, Germany, and bring them in,” he said. “Then we can get them the message.”
Related Coverage
Inside a Fake News Sausage Factory: ‘This Is All About Income’
NOV. 25, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/world/europe/fake-news-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-georgia.html
As Fake News Spreads Lies, More Readers Shrug at the Truth
DEC. 6, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/us/fake-news-partisan-republican-democrat.html
The Perfect Weapon: How Russian Cyberpower Invaded the U.S.
DEC. 13, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html [in full at/see (linked in) http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127226550 and preceding and following]
© 2016 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/17/world/europe/russia-propaganda-elections.html [with comments]
*
North Carolina Just Gave Donald Trump a Strategy for Undermining Democracy
A protestor shouts as she is arrested outside the House gallery during a special session of the North Carolina General Assembly, Dec. 16, 2016 at the Legislative Building in Raleigh, N.C.
The outgoing Republican governor just crippled the incoming Democrat's powers
Dec. 16, 2016
[...]
The conservative extremists among us take advantage of our commitment to democracy in their efforts to undermine it. We express faith in democratic processes and institutions while they seek power by any means necessary. Their darker ambitions dim our brighter lights. And when we resist, they either condemn or dismiss or shout that we are betraying the country.
But the good folks in North Carolina—as they have battled in the streets, at the ballot box and in the courtroom—exposed the extremists for who and what they are. “This is what Herods do when their power is threatened by love and justice,” the Rev. Barber declared.
We must do the same with Donald Trump, by ignoring the empty appeals “to give him a chance” and fighting with everything we have. Or the extremists will win, and we will be locked up in our terrors.
http://time.com/4605453/north-carolina-pat-mccrory-governor-legislature/
--
Hamilton’s Plan to Keep Trump From Becoming President | The Resistance with Keith Olbermann | GQ
Published on Dec 14, 2016 by GQ [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsEukrAd64fqA7FjwkmZ_Dw / http://www.youtube.com/user/GQVideos , http://www.youtube.com/user/GQVideos/videos ]
The Electoral College was designed to prevent just this sort of emergency.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2ragMBCzPA [with comments]
--
Study: Abortion Doesnt Harm Womens Mental Health, but Denying One Does
The junk-science theory that abortion causes women psychological harm has emboldened a number of red states to enact laws restricting its access in the name of ‘women’s health.’ But a new study shows they’re actually doing harm.
12.14.16
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/12/14/study-abortion-doesn-t-harm-women-s-mental-health-but-denying-one-does.html
Women’s Mental Health and Well-being 5 Years After Receiving or Being Denied an Abortion
A Prospective, Longitudinal Cohort Study
December 14, 2016
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2592320
*
Threats at abortion clinics rise since Trump's election
A coalition of antiabortion protesters on Mott Street in New York City in front of Planned Parenthood
"You can't whip up a firestorm of hate and not think it has any consequences."
15 Dec 2016
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/15/abortion-providers-see-increased-threat-since-trumps-election.html [with embedded video]
--
Trump Grill Could Be the Worst Restaurant in America
The filet mignon came out overcooked and mealy, with an ugly strain of pure fat running through it, crying out for A.1. sauce. The plate must have tilted during its journey from the kitchen to the table, as the steak slumped to the side over the potatoes like a dead body inside a T-boned minivan. And Trump's Great America cheeseburger tastes like an M.S.G.-flavored kitchen sponge lodged between two other sponges.
And it reveals everything you need to know about our next president.
December 14, 2016
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/12/trump-grill-review
*
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Has anyone looked at the really poor numbers of @VanityFair Magazine. Way down, big trouble, dead! Graydon Carter, no talent, will be out!
5:05 AM - 15 Dec 2016
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/809383989018497024 [with comments]
--
U.S. Officials: Putin Personally Involved in U.S. Election Hack
Russian President Vladimir Putin (right), Krasnodar region Governor Alexander Tkachev (center) and ExxonMobil Chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson (left) in 2012.
Mikhail Klimentyev / Ria Novosti/EPA
by William M. Arkin, Ken Dilanian and Cynthia McFadden
EXCLUSIVE News
First Published Dec 14 2016, 6:31 pm ET
Updated Dec 15 2016, 7:43 am ET
U.S. intelligence officials now believe with "a high level of confidence" that Russian President Vladimir Putin became personally involved in the covert Russian campaign to interfere in the U.S. presidential election, senior U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News.
Two senior officials with direct access to the information say new intelligence shows that Putin personally directed how hacked material from Democrats was leaked and otherwise used. The intelligence came from diplomatic sources and spies working for U.S. allies, the officials said.
Putin's objectives were multifaceted, a high-level intelligence source told NBC News. What began as a "vendetta" against Hillary Clinton morphed into an effort to show corruption in American politics and to "split off key American allies by creating the image that [other countries] couldn't depend on the U.S. to be a credible global leader anymore," the official said.
Ultimately, the CIA has assessed, the Russian government wanted to elect Donald Trump. The FBI and other agencies don't fully endorse that view, but few officials would dispute that the Russian operation was intended to harm Clinton's candidacy by leaking embarrassing emails about Democrats.
The latest intelligence said to show Putin's involvement goes much further than the information the U.S. was relying on in October, when all 17 intelligence agencies signed onto a statement attributing the Democratic National Committee hack to Russia.
The statement said officials believed that "only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities." That was an intelligence judgment based on an understanding of the Russian system of government, which Putin controls with absolute authority.
Now the U.S has solid information tying Putin to the operation, the intelligence officials say. Their use of the term "high confidence" implies that the intelligence is nearly incontrovertible.
"It is most certainly consistent with the Putin that I have watched and used to work with when I was an ambassador and in the government," said Michael McFaul, who was ambassador to Russia from 2012 to 2014.
"He has had a vendetta against Hillary Clinton, that has been known for a long time because of what she said about his elections back in the parliamentary elections of 2011. He wants to discredit American democracy and make us weaker in terms of leading the liberal democratic order. And most certainly he likes President-elect Trump's views on Russia," McFaul added. Clinton cast doubt on the integrity of Russia's elections.
As part of contingency planning for potential retaliation against Russia, according to officials, U.S. intelligence agencies have stepped up their probing into his personal financial empire.
American officials have concluded that Putin's network controls some $85 billion worth of assets, officials told NBC News.
Neither the CIA nor the Office of the Director of National Intelligence would comment.
A former CIA official who worked on Russia told NBC News that it's not clear the U.S. can embarrass Putin, given that many Russians are already familiar with allegations he has grown rich through corruption and has ordered the killings of political adversaries.
But a currently serving U.S. intelligence official said that there are things Putin is sensitive about, including anything that makes him seem weak.
The former CIA official said the Obama administration may feel compelled to respond before it leaves office.
"This whole thing has heated up so much," he said. "I can very easily see them saying, `We can't just say wow, this was terrible and there's nothing we can do.'"
Related:
FBI and CIA agree: Russia’s operation intended to help Trump win
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/fbi-and-cia-agree-russias-operation-intended-help-trump-win
The genial transition from Obama to Trump gets a lot less friendly
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-genial-transition-obama-trump-gets-lot-less-friendly
Why Didn't Obama Do More About Russian Election Hack?
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/why-didnt-obama-do-more-about-russian-election-hack-n696701
Why the CIA Thinks Russia Wanted Trump to Win
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/why-cia-thinks-russia-wanted-trump-win-n695131
CIA Concludes Russia Mounted Hacks to Help Trump Win
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-team-dismisses-report-russians-hacking-was-help-trump-win-n694271
U.S. Intel Agencies Prepping Dossier to Prove Russian Hacks
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-intel-agencies-preparing-dossier-prove-russian-hacks-n694011
Trump Was Told Russia to Blame for Hacks Long Before First Debate
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-was-told-russia-was-blame-hacks-long-debate-n663686
Russia Hack of U.S. Politics Includes Republicans
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/russia-hack-u-s-politics-bigger-disclosed-includes-gop-n661866
Intelligence Agencies Distressed by Trump's Rejection of Findings on Russia
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/intelligence-agencies-distressed-trump-s-rejection-findings-russia-n694686
Mitch McConnell Condemns Russian Breaches of U.S. Political Organizations
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/sen-mcconnell-backs-senate-investigations-russian-breach-n694876%20
Hackers Target Election Systems in 20 States
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/red-alert-election-systems-20-states-targeted-hackers-n657036
©2016 NBCNews.com
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-officials-putin-personally-involved-u-s-election-hack-n696146 [with embedded videos, and (approaching 4,000) comments]
--
Breaking MSM Calls for Alex Jones To Be Taken Off The Air: Speech Banned [originally titled "The Crucifixion of Alex Jones"]
Published on Dec 15, 2016 by The Alex Jones Channel
You can see the original video here
Alex Jones adds commentary to this epic 9 minute clip of Fake News media outlets around the country attacking him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGyspx8LzSs [with comments]
*
Full Show - MSM Jumps Shark With Fake Russian Hack Narrative - 12/15/2016
Published on Dec 15, 2016 by The Alex Jones Channel
On this Thursday, Dec. 15 edition of the Alex Jones Show [with Larry Nichols and Jon Rappoport], we break down the desperate attempt by anti-Trump lobbyists to openly steal the presidential election from Donald Trump by threatening electors who are bound to the will of the people. We also look into the latest health news for this holiday season with Dr. Edward Group. And we examine how Trump has already helping US manufacturing after years of sabotage by globalists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4ePxd8Wgk8 [with comments]
*
Ageing process may be reversible, scientists claim
Discovery raises the prospect of a new approach to healthcare in which ageing itself is treated, rather than the various diseases associated with it.
New form of gene therapy shown to produce rejuvenating effect in mice, although scientists say human clinical applications are decade away
15 December 2016
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/dec/15/ageing-process-may-be-reversible-scientists-claim [with comments]
Aging Is Reversible—at Least in Human Cells and Live Mice
Changes to gene activity that occur with age can be turned back, a new study shows
December 15, 2016
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/aging-is-reversible-at-least-in-human-cells-and-live-mice/
Scientists Say the Clock of Aging May Be Reversible
Impaired muscle repair in mice, left, compared with improved muscle regeneration seen after reprogramming.
DEC. 15, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/science/scientists-say-they-can-reset-clock-of-aging-for-mice-at-least.html
In Vivo Amelioration of Age-Associated Hallmarks by Partial Reprogramming
15 December 2016
http://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(16)31664-6
--
Donald Trump’s Denial About Russia
Donald Trump last week in Iowa.
Doug Mills/The New York Times
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
DEC. 15, 2016
No matter how divided our politics and our times, Americans can agree that our status as a strong, democratic nation rests on the bedrock of free and fair elections. That confidence is what was targeted when Russia [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/russiaandtheformersovietunion/index.html ], one of our oldest, most determined foreign adversaries, invaded American computer networks and released thousands of pages of documents to undermine the legitimacy of the 2016 election.
This news emerged last summer. Last month, the Central Intelligence Agency [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/central_intelligence_agency/index.html ] shared a further conclusion [ https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html ], based on months of analysis, that the Russian hacking was intended to favor Donald Trump [ http://www.nytimes.com/topic/person/donald-trump ].
“There shouldn’t be any doubt in anybody’s mind,” Adm. Michael Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency and commander of United States Cyber Command, said recently. “This was not something that was done casually, this was not something that was done by chance, this was not a target that was selected purely arbitrarily,” he said. “This was a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect.”
Extrapolating motive from evidence is always tricky. But after the C.I.A. provided classified briefings for Congress and the White House, members of both political parties were convinced.
But not President-elect Trump.
Mr. Trump’s instant rejection of the C.I.A. findings as “ridiculous,” based on no review of its work, echoed Moscow’s. “This tale of ‘hacks’ resembles a banal brawl between American security officials over spheres of influence,” Maria Zakharova, the spokeswoman for the Russian Foreign Ministry, wrote on Facebook. Mr. Trump said [ https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/11/us/politics/trump-russia-democrats.html ] of American security officials, “They’re fighting among themselves.”
On Nov. 10, two days after the election, Sergei Ryabkov, Russia’s deputy foreign minister, said [ http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFKBN1351RL?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true ] “there were contacts” between Moscow and Mr. Trump’s campaign. “I cannot say that all of them, but quite a few have been staying in touch with Russian representatives,” Mr. Ryabkov said.
Paul Manafort, one of Mr. Trump’s campaign managers, resigned after reports described [ https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/us/politics/paul-manafort-resigns-donald-trump.html ] his political ties to Russia. Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn [ http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/opinion/michael-flynn-an-alarming-pick-for-national-security-adviser.html ], Mr. Trump’s national security adviser, sat with Mr. Putin at a gala for Russian state television, where he has appeared as a commentator.
Mr. Trump’s own business ties to Moscow date to the late 1980s [ http://www.wsj.com/articles/lessons-for-trump-from-the-clinton-scandals-1476400952 ]. His son Donald Trump Jr. told a real estate gathering [ http://www.eturbonews.com/5008/executive-talk-donald-trump-jr-bullish-russia-and-few-emerging-ma ] in 2008 that “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets,” adding “we see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”
Mr. Trump hasn’t released tax returns or other records that could ease fears that he has financial deals in Russia to protect. And he’s refusing to divest his business interests, so whatever ties there may be are likely to remain.
Kremlin meddling in the 2016 election [ http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/11/opinion/russias-hand-in-americas-election.html ] warrants further investigation, with an eye toward preventive or retaliatory measures. President Obama has asked the nation’s intelligence community to deliver a fuller report on its findings before he leaves office on Jan. 20, and a bipartisan group [ https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/us/politics/mcconnell-supports-inquiry-of-russian-hacking-during-election.html ] of lawmakers is pushing for a congressional investigation. The results of that inquiry should be made public, and the intelligence community should tell Americans as much as it can about the cyberattack and its goals.
Mr. Trump’s reaction to the C.I.A.’s findings leaves him isolated, and underscores his dangerous unfamiliarity with the role of intelligence in maintaining national security. There could be no more “useful idiot,” to use Lenin’s term of art, than an American president who doesn’t know he’s being played by a wily foreign power. Or maybe it’s as Mr. Trump says [ http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/12/14/us/politics/ap-us-trump-intelligence.html ]: He’s “a smart person,” and avoids presidential intelligence briefings because they repeat what he already knows. If so, what else does he know about Russia that the intelligence agencies don’t?
© 2016 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/opinion/donald-trumps-denial-about-russia.html
--
Obama Says U.S. Will Retaliate for Russia’s Election Meddling
President-elect Donald J. Trump at a “thank you” rally in West Allis, Wis., on Tuesday.
DEC. 15, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/us/politics/russia-hack-election-trump-obama.html
--
The Last of the Birthers
Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona's Maricopa County reveals the "profound" and quite "disturbing" results of his five-year investigation into the president's birth certificate.
Dec 15, 2016
https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/12/sheriff-joe-arpaio-the-birther/510857/ [with comments]
*
Sheriff Arpaio Proves Obama Birth Certificate Forged
Published on Dec 15, 2016 by The Alex Jones Channel
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio held a press conference where he laid out evidence that he says proves the Obama birth certificate is forged.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-1KxhJK_6o [with comments]
*
Obama's Birth Certificate Is Fake Forensic Experts Determine
Published on Dec 16, 2016 by The Alex Jones Channel
Obama’s birth certificate has been proven by two leading experts in forensic document fraud documentation to be a forgery.
Article Two of the U.S. Constitution brought into question Barack Obama’s status as a “natural- born citizen” since he took office back in 2008 because his Father Barack Obama Senior was born in Kenya. According to World Net Daily "Scholarly works cited by the Founders defined it as a citizen at birth, born in the country to two citizens of the country, or merely the offspring of two citizens of the country. The birth certificate Obama displayed on the White House website as “proof positive” of his eligibility states he was born in Hawaii to an American mother and a Kenyan father.”
Impeaching Obama now with roughly thirty days until President Elect Donald Trump’s inauguration seems like a non event. But if we are truly entering a new era in the History of The United States, it would send a clear message to the criminal despots that have hijacked our Government, our media, our medical system, right down to the monopoly money in our wallets that no matter what diabolical infiltration is waged against the United States…providence will always prevail.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=206Zrw_-sqQ [with comments]
*
Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio Sued, Again
Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, is accused of racially profiling a Latino rights group’s organizer and then keeping her in jail despite her U.S. citizenship.
A Latina U.S. citizen says she was racially profiled and kept in jail.
12/15/2016
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sheriff-joe-arpaio-lawsuit_us_5852c6fce4b012849c05cf09 [with comments]
*
The Problem With Obama's Faith in White America
The president’s optimism about race blinded him to the pervasiveness and stubborn persistence of racism.
Dec 13, 2016
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/obamas-faith-in-white-america/510503/ [with comments]
--
Scientists prepare to fight for their work during ‘the Trumpocene’
People hold signs as they listen to a group of scientists speak during a rally in conjunction with the American Geophysical Union's fall meeting Dec. 13 in San Francisco.
Naomi Oreskes, bottom right with microphone, a history of science professor at Harvard University, addresses the crowd during a rally by scientists in conjunction with the American Geophysical Union's fall meeting Dec. 13 in San Francisco.
Interior Secretary Sally Jewell speaks with U.S. Geological Survey scientist Stephanie Ross during a tour of the AGU poster hall.
December 15, 2016
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/12/15/researchers-reckon-with-the-trumpocene-at-the-worlds-largest-earth-science-meeting/ [with comments]
*
FM16 Press Conference: First results from Axial Seamount, an active underwater volcano
Published on Dec 15, 2016 by American Geophysical Union (AGU) [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAmvZawnAXogfsrXWKpPTVw / http://www.youtube.com/user/AGUvideos , http://www.youtube.com/user/AGUvideos/videos ]
On April 24, 2015, scientists tracked the onset and evolution of an underwater volcanic eruption on Axial Seamount, 470 kilometers (290 miles) off the coast of Oregon, using a network of cabled sensors that forms part of NSF’s Ocean Observatories Initiative. Researchers will present some of the first scientific results from the eruption, including discoveries of previously unknown structures and new glimpses into the volcano’s internal plumbing. These new insights into the world’s most active and well-studied underwater volcano help scientists better understand all volcanoes and the hazards they pose.
Participants:
Richard Murray, National Science Foundation, Arlington, Virginia, U.S.A.
Scott Nooner, University of North Carolina Wilmington, Wilmington, North Carolina, U.S.A.
William Wilcock, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, U.S.A.
David Clague, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, Moss Landing, California, U.S.A.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOTw6vOuS3I [with comment]
*
FM16 Press Conference: Explaining extreme events in 2015 from a climate perspective
Published on Dec 15, 2016 by American Geophysical Union (AGU)
Extreme weather can claim lives, damage economies and grab headlines. Though we generally understand the underlying physical causes of extreme events, our scientific understanding about how they may be influenced by a changing climate is not as clear. In this briefing, experts will discuss results from the fifth annual “Explaining Extreme Events from a Climate Perspective in 2015” report, published as a special edition of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. The speakers will examine the natural and human causes of individual extreme events in 2015 from around the world, look back at the progress made in the past five years and explore the future of extreme event attribution.
Participants:
Stephanie C. Herring, NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, Boulder, Colorado, U.S.A.;
Martin P. Hoerling, NOAA, Earth Systems Research Laboratory, Physical Science Division, Boulder, Colorado, U.S.A.;
Friederike Otto, University of Oxford, Centre for the Environment, Environmental Change, Oxford, United Kingdom;
Jeff Rosenfeld, American Meteorological Society, Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xg8XDX2pPLA [no comments yet]
*
Will Trump Delete Government Science From The Web?
Published on Dec 14, 2016 by Mike Malloy [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpU4j-LN_aibXA1gONvWzxw / http://www.youtube.com/user/hschulein , http://www.youtube.com/user/hschulein/videos ]
When Donald Trump takes over the federal government on January 21, his administration will also gain complete control over much of the .gov suite of websites, which currently hosts a treasure trove of publicly available, taxpayer-funded scientific research. The academic world is bracing itself: Will that data remain available after his transition?
Scientists and university professors all around the country and in Canada believe we’re about to see widespread whitewashing and redaction of already published, publicly available taxpayer-funded scientific research, databases, and interactive tools, such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Sea Level Rise viewer, NASA’s suite of climate change apps, and the Environmental Protection Agency’s maps of the country’s worst polluters. They also expect to see censorship, misrepresentation, and minimization of new government-funded research, specifically regarding climate change.
Full story: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/researchers-are-preparing-for-trump-to-delete-government-science-from-the-web
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfnVhy2fM8M [with comments]
*
Secretary of State Nominee Rex Tillerson Under SEC Investigation
Published on Dec 14, 2016 by Mike Malloy
Most of the commentary over Donald Trump’s presumed secretary-of-state nominee Rex Tillerson concerns the Exxon Mobil CEO’s closeness to Russia, and Senate Republican discomfort with that relationship. But Trump and Tillerson share something else that hasn’t gotten as much attention—a penchant to rip off their business partners.
In ExxonMobil’s case, I’m talking about shareholders. Tillerson’s company has been under formal investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission since August for failing to accurately value its proven oil reserves.Those reserves are critical to investors for assessing the future viability of the company. Without the certainty that the company can keep crude oil flowing decades into the future, ExxonMobil stock would plummet. Rewriting the disclosures to investors with lower valuations would cost the company billions of dollars. And actually the entire oil and gas industry would be affected by a new standard rather than the current ad hoc system.
Full story: https://www.thenation.com/article/potential-secretary-of-state-nominee-rex-tillerson-has-an-sec-problem/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZbmH70h25c [with comments]
--
Trump Thank You Rally in Pennsylvania | Full Event
Streamed live on Dec 15, 2016 by ABC News [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBi2mrWuNuyYy4gbM6fU18Q / http://www.youtube.com/user/ABCNews , http://www.youtube.com/user/ABCNews/videos ]
President-Elect Trump Holds 'Thank You' Rally in Hershey, Pa. | Pennsylvania had not gone for a Republican candidate since 1988. But the Trump campaign staff long thought that the state, rich in white working-class voters, would be receptive to his populist message and not be part of Clinton's hoped-for firewall.
Trump repeatedly campaigned there and won the state by less than 1 percentage point, giving him a vital 20 electoral college votes.
After allegedly trying to suppress voting, Trump and his fans applaud lower black turnout
December 16, 2016
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/16/after-quietly-trying-to-suppress-voting-trump-and-his-fans-applaud-lower-black-turnout/ [with embedded video, and comments]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIcpB9hC_8s [at the time of this post, the video is there despite the lack of a cover image, just click on it to start it; Pence's brokeback babble begins at c. the 17:30 mark; Trump's performance begins at c. the 25:10 mark; comments disabled]
--
Microsoft: “We Wouldn’t Do Any Work To Build A Registry Of Muslim Americans”
Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella enters Trump Tower.
One day after Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella met with President-elect Donald Trump, the tech company clarified its position in a statement to BuzzFeed News.
Dec. 15, 2016
https://www.buzzfeed.com/nitashatiku/microsoft-trump-muslim-registry [no comments yet]
*
Google, Apple, Uber, IBM Say They Would Not Help Build A Muslim Registry
Google, Apple, Uber, and IBM said they would not help build a Muslim registry. Meanwhile, Oracle declined to comment.
Dec. 16, 2016 Updated Dec. 17, 2016
https://www.buzzfeed.com/nitashatiku/google-muslim-registry-trump [with comments]
--
Putin turns political power into extreme wealth
The Rachel Maddow Show
12/15/16
Rachel Maddow explains how Russia, under Boris Yeltsin, privatized its national assets to a few powerful bank oligarchs, and how Vladimir Putin learned to take advantage of that system to make himself, according to US intelligence, the richest man in the world. Duration: 21:33
© 2016 NBCnews.com
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/putin-turns-political-power-into-extreme-wealth-834551875606 [the above YouTube of the segment for the moment at least at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOtoFR28frw (no comments yet), others for the moment at least at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOAbwqvn4TM (with comment), and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UqilV_PzFw (no comments yet)]
*
Putin brooks no quarter for rivals
The Rachel Maddow Show
12/15/16
Rachel Maddow tells the story of how Vladimir Putin destroyed his political opponent and seized his oil company, which was eventually absorbed by the Kremlin oil company, Rosneft, and the close relationship between Putin, Rosneft, and ExxonMobil's Rex Tillerson. Duration: 7:28
© 2016 NBCnews.com
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/putin-brooks-no-quarter-for-rivals-834531907723 [the above YouTube of the segment for the moment at least at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPhX8-BLTKM (no comments yet), others for the moment at least at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ip-GNeQiKlQ (with comments), and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzmg5xJ9JT4 (no comments yet)]
*
For transnational sovereign Exxon, business model is policy
The Rachel Maddow Show
12/15/16
Steve Coll, author of "Private Empire," talks with Rachel Maddow about how ExxonMobil wields its power around the world and what that means for the possibility that its CEO, Rex Tillerson, will be the secretary of state under Donald Trump. Duration: 5:24
© 2016 NBCnews.com
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/for-transnational-sovereign-exxon-business-model-is-policy-834548803815 [the above YouTube of the segment for the moment at least at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b_Tv5SIhrY (no comments yet)]
*
Exxon support of dictator stability counter to US foreign policy
The Rachel Maddow Show
12/15/16
Steve Coll, reporter and author of "Private Empire, ExxonMobil and American Power," talks with Rachel Maddow about how the priority for Exxon is stability to prevent interference with oil operations, even when that means the stability of a dictatorship opposed by the U.S. Duration: 4:10
© 2016 NBCnews.com
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/exxon-support-of-dictator-stability-counter-to-us-foreign-policy-834570819640 [the above YouTube of the segment for the moment at least at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8BJUZdKeko (no comments yet)]
--
The Daily Show - The 2016 Year in Review
Published on Dec 16, 2016 by The Daily Show with Trevor Noah [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwWhs_6x42TyRM4Wstoq8HA , http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwWhs_6x42TyRM4Wstoq8HA/videos ]
On the final show of 2016, The Best F#@king News Team recaps the year that brought about Brexit, fake news, Colin Kaepernick's national anthem protest and viral challenges.
[originally aired December 15, 2016]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgg85Bym6u4 [with comments]
--
Putin Hacked The Election Because Of A Vendetta Against Clinton
Published on Dec 16, 2016 by The Late Show with Stephen Colbert [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMtFAi84ehTSYSE9XoHefig , http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMtFAi84ehTSYSE9XoHefig/videos ]
That's so lame. There are so many better reasons to get revenge against America, like Sean Connery's accent in 'The Hunt For Red October.'
[originally aired December 15, 2016]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-blcqNrC7QM [with (over 4,000) comments]
--
‘Infuriating’: John Podesta Unleashes On ‘Deeply Broken’ FBI
The former campaign chairman accuses the bureau of bias in dwelling on Clinton’s email server rather than pursuing the Russian hacking threat.
12/16/2016
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-podesta-fbi-james-comey_us_58536287e4b0b3ddfd8c0796 [with comments]
*
Something is deeply broken at the FBI
By John Podesta
December 15, 2016
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/john-podesta-something-is-deeply-broken-at-the-fbi/2016/12/15/51668ab4-c303-11e6-9a51-cd56ea1c2bb7_story.html [with embedded video, and (over 5,000) comments]
--
First Lady Michelle Obama on husband's legacy of hope
Published on Dec 16, 2016 by CBS This Morning [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-SJ6nODDmufqBzPBwCvYvQ / http://www.youtube.com/user/CBSThisMorning , http://www.youtube.com/user/CBSThisMorning/videos ]
During her eight years in Washington, First Lady Michelle Obama advocated for several causes, including healthy families and improved education for girls around the world. She also had some fun along the way. The first lady spoke with Oprah Winfrey in her final interview at the White House for a special that airs next week. First on"CBS This Morning," Mrs. Obama addresses her husband's legacy and whether he stayed true to a core belief.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDuSntYTRFo [with comments]
--
Obama On Russian Hacking: 'We Need To Take Action. And We Will' | Morning Edition | NPR
Published on Dec 16, 2016 by NPR [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJnS2EsPfv46u1JR8cnD0NA / http://www.youtube.com/user/npr , http://www.youtube.com/user/npr/videos ]
President Obama says the United States will respond to Russian cyberattacks that the intelligence community has concluded were part of an effort to influence the 2016 presidential election.
In an interview with NPR's Steve Inskeep, Obama said, "I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections ... we need to take action. And we will — at a time and place of our own choosing. Some of it may be explicit and publicized; some of it may not be."
Read or listen to "Obama On Russian Hacking: 'We Need To Take Action. And We Will' " at http://www.npr.org/2016/12/15/505775550/obama-on-russian-hacking-we-need-to-take-action-and-we-will
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5Z1WN_aaRw [with comments]
--
Clinton Says ‘Personal Beef’ by Putin Led to Hacking Attacks
Hillary Clinton in Washington on Dec. 8. On Thursday, she said that the hacking attacks carried out by Russia against her campaign and the Democratic National Committee were intended “to undermine our democracy.”
DEC. 16, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/16/us/politics/hillary-clinton-russia-fbi-comey.html [with comments]
--
Full Show - Megyn Kelly Caught Red Handed In Lie/Chinese Steal American Submarine - 12-/16/16
Published on Dec 16, 2016 by The Alex Jones Channel
On this Friday, Dec. 16th 2016 edition of the Alex Jones Show, we continue looking at the establishment's attempt to overturn the election. Dr. Steve Pieczenik joins the program to share his views on Trump's cabinet selections, Russian intervention and more. Also on today's show, Trump insider Roger Stone discusses the President elect's next move as the globalists attack with full force.
Where the Right Went Wrong
By CHARLES J. SYKES
DEC. 15, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/opinion/sunday/charlie-sykes-on-where-the-right-went-wrong.html [with comments]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Yj8ToYPGOw [with comments]
--
Obama Final Press Conference of 2016
Streamed live on Dec 16, 2016 by ABC News
Obama Full Press conference begins at: 30:03
President Obama Holds End-Of-Year News Conference of 2016 | President Obama today used his year-end news conference to rebuke the ongoing civil war in Syria, saying the regime there “cannot slaughter their way to legitimacy.”
The president also condemned what he said was the role of foreign governments, including Russia and Iran, in prompting the violence in Syria.
*
Press Conference by the President
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
December 16, 2016
2:40 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon. This is the most wonderful press conference of the year. I've got a list of who’s been naughty and nice to call on. (Laughter.) But let me first make a couple of quick points, and then I’ll take your questions.
Typically, I use this yearend press conference to review how far we’ve come over the course of the year. Today, understandably, I'm going to talk a little bit about how far we’ve come over the past eight years.
As I was preparing to take office, the unemployment rate was on its way to 10 percent. Today, it’s at 4.6 percent -- the lowest in nearly a decade. We’ve seen the longest streak of job growth on record, and wages have grown faster over the past few years than at any time in the past 40.
When I came into office, 44 million people were uninsured. Today, we’ve covered more than 20 million of them. For the first time in our history, more than 90 percent of Americans are insured. In fact, yesterday was the biggest day ever for HealthCare.gov. More than 670,000 Americans signed up to get covered, and more are signing up by the day.
We’ve cut our dependence on foreign oil by more than half, doubled production of renewable energy, enacted the most sweeping reforms since FDR to protect consumers and prevent a crisis on Wall Street from punishing Main Street ever again. None of these actions stifled growth, as critics predicted. Instead, the stock market has nearly tripled. Since I signed Obamacare into law, our businesses have added more than 15 million new jobs. And the economy is undoubtedly more durable than it was in the days when we relied on oil from unstable nations and banks took risky bets with your money.
Add it all up, and last year, the poverty rate fell at the fastest rate in almost 50 years, while the median household income grew at the fastest rate on record. In fact, income gains were actually larger for households at the bottom and the middle than for those at the top. And we’ve done all this while cutting our deficits by nearly two-thirds and protecting vital investments that grow the middle class.
In foreign policy, when I came into office, we were in the midst of two wars. Now, nearly 180,000 troops are down to 15,000. Bin Laden, rather than being at large, has been taken off the battlefield, along with thousands of other terrorists. Over the past eight years, no foreign terrorist organization has successfully executed an attack on our homeland that was directed from overseas.
Through diplomacy, we’ve ensured that Iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon -- without going to war with Iran. We opened up a new chapter with the people of Cuba. And we brought nearly 200 nations together around a climate agreement that could very well save this planet for our kids. And almost every country on Earth sees America as stronger and more respected today than they did eight years ago.
In other words, by so many measures, our country is stronger and more prosperous than it was when we started. That's a situation that I’m proud to leave for my successor. And it’s thanks to the American people -- to the hard work that you’ve put in, the sacrifices you’ve made for your families and your communities, the businesses that you started or invested in, the way you looked out for one another. And I could not be prouder to be your President.
Of course, to tout this progress doesn’t mean that we’re not mindful of how much more there is to do. In this season in particular, we’re reminded that there are people who are still hungry, people who are still homeless; people who still have trouble paying the bills or finding work after being laid off. There are communities that are still mourning those who have been stolen from us by senseless gun violence, and parents who still are wondering how to protect their kids. And after I leave office, I intend to continue to work with organizations and citizens doing good across the country on these and other pressing issues to build on the progress that we’ve made.
Around the world, as well, there are hotspots where disputes have been intractable, conflicts have flared up, and people -- innocent people are suffering as a result. And nowhere is this more terribly true than in the city of Aleppo. For years, we’ve worked to stop the civil war in Syria and alleviate human suffering. It has been one of the hardest issues that I've faced as President.
The world, as we speak, is united in horror at the savage assault by the Syrian regime and its Russian and Iranian allies on the city of Aleppo. We have seen a deliberate strategy of surrounding, besieging, and starving innocent civilians. We've seen relentless targeting of humanitarian workers and medical personnel; entire neighborhoods reduced to rubble and dust. There are continuing reports of civilians being executed. These are all horrific violations of international law. Responsibility for this brutality lies in one place alone -- with the Assad regime and its allies Russia and Iran. And this blood and these atrocities are on their hands.
We all know what needs to happen. There needs to be an impartial international observer force in Aleppo that can help coordinate an orderly evacuation through safe corridors. There has to be full access for humanitarian aid, even as the United States continues to be the world’s largest donor of humanitarian aid to the Syrian people. And, beyond that, there needs to be a broader ceasefire that can serve as the basis for a political rather than a military solution.
That’s what the United States is going to continue to push for, both with our partners and through multilateral institutions like the U.N.
Regretfully, but unsurprisingly, Russia has repeatedly blocked the Security Council from taking action on these issues. So we’re going to keep pressing the Security Council to help improve the delivery of humanitarian aid to those who are in such desperate need, and to ensure accountability, including continuing to monitor any potential use of chemical weapons in Syria. And we’re going to work in the U.N. General Assembly as well, both on accountability and to advance a political settlement. Because it should be clear that although you may achieve tactical victories, over the long term the Assad regime cannot slaughter its way to legitimacy.
That’s why we'll continue to press for a transition to a more representative government. And that’s why the world must not avert our eyes to the terrible events that are unfolding. The Syrian regime and its Russian and Iranian allies are trying to obfuscate the truth. The world should not be fooled. And the world will not forget.
So even in a season where the incredible blessings that we know as Americans are all around us, even as we enjoy family and friends and are reminded of how lucky we are, we should also be reminded that to be an American involves bearing burdens and meeting obligations to others. American values and American ideals are what will lead the way to a safer and more prosperous 2017, both here and abroad.
And by the way, few embody those values and ideals like our brave men and women in uniform and their families. So I just want to close by wishing all of them a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
With that, I will take some questions. And I'm going to start with Josh Lederman, of AP.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. There’s a perception that you're letting President Putin get away with interfering in the U.S. election, and that a response that nobody knows about or a lookback review just won’t cut it. Are you prepared to call out President Putin by name for ordering this hacking? And do you agree with what Hillary Clinton now says, that the hacking was actually partly responsible for her loss? And is your administration’s open quarreling with Trump and his team on this issue tarnishing the smooth transition of power that you have promised?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, with respect to the transition, I think they would be the first to acknowledge that we have done everything we can to make sure that they are successful as I promised. And that will continue. And it’s just been a few days since I last talked to the President-elect about a whole range of transition issues. That cooperation is going to continue.
There hasn’t been a lot of squabbling. What we’ve simply said is the facts, which are that, based on uniform intelligence assessments, the Russians were responsible for hacking the DNC, and that, as a consequence, it is important for us to review all elements of that and make sure that we are preventing that kind of interference through cyberattacks in the future.
That should be a bipartisan issue; that shouldn’t be a partisan issue. And my hope is that the President-elect is going to similarly be concerned with making sure that we don’t have potential foreign influence in our election process. I don’t think any American wants that. And that shouldn’t be a source of an argument.
I think that part of the challenge is that it gets caught up in the carryover from election season. And I think it is very important for us to distinguish between the politics of the election and the need for us, as a country, both from a national security perspective but also in terms of the integrity of our election system and our democracy, to make sure that we don’t create a political football here.
Now, with respect to how this thing unfolded last year, let’s just go through the facts pretty quickly. At the beginning of the summer, we’re alerted to the possibility that the DNC has been hacked, and I immediately order law enforcement as well as our intelligence teams to find out everything about it, investigate it thoroughly, to brief the potential victims of this hacking, to brief on a bipartisan basis the leaders of both the House and the Senate and the relevant intelligence committees. And once we had clarity and certainty around what, in fact, had happened, we publicly announced that, in fact, Russia had hacked into the DNC.
And at that time, we did not attribute motives or any interpretations of why they had done so. We didn’t discuss what the effects of it might be. We simply let people know -- the public know, just as we had let members of Congress know -- that this had happened.
And as a consequence, all of you wrote a lot of stories about both what had happened, and then you interpreted why that might have happened and what effect it was going to have on the election outcomes. We did not. And the reason we did not was because in this hyper-partisan atmosphere, at a time when my primary concern was making sure that the integrity of the election process was not in any way damaged, at a time when anything that was said by me or anybody in the White House would immediately be seen through a partisan lens, I wanted to make sure that everybody understood we were playing this thing straight -- that we weren’t trying to advantage one side or another, but what we were trying to do was let people know that this had taken place, and so if you started seeing effects on the election, if you were trying to measure why this was happening and how you should consume the information that was being leaked, that you might want to take this into account.
And that's exactly how we should have handled it. Imagine if we had done the opposite. It would have become immediately just one more political scrum. And part of the goal here was to make sure that we did not do the work of the leakers for them by raising more and more questions about the integrity of the election right before the election was taking place -- at a time, by the way, when the President-elect himself was raising questions about the integrity of the election.
And, finally, I think it's worth pointing out that the information was already out. It was in the hands of WikiLeaks, so that was going to come out no matter what. What I was concerned about, in particular, was making sure that that wasn’t compounded by potential hacking that could hamper vote counting, affect the actual election process itself.
And so in early September, when I saw President Putin in China, I felt that the most effective way to ensure that that didn’t happen was to talk to him directly and tell him to cut it out, and there were going to be some serious consequences if he didn’t. And, in fact, we did not see further tampering of the election process. But the leaks through WikiLeaks had already occurred.
So when I look back in terms of how we handled it, I think we handled it the way it should have been handled. We allowed law enforcement and the intelligence community to do its job without political influence. We briefed all relevant parties involved in terms of what was taking place. When we had a consensus around what had happened, we announced it -- not through the White House, not through me, but rather through the intelligence communities that had actually carried out these investigations. And then we allowed you and the American public to make an assessment as to how to weigh that going into the election.
And the truth is, is that there was nobody here who didn’t have some sense of what kind of effect it might have. I'm finding it a little curious that everybody is suddenly acting surprised that this looked like it was disadvantaging Hillary Clinton because you guys wrote about it every day. Every single leak. About every little juicy tidbit of political gossip -- including John Podesta's risotto recipe. This was an obsession that dominated the news coverage.
So I do think it's worth us reflecting how it is that a presidential election of such importance, of such moment, with so many big issues at stake and such a contrast between the candidates, came to be dominated by a bunch of these leaks. What is it about our political system that made us vulnerable to these kinds of potential manipulations -- which, as I've said publicly before, were not particularly sophisticated.
This was not some elaborate, complicated espionage scheme. They hacked into some Democratic Party emails that contained pretty routine stuff, some of it embarrassing or uncomfortable, because I suspect that if any of us got our emails hacked into, there might be some things that we wouldn’t want suddenly appearing on the front page of a newspaper or a telecast, even if there wasn’t anything particularly illegal or controversial about it. And then it just took off.
And that concerns me. And it should concern all of us. But the truth of the matter is, is that everybody had the information. It was out there. And we handled it the way we should have.
Now, moving forward, I think there are a couple of issues that this raises. Number one is just the constant challenge that we are going to have with cybersecurity throughout our economy and throughout our society. We are a digitalized culture, and there is hacking going on every single day. There’s not a company, there’s not a major organization, there’s not a financial institution, there’s not a branch of our government where somebody is not going to be phishing for something or trying to penetrate, or put in a virus or malware. And this is why for the last eight years, I’ve been obsessed with how do we continually upgrade our cybersecurity systems.
And this particular concern around Russian hacking is part of a broader set of concerns about how do we deal with cyber issues being used in ways that can affect our infrastructure, affect the stability of our financial systems, and affect the integrity of our institutions, like our election process.
I just received a couple weeks back -- it wasn’t widely reported on -- a report from our cybersecurity commission that outlines a whole range of strategies to do a better job on this. But it’s difficult, because it’s not all housed -- the target of cyberattacks is not one entity but it’s widely dispersed, and a lot of it is private, like the DNC. It’s not a branch of government. We can’t tell people what to do. What we can do is inform them, get best practices.
What we can also do is to, on a bilateral basis, warn other countries against these kinds of attacks. And we’ve done that in the past. So just as I told Russia to stop it, and indicated there will be consequences when they do it, the Chinese have, in the past, engaged in cyberattacks directed at our companies to steal trade secrets and proprietary technology. And I had to have the same conversation with Prime Minister -- or with President Xi, and what we’ve seen is some evidence that they have reduced -- but not completely eliminated -- these activities, partly because they can use cutouts.
One of the problems with the Internet and cyber issues is that there’s not always a return address, and by the time you catch up to it, attributing what happened to a particular government can be difficult, not always provable in court even though our intelligence communities can make an assessment.
What we’ve also tried to do is to start creating some international norms about this to prevent some sort of cyber arms race, because we obviously have offensive capabilities as well as defensive capabilities. And my approach is not a situation in which everybody is worse off because folks are constantly attacking each other back and forth, but putting some guardrails around the behavior of nation-states, including our adversaries, just so that they understand that whatever they do to us we can potentially do to them.
We do have some special challenges, because oftentimes our economy is more digitalized, it is more vulnerable, partly because we’re a wealthier nation and we’re more wired than some of these other countries. And we have a more open society, and engage in less control and censorship over what happens over the Internet, which is also part of what makes us special.
Last point -- and the reason I’m going on here is because I know that you guys have a lot of questions about this, and I haven't addressed all of you directly about it. With respect to response, my principal goal leading up to the election was making sure that the election itself went off without a hitch, that it was not tarnished, and that it did not feed any sense in the public that somehow tampering had taken place with the actual process of voting. And we accomplished that.
That does not mean that we are not going to respond. It simply meant that we had a set of priorities leading up to the election that were of the utmost importance. Our goal continues to be to send a clear message to Russia or others not to do this to us, because we can do stuff to you.
But it is also important for us to do that in a thoughtful, methodical way. Some of it we do publicly. Some of it we will do in a way that they know, but not everybody will. And I know that there have been folks out there who suggest somehow that if we went out there and made big announcements, and thumped our chests about a bunch of stuff, that somehow that would potentially spook the Russians. But keep in mind that we already have enormous numbers of sanctions against the Russians. The relationship between us and Russia has deteriorated, sadly, significantly over the last several years. And so how we approach an appropriate response that increases costs for them for behavior like this in the future, but does not create problems for us, is something that’s worth taking the time to think through and figure out. And that’s exactly what we’ve done.
So at a point in time where we’ve taken certain actions that we can divulge publically, we will do so. There are times where the message will go -- will be directly received by the Russians and not publicized. And I should point out, by the way, part of why the Russians have been effective on this is because they don't go around announcing what they're doing. It's not like Putin is going around the world publically saying, look what we did, wasn't that clever? He denies it. So the idea that somehow public shaming is going to be effective I think doesn't read the thought process in Russia very well.
Okay?
Q Did Clinton lose because of the hacking?
THE PRESIDENT: I'm going to let all the political pundits in this town have a long discussion about what happened in the election. It was a fascinating election, so I'm sure there are going to be a lot of books written about it.
I've said what I think is important for the Democratic Party going forward rather than try to parse every aspect of the election. And I've said before, I couldn't be prouder of Secretary Clinton, her outstanding service. I thinks she's worked tirelessly on behalf of the American people, and I don't think she was treated fairly during the election. I think the coverage of her and the issues was troubling.
But having said that, what I've been most focused on -- appropriate for the fact that I'm not going to be a politician in about, what is it, 32 days? 31?
Q Thirty-four.
THE PRESIDENT: Thirty four? (Laughter.) But what I've said is, is that I can maybe give some counsel and advice to the Democratic Party. And I think that that the thing we have to spend the most time on -- because it's the thing we have the most control over -- is how do we make sure that we are showing up in places where I think Democratic policies are needed, where they are helping, where they are making a difference, but where people feel as if they're not being heard and where Democrats are characterized as coastal, liberal, latte-sipping, politically-correct, out-of-touch folks. We have to be in those communities. And I've seen that when we are in those communities, it makes a difference.
That's how I became President. I became a U.S. senator not just because I had a strong base in Chicago, but because I was driving around downstate Illinois and going to fish frys and sitting in VFW halls and talking to farmers. And I didn't win every one of their votes, but they got a sense of what I was talking about, what I cared about, that I was for working people, that I was for the middle class, that the reason I was interested in strengthening unions, and raising the minimum wage, and rebuilding our infrastructure, and making sure that parents had decent childcare and family leave was because my own family's history wasn't that different from theirs, even if I looked a little bit different. Same thing in Iowa.
And so the question is, how do we rebuild that party as a whole so that there's not a county in any state -- I don't care how red -- that we don't have a presence and we're not making the argument. Because I think we have the better argument. But that requires a lot of work. It's been something that I've been able to do successfully in my own campaigns. It is not something I've been able to transfer to candidates in midterms and sort of build a sustaining organization around. That's something that I would have liked to have done more of, but it's kind of hard to do when you're also dealing with a whole bunch of issues here in the White House.
And that doesn't mean, though, that it can't be done. And I think there are going to be a lot of talented folks out there, a lot of progressives who share my values who are going to be leading the charge in the years to come.
Michelle Kosinski of CNN.
Q Thank you. So this week we heard Hillary Clinton talk about how she thinks that the FBI Director's most recent announcement made a difference in the outcome of the election. And we also just heard in an op-ed her campaign chairman talk about something being deeply broken within the FBI. He talked about thinking that the investigation early on was lackadaisical in his words. So what do you think about those comments? Do you think there's any truth to them? Do you think there's a danger there that they're calling into question the integrity of institutions in a similar way that Donald Trump's team has done?
And the second part to that is that Donald Trump's team repeatedly -- I guess, giving the indication that the investigation of the Russian hack, as well as the retaliation, might not be such a priority once he's in office, so what do you think the risk is there? And are you going to talk to him directly about some of those comments he made?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, on the latter point, as I said before, the transition from election season to governance season is not always smooth. It's bumpy. There are still feelings that are raw out there. There are people who are still thinking about how things unfolded. And I get all that. But when Donald Trump takes the Oath of Office and is sworn as the 45th President of the United States, then he's got a different set of responsibilities and considerations.
And I've said this before: I think there is a sobering process when you walk into the Oval Office. And I haven’t shared previously private conversations I've had with the President-elect. I will say that they have been cordial and, in some cases, have involved me making some pretty specific suggestions about how to ensure that regardless of our obvious deep disagreements about policy, maybe I can transmit some thoughts about maintaining the effectiveness, integrity, cohesion of the office, of various democratic institutions. And he has listened. I can't say that he will end up implementing, but the conversations themselves have been cordial as opposed to defensive in any way. And I will always make myself available to him, just as previous Presidents have made themselves available to me as issues come up.
With respect to the FBI, I will tell you, I've had a chance to know a lot of FBI agents, I know Director Comey, and they take their job seriously, they work really hard, they help keep us safe and save a lot of lives. And it is always a challenge for law enforcement when there's an intersection between the work that they are doing and the political system. It's one of the difficulties of democracy, generally. We have a system where we want our law enforcement investigators and our prosecutors to be free from politics, to be independent, to play it straight, but sometimes that involves investigations that touch on politics. And particularly in this hyper-partisan environment that we've been in, everything is suspect, everything you do one way or the other.
One thing that I have done is to be pretty scrupulous about not wading into investigation decisions or prosecution decisions, or decisions not to prosecute. I have tried to be really strict in my own behavior about preserving the independence of law enforcement, free from my own judgments and political assessments, in some cases. And I don’t know why it would stop now.
Mike Dorning of Bloomberg.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. On Aleppo, your views that what happens there is the responsibility of the Russian government, the Iranian government, the Assad regime are pretty well aired. But do you, as President of the United States, leader of the free world, feel any personal moral responsibility now at the end of your presidency for the carnage that we’re all watching in Aleppo, which I’m sure disturbs you -- which you said disturbs you?
And, secondly, also on Aleppo, you’ve again made clear your practical disagreements with the idea of safe zones. And President-elect Trump has, throughout his campaign, and he said again last night that he wants to create safe zones in Syria. Do you feel like, in this transition, you need to help him toward implementing that? Or was that not something that you should be doing?
THE PRESIDENT: Mike, I always feel responsible. I felt responsible when kids were being shot by snipers. I felt responsible when millions of people had been displaced. I feel responsible for murder and slaughter that’s taken place in South Sudan that’s not being reported on partly because there’s not as much social media being generated from there.
There are places around the world where horrible things are happening, and because of my office, because I’m President of the United States, I feel responsible. I ask myself every single day, is there something I could do that would save lives and make a difference and spare some child who doesn’t deserve to suffer.
So that’s a starting point. There’s not a moment during the course of this presidency where I haven’t felt some responsibility. That’s true, by the way, for our own country. When I came into office and people were losing their jobs and losing their homes and losing their pensions, I felt responsible, and I would go home at night and I would ask myself, was there something better that I could do or smarter that I could be that would make a difference in their lives, that would relieve their suffering and relieve their hardship.
So with respect to Syria, what I have consistently done is taken the best course that I can to try to end the civil war while having also to take into account the long-term national security interests of the United States.
And throughout this process, based on hours of meetings, if you tallied it up, days or weeks of meetings where we went through every option in painful detail, with maps, and we had our military, and we had our aid agencies, and we had our diplomatic teams, and sometimes we’d bring in outsiders who were critics of ours -- whenever we went through it, the challenge was that, short of putting large numbers of U.S. troops on the ground, uninvited, without any international law mandate, without sufficient support from Congress, at a time when we still had troops in Afghanistan and we still had troops in Iraq, and we had just gone through over a decade of war and spent trillions of dollars, and when the opposition on the ground was not cohesive enough to necessarily govern a country, and you had a military superpower in Russia prepared to do whatever it took to keeps its client-state involved, and you had a regional military power in Iran that saw their own vital strategic interests at stake and were willing to send in as many of their people or proxies to support the regime -- that in that circumstance, unless we were all in and willing to take over Syria, we were going to have problems, and that everything else was tempting because we wanted to do something and it sounded like the right thing to do, but it was going to be impossible to do this on the cheap.
And in that circumstance, I have to make a decision as President of the United States as to what is best -- I’m sorry, what’s going on? Somebody’s not feeling good? All right. Why don’t we have -- we’ve got -- we can get our doctors back there to help out. Does somebody want to go to my doctor’s office and just have them -- all right -- where was I?
Q Doing it on the cheap.
THE PRESIDENT: So we couldn’t do it on the cheap. Now, it may be --
Can somebody help out please and get Doc Jackson in here? Is somebody grabbing our doctor?
Q Thank you, Mr. President, for stopping.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course. In the meantime, just give her a little room. The doctor will be here in a second. You guys know where the doctor’s office is? Just go through the Palm doors. It’s right next to the Map Room. There he is. All right, there’s Doc Jackson. He’s all right. Okay. The doctor is in the house.
Q You were saying you couldn’t do it on the cheap.
THE PRESIDENT: And I don’t mean that -- I mean that with all sincerity. I understand the impulse to want to do something. But ultimately, what I’ve had to do is to think about what can we sustain, what is realistic. And my first priority has to be what’s the right thing to do for America.
And it has been our view that the best thing to do has been to provide some support to the moderate opposition so that they could sustain themselves, and that we wouldn’t see anti-Assad regime sentiments just pouring into al Nusra and al Qaeda or ISIL; that we engaged our international partners in order to put pressure on all the parties involved, and to try to resolve this through diplomatic and political means.
I cannot claim that we’ve been successful. And so that’s something that, as is true with a lot of issues and problems around the world, I have to go to bed with every night. But I continue to believe that it was the right approach, given what realistically we could get done absent a decision, as I said, to go in a much more significant way. And that, I think, would not have been sustainable or good for the American people because we had a whole host of other obligations that we also had to meet, wars we had already started and that were not yet finished.
With respect to the issue of safe zones, it is a continued problem. A continued challenge with safe zones is if you’re setting up those zones on Syrian territory, then that requires some force that is willing to maintain that territory in the absence of consent from the Syrian government and, now, the Russians or the Iranians. So it may be that with Aleppo’s tragic situation unfolding, that in the short term, if we can get more of the tens of thousands who are still trapped there out, that so long as the world’s eyes are on them and they are feeling pressure, the regime and Russia concludes that they are willing to find some arrangement, perhaps in coordination with Turkey, whereby those people can be safe. Even that will probably be temporary, but at least it solves a short-term issue that’s going to arise.
Unfortunately, we’re not even there yet, because right now we have Russians and Assad claiming that basically all the innocent civilians who were trapped in Aleppo are out when international organizations, humanitarian organizations who know better and who are on the ground have said unequivocally that there are still tens of thousands who are trapped and prepared to leave under pretty much any conditions. And so right now, our biggest priority is to continue to put pressure wherever we can to try to get them out.
Q Notwithstanding --
THE PRESIDENT: I can’t have too much --
Q On the second question, your intentions are well aired, but do you feel responsibility notwithstanding a move in that direction or help President-elect Trump move in that direction?
THE PRESIDENT: I will help President Trump -- President-elect Trump with any advice, counsel, information that we can provide so that he, once he’s sworn in, can make a decision. Between now and then, these are decisions that I have to make based on the consultations I have with our military and the people who have been working this every single day.
Peter Alexander.
Q Mr. President, thank you very much. Can you, given all the intelligence that we have now heard, assure the public that this was, once and for all, a free and fair election? And specifically on Russia, do you feel any obligation now, as they’ve been insisting that this isn’t the case, to show the proof, as it were -- they say put your money where your mouth is and declassify some of the intelligence, some of the evidence that exists? And more broadly, as it relates to Donald Trump on this very topic, are you concerned about his relationship with Vladimir Putin, especially given some of the recent Cabinet picks, including his selection for Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, who toasted Putin with champagne over oil deals together? Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: I may be getting older, because these multipart questions, I start losing track. (Laughter.)
I can assure the public that there was not the kind of tampering with the voting process that was of concern and will continue to be of concern going forward; that the votes that were cast were counted, they were counted appropriately. We have not seen evidence of machines being tampered with. So that assurance I can provide.
That doesn’t mean that we find every single potential probe of every single voting machine all across the country, but we paid a lot of attention to it. We worked with state officials, et cetera, and we feel confident that that didn’t occur and that the votes were cast and they were counted.
So that’s on that point. What was the second one?
Q The second one was about declassification.
THE PRESIDENT: Declassification. Look, we will provide evidence that we can safely provide that does not compromise sources and methods. But I’ll be honest with you, when you’re talking about cybersecurity, a lot of it is classified. And we’re not going to provide it because the way we catch folks is by knowing certain things about them that they may not want us to know, and if we’re going to monitor this stuff effectively going forward, we don’t want them to know that we know.
So this is one of those situations where unless the American people genuinely think that the professionals in the CIA, the FBI, our entire intelligence infrastructure -- many of whom, by the way, served in previous administrations and who are Republicans -- are less trustworthy than the Russians, then people should pay attention to what our intelligence agencies have to say.
This is part of what I meant when I said that we’ve got to think about what’s happening to our political culture here. The Russians can’t change us or significantly weaken us. They are a smaller country. They are a weaker country. Their economy doesn’t produce anything that anybody wants to buy, except oil and gas and arms. They don’t innovate.
But they can impact us if we lose track of who we are. They can impact us if we abandon our values. Mr. Putin can weaken us, just like he’s trying to weaken Europe, if we start buying into notions that it’s okay to intimidate the press, or lock up dissidents, or discriminate against people because of their faith or what they look like.
And what I worry about more than anything is the degree to which, because of the fierceness of the partisan battle, you start to see certain folks in the Republican Party and Republican voters suddenly finding a government and individuals who stand contrary to everything that we stand for as being okay because that’s how much we dislike Democrats.
I mean, think about it. Some of the people who historically have been very critical of me for engaging with the Russians and having conversations with them also endorsed the President-elect, even as he was saying that we should stop sanctioning Russia and being tough on them, and work together with them against our common enemies. He was very complimentary of Mr. Putin personally.
That wasn’t news. The President-elect during the campaign said so. And some folks who had made a career out of being anti-Russian didn’t say anything about it. And then after the election, suddenly they’re asking, well, why didn’t you tell us that maybe the Russians were trying to help our candidate? Well, come on. There was a survey, some of you saw, where -- now, this is just one poll, but a pretty credible source -- 37 percent of Republican voters approve of Putin. Over a third of Republican voters approve of Vladimir Putin, the former head of the KGB. Ronald Reagan would roll over in his grave.
And how did that happen? It happened in part because, for too long, everything that happens in this town, everything that’s said is seen through the lens of "does this help or hurt us relative to Democrats, or relative to President Obama?" And unless that changes, we’re going to continue to be vulnerable to foreign influence, because we’ve lost track of what it is that we’re about and what we stand for.
With respect to the President-elect’s appointments, it is his prerogative, as I’ve always said, for him to appoint who he thinks can best carry out his foreign policy or his domestic policy. It is up to the Senate to advise and consent. There will be plenty of time for members of the Senate to go through the record of all his appointees and determine whether or not they’re appropriate for the job.
Martha Raddatz.
Q Mr. President, I want to talk about Vladimir Putin again. Just to be clear, do you believe Vladimir Putin himself authorized the hack? And do you believe he authorized that to help Donald Trump? And on the intelligence, one of the things Donald Trump cites is Saddam Hussein and the weapons of mass destruction, and that they were never found. Can you say, unequivocally, that this was not China, that this was not a 400-pound guy sitting on his bed, as Donald Trump says? And do these types of tweets and kinds of statements from Donald Trump embolden the Russians?
THE PRESIDENT: When the report comes out, before I leave office, that will have drawn together all the threads. And so I don’t want to step on their work ahead of time.
What I can tell you is that the intelligence that I have seen gives me great confidence in their assessment that the Russians carried out this hack.
Q Which hack?
THE PRESIDENT: The hack of the DNC and the hack of John Podesta.
Now, the -- but again, I think this is exactly why I want the report out, so that everybody can review it. And this has been briefed, and the evidence in closed session has been provided on a bipartisan basis -- not just to me, it’s been provided to the leaders of the House and the Senate, and the chairman and ranking members of the relevant committees. And I think that what you’ve already seen is, at least some of the folks who have seen the evidence don’t dispute, I think, the basic assessment that the Russians carried this out.
Q But specifically, can you not say that --
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Martha, I think what I want to make sure of is that I give the intelligence community the chance to gather all the information. But I’d make a larger point, which is, not much happens in Russia without Vladimir Putin. This is a pretty hierarchical operation. Last I checked, there’s not a lot of debate and democratic deliberation, particularly when it comes to policies directed at the United States.
We have said, and I will confirm, that this happened at the highest levels of the Russian government. And I will let you make that determination as to whether there are high-level Russian officials who go off rogue and decide to tamper with the U.S. election process without Vladimir Putin knowing about it.
Q So I wouldn’t be wrong in saying the President thinks Vladimir Putin authorized the hack?
THE PRESIDENT: Martha, I’ve given you what I’m going to give you.
What was your second question?
Q Do the tweets and do the statements by Donald Trump embolden Russia?
THE PRESIDENT: As I said before, I think that the President-elect is still in transition mode from campaign to governance. I think he hasn’t gotten his whole team together yet. He still has campaign spokespersons sort of filling in and appearing on cable shows. And there’s just a whole different attitude and vibe when you’re not in power as when you’re in power.
So rather than me sort of characterize the appropriateness or inappropriateness of what he’s doing at the moment, I think what we have to see is how will the President-elect operate, and how will his team operate, when they’ve been fully briefed on all these issues, they have their hands on all the levers of government, and they’ve got to start making decisions.
One way I do believe that the President-elect can approach this that would be unifying is to say that we welcome a bipartisan, independent process that gives the American people an assurance not only that votes are counted properly, that the elections are fair and free, but that we have learned lessons about how Internet propaganda from foreign countries can be released into the political bloodstream and that we’ve got strategies to deal with it for the future.
The more this can be nonpartisan, the better served the American people are going to be, which is why I made the point earlier -- and I’m going to keep on repeating this point: Our vulnerability to Russia or any other foreign power is directly related to how divided, partisan, dysfunctional our political process is. That’s the thing that makes us vulnerable.
If fake news that’s being released by some foreign government is almost identical to reports that are being issued through partisan news venues, then it’s not surprising that that foreign propaganda will have a greater effect, because it doesn’t seem that far-fetched compared to some of the other stuff that folks are hearing from domestic propagandists.
To the extent that our political dialogue is such where everything is under suspicion, everybody is corrupt and everybody is doing things for partisan reasons, and all of our institutions are full of malevolent actors -- if that’s the storyline that’s being put out there by whatever party is out of power, then when a foreign government introduces that same argument with facts that are made up, voters who have been listening to that stuff for years, who have been getting that stuff every day from talk radio or other venues, they’re going to believe it.
So if we want to really reduce foreign influence on our elections, then we better think about how to make sure that our political process, our political dialogue is stronger than it’s been.
Mark Landler.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. I wonder whether I can move you from Russia to China for a moment.
THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely.
Q Your successor spoke by phone with the President of Taiwan the other day and declared subsequently that he wasn’t sure why the United States needed to be bound by the one-China policy. He suggested it could be used as a bargaining chip perhaps to get better terms on a trade deal or more cooperation on North Korea. There’s already evidence that tensions between the two sides have increased a bit, and just today, the Chinese have evidently seized an underwater drone in the South China Sea. Do you agree, as some do, that our China policy could use a fresh set of eyes? And what’s the big deal about having a short phone call with the President of Taiwan? Or do you worry that these types of unorthodox approaches are setting us on a collision course with perhaps our biggest geopolitical adversary?
THE PRESIDENT: That’s a great question. I’m somewhere in between. I think all of our foreign policy should be subject to fresh eyes. I think one of the -- I’ve said this before -- I am very proud of the work I’ve done. I think I’m a better President now than when I started. But if you’re here for eight years, in the bubble, you start seeing things a certain way and you benefit from -- the democracy benefits, America benefits from some new perspectives.
And I think it should be not just the prerogative but the obligation of a new President to examine everything that’s been done and see what makes sense and what doesn’t. That’s what I did when I came in, and I’m assuming any new President is going to undertake those same exercises.
And given the importance of the relationship between the United States and China, given how much is at stake in terms of the world economy, national security, our presence in the Asia Pacific, China’s increasing role in international affairs -- there’s probably no bilateral relationship that carries more significance and where there’s also the potential if that relationship breaks down or goes into a full-conflict mode, that everybody is worse off. So I think it’s fine for him to take a look at it.
What I’ve advised the President-elect is that across the board on foreign policy, you want to make sure that you’re doing it in a systematic, deliberate, intentional way. And since there’s only one President at a time, my advice to him has been that before he starts having a lot of interactions with foreign governments other than the usual courtesy calls, that he should want to have his full team in place, that he should want his team to be fully briefed on what’s gone on in the past and where the potential pitfalls may be, where the opportunities are, what we’ve learned from eight years of experience, so that as he’s then maybe taking foreign policy in a new direction, he’s got all the information to make good decisions and, by the way, that all of government is moving at the same time and singing from the same hymnal.
And with respect to China -- and let’s just take the example of Taiwan -- there has been a longstanding agreement, essentially, between China, the United States, and, to some degree, the Taiwanese, which is to not change the status quo. Taiwan operates differently than mainland China does. China views Taiwan as part of China, but recognizes that it has to approach Taiwan as an entity that has its own ways of doing things. The Taiwanese have agreed that as long as they’re able to continue to function with some degree of autonomy, that they won’t charge forward and declare independence.
And that status quo, although not completely satisfactory to any of the parties involved, has kept the peace and allowed the Taiwanese to be a pretty successful economy and a people who have a high degree of self-determination. But understand, for China, the issue of Taiwan is as important as anything on their docket. The idea of one China is at the heart of their conception as a nation.
And so if you are going to upend this understanding, you have to have thought through what the consequences are, because the Chinese will not treat that the way they’ll treat some other issues. They won’t even treat it the way they treat issues around the South China Sea, where we’ve had a lot of tensions. This goes to the core of how they see themselves. And their reaction on this issue could end up being very significant.
That doesn’t mean that you have to adhere to everything that’s been done in the past. It does mean that you’ve got to think it through and have planned for potential reactions that they may engage in.
All right. Isaac Dovere of Politico.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Two questions on where this all leaves us.
THE PRESIDENT: What leaves us? Where my presidency leaves us?
Q The election --
THE PRESIDENT: It leaves us in a really good spot -- (laughter) -- if we make some good decisions going forward.
Q Well, what do you say to the electors who are going to meet on Monday and are thinking of changing their votes? Do you think that they should be given an intelligence briefing about the Russian activity? Or should they bear in mind everything you’ve said and is out already? Should they -- should votes be bound by the state votes as they’ve gone? And long term, do you think that there is a need for Electoral College reform that would tie it to the popular vote?
THE PRESIDENT: It sounded like two, but that was all one. (Laughter.)
Q It was all one. (Laughter.) You know the way this goes around here.
THE PRESIDENT: I love how these -- I got two questions, each one has four parts. (Laughter.)
Q On the Democratic Party, your Labor Secretary is running to be the Chair of the Democratic National Committee. Is the vision that you’ve seen him putting forward what you think the party needs to be focused on? And what do you say to some of the complaints that say the future of the Democratic Party shouldn’t be a continuation of some of your political approach? Part of that is complaints that decisions that you’ve made as President, as the leader of the party, have structurally weakened the DNC and the Democratic Party, and they think that that has led to -- or has helped lead to some losses in elections around the country. Do you regret any of those decisions?
THE PRESIDENT: Okay.
Q Those are my two. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: Good. I’ll take the second one first and say that Tom Perez has been, I believe, one of the best secretaries of labor in our history. He is tireless. He is wicked smart. He has been able to work across the spectrum of labor, business, activists. He’s produced. I mean, if you look at his body of work on behalf of working people, what he’s pushed for in terms of making sure that workers get a fair deal, decent wages, better benefits, that their safety is protected on the job -- he has been extraordinary.
Now, others who have declared are also my friends and are fine people, as well. And the great thing is, I don’t have a vote in this, so we’ll let the process unfold. I don’t think it’s going to happen anytime soon. I described to you earlier what I think needs to happen, which is that the Democratic Party, whether that’s entirely through the DNC or through a rebuilding of state parties or some other arrangement, has to work at the grassroots level, has to be present in all 50 states, has to have a presence in counties, has to think about message and how are we speaking directly to voters.
I will say this -- and I’m not going to engage in too much punditry -- but that I could not be prouder of the coalition that I put together in each of my campaigns because it was inclusive, and it drew in people who normally weren’t interested in politics and didn’t participate. But I’d like to think -- I think I can show that in those elections, I always cast a broad net. I always said, first and foremost we’re Americans, that we have a common creed, that there’s more that we share than divides us, and I want to talk to everybody and get a chance to get everybody’s vote.
I still believe what I said in 2004, which is this red state/blue thing is a construct. Now, it is a construct that has gotten more and more powerful for a whole lot of reasons, from gerrymandering to big money, to the way that media has splintered. And so people are just watching what reinforces their existing biases as opposed to have to listen to different points of view. So there are all kinds of reasons for it.
But outside of the realm of electoral politics, I still see people the way I saw them when I made that speech -- full of contradictions, and there are some regional differences, but basically folks care about their families, they care about having meaningful work, they care about making sure their kids have more opportunity than they did. They want to be safe, they want to feel like things are fair. And whoever leads the DNC and any candidate with the Democratic brand going forward, I want them to feel as if they can reach out and find that common ground -- speak to all of America. And that requires some organization.
And you’re right that -- and I said this in my earlier remarks -- that what I was able to do during my campaigns, I wasn’t able to do during midterms. It’s not that we didn’t put in time and effort into it. I spent time and effort into it, but the coalition I put together didn’t always turn out to be transferable. And the challenge is that -- you know, some of that just has to do with the fact that when you’re in the party in power and people are going through hard times like they were in 2010, they’re going to punish, to some degree, the President’s party regardless of what organizational work is done.
Some of it has to do with just some deep-standing traditional challenges for Democrats, like during off-year election, the electorate is older and we do better with a younger electorate. But we know those things are true, and I didn’t crack the code on that. And if other people have ideas about how to do that even better, I’m all for it.
So with respect to the electors, I’m not going to wade into that issue because, again, it’s the American people’s job, and now the electors' job to decide my successor. It is not my job to decide my successor. And I have provided people with a lot of information about what happened during the course of the election. But more importantly, the candidates themselves, I think, talked about their beliefs and their vision for America. The President-elect, I think, has been very explicit about what he cares about and what he believes in. So it’s not in my hands now; it’s up to them.
Q What about long-term about the Electoral College?
THE PRESIDENT: Long-term with a respect to the Electoral College -- the Electoral College is a vestige, it’s a carryover from an earlier vision of how our federal government was going to work that put a lot of premium on states, and it used to be that the Senate was not elected directly, it was through state legislatures. And it’s the same type of thinking that gives Wyoming two senators with about half a million people, and California with 33 million get the same two.
So there are some structures in our political system, as envisioned by the Founders, that sometimes are going to disadvantage Democrats. But the truth of the matter is, is that, if we have a strong message, if we’re speaking to what the American people care about, typically the popular vote and the Electoral College vote will align.
And I guess part of my overall message here as I leave for the holidays is that if we look for one explanation or one silver bullet or one easy fix for our politics, then we’re probably going to be disappointed. There are just a lot of factors in what’s happened not just over the last few months, but over the last decade that has made both politics and governance more challenging. And I think everybody has raised legitimate questions and legitimate concerns.
I do hope that we all just take some time, take a breath -- this is certainly what I’m going to advise Democrats -- to just reflect a little bit more about how can we get to a place where people are focused on working together based on at least some common set of facts. How can we have a conversation about policy that doesn’t demonize each other. How can we channel what I think is the basic decency and goodness of the American people so it reflects itself in our politics, as opposed to it being so polarized and so nasty that, in some cases, you have voters and elected officials who have more confidence and faith in a foreign adversary than they have in their neighbors.
And those go to some bigger issues. How is it that we have some voters or some elected officials who think that Michelle Obama’s healthy eating initiative and school nutrition program is a great threat to democracy than our government going after the press if they’re issuing a story they don’t like? I mean, that’s an issue that I think we’ve got to wrestle with -- and we will.
People have asked me how do you feel after the election and so forth, and I say, well, look, this is a clarifying moment. It’s a useful reminder that voting counts, politics counts. What the President-elect is going to be doing is going to be very different than what I was doing, and I think people will be able to compare and contrast and make judgments about what worked for the American people.
And I hope that, building off the progress we’ve made, that what the President-elect is proposing works. What I can say with confidence is that what we’ve done works. That I can prove. I can show you where we were in 2008 and I can show you where we are now, and you can’t argue that we’re not better off. We are. And for that, I thank the American people and, more importantly, I thank -- well, not more importantly -- as importantly -- I was going to say Josh Earnest for doing such a great job. (Laughter.) For that, I thank the American people. I thank the men and women in uniform who serve. I haven’t gotten to the point yet where I’ve been overly sentimental.
I will tell you, when I was doing my last Christmas party photoline -- many of you have participated in these; they’re pretty long -- right at the end of the line, the President’s Marine Corps Band comes in, those who had been performing, and I take a picture when them, and it was the last time that I was going to take a picture with my Marine Corps Band after an event, and I got a little choked up. Now, I was in front of Marines, so I had to, like, tamp it down.
But it was just one small example of all the people who have contributed to our success. I’m responsible for where we’ve screwed up. The successes are widely shared with all the amazing people who have been part of this administration.
Thank you, everybody. Mele Kalikimaka.
END
4:06 P.M. EST
[for a few more days at] https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/12/16/press-conference-president
*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dfh342F96fs [at the time of this post, the video is there despite the lack of a cover image, just click on it to start it; the press conference begins at c. the 30:00 mark; with comments] [official White House upload for a few more days at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkRLXgwye7g (with comments)]
--
FBI agrees with CIA assessment that Russia meddled in the US election to help Trump win
Dec. 16, 2016
http://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-cia-russia-trump-2016-12
*
FBI Now Backs CIA Assessment That Russia Deliberately Tipped The Election In Favor Of Trump
12/16/2016 Updated December 16, 2016
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fbi-russia-hack-obama_us_585433c4e4b0b3ddfd8c5b05 [with embedded video, and comments]
--
Is Donald Trump a Threat to Democracy?
Jennifer Heuer
By STEVEN LEVITSKY and DANIEL ZIBLATT
DEC. 16, 2016
Donald J. Trump’s election has raised a question that few Americans ever imagined asking: Is our democracy in danger? With the possible exception of the Civil War, American democracy has never collapsed; indeed, no democracy as rich or as established as America’s ever has. Yet past stability is no guarantee of democracy’s future survival.
We have spent two decades studying the emergence and breakdown of democracy in Europe and Latin America. Our research points to several warning signs.
The clearest warning sign is the ascent of anti-democratic politicians into mainstream politics. Drawing on a close study of democracy’s demise in 1930s Europe, the eminent political scientist Juan J. Linz designed a “litmus test” to identify anti-democratic politicians. His indicators include a failure to reject violence unambiguously, a readiness to curtail rivals’ civil liberties, and the denial of the legitimacy of elected governments.
Mr. Trump tests positive. In the campaign, he encouraged violence among supporters; pledged to prosecute Hillary Clinton; threatened legal action against unfriendly media; and suggested that he might not accept the election results.
This anti-democratic behavior has continued since the election. With the false claim that he lost the popular vote because of “millions of people who voted illegally,” Mr. Trump openly challenged the legitimacy of the electoral process. At the same time, he has been remarkably dismissive of United States intelligence agencies’ reports of Russian hacking to tilt the election in his favor.
Mr. Trump is not the first American politician with authoritarian tendencies. (Other notable authoritarians include Gov. Huey Long of Louisiana and Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin.) But he is the first in modern American history to be elected president. This is not necessarily because Americans have grown more authoritarian (the United States electorate has always had an authoritarian streak). Rather it’s because the institutional filters that we assumed would protect us from extremists, like the party nomination system and the news media, failed.
Many Americans are not overly concerned about Mr. Trump’s authoritarian inclinations because they trust our system of constitutional checks and balances to constrain him.
Yet the institutional safeguards protecting our democracy may be less effective than we think. A well-designed constitution is not enough to ensure a stable democracy — a lesson many Latin American independence leaders learned when they borrowed the American constitutional model in the early 19th century, only to see their countries plunge into chaos.
Democratic institutions must be reinforced by strong informal norms. Like a pickup basketball game without a referee, democracies work best when unwritten rules of the game, known and respected by all players, ensure a minimum of civility and cooperation. Norms serve as the soft guardrails of democracy, preventing political competition from spiraling into a chaotic, no-holds-barred conflict.
Among the unwritten rules that have sustained American democracy are partisan self-restraint and fair play. For much of our history, leaders of both parties resisted the temptation to use their temporary control of institutions to maximum partisan advantage, effectively underutilizing the power conferred by those institutions. There existed a shared understanding, for example, that anti-majoritarian practices like the Senate filibuster would be used sparingly, that the Senate would defer (within reason) to the president in nominating Supreme Court justices, and that votes of extraordinary importance — like impeachment — required a bipartisan consensus. Such practices helped to avoid a descent into the kind of partisan fight to the death that destroyed many European democracies in the 1930s.
Yet norms of partisan restraint have eroded in recent decades. House Republicans’ impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1998 abandoned the idea of bipartisan consensus on impeachment. The filibuster, once a rarity, has become a routine tool of legislative obstruction. As the political scientists Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein have shown, the decline of partisan restraint has rendered our democratic institutions increasingly dysfunctional. Republicans’ 2011 refusal to raise the debt ceiling, which put America’s credit rating at risk for partisan gain, and the Senate’s refusal this year to consider President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee — in essence, allowing the Republicans to steal a Supreme Court seat — offer an alarming glimpse at political life in the absence of partisan restraint.
Norms of presidential restraint are also at risk. The Constitution’s ambiguity regarding the limits of executive authority can tempt presidents to try and push those limits. Although executive power has expanded in recent decades, it has ultimately been reined in by the prudence and self-restraint of our presidents.
Unlike his predecessors, Mr. Trump is a serial norm-breaker. There are signs that Mr. Trump seeks to diminish the news media’s traditional role by using Twitter, video messages and public rallies to circumvent the White House press corps and communicate directly with voters — taking a page out of the playbook of populist leaders like Silvio Berlusconi in Italy, Hugo Chávez in Venezuela and Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey.
An even more basic norm under threat today is the idea of legitimate opposition. In a democracy, partisan rivals must fully accept one another’s right to exist, to compete and to govern. Democrats and Republicans may disagree intensely, but they must view one another as loyal Americans and accept that the other side will occasionally win elections and lead the country. Without such mutual acceptance, democracy is imperiled. Governments throughout history have used the claim that their opponents are disloyal or criminal or a threat to the nation’s way of life to justify acts of authoritarianism.
The idea of legitimate opposition has been entrenched in the United States since the early 19th century, disrupted only by the Civil War. That may now be changing, however, as right-wing extremists increasingly question the legitimacy of their liberal rivals. During the last decade, Ann Coulter wrote best-selling books describing liberals as traitors, and the “birther” movement questioned President Obama’s status as an American.
Such extremism, once confined to the political fringes, has now moved into the mainstream. In 2008, the Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin linked Barack Obama to terrorism. This year, the Republican Party nominated a birther as its presidential candidate. Mr. Trump’s campaign centered on the claim that Hillary Clinton was a criminal who should be in jail; and “Lock her up!” was chanted at the Republican National Convention. In other words, leading Republicans — including the president-elect — endorsed the view that the Democratic candidate was not a legitimate rival.
The risk we face, then, is not merely a president with illiberal proclivities — it is the election of such a president when the guardrails protecting American democracy are no longer as secure.
American democracy is not in imminent danger of collapse. If ordinary circumstances prevail, our institutions will most likely muddle through a Trump presidency. It is less clear, however, how democracy would fare in a crisis. In the event of a war, a major terrorist attack or large-scale riots or protests — all of which are entirely possible — a president with authoritarian tendencies and institutions that have come unmoored could pose a serious threat to American democracy. We must be vigilant. The warning signs are real.
Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt are professors of government at Harvard University.
© 2016 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/16/opinion/sunday/is-donald-trump-a-threat-to-democracy.html [with comments]
*
OUTRAGEOUS! New York Times Says Trump Is A Threat To Democracy
Published on Dec 16, 2016 by The Alex Jones Channel
http://www.infowars.com/nyt-claims-trump-a-threat-to-democracy/ [just above]
The New York Times, owned by anti-Trump billionaire Carlos Slim, has advised Americans to remain vigilant because President-elect Donald Trump is a “threat” to our Democratic system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQ_FD2x_lQs [with comments]
--
President-Elect Donald Trump 'thank you' rally in Orlando
Streamed live on Dec 16, 2016 by FOX 5 Atlanta [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjHWv2DU5-HLpogAAr386DQ , http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjHWv2DU5-HLpogAAr386DQ/videos ]
President-Elect Donald Trump and VP-Elect Mike Pence hold 'thank you' rally at the Orlando Amphitheater located in the Central Florida Fairgrounds. MORE: http://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/224144209-story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBWKNUKbiII [Scott's bald bladder-emptying begins at c. the 1:09:45 mark; Pence's brokeback babble begins at c. the 1:12:20 mark; Trump's performance begins at c. the 1:17:45 mark; with comments]
--
Not a Jew? J Street president responds
All In with Chris Hayes
12/16/16
Jeremy Ben-Ami on Trump's far right pick for Ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, who says Ben-Ami is not really Jewish. Duration: 4:08
Read Peter Beinart and you'll vote Donald Trump
His reflexive reaction to my involvement in the Trump candidacy lays bare how dangerous the Jewish left is to the State of Israel.
David Friedman [ http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Author.aspx/1405 ]
06/05/16
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/18828 [with comments]
David Friedman, Trump's Ambassador to Israel, on the Issues
David M. Friedman, left, accompanies Donald J. Trump and his daughter Ivanka after an appearance in Federal Bankruptcy Court in 2010.
DEC. 16, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/16/world/middleeast/David-Friedman-Israel-Palestinians-Trump-quotes.html
Trump Chooses Hard-Liner as Ambassador to Israel
DEC. 15, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/us/politics/donald-trump-david-friedman-israel-ambassador.html [with comments]
David Friedman, Choice for Envoy to Israel, Is Hostile to Two-State Efforts
DEC. 16, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/16/world/middleeast/david-friedman-us-ambassador-israel.html
A Dangerous Choice for Ambassador to Israel
Editorial
DEC. 16, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/16/opinion/a-dangerous-choice-for-ambassador-to-israel.html [with comments]
Trump’s Daily Bankruptcy and the Ambassador to Israel
December 16, 2016
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trump_daily_bankruptcy_israel_ambassador_david_friedman
Analysis // David Friedman, Trump's Radical-right Ambassador, Makes Netanyahu Look Like a J Street Lefty
It’s a good thing ambassador-designate David Friedman will have diplomatic immunity; otherwise he might get arrested [in Israel] for incitement.
Dec 17, 2016
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.759443 [with comments]
© 2016 NBCnews.com
http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/not-a-jew-j-street-president-responds-835440707892 [the above YouTube of the segment for the moment at least at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toparuetBAg (no comments yet)]
*
Absurd conspiracy? Trump has a job for you!
The Rachel Maddow Show
12/16/16
Rachel Maddow reminds viewers of one more the more ridiculous Barack Obama conspiracy theories his opponents have presented is that he is secretly not black, and notes that one adherent of that theory, Fox News contributor Monica Crowley, will be a will be a deputy national security adviser to Donald Trump. Duration: 3:26
Yet Another Donald Trump Pick Has A Habit Of Spreading Dangerous Conspiracy Theories
A history of peddling debunked theories won’t guarantee you a spot in Trumpland — but it apparently doesn’t hurt.
12/16/2016 Updated December 16, 2016
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-national-security-monica-crowley_us_58542a74e4b08debb788afc4 [with embedded video, and comments]
© 2016 NBCnews.com
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/absurd-conspiracist-trump-has-a-job-for-you-835509827604 [the above YouTube of the segment for the moment at least at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhmPEoeL-tU (no comments yet), others for the moment at least at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoh6ykRRXUY (no comments yet), and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saCCuMPORJk (no comments yet)]
--
Five Weeks From Today, Donald Trump Will Be Our President
Published on Dec 17, 2016 by The Late Show with Stephen Colbert
No one knows quite what to expect. Will he divest his businesses? Will state dinners be replaced with Happy Meals?
[originally aired December 16. 2016]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zo6aRvf-l_s [with comments]
--
FULL EVENT : Donald Trump THANK YOU Rally in Mobile, Alabama 12 17 2016 Trump Live Mobile Speech
Published on Dec 17, 2016 by [Asian-language characters which won't display correctly in a post] [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZwhdyySh7EcFplA6Vll9Dw , http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZwhdyySh7EcFplA6Vll9Dw/videos ]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7J04_t3QZg [the openly, gleefully Christo-fascist festivities commence at c. the 1:28:00 mark; Franklin Graham's blaming God for Trump begins at c. the 2:14:35 mark; Kellyanne Conway's version of Fractured Fairy Tales begins at c. the 2:40:25 mark; Trump's performance begins at c. the 2:46:55 mark; Jeff Sessions's typical dazed batshit mumbling, during Trump's performance, begins at c. the 2:57:40 mark; Conway's second recital, with a cameo by Hope Hicks, also during Trump's performance, begins at c. the 3:12:45 mark; no comments yet] [also at e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MXukUOX-js (with comment), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxxQTopzBXE (no comments yet), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5iT12lq-sU (no comments yet), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4QvSo08izg (many ads; no comments yet), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Riph4NCx_U0 (many ads; with comments), and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcmcv4EDSNc (many ads; with comments)]
--
Donald Trump Christmas Cold Open - SNL
Published on Dec 18, 2016 by Saturday Night Live [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqFzWxSCi39LnW1JKFR3efg / http://www.youtube.com/user/SaturdayNightLive , http://www.youtube.com/user/SaturdayNightLive/videos ]
President-elect Donald Trump (Alec Baldwin) receives a surprise visit from Vladimir Putin (Beck Bennett) and Rex Tillerson (John Goodman).
[originally aired December 17, 2016]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ar80sFzViw [with comments]
*
Christmas Miracle - SNL
Published on Dec 18, 2016 by Saturday Night Live
Ms. Rafferty (Kate McKinnon), Sharon (Cecily Strong) and Doug (Casey Affleck) share their experiences meeting Santa Claus.
[originally aired December 17, 2016 (U.S. central time)]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lo8ZgNws504 [with comments]
*
Jingle Barack - SNL
Published on Dec 18, 2016 by Saturday Night Live
It's the last Christmas with President Obama and even Jesus (Casey Affleck) is marking it.
[originally aired December 17, 2016 (U.S. central time)]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTgGNNpEvkw [with comments]
*
Hillary Actually - SNL
Published on Dec 18, 2016 by Saturday Night Live
This Christmas, Hillary Clinton (Kate McKinnon) has something she wants to get off her chest.
[originally aired December 17, 2016 (U.S. central time)]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAhF8tPqafQ [with comments]
--
Infowars Under Massive Attack By Swarming Net-Bots.
Published on Dec 18, 2016 by The Alex Jones Channel
A massive attack that has been traced back to Chinese hackers is underway on all of Infowars websites including our stores at this very crucial time. they know that this is the time of the year when we make the majority of our funds to run the operation. They are seeking to cripple us by hitting us in the pocketbook and drain our resources. Sign up to our newsletter at infowars.com/newsletter and if you are having trouble reaching our store go to our backup store at store.infowars.com and show them that we won't be intimidated by shadowy, cowardly attacks as we stand up for truth and liberty!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95cyRkBDqUo [with comments]
--
2016 National Popular Vote Tracker
currently:
Clinton 65,844,594 48.2%
Trump 62,979,616 46.1%
http://cookpolitical.com/story/10174
--
in addition to (linked in) the post to which this is a reply and preceding and (any future other) following, see also (linked in):
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127252590 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127252649 and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127253879 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127254094 and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127255746 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127258652 and preceding (and any future following),
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127258910 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127258434 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127260661 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127260810 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127260925 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127262755 and preceding (and any future following),
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127266942 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127270026 and preceding (and any future following),
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127270109 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127270249 and preceding (and any future following),
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127271135 and preceding (and any future following),
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127272460 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127275916 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127263566 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127263791 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127263945 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127264202 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127265373 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127267265 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127274846 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127275921 and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127276033 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127276129 (and any future following)
Andrea Mitchell Reports
12/14/16
Trump touts State Department pick Rex Tillerson for his "friendship with countries we don't get along with." Amb. Mike McFaul says that business relationship may not work for state affairs. Duration: 5:30
©2016 NBCNews.com
http://www.msnbc.com/andrea-mitchell-reports/watch/ex-russian-minister-tillerson-absolutely-a-gift-for-putin-833008195977 , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDlKOP-ughk [with comments]
--
Full Show - Breaking: Obama Launching Coup To Install Hillary - 12/14/2016
Published on Dec 14, 2016 by The Alex Jones Channel [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg / http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel , http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel/videos ]
On this jam-packed Wednesday, Dec. 14 edition of the Alex Jones Show [with Roger Stone hosting the fourth hour with E. Howard Hunt's son Saint John as his guest], we break down a warning from Swedish officials to cities telling them to prepare for war as the migrant crisis spirals out of control. And it's that time of the year again when liberals are triggered by Christmas; this time a college campus claims the term “Holiday” parties is now not politically correct enough. Today we'll hear from guests such as comedian and former Fox contributor Steven Crowder, Clinton insider Larry Nichols, and Pastor David Manning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skeo2uA5IhA [with comments] [also at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_D_tg75mcY&t=349s (text taken from; with comments)]
--
The White House Press Corps Should Prepare For Big Changes Under Donald Trump
Incoming Chief of Staff Reince Priebus indicated changes are coming to the White House press corps.
“The traditions, while some of them are great, I think it’s time to revisit a lot of these things,” says incoming Chief of Staff Reince Priebus.
12/14/2016 Updated December 14, 2016
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/white-house-press-corps-donald-trump-reince-priebus_us_58516fb2e4b0e411bfd4b338 [with comments]
*
Chris Christie-Backed Bill Would Devastate Newspapers That Hold His Feet To The Fire
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and the local press have a testy relationship.
It could “wipe out hundreds of watchdogs,” one paper warns.
12/14/2016
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/chris-christie-newspaper-bill-public-notices_us_585175f5e4b0ee009eb4c5f4 [with comments]
--
Vladimir Putin’s Popularity Is Skyrocketing Among Republicans
According to a YouGov/Economist poll, Russian President Vladimir Putin is more popular among Republicans than Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and many other high-profile politicians.
The guy is accused of manipulating U.S. politics and enabling the killing in Aleppo, and his favorability rating goes up. Seriously?
12/14/2016
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/vladimir-putin-popularity-republicans_us_58518a3ce4b092f08686bd6e [with comments]
*
An Alt-Right Makeover Shrouds the Swastikas
Matthew Heimbach, who runs the Traditionalist Worker Party, at home in Paoli, Ind., with his son and wife. His group advocates replacing the United States with nation-states based on ethnicity and religion.
Ty Wright for The New York Times
A movement of many factions is trying to change its image now that its profile has risen, but its message — one of racial separation and supremacy — is unchanged.
By SERGE F. KOVALESKI, JULIE TURKEWITZ, JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN and DAN BARRY
DEC. 10, 2016
A small but determined political organization in Detroit began to worry that its official symbol was a bit off-putting. With the group’s central philosophy suddenly finding traction in the daily discourse, appearances mattered.
So in November, as the country’s divisive presidential campaign became ever more jagged, the National Socialist Movement [ https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/national-socialist-movement ], a leading neo-Nazi group, did away with its swastika. In its stead, the group chose a symbol [ http://www.adl.org/combating-hate/hate-on-display/c/othala-rune.html ] from a pre-Roman alphabet that was also adopted by the Nazis.
According to Jeff Schoep, the movement’s leader, the decision to dispense with the swastika was “an attempt to become more integrated and more mainstream.”
Let us pause. Not even two years ago, white supremacists like Mr. Schoep would rant from the fringe of the fringe, their attention-desperate events rarely worth mention. Today, though, the Schoeps of America are undergoing a rebranding, as part of the so-called alt-right: a grab bag of far-right groups generally united by the belief that white identity has become endangered in what they deride as this era of dangerous diversity and political correctness.
The deceptively benign phrase “alt-right” now peppers the national conversation, often in ways that play down its fundamental beliefs, which have long been considered intolerant and hateful. The term’s recent prevalence corresponds with the rise of President-elect Donald J. Trump; alt-right leaders say his inflammatory statements and Twitter habits in the campaign energized, even validated, their movement.
Nathan Damigo, who oversees Identity Evropa, a group that he described as a white nationalist “fraternity,” working on a college paper in Sonora, Calif.
Max Whittaker for The New York Times
The movement is also acutely image-conscious, seeing the burning crosses, swastikas and language of yesteryear as impediments to recruitment. Its adherents talk of “getting red-pilled,” a reference to the movie “The Matrix,” in which the protagonist ingests a tablet that melts away artifice to reveal the truth. New, coded slurs have emerged. Fewer pointed hoods, more khaki pants.
But the alt-right movement is hardly monolithic, despite a well-publicized gathering [ https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/alt-right-salutes-donald-trump.html ] last month in Washington — one that might have been mistaken for just another corporate conference were it not for the white-nationalist sentiments and the Nazi salutes. The factions within its ranks can differ on any number of subjects: white supremacy versus white nationalism, for example, or the vexing “J.Q.” — the “Jewish Question.”
James Edwards, a far-right talk radio host who describes himself as a “European-American advocate” — and who interviewed [ http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-extremists-idUSMTZSAPEC33G5QT8C ] the president-elect’s son Donald Trump Jr. this year — wrote in an email that the alt-right movement was “a group of marauding conservatives who reject both the failures of establishment conservatism and the false gods of political correctness.”
Race is the uniting factor, Mr. Edwards wrote. “One fundamental element of the Alt-Right that brings the disparate factions together is the awareness of the reality of race and the need for European Americans to have organizations and spokespeople that explicitly advocate for our unique group interests.”
For many years, the mix-and-match gaggle now called the alt-right existed in the shadowed alleys of American culture, sharing views through newsletters, online radio and crude websites. The news media often debated whether to cover their sparsely attended rallies, considering that any attention might grant the groups a veneer of legitimacy.
Mr. Damigo in his car in Sonora. He is aware of the importance of marketing for the alt-right movement.
Max Whittaker for The New York Times
Andrew Anglin, the founder of the neo-Nazi, alt-right website The Daily Stormer, described the current moment in a recent essay as “a reboot of the White Nationalist movement” — one infused with youthful energy. The foot soldiers of the movement are not old white supremacists marching under a new banner, Mr. Anglin explained, but a mostly younger generation drawn from various online cultures, including conspiracy theorists and that misogynistic stratum of the internet known as the “manosphere.”
Then came Mr. Trump, whose opening gambit as a presidential candidate included his promise to build a wall to keep out Mexican immigrants, whom he called rapists and criminals. The alt-right raised its collective head to listen.
“I’d been waiting to hear those words from a mainstream political candidate all my life,” said Gerald Martin, a retired public-school teacher from Dallas who grew up in a family that opposed desegregation.
He is a veteran of both the Army and a number of white supremacist movements, and name-drops the likes of William Luther Pierce III, a white supremacist who wrote “The Turner Diaries,” a novel about an underground band of white Americans who fight a liberty-crushing government controlled by Jews.
Before the Trump candidacy, Mr. Martin said, few in the alt-right were talking about politics; the movement was more about winning the battle of ideas. But once Mr. Trump began to talk, he said, “suddenly we’re all talking politics and we’re politically energized.”
Jared Taylor, the editor of the white nationalist publication American Renaissance, walking his daughter to the bus stop in Oakton, Va.
Greg Kahn for The New York Times
“We’re almost intoxicated,” Mr. Martin continued. “We don’t have any power — but now we’re close enough to smell it.”
Perhaps in another age, any candidate’s engagement with white supremacists and separatists would have resulted in an awkward news conference announcing the end of his campaign. But this is a new age, in which Mr. Trump went unscathed for engaging with Twitter users like WhiteGenocideTM, who listed his location as “Jewmerica” and used an image of the founder of the American Nazi Party as his Twitter profile’s photograph.
Mr. Trump brushed off his sharing of alt-right messages on social media as inconsequential — the sort of thing that just happens on Twitter. He also denied at one point the existence of any alt-right movement.
“Nobody even knows what it is,” he told CNN in August. “This is a term that was just given that — frankly, there’s no alt-right or alt-left.”
As if to clarify matters, members of the alt-right movement gathered in Washington about two weeks after Mr. Trump’s election for a conference sponsored by the National Policy Institute, an organization that describes itself as being “dedicated to the heritage, identity and future of people of European descent.” Its president, Richard B. Spencer, 38, is a prominent alt-right leader who wears his brown hair in an undercut style once popular among the Hitler Youth. It’s called a “fashy,” as in fascist.
Mr. Heimbach’s wife, Brooke, playing with their son, Nicholas, at home.
Ty Wright for The New York Times
Mr. Spencer said in an interview that as he saw it, the principles of American conservatism throughout most of the 20th century had been wrongly defined within the context of capitalism and its ideological battle with communism. The matter of European identity, he said, was assumed, but never stated outright.
“Race is real,” he said. “Race matters. Race is the foundation of identity.”
Not everyone in the movement appreciated the moment at the end of the conference when some in the audience raised stiffened arms, echoing the Nazi salute. Discussions afterward reflected the divisions in the loosely aligned ranks, as well as an acute awareness of public perception and the need to make their messages somehow more palatable.
Paul Ramsey, a blogger and retired computer programmer in Oklahoma, generally follows an alt-right ideology, though he said he did not believe in a white ethno-state. He said he had long feared a hijacking of the movement by the “neo-Nazi/K.K.K. element,” which would lead to vilification and a relegation back to the fringe.
Those salutes confirmed his fears, Mr. Ramsey said, and he is now disassociating from the alt-right movement, even though he understands that Mr. Spencer may believe in a big-tent, all-publicity-is-good philosophy.
“The new Nazism is very demonized and toxic, and associating your brand with that is crazy,” he said.
Gerald Martin, a retired teacher, decorating his home in Dallas last week for Christmas. Mr. Martin said President-elect Donald J. Trump’s ascent had “politically energized” the alt-right.
Brandon Thibodeaux for The New York Times
Mr. Martin, the retired teacher, who attended the conference, also didn’t care for the Nazi-like salutes, calling them “very foolish.” But he suggested that most of those raising their arms were using the salute as “their version of the middle finger” — a defiant gesture “to the media, to the Trump haters, to everybody they feel alienated from.”
Indeed, the movement has the feel of a dispossessed youth rising up. Hours of interviews with young alt-right leaders suggest a pattern toward their white-nationalist radicalization. Seeing domestic and global strife often rooted in racial and ethnic differences. Finding validation from like-minded people on the internet. Hearing a major presidential candidate echo their grievances.
“The political establishment has made an entire generation of young white men and women into fascists, and that’s a beautiful thing!” said Matthew Heimbach, 25, who runs the Traditionalist Worker Party out of his trailer in Indiana. His group advocates replacing the United States with nation-states based on races, ethnicities and religions.
In Northern California, a university student, felon and Marine veteran, Nathan Damigo, oversees a group called Identity Evropa, which he described as a “fraternity” of mostly young, college-educated men who celebrate European heritage — that is, an embrace of white identity and a rejection of multicultural coexistence.
Ever conscious of the importance of marketing, Mr. Damigo, 30, pointed out that Identity Evropa’s website “looks completely mainstreamed.” And it does, featuring men in business suits who also happen to be sporting the Hitler Youth-style haircut.
But for all the fresh approaches — the slick marketing, the internet savviness — the message remains the same. It is one of separation, of supremacy, of a refusal to recognize the equal worth of others who do not have the same skin tone or share the same religion.
The ascension of the alt-right has lifted some familiar names from the muck of the past, including David Duke, the white nationalist, Holocaust denier and former Louisiana state representative whose national profile has been resurrected.
When a reporter telephoned him recently to discuss the alt-right movement, Mr. Duke wasted little time with a question of his own: “Are you Jewish?”
Jack Begg contributed research.
Related Coverage
White Nationalists Celebrate ‘an Awakening’ After Donald Trump’s Victory
NOV. 19, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/us/politics/white-nationalists-celebrate-an-awakening-after-donald-trumps-victory.html
© 2016 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/10/us/alt-right-national-socialist-movement-white-supremacy.html
*
How a Putin Fan Overseas Pushed Pro-Trump Propaganda to Americans
James Dowson, a far-right political activist, ran a constellation of websites out of the United Kingdom.
Rex Features, via Associated Press
By MIKE McINTIRE
DEC. 17, 2016
The Patriot News Agency website popped up in July, soon after it became clear that Donald J. Trump [ http://www.nytimes.com/topic/person/donald-trump ] would win the Republican presidential nomination, bearing a logo of a red, white and blue eagle and the motto “Built by patriots, for patriots.”
Tucked away on a corner of the site, next to links for Twitter and YouTube, is a link to another social media platform that most Americans have never heard of: VKontakte, the Russian equivalent of Facebook [ http://www.nytimes.com/topic/company/facebook-inc ]. It is a clue that Patriot News, like many sites that appeared out of nowhere and pumped out pro-Trump hoaxes tying his opponent Hillary Clinton [ http://www.nytimes.com/topic/person/hillary-rodham-clinton ] to Satanism, pedophilia and other conspiracies, is actually run by foreigners based overseas.
But while most of those others seem be the work of young, apolitical opportunists cashing in on a conservative appetite for viral nonsense, operators of Patriot News had an explicitly partisan motivation: getting Mr. Trump elected.
Patriot News — whose postings were viewed and shared tens of thousands of times in the United States — is among a constellation of websites run out of the United Kingdom that are linked to James Dowson, a far-right political activist who advocated Britain [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/unitedkingdom/index.html ]’s exit from the European Union and is a fan of President Vladimir V. Putin [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/vladimir_v_putin/index.html ] of Russia [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/russiaandtheformersovietunion/index.html ]. A vocal proponent of Christian nationalist, anti-immigrant movements in Europe, Mr. Dowson, 52, has spoken at a conference [ https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/23/world/europe/right-wing-groups-find-a-haven-for-a-day-in-russia.html ] of far-right leaders in Russia and makes no secret of his hope that Mr. Trump will usher in an era of rapprochement with Mr. Putin.
His dabbling in the American presidential election adds an ideological element that has been largely missing from the still-emerging landscape of websites and Facebook pages that bombarded American voters with misinformation and propaganda. Far from the much-reported Macedonian teenagers running fake news factories solely for profit, Mr. Dowson made it his mission, according to messages posted on one of his sites, to “spread devastating anti-Clinton, pro-Trump memes and sound bites into sections of the population too disillusioned with politics to have taken any notice of conventional campaigning.”
An image from one of Mr. Dowson’s websites. He said his mission was to “spread devastating anti-Clinton, pro-Trump memes and sound bites.”
“Together [ http://knightstemplarinternational.com/2016/11/can-theres-place-kti-team-video/ ], people like us helped change the course of history,” one message said, adding in another: “Every single [ http://patriotnewsagency.com/2016/11/liberals-in-tears-following-devastating-hillary-defeat-thanks-to-all-of-you-who-helped-make-it-happen/ ] one of you who forwarded even just one of our posts on social media contributed to the stunning victory for Trump, America and God.”
In a recent email interview from Belgrade, where he has met with Serbian nationalists, Mr. Dowson explained how his decision to establish an American social media presence was similar to the move into European markets by Breitbart News, the conservative provocateur media operation run by Stephen K. Bannon, Mr. Trump’s chief strategist.
“Simple truth is that after 40 years of the right having no voice because the media was owned by the enemy, we were FORCED to become incredibly good at alternative media in a way the left simply can’t grasp or handle,” Mr. Dowson said. “Bottom line is: BREXIT, TRUMP and much more to follow.”
While it is easy to overstate the influence of fringe elements whose overall numbers remain very small, the explosion of fake news and propaganda sites and their possible impact on the presidential election have ignited alarm across the American political spectrum. A recent study [ http://ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=7497 ] found that most people who read fabricated stories on Facebook — such as a widely circulated hoax about Pope Francis endorsing Mr. Trump — were inclined to believe them.
Then there is the added element of Russian meddling. The Central Intelligence Agency has concluded that Moscow put its thumb on the scale for Mr. Trump through the release of hacked Democratic emails, which provided fodder for many of the most pernicious false attacks on Mrs. Clinton on social media.
Some of those attacks found a home on Russian websites such as the one for Katehon [ http://katehon.com/ ], a right-wing Christian think tank aligned with Mr. Putin. Katehon recirculated anti-Clinton conspiracies under headlines like “Bloody Hillary: 5 Mysterious Murders Linked to Clinton.”
Another Russian site that urged support for Mr. Trump, called “Just Trump It [ http://justtrumpit.us/ ],” is linked to the International Russian Conservative Forum, an annual gathering of far-right leaders in St. Petersburg that has featured Mr. Dowson, among others, as a speaker. The site, which seems mostly aimed at selling Trump T-shirts, was registered to an individual at a Russian company that trademarked a logo used to certify that merchandise was not made with migrant labor.
Some analysts see danger signs in the nexus of Russian interests and far-right agitators in Europe and the United States. Social media can amplify even the most obscure voices, giving them a stage from which to broadcast a distorted message to credulous audiences.
“These messages seep into the mainstream,” said Alina Polyakova, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council [ http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/ ], a nonpartisan international affairs institute in Washington. “They may have been extreme or fringe at one point in time, but they have been incredibly influential in shaping people’s views about key geopolitical events in a very specific direction.”
Russia is particularly adept at playing this game, Ms. Polyakova said. “Moscow specifically encourages and facilitates” the spreading of propaganda through proxies, she said, as well as through events like the Russian conservative forum, which showcases views and narratives favored by the Putin government.
At the inaugural forum in March 2015, Mr. Dowson praised Mr. Putin as a strong defender of traditional values, while belittling President Obama and the United States itself as “feminized men.” In the email interview, Mr. Dowson said he was not supported by Russia in any way, and he accused critics of trying to tar conservatives as dupes of Moscow.
Mr. Dowson spoke in 2015 at the International Russian Conservative Forum, a gathering of far-right leaders in St. Petersburg.
Ruslan Shamukov/TASS, via Newscom
“I look on this rebirth of McCarthy-type anti-Russian hysteria by the LEFT as a hilarious reaction born out of the left’s inability to realize THEY elected Trump, not me, not the Russians, not even the right,” he said via email.
A colorful if somewhat enigmatic figure in Britain — The Times of London recently described him [ http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/pastor-became-extremists-marketing-mastermind-nxls0lwhb ] as “the invisible man of Britain’s far right” — Mr. Dowson, at first blush, would not be an obvious mouthpiece for Russia.
Formerly a church minister in Northern Ireland and the father of nine, he became involved in anti-abortion campaigns, joined the British National Party in the mid-2000s and, later, founded Britain First, a stridently anti-immigrant group opposed to what it called a creeping Islamic threat to traditional British values. He publicly split with the group in 2014 after some of its leaders started invading mosques and threatening Muslims, which he criticized as un-Christian and counterproductive.
While involved with Britain First, Mr. Dowson made deft use of social media and websites to promote its work and convey the impression of a mass following. A British watchdog group called Hope Not Hate [ http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/ ], which has tracked Mr. Dowson’s online activities, concluded [ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/25/truth-britain-first-facebook-far-right-bnp ] that he has “a rather canny knack for building up protest groups and movements on the basis that it was your Christian duty to follow his work.”
Mr. Dowson claims to have reached millions of Americans across all of his online platforms in the run-up to the November presidential election, a number that could not be verified, in part, because he would not confirm all of his sites. Online visits to Patriot News [ http://patriotnewsagency.com/ ] did not come close to that, although when combined with several other sites that appear to be connected to Mr. Dowson, the total number edges above a million; most viewers were in Britain.
Whatever the precise numbers, there is little question that postings on the sites and Facebook pages linked to him were viewed and shared hundreds of thousands of times. Many of the postings appear to be lifted from other conspiracy websites, repackaged and launched back into the social media maelstrom. Another site that trafficked heavily in pro-Trump news was run by Knights Templar International [ http://knightstemplarinternational.com/ ], a militant religious group that Mr. Dowson is involved in, which has recently supported anti-immigrant militias patrolling border areas in Bulgaria and Hungary.
For Mr. Dowson, such activities are in keeping with his philosophy that traditional Christian values are under siege because of feckless leadership by America and European powers. The success of Mr. Trump, he said, is the logical result of voters’ rejection of the weakness of global elites.
Mr. Dowson has long been optimistic about the effectiveness of social media. During the 2015 conservative forum in Russia, he spoke presciently [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICR2Bu-AZ0g (next below; with comments)]
about the looming online battle for the attention of American voters.
“We have the ability to take a video from today and put it in half of every single household in the United States of America, where these people can for the first time learn the truth, because their own media tell lies, they tell lies about Russia,” Mr. Dowson said then.
“We have to use popular culture to reach into the living rooms of the youth of America, of Britain, France, Germany, and bring them in,” he said. “Then we can get them the message.”
Related Coverage
Inside a Fake News Sausage Factory: ‘This Is All About Income’
NOV. 25, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/world/europe/fake-news-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-georgia.html
As Fake News Spreads Lies, More Readers Shrug at the Truth
DEC. 6, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/us/fake-news-partisan-republican-democrat.html
The Perfect Weapon: How Russian Cyberpower Invaded the U.S.
DEC. 13, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html [in full at/see (linked in) http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127226550 and preceding and following]
© 2016 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/17/world/europe/russia-propaganda-elections.html [with comments]
*
North Carolina Just Gave Donald Trump a Strategy for Undermining Democracy
A protestor shouts as she is arrested outside the House gallery during a special session of the North Carolina General Assembly, Dec. 16, 2016 at the Legislative Building in Raleigh, N.C.
The outgoing Republican governor just crippled the incoming Democrat's powers
Dec. 16, 2016
[...]
The conservative extremists among us take advantage of our commitment to democracy in their efforts to undermine it. We express faith in democratic processes and institutions while they seek power by any means necessary. Their darker ambitions dim our brighter lights. And when we resist, they either condemn or dismiss or shout that we are betraying the country.
But the good folks in North Carolina—as they have battled in the streets, at the ballot box and in the courtroom—exposed the extremists for who and what they are. “This is what Herods do when their power is threatened by love and justice,” the Rev. Barber declared.
We must do the same with Donald Trump, by ignoring the empty appeals “to give him a chance” and fighting with everything we have. Or the extremists will win, and we will be locked up in our terrors.
http://time.com/4605453/north-carolina-pat-mccrory-governor-legislature/
--
Hamilton’s Plan to Keep Trump From Becoming President | The Resistance with Keith Olbermann | GQ
Published on Dec 14, 2016 by GQ [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsEukrAd64fqA7FjwkmZ_Dw / http://www.youtube.com/user/GQVideos , http://www.youtube.com/user/GQVideos/videos ]
The Electoral College was designed to prevent just this sort of emergency.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2ragMBCzPA [with comments]
--
Study: Abortion Doesnt Harm Womens Mental Health, but Denying One Does
The junk-science theory that abortion causes women psychological harm has emboldened a number of red states to enact laws restricting its access in the name of ‘women’s health.’ But a new study shows they’re actually doing harm.
12.14.16
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/12/14/study-abortion-doesn-t-harm-women-s-mental-health-but-denying-one-does.html
Women’s Mental Health and Well-being 5 Years After Receiving or Being Denied an Abortion
A Prospective, Longitudinal Cohort Study
December 14, 2016
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2592320
*
Threats at abortion clinics rise since Trump's election
A coalition of antiabortion protesters on Mott Street in New York City in front of Planned Parenthood
"You can't whip up a firestorm of hate and not think it has any consequences."
15 Dec 2016
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/15/abortion-providers-see-increased-threat-since-trumps-election.html [with embedded video]
--
Trump Grill Could Be the Worst Restaurant in America
The filet mignon came out overcooked and mealy, with an ugly strain of pure fat running through it, crying out for A.1. sauce. The plate must have tilted during its journey from the kitchen to the table, as the steak slumped to the side over the potatoes like a dead body inside a T-boned minivan. And Trump's Great America cheeseburger tastes like an M.S.G.-flavored kitchen sponge lodged between two other sponges.
And it reveals everything you need to know about our next president.
December 14, 2016
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/12/trump-grill-review
*
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Has anyone looked at the really poor numbers of @VanityFair Magazine. Way down, big trouble, dead! Graydon Carter, no talent, will be out!
5:05 AM - 15 Dec 2016
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/809383989018497024 [with comments]
--
U.S. Officials: Putin Personally Involved in U.S. Election Hack
Russian President Vladimir Putin (right), Krasnodar region Governor Alexander Tkachev (center) and ExxonMobil Chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson (left) in 2012.
Mikhail Klimentyev / Ria Novosti/EPA
by William M. Arkin, Ken Dilanian and Cynthia McFadden
EXCLUSIVE News
First Published Dec 14 2016, 6:31 pm ET
Updated Dec 15 2016, 7:43 am ET
U.S. intelligence officials now believe with "a high level of confidence" that Russian President Vladimir Putin became personally involved in the covert Russian campaign to interfere in the U.S. presidential election, senior U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News.
Two senior officials with direct access to the information say new intelligence shows that Putin personally directed how hacked material from Democrats was leaked and otherwise used. The intelligence came from diplomatic sources and spies working for U.S. allies, the officials said.
Putin's objectives were multifaceted, a high-level intelligence source told NBC News. What began as a "vendetta" against Hillary Clinton morphed into an effort to show corruption in American politics and to "split off key American allies by creating the image that [other countries] couldn't depend on the U.S. to be a credible global leader anymore," the official said.
Ultimately, the CIA has assessed, the Russian government wanted to elect Donald Trump. The FBI and other agencies don't fully endorse that view, but few officials would dispute that the Russian operation was intended to harm Clinton's candidacy by leaking embarrassing emails about Democrats.
The latest intelligence said to show Putin's involvement goes much further than the information the U.S. was relying on in October, when all 17 intelligence agencies signed onto a statement attributing the Democratic National Committee hack to Russia.
The statement said officials believed that "only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities." That was an intelligence judgment based on an understanding of the Russian system of government, which Putin controls with absolute authority.
Now the U.S has solid information tying Putin to the operation, the intelligence officials say. Their use of the term "high confidence" implies that the intelligence is nearly incontrovertible.
"It is most certainly consistent with the Putin that I have watched and used to work with when I was an ambassador and in the government," said Michael McFaul, who was ambassador to Russia from 2012 to 2014.
"He has had a vendetta against Hillary Clinton, that has been known for a long time because of what she said about his elections back in the parliamentary elections of 2011. He wants to discredit American democracy and make us weaker in terms of leading the liberal democratic order. And most certainly he likes President-elect Trump's views on Russia," McFaul added. Clinton cast doubt on the integrity of Russia's elections.
As part of contingency planning for potential retaliation against Russia, according to officials, U.S. intelligence agencies have stepped up their probing into his personal financial empire.
American officials have concluded that Putin's network controls some $85 billion worth of assets, officials told NBC News.
Neither the CIA nor the Office of the Director of National Intelligence would comment.
A former CIA official who worked on Russia told NBC News that it's not clear the U.S. can embarrass Putin, given that many Russians are already familiar with allegations he has grown rich through corruption and has ordered the killings of political adversaries.
But a currently serving U.S. intelligence official said that there are things Putin is sensitive about, including anything that makes him seem weak.
The former CIA official said the Obama administration may feel compelled to respond before it leaves office.
"This whole thing has heated up so much," he said. "I can very easily see them saying, `We can't just say wow, this was terrible and there's nothing we can do.'"
Related:
FBI and CIA agree: Russia’s operation intended to help Trump win
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/fbi-and-cia-agree-russias-operation-intended-help-trump-win
The genial transition from Obama to Trump gets a lot less friendly
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-genial-transition-obama-trump-gets-lot-less-friendly
Why Didn't Obama Do More About Russian Election Hack?
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/why-didnt-obama-do-more-about-russian-election-hack-n696701
Why the CIA Thinks Russia Wanted Trump to Win
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/why-cia-thinks-russia-wanted-trump-win-n695131
CIA Concludes Russia Mounted Hacks to Help Trump Win
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-team-dismisses-report-russians-hacking-was-help-trump-win-n694271
U.S. Intel Agencies Prepping Dossier to Prove Russian Hacks
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-intel-agencies-preparing-dossier-prove-russian-hacks-n694011
Trump Was Told Russia to Blame for Hacks Long Before First Debate
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-was-told-russia-was-blame-hacks-long-debate-n663686
Russia Hack of U.S. Politics Includes Republicans
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/russia-hack-u-s-politics-bigger-disclosed-includes-gop-n661866
Intelligence Agencies Distressed by Trump's Rejection of Findings on Russia
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/intelligence-agencies-distressed-trump-s-rejection-findings-russia-n694686
Mitch McConnell Condemns Russian Breaches of U.S. Political Organizations
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/sen-mcconnell-backs-senate-investigations-russian-breach-n694876%20
Hackers Target Election Systems in 20 States
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/red-alert-election-systems-20-states-targeted-hackers-n657036
©2016 NBCNews.com
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-officials-putin-personally-involved-u-s-election-hack-n696146 [with embedded videos, and (approaching 4,000) comments]
--
Breaking MSM Calls for Alex Jones To Be Taken Off The Air: Speech Banned [originally titled "The Crucifixion of Alex Jones"]
Published on Dec 15, 2016 by The Alex Jones Channel
You can see the original video here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsRHhu2nHZA
Alex Jones adds commentary to this epic 9 minute clip of Fake News media outlets around the country attacking him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGyspx8LzSs [with comments]
*
Full Show - MSM Jumps Shark With Fake Russian Hack Narrative - 12/15/2016
Published on Dec 15, 2016 by The Alex Jones Channel
On this Thursday, Dec. 15 edition of the Alex Jones Show [with Larry Nichols and Jon Rappoport], we break down the desperate attempt by anti-Trump lobbyists to openly steal the presidential election from Donald Trump by threatening electors who are bound to the will of the people. We also look into the latest health news for this holiday season with Dr. Edward Group. And we examine how Trump has already helping US manufacturing after years of sabotage by globalists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4ePxd8Wgk8 [with comments]
*
Ageing process may be reversible, scientists claim
Discovery raises the prospect of a new approach to healthcare in which ageing itself is treated, rather than the various diseases associated with it.
New form of gene therapy shown to produce rejuvenating effect in mice, although scientists say human clinical applications are decade away
15 December 2016
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/dec/15/ageing-process-may-be-reversible-scientists-claim [with comments]
Aging Is Reversible—at Least in Human Cells and Live Mice
Changes to gene activity that occur with age can be turned back, a new study shows
December 15, 2016
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/aging-is-reversible-at-least-in-human-cells-and-live-mice/
Scientists Say the Clock of Aging May Be Reversible
Impaired muscle repair in mice, left, compared with improved muscle regeneration seen after reprogramming.
DEC. 15, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/science/scientists-say-they-can-reset-clock-of-aging-for-mice-at-least.html
In Vivo Amelioration of Age-Associated Hallmarks by Partial Reprogramming
15 December 2016
http://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(16)31664-6
--
Donald Trump’s Denial About Russia
Donald Trump last week in Iowa.
Doug Mills/The New York Times
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
DEC. 15, 2016
No matter how divided our politics and our times, Americans can agree that our status as a strong, democratic nation rests on the bedrock of free and fair elections. That confidence is what was targeted when Russia [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/russiaandtheformersovietunion/index.html ], one of our oldest, most determined foreign adversaries, invaded American computer networks and released thousands of pages of documents to undermine the legitimacy of the 2016 election.
This news emerged last summer. Last month, the Central Intelligence Agency [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/central_intelligence_agency/index.html ] shared a further conclusion [ https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html ], based on months of analysis, that the Russian hacking was intended to favor Donald Trump [ http://www.nytimes.com/topic/person/donald-trump ].
“There shouldn’t be any doubt in anybody’s mind,” Adm. Michael Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency and commander of United States Cyber Command, said recently. “This was not something that was done casually, this was not something that was done by chance, this was not a target that was selected purely arbitrarily,” he said. “This was a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect.”
Extrapolating motive from evidence is always tricky. But after the C.I.A. provided classified briefings for Congress and the White House, members of both political parties were convinced.
But not President-elect Trump.
Mr. Trump’s instant rejection of the C.I.A. findings as “ridiculous,” based on no review of its work, echoed Moscow’s. “This tale of ‘hacks’ resembles a banal brawl between American security officials over spheres of influence,” Maria Zakharova, the spokeswoman for the Russian Foreign Ministry, wrote on Facebook. Mr. Trump said [ https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/11/us/politics/trump-russia-democrats.html ] of American security officials, “They’re fighting among themselves.”
On Nov. 10, two days after the election, Sergei Ryabkov, Russia’s deputy foreign minister, said [ http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFKBN1351RL?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true ] “there were contacts” between Moscow and Mr. Trump’s campaign. “I cannot say that all of them, but quite a few have been staying in touch with Russian representatives,” Mr. Ryabkov said.
Paul Manafort, one of Mr. Trump’s campaign managers, resigned after reports described [ https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/us/politics/paul-manafort-resigns-donald-trump.html ] his political ties to Russia. Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn [ http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/opinion/michael-flynn-an-alarming-pick-for-national-security-adviser.html ], Mr. Trump’s national security adviser, sat with Mr. Putin at a gala for Russian state television, where he has appeared as a commentator.
Mr. Trump’s own business ties to Moscow date to the late 1980s [ http://www.wsj.com/articles/lessons-for-trump-from-the-clinton-scandals-1476400952 ]. His son Donald Trump Jr. told a real estate gathering [ http://www.eturbonews.com/5008/executive-talk-donald-trump-jr-bullish-russia-and-few-emerging-ma ] in 2008 that “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets,” adding “we see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”
Mr. Trump hasn’t released tax returns or other records that could ease fears that he has financial deals in Russia to protect. And he’s refusing to divest his business interests, so whatever ties there may be are likely to remain.
Kremlin meddling in the 2016 election [ http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/11/opinion/russias-hand-in-americas-election.html ] warrants further investigation, with an eye toward preventive or retaliatory measures. President Obama has asked the nation’s intelligence community to deliver a fuller report on its findings before he leaves office on Jan. 20, and a bipartisan group [ https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/us/politics/mcconnell-supports-inquiry-of-russian-hacking-during-election.html ] of lawmakers is pushing for a congressional investigation. The results of that inquiry should be made public, and the intelligence community should tell Americans as much as it can about the cyberattack and its goals.
Mr. Trump’s reaction to the C.I.A.’s findings leaves him isolated, and underscores his dangerous unfamiliarity with the role of intelligence in maintaining national security. There could be no more “useful idiot,” to use Lenin’s term of art, than an American president who doesn’t know he’s being played by a wily foreign power. Or maybe it’s as Mr. Trump says [ http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/12/14/us/politics/ap-us-trump-intelligence.html ]: He’s “a smart person,” and avoids presidential intelligence briefings because they repeat what he already knows. If so, what else does he know about Russia that the intelligence agencies don’t?
© 2016 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/opinion/donald-trumps-denial-about-russia.html
--
Obama Says U.S. Will Retaliate for Russia’s Election Meddling
President-elect Donald J. Trump at a “thank you” rally in West Allis, Wis., on Tuesday.
DEC. 15, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/us/politics/russia-hack-election-trump-obama.html
--
The Last of the Birthers
Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona's Maricopa County reveals the "profound" and quite "disturbing" results of his five-year investigation into the president's birth certificate.
Dec 15, 2016
https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/12/sheriff-joe-arpaio-the-birther/510857/ [with comments]
*
Sheriff Arpaio Proves Obama Birth Certificate Forged
Published on Dec 15, 2016 by The Alex Jones Channel
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio held a press conference where he laid out evidence that he says proves the Obama birth certificate is forged.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-1KxhJK_6o [with comments]
*
Obama's Birth Certificate Is Fake Forensic Experts Determine
Published on Dec 16, 2016 by The Alex Jones Channel
Obama’s birth certificate has been proven by two leading experts in forensic document fraud documentation to be a forgery.
Article Two of the U.S. Constitution brought into question Barack Obama’s status as a “natural- born citizen” since he took office back in 2008 because his Father Barack Obama Senior was born in Kenya. According to World Net Daily "Scholarly works cited by the Founders defined it as a citizen at birth, born in the country to two citizens of the country, or merely the offspring of two citizens of the country. The birth certificate Obama displayed on the White House website as “proof positive” of his eligibility states he was born in Hawaii to an American mother and a Kenyan father.”
Impeaching Obama now with roughly thirty days until President Elect Donald Trump’s inauguration seems like a non event. But if we are truly entering a new era in the History of The United States, it would send a clear message to the criminal despots that have hijacked our Government, our media, our medical system, right down to the monopoly money in our wallets that no matter what diabolical infiltration is waged against the United States…providence will always prevail.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=206Zrw_-sqQ [with comments]
*
Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio Sued, Again
Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, is accused of racially profiling a Latino rights group’s organizer and then keeping her in jail despite her U.S. citizenship.
A Latina U.S. citizen says she was racially profiled and kept in jail.
12/15/2016
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sheriff-joe-arpaio-lawsuit_us_5852c6fce4b012849c05cf09 [with comments]
*
The Problem With Obama's Faith in White America
The president’s optimism about race blinded him to the pervasiveness and stubborn persistence of racism.
Dec 13, 2016
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/obamas-faith-in-white-america/510503/ [with comments]
--
Scientists prepare to fight for their work during ‘the Trumpocene’
People hold signs as they listen to a group of scientists speak during a rally in conjunction with the American Geophysical Union's fall meeting Dec. 13 in San Francisco.
Naomi Oreskes, bottom right with microphone, a history of science professor at Harvard University, addresses the crowd during a rally by scientists in conjunction with the American Geophysical Union's fall meeting Dec. 13 in San Francisco.
Interior Secretary Sally Jewell speaks with U.S. Geological Survey scientist Stephanie Ross during a tour of the AGU poster hall.
December 15, 2016
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/12/15/researchers-reckon-with-the-trumpocene-at-the-worlds-largest-earth-science-meeting/ [with comments]
*
FM16 Press Conference: First results from Axial Seamount, an active underwater volcano
Published on Dec 15, 2016 by American Geophysical Union (AGU) [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAmvZawnAXogfsrXWKpPTVw / http://www.youtube.com/user/AGUvideos , http://www.youtube.com/user/AGUvideos/videos ]
On April 24, 2015, scientists tracked the onset and evolution of an underwater volcanic eruption on Axial Seamount, 470 kilometers (290 miles) off the coast of Oregon, using a network of cabled sensors that forms part of NSF’s Ocean Observatories Initiative. Researchers will present some of the first scientific results from the eruption, including discoveries of previously unknown structures and new glimpses into the volcano’s internal plumbing. These new insights into the world’s most active and well-studied underwater volcano help scientists better understand all volcanoes and the hazards they pose.
Participants:
Richard Murray, National Science Foundation, Arlington, Virginia, U.S.A.
Scott Nooner, University of North Carolina Wilmington, Wilmington, North Carolina, U.S.A.
William Wilcock, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, U.S.A.
David Clague, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, Moss Landing, California, U.S.A.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOTw6vOuS3I [with comment]
*
FM16 Press Conference: Explaining extreme events in 2015 from a climate perspective
Published on Dec 15, 2016 by American Geophysical Union (AGU)
Extreme weather can claim lives, damage economies and grab headlines. Though we generally understand the underlying physical causes of extreme events, our scientific understanding about how they may be influenced by a changing climate is not as clear. In this briefing, experts will discuss results from the fifth annual “Explaining Extreme Events from a Climate Perspective in 2015” report, published as a special edition of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. The speakers will examine the natural and human causes of individual extreme events in 2015 from around the world, look back at the progress made in the past five years and explore the future of extreme event attribution.
Participants:
Stephanie C. Herring, NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, Boulder, Colorado, U.S.A.;
Martin P. Hoerling, NOAA, Earth Systems Research Laboratory, Physical Science Division, Boulder, Colorado, U.S.A.;
Friederike Otto, University of Oxford, Centre for the Environment, Environmental Change, Oxford, United Kingdom;
Jeff Rosenfeld, American Meteorological Society, Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xg8XDX2pPLA [no comments yet]
*
Will Trump Delete Government Science From The Web?
Published on Dec 14, 2016 by Mike Malloy [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpU4j-LN_aibXA1gONvWzxw / http://www.youtube.com/user/hschulein , http://www.youtube.com/user/hschulein/videos ]
When Donald Trump takes over the federal government on January 21, his administration will also gain complete control over much of the .gov suite of websites, which currently hosts a treasure trove of publicly available, taxpayer-funded scientific research. The academic world is bracing itself: Will that data remain available after his transition?
Scientists and university professors all around the country and in Canada believe we’re about to see widespread whitewashing and redaction of already published, publicly available taxpayer-funded scientific research, databases, and interactive tools, such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Sea Level Rise viewer, NASA’s suite of climate change apps, and the Environmental Protection Agency’s maps of the country’s worst polluters. They also expect to see censorship, misrepresentation, and minimization of new government-funded research, specifically regarding climate change.
Full story: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/researchers-are-preparing-for-trump-to-delete-government-science-from-the-web
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfnVhy2fM8M [with comments]
*
Secretary of State Nominee Rex Tillerson Under SEC Investigation
Published on Dec 14, 2016 by Mike Malloy
Most of the commentary over Donald Trump’s presumed secretary-of-state nominee Rex Tillerson concerns the Exxon Mobil CEO’s closeness to Russia, and Senate Republican discomfort with that relationship. But Trump and Tillerson share something else that hasn’t gotten as much attention—a penchant to rip off their business partners.
In ExxonMobil’s case, I’m talking about shareholders. Tillerson’s company has been under formal investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission since August for failing to accurately value its proven oil reserves.Those reserves are critical to investors for assessing the future viability of the company. Without the certainty that the company can keep crude oil flowing decades into the future, ExxonMobil stock would plummet. Rewriting the disclosures to investors with lower valuations would cost the company billions of dollars. And actually the entire oil and gas industry would be affected by a new standard rather than the current ad hoc system.
Full story: https://www.thenation.com/article/potential-secretary-of-state-nominee-rex-tillerson-has-an-sec-problem/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZbmH70h25c [with comments]
--
Trump Thank You Rally in Pennsylvania | Full Event
Streamed live on Dec 15, 2016 by ABC News [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBi2mrWuNuyYy4gbM6fU18Q / http://www.youtube.com/user/ABCNews , http://www.youtube.com/user/ABCNews/videos ]
President-Elect Trump Holds 'Thank You' Rally in Hershey, Pa. | Pennsylvania had not gone for a Republican candidate since 1988. But the Trump campaign staff long thought that the state, rich in white working-class voters, would be receptive to his populist message and not be part of Clinton's hoped-for firewall.
Trump repeatedly campaigned there and won the state by less than 1 percentage point, giving him a vital 20 electoral college votes.
After allegedly trying to suppress voting, Trump and his fans applaud lower black turnout
December 16, 2016
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/16/after-quietly-trying-to-suppress-voting-trump-and-his-fans-applaud-lower-black-turnout/ [with embedded video, and comments]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIcpB9hC_8s [at the time of this post, the video is there despite the lack of a cover image, just click on it to start it; Pence's brokeback babble begins at c. the 17:30 mark; Trump's performance begins at c. the 25:10 mark; comments disabled]
--
Microsoft: “We Wouldn’t Do Any Work To Build A Registry Of Muslim Americans”
Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella enters Trump Tower.
One day after Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella met with President-elect Donald Trump, the tech company clarified its position in a statement to BuzzFeed News.
Dec. 15, 2016
https://www.buzzfeed.com/nitashatiku/microsoft-trump-muslim-registry [no comments yet]
*
Google, Apple, Uber, IBM Say They Would Not Help Build A Muslim Registry
Google, Apple, Uber, and IBM said they would not help build a Muslim registry. Meanwhile, Oracle declined to comment.
Dec. 16, 2016 Updated Dec. 17, 2016
https://www.buzzfeed.com/nitashatiku/google-muslim-registry-trump [with comments]
--
Putin turns political power into extreme wealth
The Rachel Maddow Show
12/15/16
Rachel Maddow explains how Russia, under Boris Yeltsin, privatized its national assets to a few powerful bank oligarchs, and how Vladimir Putin learned to take advantage of that system to make himself, according to US intelligence, the richest man in the world. Duration: 21:33
© 2016 NBCnews.com
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/putin-turns-political-power-into-extreme-wealth-834551875606 [the above YouTube of the segment for the moment at least at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOtoFR28frw (no comments yet), others for the moment at least at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOAbwqvn4TM (with comment), and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UqilV_PzFw (no comments yet)]
*
Putin brooks no quarter for rivals
The Rachel Maddow Show
12/15/16
Rachel Maddow tells the story of how Vladimir Putin destroyed his political opponent and seized his oil company, which was eventually absorbed by the Kremlin oil company, Rosneft, and the close relationship between Putin, Rosneft, and ExxonMobil's Rex Tillerson. Duration: 7:28
© 2016 NBCnews.com
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/putin-brooks-no-quarter-for-rivals-834531907723 [the above YouTube of the segment for the moment at least at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPhX8-BLTKM (no comments yet), others for the moment at least at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ip-GNeQiKlQ (with comments), and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzmg5xJ9JT4 (no comments yet)]
*
For transnational sovereign Exxon, business model is policy
The Rachel Maddow Show
12/15/16
Steve Coll, author of "Private Empire," talks with Rachel Maddow about how ExxonMobil wields its power around the world and what that means for the possibility that its CEO, Rex Tillerson, will be the secretary of state under Donald Trump. Duration: 5:24
© 2016 NBCnews.com
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/for-transnational-sovereign-exxon-business-model-is-policy-834548803815 [the above YouTube of the segment for the moment at least at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b_Tv5SIhrY (no comments yet)]
*
Exxon support of dictator stability counter to US foreign policy
The Rachel Maddow Show
12/15/16
Steve Coll, reporter and author of "Private Empire, ExxonMobil and American Power," talks with Rachel Maddow about how the priority for Exxon is stability to prevent interference with oil operations, even when that means the stability of a dictatorship opposed by the U.S. Duration: 4:10
© 2016 NBCnews.com
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/exxon-support-of-dictator-stability-counter-to-us-foreign-policy-834570819640 [the above YouTube of the segment for the moment at least at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8BJUZdKeko (no comments yet)]
--
The Daily Show - The 2016 Year in Review
Published on Dec 16, 2016 by The Daily Show with Trevor Noah [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwWhs_6x42TyRM4Wstoq8HA , http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwWhs_6x42TyRM4Wstoq8HA/videos ]
On the final show of 2016, The Best F#@king News Team recaps the year that brought about Brexit, fake news, Colin Kaepernick's national anthem protest and viral challenges.
[originally aired December 15, 2016]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgg85Bym6u4 [with comments]
--
Putin Hacked The Election Because Of A Vendetta Against Clinton
Published on Dec 16, 2016 by The Late Show with Stephen Colbert [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMtFAi84ehTSYSE9XoHefig , http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMtFAi84ehTSYSE9XoHefig/videos ]
That's so lame. There are so many better reasons to get revenge against America, like Sean Connery's accent in 'The Hunt For Red October.'
[originally aired December 15, 2016]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-blcqNrC7QM [with (over 4,000) comments]
--
‘Infuriating’: John Podesta Unleashes On ‘Deeply Broken’ FBI
The former campaign chairman accuses the bureau of bias in dwelling on Clinton’s email server rather than pursuing the Russian hacking threat.
12/16/2016
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-podesta-fbi-james-comey_us_58536287e4b0b3ddfd8c0796 [with comments]
*
Something is deeply broken at the FBI
By John Podesta
December 15, 2016
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/john-podesta-something-is-deeply-broken-at-the-fbi/2016/12/15/51668ab4-c303-11e6-9a51-cd56ea1c2bb7_story.html [with embedded video, and (over 5,000) comments]
--
First Lady Michelle Obama on husband's legacy of hope
Published on Dec 16, 2016 by CBS This Morning [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-SJ6nODDmufqBzPBwCvYvQ / http://www.youtube.com/user/CBSThisMorning , http://www.youtube.com/user/CBSThisMorning/videos ]
During her eight years in Washington, First Lady Michelle Obama advocated for several causes, including healthy families and improved education for girls around the world. She also had some fun along the way. The first lady spoke with Oprah Winfrey in her final interview at the White House for a special that airs next week. First on"CBS This Morning," Mrs. Obama addresses her husband's legacy and whether he stayed true to a core belief.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDuSntYTRFo [with comments]
--
Obama On Russian Hacking: 'We Need To Take Action. And We Will' | Morning Edition | NPR
Published on Dec 16, 2016 by NPR [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJnS2EsPfv46u1JR8cnD0NA / http://www.youtube.com/user/npr , http://www.youtube.com/user/npr/videos ]
President Obama says the United States will respond to Russian cyberattacks that the intelligence community has concluded were part of an effort to influence the 2016 presidential election.
In an interview with NPR's Steve Inskeep, Obama said, "I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections ... we need to take action. And we will — at a time and place of our own choosing. Some of it may be explicit and publicized; some of it may not be."
Read or listen to "Obama On Russian Hacking: 'We Need To Take Action. And We Will' " at http://www.npr.org/2016/12/15/505775550/obama-on-russian-hacking-we-need-to-take-action-and-we-will
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5Z1WN_aaRw [with comments]
--
Clinton Says ‘Personal Beef’ by Putin Led to Hacking Attacks
Hillary Clinton in Washington on Dec. 8. On Thursday, she said that the hacking attacks carried out by Russia against her campaign and the Democratic National Committee were intended “to undermine our democracy.”
DEC. 16, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/16/us/politics/hillary-clinton-russia-fbi-comey.html [with comments]
--
Full Show - Megyn Kelly Caught Red Handed In Lie/Chinese Steal American Submarine - 12-/16/16
Published on Dec 16, 2016 by The Alex Jones Channel
On this Friday, Dec. 16th 2016 edition of the Alex Jones Show, we continue looking at the establishment's attempt to overturn the election. Dr. Steve Pieczenik joins the program to share his views on Trump's cabinet selections, Russian intervention and more. Also on today's show, Trump insider Roger Stone discusses the President elect's next move as the globalists attack with full force.
Where the Right Went Wrong
By CHARLES J. SYKES
DEC. 15, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/opinion/sunday/charlie-sykes-on-where-the-right-went-wrong.html [with comments]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Yj8ToYPGOw [with comments]
--
Obama Final Press Conference of 2016
Streamed live on Dec 16, 2016 by ABC News
Obama Full Press conference begins at: 30:03
President Obama Holds End-Of-Year News Conference of 2016 | President Obama today used his year-end news conference to rebuke the ongoing civil war in Syria, saying the regime there “cannot slaughter their way to legitimacy.”
The president also condemned what he said was the role of foreign governments, including Russia and Iran, in prompting the violence in Syria.
*
Press Conference by the President
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
December 16, 2016
2:40 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon. This is the most wonderful press conference of the year. I've got a list of who’s been naughty and nice to call on. (Laughter.) But let me first make a couple of quick points, and then I’ll take your questions.
Typically, I use this yearend press conference to review how far we’ve come over the course of the year. Today, understandably, I'm going to talk a little bit about how far we’ve come over the past eight years.
As I was preparing to take office, the unemployment rate was on its way to 10 percent. Today, it’s at 4.6 percent -- the lowest in nearly a decade. We’ve seen the longest streak of job growth on record, and wages have grown faster over the past few years than at any time in the past 40.
When I came into office, 44 million people were uninsured. Today, we’ve covered more than 20 million of them. For the first time in our history, more than 90 percent of Americans are insured. In fact, yesterday was the biggest day ever for HealthCare.gov. More than 670,000 Americans signed up to get covered, and more are signing up by the day.
We’ve cut our dependence on foreign oil by more than half, doubled production of renewable energy, enacted the most sweeping reforms since FDR to protect consumers and prevent a crisis on Wall Street from punishing Main Street ever again. None of these actions stifled growth, as critics predicted. Instead, the stock market has nearly tripled. Since I signed Obamacare into law, our businesses have added more than 15 million new jobs. And the economy is undoubtedly more durable than it was in the days when we relied on oil from unstable nations and banks took risky bets with your money.
Add it all up, and last year, the poverty rate fell at the fastest rate in almost 50 years, while the median household income grew at the fastest rate on record. In fact, income gains were actually larger for households at the bottom and the middle than for those at the top. And we’ve done all this while cutting our deficits by nearly two-thirds and protecting vital investments that grow the middle class.
In foreign policy, when I came into office, we were in the midst of two wars. Now, nearly 180,000 troops are down to 15,000. Bin Laden, rather than being at large, has been taken off the battlefield, along with thousands of other terrorists. Over the past eight years, no foreign terrorist organization has successfully executed an attack on our homeland that was directed from overseas.
Through diplomacy, we’ve ensured that Iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon -- without going to war with Iran. We opened up a new chapter with the people of Cuba. And we brought nearly 200 nations together around a climate agreement that could very well save this planet for our kids. And almost every country on Earth sees America as stronger and more respected today than they did eight years ago.
In other words, by so many measures, our country is stronger and more prosperous than it was when we started. That's a situation that I’m proud to leave for my successor. And it’s thanks to the American people -- to the hard work that you’ve put in, the sacrifices you’ve made for your families and your communities, the businesses that you started or invested in, the way you looked out for one another. And I could not be prouder to be your President.
Of course, to tout this progress doesn’t mean that we’re not mindful of how much more there is to do. In this season in particular, we’re reminded that there are people who are still hungry, people who are still homeless; people who still have trouble paying the bills or finding work after being laid off. There are communities that are still mourning those who have been stolen from us by senseless gun violence, and parents who still are wondering how to protect their kids. And after I leave office, I intend to continue to work with organizations and citizens doing good across the country on these and other pressing issues to build on the progress that we’ve made.
Around the world, as well, there are hotspots where disputes have been intractable, conflicts have flared up, and people -- innocent people are suffering as a result. And nowhere is this more terribly true than in the city of Aleppo. For years, we’ve worked to stop the civil war in Syria and alleviate human suffering. It has been one of the hardest issues that I've faced as President.
The world, as we speak, is united in horror at the savage assault by the Syrian regime and its Russian and Iranian allies on the city of Aleppo. We have seen a deliberate strategy of surrounding, besieging, and starving innocent civilians. We've seen relentless targeting of humanitarian workers and medical personnel; entire neighborhoods reduced to rubble and dust. There are continuing reports of civilians being executed. These are all horrific violations of international law. Responsibility for this brutality lies in one place alone -- with the Assad regime and its allies Russia and Iran. And this blood and these atrocities are on their hands.
We all know what needs to happen. There needs to be an impartial international observer force in Aleppo that can help coordinate an orderly evacuation through safe corridors. There has to be full access for humanitarian aid, even as the United States continues to be the world’s largest donor of humanitarian aid to the Syrian people. And, beyond that, there needs to be a broader ceasefire that can serve as the basis for a political rather than a military solution.
That’s what the United States is going to continue to push for, both with our partners and through multilateral institutions like the U.N.
Regretfully, but unsurprisingly, Russia has repeatedly blocked the Security Council from taking action on these issues. So we’re going to keep pressing the Security Council to help improve the delivery of humanitarian aid to those who are in such desperate need, and to ensure accountability, including continuing to monitor any potential use of chemical weapons in Syria. And we’re going to work in the U.N. General Assembly as well, both on accountability and to advance a political settlement. Because it should be clear that although you may achieve tactical victories, over the long term the Assad regime cannot slaughter its way to legitimacy.
That’s why we'll continue to press for a transition to a more representative government. And that’s why the world must not avert our eyes to the terrible events that are unfolding. The Syrian regime and its Russian and Iranian allies are trying to obfuscate the truth. The world should not be fooled. And the world will not forget.
So even in a season where the incredible blessings that we know as Americans are all around us, even as we enjoy family and friends and are reminded of how lucky we are, we should also be reminded that to be an American involves bearing burdens and meeting obligations to others. American values and American ideals are what will lead the way to a safer and more prosperous 2017, both here and abroad.
And by the way, few embody those values and ideals like our brave men and women in uniform and their families. So I just want to close by wishing all of them a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
With that, I will take some questions. And I'm going to start with Josh Lederman, of AP.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. There’s a perception that you're letting President Putin get away with interfering in the U.S. election, and that a response that nobody knows about or a lookback review just won’t cut it. Are you prepared to call out President Putin by name for ordering this hacking? And do you agree with what Hillary Clinton now says, that the hacking was actually partly responsible for her loss? And is your administration’s open quarreling with Trump and his team on this issue tarnishing the smooth transition of power that you have promised?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, with respect to the transition, I think they would be the first to acknowledge that we have done everything we can to make sure that they are successful as I promised. And that will continue. And it’s just been a few days since I last talked to the President-elect about a whole range of transition issues. That cooperation is going to continue.
There hasn’t been a lot of squabbling. What we’ve simply said is the facts, which are that, based on uniform intelligence assessments, the Russians were responsible for hacking the DNC, and that, as a consequence, it is important for us to review all elements of that and make sure that we are preventing that kind of interference through cyberattacks in the future.
That should be a bipartisan issue; that shouldn’t be a partisan issue. And my hope is that the President-elect is going to similarly be concerned with making sure that we don’t have potential foreign influence in our election process. I don’t think any American wants that. And that shouldn’t be a source of an argument.
I think that part of the challenge is that it gets caught up in the carryover from election season. And I think it is very important for us to distinguish between the politics of the election and the need for us, as a country, both from a national security perspective but also in terms of the integrity of our election system and our democracy, to make sure that we don’t create a political football here.
Now, with respect to how this thing unfolded last year, let’s just go through the facts pretty quickly. At the beginning of the summer, we’re alerted to the possibility that the DNC has been hacked, and I immediately order law enforcement as well as our intelligence teams to find out everything about it, investigate it thoroughly, to brief the potential victims of this hacking, to brief on a bipartisan basis the leaders of both the House and the Senate and the relevant intelligence committees. And once we had clarity and certainty around what, in fact, had happened, we publicly announced that, in fact, Russia had hacked into the DNC.
And at that time, we did not attribute motives or any interpretations of why they had done so. We didn’t discuss what the effects of it might be. We simply let people know -- the public know, just as we had let members of Congress know -- that this had happened.
And as a consequence, all of you wrote a lot of stories about both what had happened, and then you interpreted why that might have happened and what effect it was going to have on the election outcomes. We did not. And the reason we did not was because in this hyper-partisan atmosphere, at a time when my primary concern was making sure that the integrity of the election process was not in any way damaged, at a time when anything that was said by me or anybody in the White House would immediately be seen through a partisan lens, I wanted to make sure that everybody understood we were playing this thing straight -- that we weren’t trying to advantage one side or another, but what we were trying to do was let people know that this had taken place, and so if you started seeing effects on the election, if you were trying to measure why this was happening and how you should consume the information that was being leaked, that you might want to take this into account.
And that's exactly how we should have handled it. Imagine if we had done the opposite. It would have become immediately just one more political scrum. And part of the goal here was to make sure that we did not do the work of the leakers for them by raising more and more questions about the integrity of the election right before the election was taking place -- at a time, by the way, when the President-elect himself was raising questions about the integrity of the election.
And, finally, I think it's worth pointing out that the information was already out. It was in the hands of WikiLeaks, so that was going to come out no matter what. What I was concerned about, in particular, was making sure that that wasn’t compounded by potential hacking that could hamper vote counting, affect the actual election process itself.
And so in early September, when I saw President Putin in China, I felt that the most effective way to ensure that that didn’t happen was to talk to him directly and tell him to cut it out, and there were going to be some serious consequences if he didn’t. And, in fact, we did not see further tampering of the election process. But the leaks through WikiLeaks had already occurred.
So when I look back in terms of how we handled it, I think we handled it the way it should have been handled. We allowed law enforcement and the intelligence community to do its job without political influence. We briefed all relevant parties involved in terms of what was taking place. When we had a consensus around what had happened, we announced it -- not through the White House, not through me, but rather through the intelligence communities that had actually carried out these investigations. And then we allowed you and the American public to make an assessment as to how to weigh that going into the election.
And the truth is, is that there was nobody here who didn’t have some sense of what kind of effect it might have. I'm finding it a little curious that everybody is suddenly acting surprised that this looked like it was disadvantaging Hillary Clinton because you guys wrote about it every day. Every single leak. About every little juicy tidbit of political gossip -- including John Podesta's risotto recipe. This was an obsession that dominated the news coverage.
So I do think it's worth us reflecting how it is that a presidential election of such importance, of such moment, with so many big issues at stake and such a contrast between the candidates, came to be dominated by a bunch of these leaks. What is it about our political system that made us vulnerable to these kinds of potential manipulations -- which, as I've said publicly before, were not particularly sophisticated.
This was not some elaborate, complicated espionage scheme. They hacked into some Democratic Party emails that contained pretty routine stuff, some of it embarrassing or uncomfortable, because I suspect that if any of us got our emails hacked into, there might be some things that we wouldn’t want suddenly appearing on the front page of a newspaper or a telecast, even if there wasn’t anything particularly illegal or controversial about it. And then it just took off.
And that concerns me. And it should concern all of us. But the truth of the matter is, is that everybody had the information. It was out there. And we handled it the way we should have.
Now, moving forward, I think there are a couple of issues that this raises. Number one is just the constant challenge that we are going to have with cybersecurity throughout our economy and throughout our society. We are a digitalized culture, and there is hacking going on every single day. There’s not a company, there’s not a major organization, there’s not a financial institution, there’s not a branch of our government where somebody is not going to be phishing for something or trying to penetrate, or put in a virus or malware. And this is why for the last eight years, I’ve been obsessed with how do we continually upgrade our cybersecurity systems.
And this particular concern around Russian hacking is part of a broader set of concerns about how do we deal with cyber issues being used in ways that can affect our infrastructure, affect the stability of our financial systems, and affect the integrity of our institutions, like our election process.
I just received a couple weeks back -- it wasn’t widely reported on -- a report from our cybersecurity commission that outlines a whole range of strategies to do a better job on this. But it’s difficult, because it’s not all housed -- the target of cyberattacks is not one entity but it’s widely dispersed, and a lot of it is private, like the DNC. It’s not a branch of government. We can’t tell people what to do. What we can do is inform them, get best practices.
What we can also do is to, on a bilateral basis, warn other countries against these kinds of attacks. And we’ve done that in the past. So just as I told Russia to stop it, and indicated there will be consequences when they do it, the Chinese have, in the past, engaged in cyberattacks directed at our companies to steal trade secrets and proprietary technology. And I had to have the same conversation with Prime Minister -- or with President Xi, and what we’ve seen is some evidence that they have reduced -- but not completely eliminated -- these activities, partly because they can use cutouts.
One of the problems with the Internet and cyber issues is that there’s not always a return address, and by the time you catch up to it, attributing what happened to a particular government can be difficult, not always provable in court even though our intelligence communities can make an assessment.
What we’ve also tried to do is to start creating some international norms about this to prevent some sort of cyber arms race, because we obviously have offensive capabilities as well as defensive capabilities. And my approach is not a situation in which everybody is worse off because folks are constantly attacking each other back and forth, but putting some guardrails around the behavior of nation-states, including our adversaries, just so that they understand that whatever they do to us we can potentially do to them.
We do have some special challenges, because oftentimes our economy is more digitalized, it is more vulnerable, partly because we’re a wealthier nation and we’re more wired than some of these other countries. And we have a more open society, and engage in less control and censorship over what happens over the Internet, which is also part of what makes us special.
Last point -- and the reason I’m going on here is because I know that you guys have a lot of questions about this, and I haven't addressed all of you directly about it. With respect to response, my principal goal leading up to the election was making sure that the election itself went off without a hitch, that it was not tarnished, and that it did not feed any sense in the public that somehow tampering had taken place with the actual process of voting. And we accomplished that.
That does not mean that we are not going to respond. It simply meant that we had a set of priorities leading up to the election that were of the utmost importance. Our goal continues to be to send a clear message to Russia or others not to do this to us, because we can do stuff to you.
But it is also important for us to do that in a thoughtful, methodical way. Some of it we do publicly. Some of it we will do in a way that they know, but not everybody will. And I know that there have been folks out there who suggest somehow that if we went out there and made big announcements, and thumped our chests about a bunch of stuff, that somehow that would potentially spook the Russians. But keep in mind that we already have enormous numbers of sanctions against the Russians. The relationship between us and Russia has deteriorated, sadly, significantly over the last several years. And so how we approach an appropriate response that increases costs for them for behavior like this in the future, but does not create problems for us, is something that’s worth taking the time to think through and figure out. And that’s exactly what we’ve done.
So at a point in time where we’ve taken certain actions that we can divulge publically, we will do so. There are times where the message will go -- will be directly received by the Russians and not publicized. And I should point out, by the way, part of why the Russians have been effective on this is because they don't go around announcing what they're doing. It's not like Putin is going around the world publically saying, look what we did, wasn't that clever? He denies it. So the idea that somehow public shaming is going to be effective I think doesn't read the thought process in Russia very well.
Okay?
Q Did Clinton lose because of the hacking?
THE PRESIDENT: I'm going to let all the political pundits in this town have a long discussion about what happened in the election. It was a fascinating election, so I'm sure there are going to be a lot of books written about it.
I've said what I think is important for the Democratic Party going forward rather than try to parse every aspect of the election. And I've said before, I couldn't be prouder of Secretary Clinton, her outstanding service. I thinks she's worked tirelessly on behalf of the American people, and I don't think she was treated fairly during the election. I think the coverage of her and the issues was troubling.
But having said that, what I've been most focused on -- appropriate for the fact that I'm not going to be a politician in about, what is it, 32 days? 31?
Q Thirty-four.
THE PRESIDENT: Thirty four? (Laughter.) But what I've said is, is that I can maybe give some counsel and advice to the Democratic Party. And I think that that the thing we have to spend the most time on -- because it's the thing we have the most control over -- is how do we make sure that we are showing up in places where I think Democratic policies are needed, where they are helping, where they are making a difference, but where people feel as if they're not being heard and where Democrats are characterized as coastal, liberal, latte-sipping, politically-correct, out-of-touch folks. We have to be in those communities. And I've seen that when we are in those communities, it makes a difference.
That's how I became President. I became a U.S. senator not just because I had a strong base in Chicago, but because I was driving around downstate Illinois and going to fish frys and sitting in VFW halls and talking to farmers. And I didn't win every one of their votes, but they got a sense of what I was talking about, what I cared about, that I was for working people, that I was for the middle class, that the reason I was interested in strengthening unions, and raising the minimum wage, and rebuilding our infrastructure, and making sure that parents had decent childcare and family leave was because my own family's history wasn't that different from theirs, even if I looked a little bit different. Same thing in Iowa.
And so the question is, how do we rebuild that party as a whole so that there's not a county in any state -- I don't care how red -- that we don't have a presence and we're not making the argument. Because I think we have the better argument. But that requires a lot of work. It's been something that I've been able to do successfully in my own campaigns. It is not something I've been able to transfer to candidates in midterms and sort of build a sustaining organization around. That's something that I would have liked to have done more of, but it's kind of hard to do when you're also dealing with a whole bunch of issues here in the White House.
And that doesn't mean, though, that it can't be done. And I think there are going to be a lot of talented folks out there, a lot of progressives who share my values who are going to be leading the charge in the years to come.
Michelle Kosinski of CNN.
Q Thank you. So this week we heard Hillary Clinton talk about how she thinks that the FBI Director's most recent announcement made a difference in the outcome of the election. And we also just heard in an op-ed her campaign chairman talk about something being deeply broken within the FBI. He talked about thinking that the investigation early on was lackadaisical in his words. So what do you think about those comments? Do you think there's any truth to them? Do you think there's a danger there that they're calling into question the integrity of institutions in a similar way that Donald Trump's team has done?
And the second part to that is that Donald Trump's team repeatedly -- I guess, giving the indication that the investigation of the Russian hack, as well as the retaliation, might not be such a priority once he's in office, so what do you think the risk is there? And are you going to talk to him directly about some of those comments he made?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, on the latter point, as I said before, the transition from election season to governance season is not always smooth. It's bumpy. There are still feelings that are raw out there. There are people who are still thinking about how things unfolded. And I get all that. But when Donald Trump takes the Oath of Office and is sworn as the 45th President of the United States, then he's got a different set of responsibilities and considerations.
And I've said this before: I think there is a sobering process when you walk into the Oval Office. And I haven’t shared previously private conversations I've had with the President-elect. I will say that they have been cordial and, in some cases, have involved me making some pretty specific suggestions about how to ensure that regardless of our obvious deep disagreements about policy, maybe I can transmit some thoughts about maintaining the effectiveness, integrity, cohesion of the office, of various democratic institutions. And he has listened. I can't say that he will end up implementing, but the conversations themselves have been cordial as opposed to defensive in any way. And I will always make myself available to him, just as previous Presidents have made themselves available to me as issues come up.
With respect to the FBI, I will tell you, I've had a chance to know a lot of FBI agents, I know Director Comey, and they take their job seriously, they work really hard, they help keep us safe and save a lot of lives. And it is always a challenge for law enforcement when there's an intersection between the work that they are doing and the political system. It's one of the difficulties of democracy, generally. We have a system where we want our law enforcement investigators and our prosecutors to be free from politics, to be independent, to play it straight, but sometimes that involves investigations that touch on politics. And particularly in this hyper-partisan environment that we've been in, everything is suspect, everything you do one way or the other.
One thing that I have done is to be pretty scrupulous about not wading into investigation decisions or prosecution decisions, or decisions not to prosecute. I have tried to be really strict in my own behavior about preserving the independence of law enforcement, free from my own judgments and political assessments, in some cases. And I don’t know why it would stop now.
Mike Dorning of Bloomberg.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. On Aleppo, your views that what happens there is the responsibility of the Russian government, the Iranian government, the Assad regime are pretty well aired. But do you, as President of the United States, leader of the free world, feel any personal moral responsibility now at the end of your presidency for the carnage that we’re all watching in Aleppo, which I’m sure disturbs you -- which you said disturbs you?
And, secondly, also on Aleppo, you’ve again made clear your practical disagreements with the idea of safe zones. And President-elect Trump has, throughout his campaign, and he said again last night that he wants to create safe zones in Syria. Do you feel like, in this transition, you need to help him toward implementing that? Or was that not something that you should be doing?
THE PRESIDENT: Mike, I always feel responsible. I felt responsible when kids were being shot by snipers. I felt responsible when millions of people had been displaced. I feel responsible for murder and slaughter that’s taken place in South Sudan that’s not being reported on partly because there’s not as much social media being generated from there.
There are places around the world where horrible things are happening, and because of my office, because I’m President of the United States, I feel responsible. I ask myself every single day, is there something I could do that would save lives and make a difference and spare some child who doesn’t deserve to suffer.
So that’s a starting point. There’s not a moment during the course of this presidency where I haven’t felt some responsibility. That’s true, by the way, for our own country. When I came into office and people were losing their jobs and losing their homes and losing their pensions, I felt responsible, and I would go home at night and I would ask myself, was there something better that I could do or smarter that I could be that would make a difference in their lives, that would relieve their suffering and relieve their hardship.
So with respect to Syria, what I have consistently done is taken the best course that I can to try to end the civil war while having also to take into account the long-term national security interests of the United States.
And throughout this process, based on hours of meetings, if you tallied it up, days or weeks of meetings where we went through every option in painful detail, with maps, and we had our military, and we had our aid agencies, and we had our diplomatic teams, and sometimes we’d bring in outsiders who were critics of ours -- whenever we went through it, the challenge was that, short of putting large numbers of U.S. troops on the ground, uninvited, without any international law mandate, without sufficient support from Congress, at a time when we still had troops in Afghanistan and we still had troops in Iraq, and we had just gone through over a decade of war and spent trillions of dollars, and when the opposition on the ground was not cohesive enough to necessarily govern a country, and you had a military superpower in Russia prepared to do whatever it took to keeps its client-state involved, and you had a regional military power in Iran that saw their own vital strategic interests at stake and were willing to send in as many of their people or proxies to support the regime -- that in that circumstance, unless we were all in and willing to take over Syria, we were going to have problems, and that everything else was tempting because we wanted to do something and it sounded like the right thing to do, but it was going to be impossible to do this on the cheap.
And in that circumstance, I have to make a decision as President of the United States as to what is best -- I’m sorry, what’s going on? Somebody’s not feeling good? All right. Why don’t we have -- we’ve got -- we can get our doctors back there to help out. Does somebody want to go to my doctor’s office and just have them -- all right -- where was I?
Q Doing it on the cheap.
THE PRESIDENT: So we couldn’t do it on the cheap. Now, it may be --
Can somebody help out please and get Doc Jackson in here? Is somebody grabbing our doctor?
Q Thank you, Mr. President, for stopping.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course. In the meantime, just give her a little room. The doctor will be here in a second. You guys know where the doctor’s office is? Just go through the Palm doors. It’s right next to the Map Room. There he is. All right, there’s Doc Jackson. He’s all right. Okay. The doctor is in the house.
Q You were saying you couldn’t do it on the cheap.
THE PRESIDENT: And I don’t mean that -- I mean that with all sincerity. I understand the impulse to want to do something. But ultimately, what I’ve had to do is to think about what can we sustain, what is realistic. And my first priority has to be what’s the right thing to do for America.
And it has been our view that the best thing to do has been to provide some support to the moderate opposition so that they could sustain themselves, and that we wouldn’t see anti-Assad regime sentiments just pouring into al Nusra and al Qaeda or ISIL; that we engaged our international partners in order to put pressure on all the parties involved, and to try to resolve this through diplomatic and political means.
I cannot claim that we’ve been successful. And so that’s something that, as is true with a lot of issues and problems around the world, I have to go to bed with every night. But I continue to believe that it was the right approach, given what realistically we could get done absent a decision, as I said, to go in a much more significant way. And that, I think, would not have been sustainable or good for the American people because we had a whole host of other obligations that we also had to meet, wars we had already started and that were not yet finished.
With respect to the issue of safe zones, it is a continued problem. A continued challenge with safe zones is if you’re setting up those zones on Syrian territory, then that requires some force that is willing to maintain that territory in the absence of consent from the Syrian government and, now, the Russians or the Iranians. So it may be that with Aleppo’s tragic situation unfolding, that in the short term, if we can get more of the tens of thousands who are still trapped there out, that so long as the world’s eyes are on them and they are feeling pressure, the regime and Russia concludes that they are willing to find some arrangement, perhaps in coordination with Turkey, whereby those people can be safe. Even that will probably be temporary, but at least it solves a short-term issue that’s going to arise.
Unfortunately, we’re not even there yet, because right now we have Russians and Assad claiming that basically all the innocent civilians who were trapped in Aleppo are out when international organizations, humanitarian organizations who know better and who are on the ground have said unequivocally that there are still tens of thousands who are trapped and prepared to leave under pretty much any conditions. And so right now, our biggest priority is to continue to put pressure wherever we can to try to get them out.
Q Notwithstanding --
THE PRESIDENT: I can’t have too much --
Q On the second question, your intentions are well aired, but do you feel responsibility notwithstanding a move in that direction or help President-elect Trump move in that direction?
THE PRESIDENT: I will help President Trump -- President-elect Trump with any advice, counsel, information that we can provide so that he, once he’s sworn in, can make a decision. Between now and then, these are decisions that I have to make based on the consultations I have with our military and the people who have been working this every single day.
Peter Alexander.
Q Mr. President, thank you very much. Can you, given all the intelligence that we have now heard, assure the public that this was, once and for all, a free and fair election? And specifically on Russia, do you feel any obligation now, as they’ve been insisting that this isn’t the case, to show the proof, as it were -- they say put your money where your mouth is and declassify some of the intelligence, some of the evidence that exists? And more broadly, as it relates to Donald Trump on this very topic, are you concerned about his relationship with Vladimir Putin, especially given some of the recent Cabinet picks, including his selection for Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, who toasted Putin with champagne over oil deals together? Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: I may be getting older, because these multipart questions, I start losing track. (Laughter.)
I can assure the public that there was not the kind of tampering with the voting process that was of concern and will continue to be of concern going forward; that the votes that were cast were counted, they were counted appropriately. We have not seen evidence of machines being tampered with. So that assurance I can provide.
That doesn’t mean that we find every single potential probe of every single voting machine all across the country, but we paid a lot of attention to it. We worked with state officials, et cetera, and we feel confident that that didn’t occur and that the votes were cast and they were counted.
So that’s on that point. What was the second one?
Q The second one was about declassification.
THE PRESIDENT: Declassification. Look, we will provide evidence that we can safely provide that does not compromise sources and methods. But I’ll be honest with you, when you’re talking about cybersecurity, a lot of it is classified. And we’re not going to provide it because the way we catch folks is by knowing certain things about them that they may not want us to know, and if we’re going to monitor this stuff effectively going forward, we don’t want them to know that we know.
So this is one of those situations where unless the American people genuinely think that the professionals in the CIA, the FBI, our entire intelligence infrastructure -- many of whom, by the way, served in previous administrations and who are Republicans -- are less trustworthy than the Russians, then people should pay attention to what our intelligence agencies have to say.
This is part of what I meant when I said that we’ve got to think about what’s happening to our political culture here. The Russians can’t change us or significantly weaken us. They are a smaller country. They are a weaker country. Their economy doesn’t produce anything that anybody wants to buy, except oil and gas and arms. They don’t innovate.
But they can impact us if we lose track of who we are. They can impact us if we abandon our values. Mr. Putin can weaken us, just like he’s trying to weaken Europe, if we start buying into notions that it’s okay to intimidate the press, or lock up dissidents, or discriminate against people because of their faith or what they look like.
And what I worry about more than anything is the degree to which, because of the fierceness of the partisan battle, you start to see certain folks in the Republican Party and Republican voters suddenly finding a government and individuals who stand contrary to everything that we stand for as being okay because that’s how much we dislike Democrats.
I mean, think about it. Some of the people who historically have been very critical of me for engaging with the Russians and having conversations with them also endorsed the President-elect, even as he was saying that we should stop sanctioning Russia and being tough on them, and work together with them against our common enemies. He was very complimentary of Mr. Putin personally.
That wasn’t news. The President-elect during the campaign said so. And some folks who had made a career out of being anti-Russian didn’t say anything about it. And then after the election, suddenly they’re asking, well, why didn’t you tell us that maybe the Russians were trying to help our candidate? Well, come on. There was a survey, some of you saw, where -- now, this is just one poll, but a pretty credible source -- 37 percent of Republican voters approve of Putin. Over a third of Republican voters approve of Vladimir Putin, the former head of the KGB. Ronald Reagan would roll over in his grave.
And how did that happen? It happened in part because, for too long, everything that happens in this town, everything that’s said is seen through the lens of "does this help or hurt us relative to Democrats, or relative to President Obama?" And unless that changes, we’re going to continue to be vulnerable to foreign influence, because we’ve lost track of what it is that we’re about and what we stand for.
With respect to the President-elect’s appointments, it is his prerogative, as I’ve always said, for him to appoint who he thinks can best carry out his foreign policy or his domestic policy. It is up to the Senate to advise and consent. There will be plenty of time for members of the Senate to go through the record of all his appointees and determine whether or not they’re appropriate for the job.
Martha Raddatz.
Q Mr. President, I want to talk about Vladimir Putin again. Just to be clear, do you believe Vladimir Putin himself authorized the hack? And do you believe he authorized that to help Donald Trump? And on the intelligence, one of the things Donald Trump cites is Saddam Hussein and the weapons of mass destruction, and that they were never found. Can you say, unequivocally, that this was not China, that this was not a 400-pound guy sitting on his bed, as Donald Trump says? And do these types of tweets and kinds of statements from Donald Trump embolden the Russians?
THE PRESIDENT: When the report comes out, before I leave office, that will have drawn together all the threads. And so I don’t want to step on their work ahead of time.
What I can tell you is that the intelligence that I have seen gives me great confidence in their assessment that the Russians carried out this hack.
Q Which hack?
THE PRESIDENT: The hack of the DNC and the hack of John Podesta.
Now, the -- but again, I think this is exactly why I want the report out, so that everybody can review it. And this has been briefed, and the evidence in closed session has been provided on a bipartisan basis -- not just to me, it’s been provided to the leaders of the House and the Senate, and the chairman and ranking members of the relevant committees. And I think that what you’ve already seen is, at least some of the folks who have seen the evidence don’t dispute, I think, the basic assessment that the Russians carried this out.
Q But specifically, can you not say that --
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Martha, I think what I want to make sure of is that I give the intelligence community the chance to gather all the information. But I’d make a larger point, which is, not much happens in Russia without Vladimir Putin. This is a pretty hierarchical operation. Last I checked, there’s not a lot of debate and democratic deliberation, particularly when it comes to policies directed at the United States.
We have said, and I will confirm, that this happened at the highest levels of the Russian government. And I will let you make that determination as to whether there are high-level Russian officials who go off rogue and decide to tamper with the U.S. election process without Vladimir Putin knowing about it.
Q So I wouldn’t be wrong in saying the President thinks Vladimir Putin authorized the hack?
THE PRESIDENT: Martha, I’ve given you what I’m going to give you.
What was your second question?
Q Do the tweets and do the statements by Donald Trump embolden Russia?
THE PRESIDENT: As I said before, I think that the President-elect is still in transition mode from campaign to governance. I think he hasn’t gotten his whole team together yet. He still has campaign spokespersons sort of filling in and appearing on cable shows. And there’s just a whole different attitude and vibe when you’re not in power as when you’re in power.
So rather than me sort of characterize the appropriateness or inappropriateness of what he’s doing at the moment, I think what we have to see is how will the President-elect operate, and how will his team operate, when they’ve been fully briefed on all these issues, they have their hands on all the levers of government, and they’ve got to start making decisions.
One way I do believe that the President-elect can approach this that would be unifying is to say that we welcome a bipartisan, independent process that gives the American people an assurance not only that votes are counted properly, that the elections are fair and free, but that we have learned lessons about how Internet propaganda from foreign countries can be released into the political bloodstream and that we’ve got strategies to deal with it for the future.
The more this can be nonpartisan, the better served the American people are going to be, which is why I made the point earlier -- and I’m going to keep on repeating this point: Our vulnerability to Russia or any other foreign power is directly related to how divided, partisan, dysfunctional our political process is. That’s the thing that makes us vulnerable.
If fake news that’s being released by some foreign government is almost identical to reports that are being issued through partisan news venues, then it’s not surprising that that foreign propaganda will have a greater effect, because it doesn’t seem that far-fetched compared to some of the other stuff that folks are hearing from domestic propagandists.
To the extent that our political dialogue is such where everything is under suspicion, everybody is corrupt and everybody is doing things for partisan reasons, and all of our institutions are full of malevolent actors -- if that’s the storyline that’s being put out there by whatever party is out of power, then when a foreign government introduces that same argument with facts that are made up, voters who have been listening to that stuff for years, who have been getting that stuff every day from talk radio or other venues, they’re going to believe it.
So if we want to really reduce foreign influence on our elections, then we better think about how to make sure that our political process, our political dialogue is stronger than it’s been.
Mark Landler.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. I wonder whether I can move you from Russia to China for a moment.
THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely.
Q Your successor spoke by phone with the President of Taiwan the other day and declared subsequently that he wasn’t sure why the United States needed to be bound by the one-China policy. He suggested it could be used as a bargaining chip perhaps to get better terms on a trade deal or more cooperation on North Korea. There’s already evidence that tensions between the two sides have increased a bit, and just today, the Chinese have evidently seized an underwater drone in the South China Sea. Do you agree, as some do, that our China policy could use a fresh set of eyes? And what’s the big deal about having a short phone call with the President of Taiwan? Or do you worry that these types of unorthodox approaches are setting us on a collision course with perhaps our biggest geopolitical adversary?
THE PRESIDENT: That’s a great question. I’m somewhere in between. I think all of our foreign policy should be subject to fresh eyes. I think one of the -- I’ve said this before -- I am very proud of the work I’ve done. I think I’m a better President now than when I started. But if you’re here for eight years, in the bubble, you start seeing things a certain way and you benefit from -- the democracy benefits, America benefits from some new perspectives.
And I think it should be not just the prerogative but the obligation of a new President to examine everything that’s been done and see what makes sense and what doesn’t. That’s what I did when I came in, and I’m assuming any new President is going to undertake those same exercises.
And given the importance of the relationship between the United States and China, given how much is at stake in terms of the world economy, national security, our presence in the Asia Pacific, China’s increasing role in international affairs -- there’s probably no bilateral relationship that carries more significance and where there’s also the potential if that relationship breaks down or goes into a full-conflict mode, that everybody is worse off. So I think it’s fine for him to take a look at it.
What I’ve advised the President-elect is that across the board on foreign policy, you want to make sure that you’re doing it in a systematic, deliberate, intentional way. And since there’s only one President at a time, my advice to him has been that before he starts having a lot of interactions with foreign governments other than the usual courtesy calls, that he should want to have his full team in place, that he should want his team to be fully briefed on what’s gone on in the past and where the potential pitfalls may be, where the opportunities are, what we’ve learned from eight years of experience, so that as he’s then maybe taking foreign policy in a new direction, he’s got all the information to make good decisions and, by the way, that all of government is moving at the same time and singing from the same hymnal.
And with respect to China -- and let’s just take the example of Taiwan -- there has been a longstanding agreement, essentially, between China, the United States, and, to some degree, the Taiwanese, which is to not change the status quo. Taiwan operates differently than mainland China does. China views Taiwan as part of China, but recognizes that it has to approach Taiwan as an entity that has its own ways of doing things. The Taiwanese have agreed that as long as they’re able to continue to function with some degree of autonomy, that they won’t charge forward and declare independence.
And that status quo, although not completely satisfactory to any of the parties involved, has kept the peace and allowed the Taiwanese to be a pretty successful economy and a people who have a high degree of self-determination. But understand, for China, the issue of Taiwan is as important as anything on their docket. The idea of one China is at the heart of their conception as a nation.
And so if you are going to upend this understanding, you have to have thought through what the consequences are, because the Chinese will not treat that the way they’ll treat some other issues. They won’t even treat it the way they treat issues around the South China Sea, where we’ve had a lot of tensions. This goes to the core of how they see themselves. And their reaction on this issue could end up being very significant.
That doesn’t mean that you have to adhere to everything that’s been done in the past. It does mean that you’ve got to think it through and have planned for potential reactions that they may engage in.
All right. Isaac Dovere of Politico.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Two questions on where this all leaves us.
THE PRESIDENT: What leaves us? Where my presidency leaves us?
Q The election --
THE PRESIDENT: It leaves us in a really good spot -- (laughter) -- if we make some good decisions going forward.
Q Well, what do you say to the electors who are going to meet on Monday and are thinking of changing their votes? Do you think that they should be given an intelligence briefing about the Russian activity? Or should they bear in mind everything you’ve said and is out already? Should they -- should votes be bound by the state votes as they’ve gone? And long term, do you think that there is a need for Electoral College reform that would tie it to the popular vote?
THE PRESIDENT: It sounded like two, but that was all one. (Laughter.)
Q It was all one. (Laughter.) You know the way this goes around here.
THE PRESIDENT: I love how these -- I got two questions, each one has four parts. (Laughter.)
Q On the Democratic Party, your Labor Secretary is running to be the Chair of the Democratic National Committee. Is the vision that you’ve seen him putting forward what you think the party needs to be focused on? And what do you say to some of the complaints that say the future of the Democratic Party shouldn’t be a continuation of some of your political approach? Part of that is complaints that decisions that you’ve made as President, as the leader of the party, have structurally weakened the DNC and the Democratic Party, and they think that that has led to -- or has helped lead to some losses in elections around the country. Do you regret any of those decisions?
THE PRESIDENT: Okay.
Q Those are my two. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: Good. I’ll take the second one first and say that Tom Perez has been, I believe, one of the best secretaries of labor in our history. He is tireless. He is wicked smart. He has been able to work across the spectrum of labor, business, activists. He’s produced. I mean, if you look at his body of work on behalf of working people, what he’s pushed for in terms of making sure that workers get a fair deal, decent wages, better benefits, that their safety is protected on the job -- he has been extraordinary.
Now, others who have declared are also my friends and are fine people, as well. And the great thing is, I don’t have a vote in this, so we’ll let the process unfold. I don’t think it’s going to happen anytime soon. I described to you earlier what I think needs to happen, which is that the Democratic Party, whether that’s entirely through the DNC or through a rebuilding of state parties or some other arrangement, has to work at the grassroots level, has to be present in all 50 states, has to have a presence in counties, has to think about message and how are we speaking directly to voters.
I will say this -- and I’m not going to engage in too much punditry -- but that I could not be prouder of the coalition that I put together in each of my campaigns because it was inclusive, and it drew in people who normally weren’t interested in politics and didn’t participate. But I’d like to think -- I think I can show that in those elections, I always cast a broad net. I always said, first and foremost we’re Americans, that we have a common creed, that there’s more that we share than divides us, and I want to talk to everybody and get a chance to get everybody’s vote.
I still believe what I said in 2004, which is this red state/blue thing is a construct. Now, it is a construct that has gotten more and more powerful for a whole lot of reasons, from gerrymandering to big money, to the way that media has splintered. And so people are just watching what reinforces their existing biases as opposed to have to listen to different points of view. So there are all kinds of reasons for it.
But outside of the realm of electoral politics, I still see people the way I saw them when I made that speech -- full of contradictions, and there are some regional differences, but basically folks care about their families, they care about having meaningful work, they care about making sure their kids have more opportunity than they did. They want to be safe, they want to feel like things are fair. And whoever leads the DNC and any candidate with the Democratic brand going forward, I want them to feel as if they can reach out and find that common ground -- speak to all of America. And that requires some organization.
And you’re right that -- and I said this in my earlier remarks -- that what I was able to do during my campaigns, I wasn’t able to do during midterms. It’s not that we didn’t put in time and effort into it. I spent time and effort into it, but the coalition I put together didn’t always turn out to be transferable. And the challenge is that -- you know, some of that just has to do with the fact that when you’re in the party in power and people are going through hard times like they were in 2010, they’re going to punish, to some degree, the President’s party regardless of what organizational work is done.
Some of it has to do with just some deep-standing traditional challenges for Democrats, like during off-year election, the electorate is older and we do better with a younger electorate. But we know those things are true, and I didn’t crack the code on that. And if other people have ideas about how to do that even better, I’m all for it.
So with respect to the electors, I’m not going to wade into that issue because, again, it’s the American people’s job, and now the electors' job to decide my successor. It is not my job to decide my successor. And I have provided people with a lot of information about what happened during the course of the election. But more importantly, the candidates themselves, I think, talked about their beliefs and their vision for America. The President-elect, I think, has been very explicit about what he cares about and what he believes in. So it’s not in my hands now; it’s up to them.
Q What about long-term about the Electoral College?
THE PRESIDENT: Long-term with a respect to the Electoral College -- the Electoral College is a vestige, it’s a carryover from an earlier vision of how our federal government was going to work that put a lot of premium on states, and it used to be that the Senate was not elected directly, it was through state legislatures. And it’s the same type of thinking that gives Wyoming two senators with about half a million people, and California with 33 million get the same two.
So there are some structures in our political system, as envisioned by the Founders, that sometimes are going to disadvantage Democrats. But the truth of the matter is, is that, if we have a strong message, if we’re speaking to what the American people care about, typically the popular vote and the Electoral College vote will align.
And I guess part of my overall message here as I leave for the holidays is that if we look for one explanation or one silver bullet or one easy fix for our politics, then we’re probably going to be disappointed. There are just a lot of factors in what’s happened not just over the last few months, but over the last decade that has made both politics and governance more challenging. And I think everybody has raised legitimate questions and legitimate concerns.
I do hope that we all just take some time, take a breath -- this is certainly what I’m going to advise Democrats -- to just reflect a little bit more about how can we get to a place where people are focused on working together based on at least some common set of facts. How can we have a conversation about policy that doesn’t demonize each other. How can we channel what I think is the basic decency and goodness of the American people so it reflects itself in our politics, as opposed to it being so polarized and so nasty that, in some cases, you have voters and elected officials who have more confidence and faith in a foreign adversary than they have in their neighbors.
And those go to some bigger issues. How is it that we have some voters or some elected officials who think that Michelle Obama’s healthy eating initiative and school nutrition program is a great threat to democracy than our government going after the press if they’re issuing a story they don’t like? I mean, that’s an issue that I think we’ve got to wrestle with -- and we will.
People have asked me how do you feel after the election and so forth, and I say, well, look, this is a clarifying moment. It’s a useful reminder that voting counts, politics counts. What the President-elect is going to be doing is going to be very different than what I was doing, and I think people will be able to compare and contrast and make judgments about what worked for the American people.
And I hope that, building off the progress we’ve made, that what the President-elect is proposing works. What I can say with confidence is that what we’ve done works. That I can prove. I can show you where we were in 2008 and I can show you where we are now, and you can’t argue that we’re not better off. We are. And for that, I thank the American people and, more importantly, I thank -- well, not more importantly -- as importantly -- I was going to say Josh Earnest for doing such a great job. (Laughter.) For that, I thank the American people. I thank the men and women in uniform who serve. I haven’t gotten to the point yet where I’ve been overly sentimental.
I will tell you, when I was doing my last Christmas party photoline -- many of you have participated in these; they’re pretty long -- right at the end of the line, the President’s Marine Corps Band comes in, those who had been performing, and I take a picture when them, and it was the last time that I was going to take a picture with my Marine Corps Band after an event, and I got a little choked up. Now, I was in front of Marines, so I had to, like, tamp it down.
But it was just one small example of all the people who have contributed to our success. I’m responsible for where we’ve screwed up. The successes are widely shared with all the amazing people who have been part of this administration.
Thank you, everybody. Mele Kalikimaka.
END
4:06 P.M. EST
[for a few more days at] https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/12/16/press-conference-president
*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dfh342F96fs [at the time of this post, the video is there despite the lack of a cover image, just click on it to start it; the press conference begins at c. the 30:00 mark; with comments] [official White House upload for a few more days at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkRLXgwye7g (with comments)]
--
FBI agrees with CIA assessment that Russia meddled in the US election to help Trump win
Dec. 16, 2016
http://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-cia-russia-trump-2016-12
*
FBI Now Backs CIA Assessment That Russia Deliberately Tipped The Election In Favor Of Trump
12/16/2016 Updated December 16, 2016
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fbi-russia-hack-obama_us_585433c4e4b0b3ddfd8c5b05 [with embedded video, and comments]
--
Is Donald Trump a Threat to Democracy?
Jennifer Heuer
By STEVEN LEVITSKY and DANIEL ZIBLATT
DEC. 16, 2016
Donald J. Trump’s election has raised a question that few Americans ever imagined asking: Is our democracy in danger? With the possible exception of the Civil War, American democracy has never collapsed; indeed, no democracy as rich or as established as America’s ever has. Yet past stability is no guarantee of democracy’s future survival.
We have spent two decades studying the emergence and breakdown of democracy in Europe and Latin America. Our research points to several warning signs.
The clearest warning sign is the ascent of anti-democratic politicians into mainstream politics. Drawing on a close study of democracy’s demise in 1930s Europe, the eminent political scientist Juan J. Linz designed a “litmus test” to identify anti-democratic politicians. His indicators include a failure to reject violence unambiguously, a readiness to curtail rivals’ civil liberties, and the denial of the legitimacy of elected governments.
Mr. Trump tests positive. In the campaign, he encouraged violence among supporters; pledged to prosecute Hillary Clinton; threatened legal action against unfriendly media; and suggested that he might not accept the election results.
This anti-democratic behavior has continued since the election. With the false claim that he lost the popular vote because of “millions of people who voted illegally,” Mr. Trump openly challenged the legitimacy of the electoral process. At the same time, he has been remarkably dismissive of United States intelligence agencies’ reports of Russian hacking to tilt the election in his favor.
Mr. Trump is not the first American politician with authoritarian tendencies. (Other notable authoritarians include Gov. Huey Long of Louisiana and Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin.) But he is the first in modern American history to be elected president. This is not necessarily because Americans have grown more authoritarian (the United States electorate has always had an authoritarian streak). Rather it’s because the institutional filters that we assumed would protect us from extremists, like the party nomination system and the news media, failed.
Many Americans are not overly concerned about Mr. Trump’s authoritarian inclinations because they trust our system of constitutional checks and balances to constrain him.
Yet the institutional safeguards protecting our democracy may be less effective than we think. A well-designed constitution is not enough to ensure a stable democracy — a lesson many Latin American independence leaders learned when they borrowed the American constitutional model in the early 19th century, only to see their countries plunge into chaos.
Democratic institutions must be reinforced by strong informal norms. Like a pickup basketball game without a referee, democracies work best when unwritten rules of the game, known and respected by all players, ensure a minimum of civility and cooperation. Norms serve as the soft guardrails of democracy, preventing political competition from spiraling into a chaotic, no-holds-barred conflict.
Among the unwritten rules that have sustained American democracy are partisan self-restraint and fair play. For much of our history, leaders of both parties resisted the temptation to use their temporary control of institutions to maximum partisan advantage, effectively underutilizing the power conferred by those institutions. There existed a shared understanding, for example, that anti-majoritarian practices like the Senate filibuster would be used sparingly, that the Senate would defer (within reason) to the president in nominating Supreme Court justices, and that votes of extraordinary importance — like impeachment — required a bipartisan consensus. Such practices helped to avoid a descent into the kind of partisan fight to the death that destroyed many European democracies in the 1930s.
Yet norms of partisan restraint have eroded in recent decades. House Republicans’ impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1998 abandoned the idea of bipartisan consensus on impeachment. The filibuster, once a rarity, has become a routine tool of legislative obstruction. As the political scientists Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein have shown, the decline of partisan restraint has rendered our democratic institutions increasingly dysfunctional. Republicans’ 2011 refusal to raise the debt ceiling, which put America’s credit rating at risk for partisan gain, and the Senate’s refusal this year to consider President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee — in essence, allowing the Republicans to steal a Supreme Court seat — offer an alarming glimpse at political life in the absence of partisan restraint.
Norms of presidential restraint are also at risk. The Constitution’s ambiguity regarding the limits of executive authority can tempt presidents to try and push those limits. Although executive power has expanded in recent decades, it has ultimately been reined in by the prudence and self-restraint of our presidents.
Unlike his predecessors, Mr. Trump is a serial norm-breaker. There are signs that Mr. Trump seeks to diminish the news media’s traditional role by using Twitter, video messages and public rallies to circumvent the White House press corps and communicate directly with voters — taking a page out of the playbook of populist leaders like Silvio Berlusconi in Italy, Hugo Chávez in Venezuela and Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey.
An even more basic norm under threat today is the idea of legitimate opposition. In a democracy, partisan rivals must fully accept one another’s right to exist, to compete and to govern. Democrats and Republicans may disagree intensely, but they must view one another as loyal Americans and accept that the other side will occasionally win elections and lead the country. Without such mutual acceptance, democracy is imperiled. Governments throughout history have used the claim that their opponents are disloyal or criminal or a threat to the nation’s way of life to justify acts of authoritarianism.
The idea of legitimate opposition has been entrenched in the United States since the early 19th century, disrupted only by the Civil War. That may now be changing, however, as right-wing extremists increasingly question the legitimacy of their liberal rivals. During the last decade, Ann Coulter wrote best-selling books describing liberals as traitors, and the “birther” movement questioned President Obama’s status as an American.
Such extremism, once confined to the political fringes, has now moved into the mainstream. In 2008, the Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin linked Barack Obama to terrorism. This year, the Republican Party nominated a birther as its presidential candidate. Mr. Trump’s campaign centered on the claim that Hillary Clinton was a criminal who should be in jail; and “Lock her up!” was chanted at the Republican National Convention. In other words, leading Republicans — including the president-elect — endorsed the view that the Democratic candidate was not a legitimate rival.
The risk we face, then, is not merely a president with illiberal proclivities — it is the election of such a president when the guardrails protecting American democracy are no longer as secure.
American democracy is not in imminent danger of collapse. If ordinary circumstances prevail, our institutions will most likely muddle through a Trump presidency. It is less clear, however, how democracy would fare in a crisis. In the event of a war, a major terrorist attack or large-scale riots or protests — all of which are entirely possible — a president with authoritarian tendencies and institutions that have come unmoored could pose a serious threat to American democracy. We must be vigilant. The warning signs are real.
Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt are professors of government at Harvard University.
© 2016 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/16/opinion/sunday/is-donald-trump-a-threat-to-democracy.html [with comments]
*
OUTRAGEOUS! New York Times Says Trump Is A Threat To Democracy
Published on Dec 16, 2016 by The Alex Jones Channel
http://www.infowars.com/nyt-claims-trump-a-threat-to-democracy/ [just above]
The New York Times, owned by anti-Trump billionaire Carlos Slim, has advised Americans to remain vigilant because President-elect Donald Trump is a “threat” to our Democratic system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQ_FD2x_lQs [with comments]
--
President-Elect Donald Trump 'thank you' rally in Orlando
Streamed live on Dec 16, 2016 by FOX 5 Atlanta [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjHWv2DU5-HLpogAAr386DQ , http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjHWv2DU5-HLpogAAr386DQ/videos ]
President-Elect Donald Trump and VP-Elect Mike Pence hold 'thank you' rally at the Orlando Amphitheater located in the Central Florida Fairgrounds. MORE: http://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/224144209-story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBWKNUKbiII [Scott's bald bladder-emptying begins at c. the 1:09:45 mark; Pence's brokeback babble begins at c. the 1:12:20 mark; Trump's performance begins at c. the 1:17:45 mark; with comments]
--
Not a Jew? J Street president responds
All In with Chris Hayes
12/16/16
Jeremy Ben-Ami on Trump's far right pick for Ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, who says Ben-Ami is not really Jewish. Duration: 4:08
Read Peter Beinart and you'll vote Donald Trump
His reflexive reaction to my involvement in the Trump candidacy lays bare how dangerous the Jewish left is to the State of Israel.
David Friedman [ http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Author.aspx/1405 ]
06/05/16
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/18828 [with comments]
David Friedman, Trump's Ambassador to Israel, on the Issues
David M. Friedman, left, accompanies Donald J. Trump and his daughter Ivanka after an appearance in Federal Bankruptcy Court in 2010.
DEC. 16, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/16/world/middleeast/David-Friedman-Israel-Palestinians-Trump-quotes.html
Trump Chooses Hard-Liner as Ambassador to Israel
DEC. 15, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/us/politics/donald-trump-david-friedman-israel-ambassador.html [with comments]
David Friedman, Choice for Envoy to Israel, Is Hostile to Two-State Efforts
DEC. 16, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/16/world/middleeast/david-friedman-us-ambassador-israel.html
A Dangerous Choice for Ambassador to Israel
Editorial
DEC. 16, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/16/opinion/a-dangerous-choice-for-ambassador-to-israel.html [with comments]
Trump’s Daily Bankruptcy and the Ambassador to Israel
December 16, 2016
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trump_daily_bankruptcy_israel_ambassador_david_friedman
Analysis // David Friedman, Trump's Radical-right Ambassador, Makes Netanyahu Look Like a J Street Lefty
It’s a good thing ambassador-designate David Friedman will have diplomatic immunity; otherwise he might get arrested [in Israel] for incitement.
Dec 17, 2016
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.759443 [with comments]
© 2016 NBCnews.com
http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/not-a-jew-j-street-president-responds-835440707892 [the above YouTube of the segment for the moment at least at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toparuetBAg (no comments yet)]
*
Absurd conspiracy? Trump has a job for you!
The Rachel Maddow Show
12/16/16
Rachel Maddow reminds viewers of one more the more ridiculous Barack Obama conspiracy theories his opponents have presented is that he is secretly not black, and notes that one adherent of that theory, Fox News contributor Monica Crowley, will be a will be a deputy national security adviser to Donald Trump. Duration: 3:26
Yet Another Donald Trump Pick Has A Habit Of Spreading Dangerous Conspiracy Theories
A history of peddling debunked theories won’t guarantee you a spot in Trumpland — but it apparently doesn’t hurt.
12/16/2016 Updated December 16, 2016
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-national-security-monica-crowley_us_58542a74e4b08debb788afc4 [with embedded video, and comments]
© 2016 NBCnews.com
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/absurd-conspiracist-trump-has-a-job-for-you-835509827604 [the above YouTube of the segment for the moment at least at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhmPEoeL-tU (no comments yet), others for the moment at least at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoh6ykRRXUY (no comments yet), and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saCCuMPORJk (no comments yet)]
--
Five Weeks From Today, Donald Trump Will Be Our President
Published on Dec 17, 2016 by The Late Show with Stephen Colbert
No one knows quite what to expect. Will he divest his businesses? Will state dinners be replaced with Happy Meals?
[originally aired December 16. 2016]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zo6aRvf-l_s [with comments]
--
FULL EVENT : Donald Trump THANK YOU Rally in Mobile, Alabama 12 17 2016 Trump Live Mobile Speech
Published on Dec 17, 2016 by [Asian-language characters which won't display correctly in a post] [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZwhdyySh7EcFplA6Vll9Dw , http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZwhdyySh7EcFplA6Vll9Dw/videos ]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7J04_t3QZg [the openly, gleefully Christo-fascist festivities commence at c. the 1:28:00 mark; Franklin Graham's blaming God for Trump begins at c. the 2:14:35 mark; Kellyanne Conway's version of Fractured Fairy Tales begins at c. the 2:40:25 mark; Trump's performance begins at c. the 2:46:55 mark; Jeff Sessions's typical dazed batshit mumbling, during Trump's performance, begins at c. the 2:57:40 mark; Conway's second recital, with a cameo by Hope Hicks, also during Trump's performance, begins at c. the 3:12:45 mark; no comments yet] [also at e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MXukUOX-js (with comment), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxxQTopzBXE (no comments yet), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5iT12lq-sU (no comments yet), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4QvSo08izg (many ads; no comments yet), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Riph4NCx_U0 (many ads; with comments), and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcmcv4EDSNc (many ads; with comments)]
--
Donald Trump Christmas Cold Open - SNL
Published on Dec 18, 2016 by Saturday Night Live [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqFzWxSCi39LnW1JKFR3efg / http://www.youtube.com/user/SaturdayNightLive , http://www.youtube.com/user/SaturdayNightLive/videos ]
President-elect Donald Trump (Alec Baldwin) receives a surprise visit from Vladimir Putin (Beck Bennett) and Rex Tillerson (John Goodman).
[originally aired December 17, 2016]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ar80sFzViw [with comments]
*
Christmas Miracle - SNL
Published on Dec 18, 2016 by Saturday Night Live
Ms. Rafferty (Kate McKinnon), Sharon (Cecily Strong) and Doug (Casey Affleck) share their experiences meeting Santa Claus.
[originally aired December 17, 2016 (U.S. central time)]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lo8ZgNws504 [with comments]
*
Jingle Barack - SNL
Published on Dec 18, 2016 by Saturday Night Live
It's the last Christmas with President Obama and even Jesus (Casey Affleck) is marking it.
[originally aired December 17, 2016 (U.S. central time)]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTgGNNpEvkw [with comments]
*
Hillary Actually - SNL
Published on Dec 18, 2016 by Saturday Night Live
This Christmas, Hillary Clinton (Kate McKinnon) has something she wants to get off her chest.
[originally aired December 17, 2016 (U.S. central time)]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAhF8tPqafQ [with comments]
--
Infowars Under Massive Attack By Swarming Net-Bots.
Published on Dec 18, 2016 by The Alex Jones Channel
A massive attack that has been traced back to Chinese hackers is underway on all of Infowars websites including our stores at this very crucial time. they know that this is the time of the year when we make the majority of our funds to run the operation. They are seeking to cripple us by hitting us in the pocketbook and drain our resources. Sign up to our newsletter at infowars.com/newsletter and if you are having trouble reaching our store go to our backup store at store.infowars.com and show them that we won't be intimidated by shadowy, cowardly attacks as we stand up for truth and liberty!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95cyRkBDqUo [with comments]
--
2016 National Popular Vote Tracker
currently:
Clinton 65,844,594 48.2%
Trump 62,979,616 46.1%
http://cookpolitical.com/story/10174
--
in addition to (linked in) the post to which this is a reply and preceding and (any future other) following, see also (linked in):
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127252590 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127252649 and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127253879 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127254094 and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127255746 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127258652 and preceding (and any future following),
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127258910 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127258434 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127260661 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127260810 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127260925 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127262755 and preceding (and any future following),
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127266942 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127270026 and preceding (and any future following),
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127270109 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127270249 and preceding (and any future following),
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127271135 and preceding (and any future following),
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127272460 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127275916 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127263566 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127263791 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127263945 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127264202 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127265373 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127267265 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127274846 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127275921 and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127276033 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127276129 (and any future following)
Greensburg, KS - 5/4/07
"Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty."
from John Philpot Curran, Speech
upon the Right of Election, 1790
F6
Join the InvestorsHub Community
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
