HoundDog
So far, the White House has minimized the nature of the warning former acting Attorney General Sally Yates provided about Mike Flynn’s potential vulnerability to blackmail from Russia.
CNN is now reporting her warning was much more emphatic.
Washington (CNN)Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates is prepared to testify before a Senate panel next week that she gave a forceful warning to the White House regarding then-National Security Advisor Michael Flynn nearly three weeks before he was fired, contradicting the administration's version of events, sources familiar with her account tell CNN. In a private meeting January 26, Yates told White House Counsel Don McGahn that Flynn was lying when he denied in public and private that he had discussed US sanctions on Russia in conversations with Russian Ambassador to the US Sergei Kislyak. Flynn's misleading comments, Yates said, made him potentially vulnerable to being compromised by Russia, according to sources familiar with her version of events. She expressed "serious concerns" to McGahn, making it clear -- without making a recommendation -- that Flynn could be fired. ... On February 14, the day after Flynn's firing, White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters that Yates had simply "wanted to give a 'heads up' to us on some comments that may have seemed in conflict with what he (Flynn) had sent the Vice President."
Washington (CNN)Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates is prepared to testify before a Senate panel next week that she gave a forceful warning to the White House regarding then-National Security Advisor Michael Flynn nearly three weeks before he was fired, contradicting the administration's version of events, sources familiar with her account tell CNN.
Why did it take the White House 17 days to fire Flynn after this warning?
CNN notes that due to national security constraints, we may not hear the full story.
Drip, drip, drip.
I’m watching David Axelrod's new show on CNN, called The Axe Files, where he is interviewing John McCain. David asks Senator McCain "if he sees a comparison between Presidents Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan.”:
"No, I don't," he told David Axelrod on "The Axe Files," a podcast from the University of Chicago Institute of Politics and CNN. McCain said he found "appalling" Trump's assertion in an interview earlier this year that the US lacked the moral standing to question Russian President Vladimir Putin's human rights abuses. "We've got a lot of killers. What do you think, our country's so innocent?" Trump said at the time. "To state that there's some moral equivalency between an imperfect nation -- that's the United States of America -- and Vladimir Putin is appalling," McCain responded. "And I think it's pretty clear that there's a difference between, well, aren't we killers and the guy that stood there and said, 'Mr. Gorbachev, take down this wall,'" he said, recalling Reagan's historic challenge to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev delivered in a 1987 speech at the Berlin Wall. In contrast to Trump's posture toward Russia, Reagan "spoke out for the captive nations" under Soviet rule and gave hope to the citizens there, McCain said. "That's a pretty big difference." By assaulting a foundational principle of American democracy, McCain said, Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election was an act more destructive than if the US had been attacked through conventional warfare. "It's one thing to destroy a building with a bomb or inflict damage, but if you destroy the fundamentals of a free and open society, which is what democracy is all about, you inflict incredibly heavier damage," he said.
Given how thoughtful and soft spoken both of these are men are this episode is surprisingly engaging and even moving. One can sense a great mutual respect despite their different political affiliations.
Senator McCain also share’s pictures of when he was shot down as a Navy pilot in Vietnam and held as a POW.
I come away with greater hope for our political futures.
Karen Matthews and Elliot Spagat, of the Associated Press, bring us the sad news that Gilbert Baker, creator of the rainbow flag and gay rights activist, died at the age of 65 of heart disease.
Born in Kansas, Baker served in the U.S. Army where he was stationed in San Francisco, and continued to live there after receiving an honorable discharge.
After teaching himself to sew he "began making banners for gay and anti-war marches, creating the rainbow flag in 1978."
Baker said in a 2008 interview that he knew instantly from the way people reacted to the flag that it was "going to be something. I didn't know what or how ... but I knew." Baker was part of a circle of San Francisco gay activists that included Harvey Milk, the city supervisor who was assassinated in 1978, and Cleve Jones, who created the Names Project AIDS memorial quilt in the 1980s. In an interview Saturday, Jones recalled the rainbow flag's first appearance at the 1978 gay pride parade. "It was quite amazing to stand there and watch all these thousands of people turn off Market Street into San Francisco Civic Center Plaza and march beneath these giant flags that were flapping in the wind," Jones said. "People looked up and faces lit up and, without any explanation, this was now our flag."
Baker said in a 2008 interview that he knew instantly from the way people reacted to the flag that it was "going to be something. I didn't know what or how ... but I knew."
Baker was part of a circle of San Francisco gay activists that included Harvey Milk, the city supervisor who was assassinated in 1978, and Cleve Jones, who created the Names Project AIDS memorial quilt in the 1980s.
In an interview Saturday, Jones recalled the rainbow flag's first appearance at the 1978 gay pride parade.
"It was quite amazing to stand there and watch all these thousands of people turn off Market Street into San Francisco Civic Center Plaza and march beneath these giant flags that were flapping in the wind," Jones said. "People looked up and faces lit up and, without any explanation, this was now our flag."
Because he never patented or trademarked the flag, he never received any money for it. The flag has become an inspirational symbol for the GLBT communities, as well as for human rights, and appreciation of diversity. He says the flag originally had eight colors but it became difficult to get fabric for more than six.
Our condolences to his friends and family.
May he Rest In Peace.
Phillip Bump’s article in The Washington Post, "A brief history of how America feels about Donald Trump,” turns out to be a treasure trove of compiled data sets showing a comprehensive overview of President Trump’s favoribility polls from the primaries and presidency.
These three graphs should provide useful resources for future posts. We can also see Trump seems to have lost all his increments to favorability beyond his hardcore base in the Republican Party. The big question is whether this tumultuous last two weeks will start to peel off from the base 35% to 40% who have remained loyal so far.
You’ll notice that at no point, save for a few individual days of favorability ratings, has Trump been above 50 percent. Trump’s favorability ratings ticked up after the election, but even so remained under 50 percent. His polling average in the primary was never above 50 percent, nor was it ever above 50 percent in the general. Trump was also the only candidate in the modern era of presidential primaries to win despite earning less than 50 percent of the vote in both the primary and the general.
Bump notes that Trump’s favoribilty comes almost entirely from Republicans.
The primary, though, was a different story. The Republican presidential primary has been the apex of Trump’s political strength so far, with a consistent national lead that powered him through the those contests (although often only narrowly). Put another way: Trump has only being doing well when the pool of people being considered consists only of Republicans.
We can already see that President Trump’s honeymoon period may be in jeapordy of an early drop. (Understatement humor alert!)
Democrats eager to start gearing up for the 2020 presidential elections can take heart that every one of our polled candidates lead President Trump with former VP Joe Biden and Senator Sanders crushing it wth double digit leads.
A little noticed component of yesterday’s PPP poll must raise concerns for Republicans.
Jason Easle reports "Republicans Stunned As Poll Shows Joe Biden And Bernie Sanders Crurshing Trump In 2020,” in Politicususa:
PPP found, “Joe Biden 54/40, Bernie Sanders 52/41, Elizabeth Warren 48/43, Al Franken 46/41, and Cory Booker 45/42 in head to head matchups. Biden (56/33 favorability) and Sanders (53/36) are among the most popular political figures in the country. Voters are more divided on Warren (42/39) and Franken (34/34). Booker is not as well known nationally as the rest of this group yet, coming in at 27/24.” The answer for Democrats in 2020 isn’t running a nearly 80-year-old Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders. Sen. Warren will be 70 by the time the 2020 election rolls around, which means that she will be younger than Donald Trump, but she wouldn’t fit the contrast of youth that Democrats would hope to project to voters when potentially facing the nearly 75-year-old Trump. Sen. Franken will also be nearing 70 years of age by 2020, so while all of these figures are popular with the Democratic base, none of them really fit a message that Democrats are the diverse political party of the future.
PPP found, “Joe Biden 54/40, Bernie Sanders 52/41, Elizabeth Warren 48/43, Al Franken 46/41, and Cory Booker 45/42 in head to head matchups. Biden (56/33 favorability) and Sanders (53/36) are among the most popular political figures in the country. Voters are more divided on Warren (42/39) and Franken (34/34). Booker is not as well known nationally as the rest of this group yet, coming in at 27/24.”
The answer for Democrats in 2020 isn’t running a nearly 80-year-old Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders. Sen. Warren will be 70 by the time the 2020 election rolls around, which means that she will be younger than Donald Trump, but she wouldn’t fit the contrast of youth that Democrats would hope to project to voters when potentially facing the nearly 75-year-old Trump. Sen. Franken will also be nearing 70 years of age by 2020, so while all of these figures are popular with the Democratic base, none of them really fit a message that Democrats are the diverse political party of the future.
While Easle notes the advanced age of these candidates, he fails to mention that most of the voters will be four years older as well. (Humor alert!)
Altough not everyone believes presidential polls done three and a half years from the election are that conclusive, this PPP poll adds to evidence that President Trump may be an unusually weak candidate for reelection.
What may be more relevant for Trump are the odds of his impeachment and not making it to the end of his term.
Here’s an account of a late afternoon tweet storm outlining what GOP strategist Rick Wilson predicts will be the direction of things to come in the White House-Devin Nunez story.
In an aptly named story, ‘Strap in tight’: GOP strategists Rick Wilson Connects the dots on the latest Devin Nunes bombshell,” Brad Reed responds to the New York Times article that "Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) received intelligence of possible surveillance of Trump administration officials from two people within the Trump administration” by suggesting "more explosive revelations are still to come."
It not clear how much of GOP strategist, Rick Wilson’s tweet storm is speculation, or based on sources, but here is his take:
GOP strategist Rick Wilson wrote a tweet storm on Thursday afternoon that connected the dots that link Nunes, White House officials Michael Ellis and Ezra Cohen-Watnick, White House political strategist Steve Bannon, and disgraced former National Security Adviser Mike Flynn. “Two White House operatives — possibly improperly — accessed classified to pass it to Nunes as part of a political pushback operation,” Wilson began. “Who ordered it? Who asked for them to do so? If you think two lower-level guys took it upon themselves to make this play, I’ve got a Nigerian prince with $30 million dollars for you. Who is running the WH pushback operation on Trump’s Russia scandal? It rhymes with Beeve Stannon.”
GOP strategist Rick Wilson wrote a tweet storm on Thursday afternoon that connected the dots that link Nunes, White House officials Michael Ellis and Ezra Cohen-Watnick, White House political strategist Steve Bannon, and disgraced former National Security Adviser Mike Flynn.
“Two White House operatives — possibly improperly — accessed classified to pass it to Nunes as part of a political pushback operation,” Wilson began. “Who ordered it? Who asked for them to do so? If you think two lower-level guys took it upon themselves to make this play, I’ve got a Nigerian prince with $30 million dollars for you. Who is running the WH pushback operation on Trump’s Russia scandal? It rhymes with Beeve Stannon.”
Wilson explained that Cohen-Watnik was about to be fired by National Security Advisor McMaster but that
However, Wilson noted that both Bannon and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner both personally pushed back on McMaster’s desire to fire Cohen-Watnick because he is “helping run the pushback operation on Russia with Nunes.”
We should note that the only evidence Wilson offers to connect Cohen-Watnick and Mike Flynn is that Flynn hired him, and presumably still has an "open channe! To him.
Previously, RawStory reported that "Two White House officials were involved with the hand over of intelligence information to House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), according to a bombshell report in the New York Times.
Now, the Times says that another White House staffer, a former deputy to disgraced National Security Adviser Mike Flynn named Ezra Cohen-Watnick was also involved with getting the information to Nunes. “Mr. Cohen-Watnick is a former Defense Intelligence Agency official who was originally brought to the White House by Michael T. Flynn, the former national security adviser,” the report said..
Now, the Times says that another White House staffer, a former deputy to disgraced National Security Adviser Mike Flynn named Ezra Cohen-Watnick was also involved with getting the information to Nunes.
“Mr. Cohen-Watnick is a former Defense Intelligence Agency official who was originally brought to the White House by Michael T. Flynn, the former national security adviser,” the report said..
Earlier, on our own front page Mark Summers Reported that:
The two sources turn out to be Michael Ellis, a lawyer in the White House Counsel’s office who used to work with Nunes at the House Intelligence Committee, and Ezra Cohen-Watnick, who is the Senior Director for Intelligence at the National Security Council.
CNN is now reporting that the White House is inviting Democrats and Republican chairs and ranking members from the House Intelligence Committee to view the classified materials the NSC has come across related to their investigations.
Rep Schiff asked is this is an attempt by the White House to “launder” information through the intelligence committees to disquise sources.
Or perhaps Rick Wilson’s conclusion is more apt, “Strap in tight, It’s going to be a rough landing.”
Paul Wood just published "Trump Russia dossier key claim 'verified’” in the BBC.
www.bbc.com/...
BBC has learned that US officials "verified" a key claim in a report about Kremlin involvement in Donald Trump's election - that a Russian diplomat in Washington was in fact a spy. ... At one point he wrote: "A leading Russian diplomat, Mikhail KULAGIN, had been withdrawn from Washington at short notice because Moscow feared his heavy involvement in the US presidential election operation… would be exposed in the media there."
BBC has learned that US officials "verified" a key claim in a report about Kremlin involvement in Donald Trump's election - that a Russian diplomat in Washington was in fact a spy. ...
At one point he wrote: "A leading Russian diplomat, Mikhail KULAGIN, had been withdrawn from Washington at short notice because Moscow feared his heavy involvement in the US presidential election operation… would be exposed in the media there."
Steele misspelled the name Kalugin. This verification adds credibility to the Christopher Steele dossier.
Wood reports that the FBI had already independently arrived at the same conclusion.
Wood also provides a more detailed description of a theory for how and why Russia and the Trump campaign cooperated.
"You are stealing the stuff and pushing it back into the US body politic," said the former official, "you know where to target that stuff when you're pushing it back." This would take co-operation with the Trump campaign, it is claimed. "If you need to ensure that white women in Pennsylvania don't vote or independents get pissed in Michigan so they stay home: that's voter suppression. You can figure what your target demographics and locations are from the voter rolls. Then you can use that to target your bot.
"You are stealing the stuff and pushing it back into the US body politic," said the former official, "you know where to target that stuff when you're pushing it back."
This would take co-operation with the Trump campaign, it is claimed.
"If you need to ensure that white women in Pennsylvania don't vote or independents get pissed in Michigan so they stay home: that's voter suppression. You can figure what your target demographics and locations are from the voter rolls. Then you can use that to target your bot.
Could we have an opportunity to create a realignment of political coalitions to pull in 21 plus moderate Republicans to join us to create a house majority on this issue, and perhaps others? Using the foundation idea of constructive populist-based substantive governance rather than vindictive, and destructive ideological antigovernment zealotry.
A constructive strongly lead bill to reduce premiums, and deductables with modest revenue enhancement from the top 1% could demonstrate a clever and constructive jiu Jitsu. President Trump has already demonstrated openness to allowing Medicare and Medicaid to negotiate pharmaceutical prices. Such an alliance could offer Trump, and all Americans a quick, practical, immediate win.
And even his most vocal critics, such as myself, must acknowledge our President has long demonstrated a high degree of opportunistic ideological flexibility. If Trump discovers he can have greater and quicker success joining with moderate Republicans and Democrats to achieve foundational victories with fixing and expanding the ACA, and an economically stimulative trillion dollar plus infrastructure plan we may on the way to a much sooner political realignment than having to wait for 2018 and 2020.
Such a empirical, and results oriented “Fix and Improve ACA” will illustrate how government can be a useful and essential agent of public good.
Could we convince President Trump that he was bamboozled and betrayed by Speaker Ryan and alt-right Freedom Caucus who ignored his clear campaign promises to provide great and better health care for all Americans by these extremIst ideological zealots? Zealots who hijacked, exploited, and betrayed his promise of better healthcare for all to instead substitute their disgraceful tax- cut plan for billionaires. “Don't ya see that, once again, his instincts to cover all Americans with better health care were right all along.” He just fell into the wrong crowd. (Snark alert.)
How can we use this new populist led activism to bring moderate Republicans and Democrats together to show Trump he can achieve quick wins if he refocuses on “his original instincts” to provide substantial improvements to health care and coverage for all people.
Could we use such a avictory as a stepping stone to do the same with a a trillion dollar infrastructure plan financed in great part with a economically stimulative government finances with a combination of increased revenues from the top 1% and a burst of “pump priming deficit spending.
if he hasn't figured it out yet, President Trump will soon discover the Freedom Caucus has no intention to fund any infrastructure stimulus with new government dollars. President Obama and Democrats have been advocating this for eight years, and even longer.
Could we realign the Congressional leadership even before the 2018 and 2020 elections? Maybe I should have my morning coffee. I appear to still be dreaming.
In a surprising development, the Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel has just published an editorial challenging Hillary Clinton's qualifications to be our next president. I’ve doubled checked that this appears to be a reputable newspaper. If it is not I will take this down. This story may be highly upsetting to many so I’ve taken care to try to stick to the facts and figure out what is going on here. I’ve kept any opinions of my own out of this report although I am a Bernie Sanders supporter. But also a Democrat who will fully support our Party’s nominee which seems likely to be Hillary Clinton in November.
Noting that in a democracy that openness and honesty is the “foundational building block of the republic" an editorial in the Wisconsin Journal, entitled Clinton's abysmal record on open government questions Hillary Clinton’s suitability to be president.
As we noted Tuesday, Republican front-runner Donald Trump is not one of those candidates. But neither is Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton. Her horrible track record on transparency raises serious concerns for open government under a Clinton administration — so serious we believe they may disqualify her from public office. We hope Wisconsin voters give this issue the consideration it deserves when they go to the polls on Tuesday. In addition, regardless of Clinton's excuses, the only believable reason for the private server in her basement was to keep her emails out of the public eye by willfully avoiding freedom of information laws. No president, no secretary of state, no public official at any level is above the law. She chose to ignore it, and must face the consequences.
As we noted Tuesday, Republican front-runner Donald Trump is not one of those candidates. But neither is Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton. Her horrible track record on transparency raises serious concerns for open government under a Clinton administration — so serious we believe they may disqualify her from public office. We hope Wisconsin voters give this issue the consideration it deserves when they go to the polls on Tuesday.
In addition, regardless of Clinton's excuses, the only believable reason for the private server in her basement was to keep her emails out of the public eye by willfully avoiding freedom of information laws. No president, no secretary of state, no public official at any level is above the law. She chose to ignore it, and must face the consequences.
The Wisconsin Journal quotes from this Sunday’s Washington Post article by Robert O'Harrow Jr. which reported that Clinton and her aides continued to use their Blackberries for State Department work even after being warned by the NSA not to.
"Throughout, they paid insufficient attention to laws and regulations governing the handling of classified material and the preservation of government records, interviews and documents show. They also neglected repeated warnings about the security of the BlackBerry while Clinton and her closest aides took obvious security risks in using the basement server."
The Journal also refers to a series of devastating revelations from the conservative Judicial Watch which received a favorable ruling from U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, in their Freedom of Information Act suit, who stunned observers by granting Judicial Watch a highly unusual limited right of discovery to depose current and former members of the State Department including most of Clinton’s immediate staff.
legitimate questions have been raised about whether Clinton's staff was trying to help her to sidestep the Freedom of Information Act. "We're talking about a Cabinet-level official who was accommodated by the government for reasons unknown to the public," Sullivan said. "And I think that's a fair statement: For reasons heretofore unknown to the public. And all the public can do is speculate." "This is all about the public's right to know," Sullivan added.
legitimate questions have been raised about whether Clinton's staff was trying to help her to sidestep the Freedom of Information Act.
"We're talking about a Cabinet-level official who was accommodated by the government for reasons unknown to the public," Sullivan said. "And I think that's a fair statement: For reasons heretofore unknown to the public. And all the public can do is speculate."
"This is all about the public's right to know," Sullivan added.
"Voters have every right to know what Mrs. Clinton told these groups.... By refusing to release them all, especially the bank speeches, Mrs. Clinton fuels speculation about why she's stonewalling," the Times editorial said.
In closing the Journal asks voters to think long and hard.
Clinton has a long track record of public service but an equally long record of obfuscation, secrecy and working in the shadows to boost her power and further her ambition. We encourage voters to think long and hard about that record when choosing the next president.
A fair question for ourselves is “should we be paying any attention at all to these kinds of developments that are negative for our candidates?” As I noted here last week, we will pay a high price if we create for ourselves an intentional blind spot about negative news.
We need to discuss and better understand the details of such stories so we can use our collective intelligence to develop our best responses. When there are errors our internal experts can correct them and educate the rest of us on how best to respond when our right-wing friends bludgeon us over the heads with these developments in social gatherings.
I ask readers to adhere to the highest level of restraint and respect for other commenters. We are all on the same team here. We also have to acknowledge that while anything is possible, as of this moment, the numbers suggest that Hillary Clinton may very well be our nominee in the general election. We all should be focused on learning what the facts are so we best know how to manage this situation for the best of the Democratic Party.
This comment section should be equally safe for Clinton and Sanders supporters.
Please no gratuitous name calling. For example, instead of calling an adversary an “blithering idiot” try instead saying “someone with tremendous opportunities for learning and self-improvement.”
Hi everyone, this is my first post for about a year and half since the last election cycle. After spending more time than budgeted supporting Democratic and progressive causes in the last two election cycles, I had to go back to work for a living which on my current project includes monitoring financial markets and investments most of the day, and writing a book and studying new skills at night to keep my mind sharp.
But I have to come back to Daily Kos ahead of schedule after I was just floored a few minutes ago when Representative Darryll E. Issa just appeared a few minutes ago on CNBC’s financial channel to provide support for Tim Cook’s heroic support for individual privacy rights and opposition to the FBI’s attempts to force it to create a backdoor enabling the FBI to unlock and gain access to an IPhone used the the San Bernadino gunman.
But first some background. After receiving fierce criticism from the FBI, law enforcement, and financial press, as well as Donald Trump demanding a boycott of Apple yesterday, Tim Cook sent a letter to Apple employees explaining his concerns.
As reported in this morning’s Los Angeles Times:
"The case is about much more than a single phone or a single investigation. At stake is the data security of hundreds of millions of law-abiding people, and setting a dangerous precedent that threatens everyone’s civil liberties.” “The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone. But that’s simply not true,” Cook wrote. “Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable.”
"The case is about much more than a single phone or a single investigation. At stake is the data security of hundreds of millions of law-abiding people, and setting a dangerous precedent that threatens everyone’s civil liberties.”
“The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone. But that’s simply not true,” Cook wrote. “Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable.”
I've been surprised and enormously pleased at Time Cook's courage to stand up to the enormous pressure to bow down before the government's demand to throw out privacy rights when confronted by “the ticking time bomb" scenario. Yesterday, several of CNBC’’s anchors were aghast and indignant confronting the token advocate for constitutional privacy rights about how he could look the families of future victims killed by potential future terrorism in the eye and explain why Apple would not help prevent these needless and hypothetical deaths of innocent Americans in order to protect the rights of a dead terrorist using a phone that was not even his.
In response, FBI Director James Comey downplayed the extent of the FBI’s request and possible consequences in this disputed claim.
Meanwhile FBI Director James Comey said in a statement Sunday that the scale of the San Bernardino attacks, which left 14 people dead and 22 people injured, warranted the pursuit of all leads, including reviewing Syed Rizwan Farook’s iPhone. "I hope folks will take a deep breath and stop saying the world is ending, but instead use that breath to talk to each other," Comey said. “We simply want the chance, with a search warrant, to try to guess the terrorist's passcode without the phone essentially self-destructing and without it taking a decade to guess correctly. That's it,” Comey said. “We don't want to break anyone's encryption or set a master key loose on the land. …reports today’s latest developments. After receiving fierce criticism from law enforcement and the financial press Tim Cook sent a letter to Apple employees explaining:
Meanwhile FBI Director James Comey said in a statement Sunday that the scale of the San Bernardino attacks, which left 14 people dead and 22 people injured, warranted the pursuit of all leads, including reviewing Syed Rizwan Farook’s iPhone.
"I hope folks will take a deep breath and stop saying the world is ending, but instead use that breath to talk to each other," Comey said.
“We simply want the chance, with a search warrant, to try to guess the terrorist's passcode without the phone essentially self-destructing and without it taking a decade to guess correctly. That's it,” Comey said. “We don't want to break anyone's encryption or set a master key loose on the land. …reports today’s latest developments. After receiving fierce criticism from law enforcement and the financial press Tim Cook sent a letter to Apple employees explaining:
I listened to this debate yesterday with despair and dread, feeling guilty as well that I didn't have the time and energy to come back, unwrap such a complicated trade-off, and post here in the hope of preventing any of our candidates, or important constituent groups, from walking themselves out on the wrong limb thinking that supporting the prevention of needless possible deaths of American citizens versus protecting the “civil rights and privacy" of dead terrorists is a no-brainer, “slam-dunk" decision. Only to learn later it was a blunder of great magnitude, like that of the authorizing of force resolution for the the Iran war after unintended side effects and delayed feedback “fixes that backfire" feedback loops are calculated.
I hate it when this happens. LIke when the economist optimize equations that don’t even have the right variables in them yet, or the right time frames.
Just as examples, consider that any back door in our phones, computers, and soon “network of all things” possessed by the FBI, or NSA will soon be owned by the Chinese, Nigerians, organized crime organizations, and special interest groups. If the British or French aristocracy had this technology the American and French revolutions would never have succeeded. Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and our other founding fathers would have been locked up as terrorists before we ever heard of them.
Special interest groups could have published the names of all women who even considered having abortions back in the 60s to have teachers fired.
Heck your personal enemies, fascist governments or corporations you criticize, or even aspirants for your job could insert illegal pictures of naked children on your cell phone and then anonymously turn you in as a pedophile. Virtually, no one would risk their own careers and freedom to come to your defense when such compelling evidence proves you are guilty.
Our personal freedoms depend on our ability to have private conversations and property such as the private notes on our own phones, computers, and dozens of camera and microphones that now exist in our houses. The Constitution requires warrants issued by a judge for search and seizures of our homes and private property. By forcing Apple to create a back door any number of third parties could have access to everything you do. Issa just pointed out most senators and congresspeople have Iphones.
Second point, the classic “ticking time bomb” scenario used to justify torture, and violations of privacy rights to save the hypothetical future Twin Towers from devastation are often put forward to undercut constitutional privacy arguments by people who are doing absolutely nothing to prevent less dramatic but real, day to day deaths of vastly greater numbers of people. For example, millions of people die each year from Malaria and other tropical infectious diseases, heart disease, lack of medical care, drunken driving, of potable water that could often be prevented from relatively small investments in public health or education.
I believe the number of children dying from diarehea that could be prevented by chlorine and salt tablets costing pennies per child, is measured in millions, but certainly at least hundreds or thousands.
But the same people who did not blink for a second to spend trillions of dollars on two wars, and billions on vast expansions of our domestic intelligence, as well as suspend important sections of our constitution and bill of rights after we tragically lost 3,500 lives in the Twin Towers attacks, consistently slash budgets for public health, research, and education that rationale are likely to have vastly greater benefit-cost ratios.
The difference seems to be the immediate salience of the idea of a lone wolf criminal, or perhaps even “terrorist,” versus the abstract, delayed, or probabilistic consequences of “loss of privacy rights or constitutional freedoms." It is difficult, however, to even discuss many of these downstream hypothetical side effects without sounding like a conspiracy theorist with a tinge of paranoia. ... Excuse me while I adjust my tin foil hat. Are there any other DKOS old-timers still around who remember the good “ole" days when one could publish a picture of the three stooges having a pie fight while wearing tin foil hats and get 400 recs in 10 minutes.
I've run out of time to list my other points such as if the U.S. government forces U.S. companies to damage the trust worthiness of their products customers will buy from companies in other nations, or our companies will accelerate their departure from the U.S.A.
So yesterday I felt compelled to give folks a heads up and pause for a moment to consider some of the bigger picture and longer term issues before any of our candidates succumbed to political pressures to support the FBI in efforts to protect innocent Americans from “liberal assaults on common-sense" and join Trump's boycott of Apple. But then thought “no, it's a hopeless case, too complicated, and potentially divisive, especially not knowing what our candidates have already said so far. I”ll get a higher return on investment returning to KOS with an upbeat “Here comes the sun" post on breakthroughs in solar and wind power.” But I felt badly about making the wrong choice.
So imagine my surprise when Rep Darrell Issa, perhaps the worst congressperson we have, and someone I've castigated for being on the wrong side of goodness on every single issue, interrupts his ongoing demands that Hillary Clinton be indicted, to articulate one of the most passionate defenses of constitutional rights of privacy and freedom for a long time.
Companies should comply with warrants to the fullest extent they are able, but mandating that companies completely reengineer their own software to create hacking tools against their will would set a dangerous precedent for our future,” Issa, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said. Americans need to acknowledge, Issa said, that the implications of the case go beyond unlocking one cell phone. “It’s about whether or not government should have the ability to access the devices we all use every day to store personal and private information,” Issa said. “No company should be forced to intentionally weaken their own products at the bidding of a government agent. Apple has cooperated with requests from law enforcement using the information that they have access to. Going any further would do real harm to Americans’ right to privacy and would almost certainly undermine the freedoms that our government should be working to protect.”
Companies should comply with warrants to the fullest extent they are able, but mandating that companies completely reengineer their own software to create hacking tools against their will would set a dangerous precedent for our future,” Issa, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said.
Americans need to acknowledge, Issa said, that the implications of the case go beyond unlocking one cell phone.
“It’s about whether or not government should have the ability to access the devices we all use every day to store personal and private information,” Issa said. “No company should be forced to intentionally weaken their own products at the bidding of a government agent. Apple has cooperated with requests from law enforcement using the information that they have access to. Going any further would do real harm to Americans’ right to privacy and would almost certainly undermine the freedoms that our government should be working to protect.”
What the heck? Maybe its some kind of trick, but his full quote on CNBC today was even more explicit, detailed, and subtle. I am quite sure that I will turn out to be the first and only person ever to use the word “subtle” to describe anything to do with Rep. Issa.
Will wonders never cease.
Achieving a successful balance between our needs for security, privacy, and freedoms is an impossibly complicated challenge for which I don't know the right solution. My hope is that we all pause to think about the bigger picture and longer term probable consequences before jumping on the bandwagon with a demagogue like Trump, who demands we boycott Apple and give our government and law enforcement system even more tools than they already have or need to protect our “security.”
After all. If our guiding principle will be “let no stone be left unturned to protect innocent American" from hypothetical threats, then we should install sensor chips in all children when they are born to transmit every sound and sight they perceive directly to the NSA.
How else can we be sure they do not engage in dangerous unrecorded conversations that might lead to the deaths of innocents? Can you look in the eyes of the families of the potential victims?
What will we say to all of those families of the soldiers and others who fought and died for our freedoms from the revolutionary war and all others to gain and protect our democracy, constitution, and Bill of Rights without blinking or thinking?
Without the right of privacy no other constitutional or other human right will be possible against the might of systems of organized power.
With the overwhelming power of today's technology, democracy and freedoms lost may never be regained.
Poll 12 votes Show Results Do you support Tim Cook and Apple in their resistance to the FBI demand to put a back door in the IPhone. Well, as long as FBI promises not to misuse it or let it fall into the hands of the bad gusy we should t them protect us any way they deem appropriate.. Yes, Viva las Resistance! We shouldn't raise such issues with an election coming up. We can get back to this after the election like we did with the FISA reversal. No, The FBI should give coupons for a lifetime of free pie to anyone whose phone they have to hack. (Do people still use pie in polls these days. Sorry if I've disrupted the solemnity of serious political issues with frivality. If we can't trust the FBI, DEA, NSA, CIA ,and foreign governments who can we trust? Oh no! Who let the Hounddog out? Ruff, Ruff, awwwwwoooooooooo! Let's wait to see what the Repubicans say and then traingulate one step to the right so they can'st use this against us. 12 votes Vote Now! Do you support Tim Cook and Apple in their resistance to the FBI demand to put a back door in the IPhone. Well, as long as FBI promises not to misuse it or let it fall into the hands of the bad gusy we should t them protect us any way they deem appropriate.. 0% 0 votes Yes, Viva las Resistance! 9 votes We shouldn't raise such issues with an election coming up. We can get back to this after the election like we did with the FISA reversal. 8% 1 vote No, 8% 1 vote The FBI should give coupons for a lifetime of free pie to anyone whose phone they have to hack. (Do people still use pie in polls these days. Sorry if I've disrupted the solemnity of serious political issues with frivality. 8% 1 vote If we can't trust the FBI, DEA, NSA, CIA ,and foreign governments who can we trust? 0% 0 votes Oh no! Who let the Hounddog out? Ruff, Ruff, awwwwwoooooooooo! 0% 0 votes Let's wait to see what the Repubicans say and then traingulate one step to the right so they can'st use this against us. 0% 0 votes
From the first time I ever heard a U.S. President deliver a State of the Union address, long ago as a child, the insularity of the "leader of the free world," and most powerful nation in the world saying only, "God bless America," has always seemed like a jolt of insularity, cultural narcissism, and lack of global vision - as well as a public relations shortfall.
It's made me feel like I might if invited over to another family's Thanksgiving dinner and the host ending the prayer with, "and may God bless his own family, leaving out the guest's familys - like an implied footnote - "all the rest of you can roast in &^)&, or fend for yourselves."
"Hey, global putzes, we got ours, why don't you go get yours!"
Or worse, don't even bother sense from our view, "our God wouldn't bless the likes of you anyway." "We are the only 'chosen' people, the rest of you can bugger off!"
I know this is not really the intended message of leaving out a blessing for all the rest of the peoples of the world who we know are watching. I know the State of the Union is a message to the American Congress and people about the state of our affairs. But what a lack of easy grace. How easy would it be to be generous - it would cost us nothing, but potentially gain a great deal of global goodwill at a time we all need as much more global goodwill as we can get.
And, be evidence that we might be capable of some higher level of social awareness than is sadly implied by leaving out the other 7.5 billion people on the planet we we ask for God's blessing, in a globally relevant event we know is broadcast and watched through-out the world.
Especially this year, just after the tragic shooting in Paris, we know many through-out the world are looking for global leadership from whomever will rise to the challenge.
Poll 41 votes Show Results Do you support the idea of President Obama concluding the State of the Union address with "May God bless America and all the nations and peoples of the world?" Yes No Don't know He should offer pie to all peoples of the world Other But, how will God feel about this? We should be more cautious. I'm an atheist but realize "May God bless America" is a vernacular expression for "best wishes" so approve on that basis without endorsing overly simplistic theistic assumptions You all can go roast in perdition! Especially "furerners" (except for dogs who all go to heavon!) HoundDog, you had an excellent and useful poll we might have sent to the President had you not messed it up with this silliness at the end. But welcome back anyway. Woof, woof! It's time for the Saturday Night sillies!Open Thread time. May God bless pie. Never before has so much good potential, for so many, been under mined by so view silly poll questions. - Winston ChurchDog 41 votes Vote Now! Do you support the idea of President Obama concluding the State of the Union address with "May God bless America and all the nations and peoples of the world?" Yes 18 votes No 9 votes Don't know 0% 0 votes He should offer pie to all peoples of the world 7% 3 votes Other 0% 0 votes But, how will God feel about this? We should be more cautious. 5% 2 votes I'm an atheist but realize "May God bless America" is a vernacular expression for "best wishes" so approve on that basis without endorsing overly simplistic theistic assumptions 7% 3 votes You all can go roast in perdition! Especially "furerners" (except for dogs who all go to heavon!) 0% 0 votes HoundDog, you had an excellent and useful poll we might have sent to the President had you not messed it up with this silliness at the end. But welcome back anyway. 7% 3 votes Woof, woof! It's time for the Saturday Night sillies!Open Thread time. 2% 1 vote May God bless pie. 5% 2 votes Never before has so much good potential, for so many, been under mined by so view silly poll questions. - Winston ChurchDog 0% 0 votes
Of this figure, roughly 48,000 will be via diarrhea; 60,000 via malaria; 95,000 via under-nutrition during childhood; and 38,000 via heat exposure (the elderly mostly) — according to the new report. “Our planet is losing its capacity to sustain human life in good health,” stated Dr Margaret Chan, the director general of the World Health Organisation (WHO). “Earlier this year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its most disturbing report to date, with a strong focus on the consequences for health.” ... Dr Chan continued: “Debates about climate change are still not giving sufficient attention to the profound effects that climate variables have on health. Many of the world’s most worrisome diseases have transmission cycles that are profoundly shaped by conditions of heat and humidity and patterns of rainfall. As one important example, malaria parasites and the mosquitoes that transmit them are highly sensitive to climate variability, which has been repeatedly linked to epidemics.” ... “Other epidemic-prone diseases, like cholera, dengue, and bacterial meningitis, are likewise highly sensitive to climate variability. All of these diseases have a huge potential for social disruption and make huge logistical demands on response teams.”
“Our planet is losing its capacity to sustain human life in good health,” stated Dr Margaret Chan, the director general of the World Health Organisation (WHO). “Earlier this year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its most disturbing report to date, with a strong focus on the consequences for health.” ...
Dr Chan continued: “Debates about climate change are still not giving sufficient attention to the profound effects that climate variables have on health. Many of the world’s most worrisome diseases have transmission cycles that are profoundly shaped by conditions of heat and humidity and patterns of rainfall. As one important example, malaria parasites and the mosquitoes that transmit them are highly sensitive to climate variability, which has been repeatedly linked to epidemics.” ... “Other epidemic-prone diseases, like cholera, dengue, and bacterial meningitis, are likewise highly sensitive to climate variability. All of these diseases have a huge potential for social disruption and make huge logistical demands on response teams.”
* The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for October 2014 was the highest on record for October, at 0.74°C (1.33°F) above the 20th century average of 14.0°C (57.1°F). * The global land surface temperature was 1.05°C (1.89°F) above the 20th century average of 9.3°C (48.7°F)—the fifth highest for October on record. * For the ocean, the October global sea surface temperature was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 15.9°C (60.6°F) and the highest for October on record. * The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the January–October period (year-to-date) was 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20th century average of 14.1°C (57.4°F). The first ten months of 2014 were the warmest such period on record.
* The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for October 2014 was the highest on record for October, at 0.74°C (1.33°F) above the 20th century average of 14.0°C (57.1°F).
* The global land surface temperature was 1.05°C (1.89°F) above the 20th century average of 9.3°C (48.7°F)—the fifth highest for October on record.
* For the ocean, the October global sea surface temperature was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 15.9°C (60.6°F) and the highest for October on record.
* The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the January–October period (year-to-date) was 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20th century average of 14.1°C (57.4°F). The first ten months of 2014 were the warmest such period on record.
With records dating back to 1880, the global temperature averaged across the world's land and ocean surfaces for October 2014 was the highest on record for the month, at 0.74°C (1.33°F) above the 20th century average. This also marks the third consecutive month and fifth of the past six with a record high global temperature for its respective month (July was fourth highest). ... The global oceans were the warmest on record for October, with a temperature that averaged 0.62°C (1.12°F) higher than the 20th century average. This marks the sixth month in a row (beginning in May 2014) that the global ocean temperature broke its monthly temperature record. October 2014 also ties with June 2014 for the third highest ocean temperature departure on average for any month on record; the second highest departure from average occurred in August 2014 and the all-time highest occurred just last month.
With records dating back to 1880, the global temperature averaged across the world's land and ocean surfaces for October 2014 was the highest on record for the month, at 0.74°C (1.33°F) above the 20th century average. This also marks the third consecutive month and fifth of the past six with a record high global temperature for its respective month (July was fourth highest). ...
The global oceans were the warmest on record for October, with a temperature that averaged 0.62°C (1.12°F) higher than the 20th century average. This marks the sixth month in a row (beginning in May 2014) that the global ocean temperature broke its monthly temperature record. October 2014 also ties with June 2014 for the third highest ocean temperature departure on average for any month on record; the second highest departure from average occurred in August 2014 and the all-time highest occurred just last month.
With scientific reports such as this coming in on a regular basis, how long will it take climate change deniers to feel the heat of being on the hot-seat of debate and wake up to our new realities of global warming?
We need to take urgent political actions to reduce fossil fuel emissions. With the Republicans now in control of both the House and Senate it is more incumbent on Senator Mitch McConnell and Speaker John Boehner than ever to demonstrate true leadership and reject the zealous anti-science ideologue extremists on their right and advance legislation to protect our planet and future generations.
President Obama has shown courage, leadership and insight in advancing policies to fight global warming. Now that Republicans have control of congress, history will record that the responsibility for any failures to take the appropriate actions to ameliorate global warming will rest soundly on their shoulders.
I challenge and call upon the Republican leadership to propose their plans for dealing with global warming and also demand that the media stop giving politicians who refuse to deal with reality and profess climate denial or climate "mutism" a free pass. Climate change is not a political game, but a dangerous crisis, and real and present danger. People are dying.
Our Washington political leaders need to lead, follow, or get the heck out of the way.
Upload logo
Choose a logo image in .gif, .jpg, or .png format.
Delete logo
Choose File