JustOneMinute

Freedom of The Press, Intermittently

The new motto of the online version of the WaPo is "Democracy dies in darkness", but evidently a few years in a clean well-lighted place like jail won't harm right wing investigative journalists/provacateurs/activitists. Or so we infer from the non-table pounding by media outlets that have been up in arms about Trump but are unable to editorialize in favor of the two Planned Parenthood activists hauled up on political charges in California.

The editors at the LA Times breaks ranks and shows how easy it is to defend both their side, Planned Parenthood, and freedom of press inquiry:

Felony charges are a disturbing overreach for the duo behind the Planned Parenthood sting videos

There’s no question that anti-abortion activist David Daleiden surreptitiously recorded healthcare and biomedical services employees across the state of California with the intent of discrediting the healthcare provider, Planned Parenthood — something his heavily edited videos failed to do. There’s also no question that it’s against state law to record confidential conversations without the consent of all the parties involved.

But that doesn’t mean that California Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra should have charged Daleiden and his co-conspirator, Susan Merritt, with 15 felony counts — one for each of the 14 people recorded, and a 15th for conspiracy. It's disturbingly aggressive for Becerra to apply this criminal statute to people who were trying to influence a contested issue of public policy, regardless of how sound or popular that policy may be. Planned Parenthood and biomedical company StemExpress, which was also featured in the videos, have another remedy for the harm that was done to them: They can sue Daleiden and Merritt for damages. The state doesn’t need to threaten the pair with prison time.

...

In similar cases, we have denounced moves to criminalize such behavior, especially in the case of animal welfare investigators who have gone undercover at slaughterhouses and other agricultural businesses to secretly record horrific and illegal abuses of animals. That work, too, is aimed at revealing wrongdoing and changing public policy.

That’s why the state law forbidding recording of conversations should be applied narrowly, and to clear and egregious violations of privacy where the motive is personal gain.

The righties at the NY Post also blast away:

Think tanker: California’s ‘Chilling’ Speech Prosecution

In 2015, two filmmakers went undercover posing as a biotech company and caught Planned Parenthood in what appeared to be the act of harvesting and selling baby parts. Yet instead of punishing Planned Parenthood, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has now slapped the undercover journalists with 15 felony charges for recording without consent. “To say that this is outrageous is an understatement,” notes Pascal-Emanuel Gobry at The Week — and a “disastrous” precedent: “Embarking on serious undercover journalism will, by definition, almost always involve doing things that can be technically classified as illegal.” This kind of prosecution, then, “is a textbook case of ‘chilling effect,’ the legal and ethical concept that safeguards the First Amendment’s protection of the natural right of free speech.”

From the right: The Fourth Estate’s Cowardice

At Commentary, Noah Rothman points out another horrifying aspect to California’s persecution of the antiabortion videographers: the silence of the journalistic establishment. Indeed, the left’s counterattacks against the group, the Center for Medical Progress, have “largely focused on its efforts to perform journalism.” And where’s the outrage? “In the Trump era, the Fourth Estate has become especially protective of its profession,” Rothman writes. And yet, here we have “a real, genuine example of the heavy hand of government operating in defense of entrenched interests to criminalize standard journalistic practice,” and journalists have mostly responded with cowardice and silence.

If the WaPo and the failing NY Times have chimed in on the balancing act between rigid legalisms and a powerful government using the law to quash its political adversaries, it has escaped me.

Repeal OF FCC Rule A Disaster! Or Is It?

Jazz Shaw is one among many decrying the Republican repeal of the October 2016 FCC internet privacy rules covering Internet Service Providers (ISPs):

The entire idea of “adding costs and stifling innovation” is laughable on the face of it. We’re talking about a rule which doesn’t impact the amount of data which is available and collected or any of the normal processes involved in providing internet service to customers. It simply forces the provider to proactively obtain the permission of the user (“opting in”) before all of their personal data can be scooped off and auctioned off for marketing and advertising purposes. The fact that virtually no sane person who doesn’t wish to be further bombarded with spam advertising or have their private online activity shipped around with even more chance of it being hacked would ever want to opt in for that tells you all you need to know.

But is there another side to this? USA Today has a quick recap on how we got here. A key point: until recently the ISPs fell under the regulatory framework set by the FTC. The ISPs were reclassified as common carriers subject to FCC regulation, and now we are entering a world of differing rules.

The current FCC commissioner, Ajit Pai, was a humble dissenter last October:

For the last two decades, the United States has embraced a technology-neutral framework for online privacy. Administered by the Federal Trade Commission, this framework applied across all sectors of the online ecosystem. It reflected the uniform expectation of privacy that consumers have when they go online. It didn’t matter whether an edge provider or ISP obtained your data. And it certainly didn’t matter whether, as a consumer, you understood what those regulatory classifications meant—let alone the technical and legal intricacies that dictate when a single online company is operating in its capacity as an edge provider as opposed to an ISP. Regardless of all of that, the FTC’s unified approach meant that you could rest assured knowing that a single and robust regulatory approach protected your online data.1

That’s why since the beginning of this proceeding, I have pushed for the Federal Communications Commission to parallel the FTC’s framework as closely as possible.

Instead the FCC went with different rules, and now we seem to have no rules. However, the Competitive Enterprise Institute explains that, yes, there are rules even in the absence of the FCC. A flavor:

Much of the narrative surrounding this debate centers on the fear that consumers will have no privacy protection if the president signs the resolution. But these fears, simply put, are based on a myopic understanding of the numerous laws, regulations, and institutions that protect our privacy on the Internet other than the FCC’s burdensome, legally questionable privacy rule. Here’s a partial list of all the things that are stopping ISPs from misusing customer data or selling it to third parties in a way that could harm Internet users.

Federal and state wiretapping laws. Under the Wiretap Act, it’s generally illegal to intentionally intercept or divulge the contents of electronic communications—including Internet traffic—without the consent of a party to the communications. Violators of this law are subject to criminal prosecution, while any person whose communications are illegally wiretapped may sue the perpetrator for $10,000 or more (plus attorneys’ fees and costs). In other words, if an ISP intercepts the contents of a subscriber’s Web traffic, or gives such data to an advertiser, that provider had better be sure it has the subscriber’s consent.

And more:

State attorneys general. Every state has a law on the books making it illegal for companies to engage in deceptive practices. In nearly all of these states, the state attorney general (AG) may go to court to stop a company from deceiving consumers. And although some states also have enacted laws preventing regulation of Internet service providers, these laws generally do not apply to a state attorney general who wishes to bring an action against a provider that has engaged in deception. The upshot: In many states, if an ISP has represented to consumers that it protects their privacy and safeguards their data, that ISP must act in accordance with such representations—or else it may see one or more state AGs in court.

The major ISPs have announced privacy policies:

Although an ISP may amend its privacy policy, it must notify its customers when it does so and give them a chance to opt out of any material change—either by continuing service under the original terms, or by discontinuing service entirely. But if an ISP fails to live up to its contractual promises, a customer may sue the provider for breach of contract—or, depending on the provider, the customer may be able to initiate binding arbitration against the ISP. A provider may also face liability under the common law, which has developed four torts protecting individual privacy, one of which affords injured persons a cause of action against the public disclosure of embarrassing private facts.

Leaving me confused. But confused or not, I am downloading 'Opera', a web browser with an embedded Virtual Private Network.

ONE DAY LATER: The WaPo notes a certain level of undue hysteria. And here is Sen. Flake describing the reasons for reining in the FCC.

 

 

When He's Right He's Right

AllahPundit breaks down the Schumer Shuffle with Sen. Leahy and the Gorsuch filibuster. Do let me note this:

A not-so-crazy conspiracy theory for you: What if Schumer put Leahy up to this? No minority leader likes to see his authority undermined, but Schumer’s in a terrible bind here. If he doesn’t show the left that he’s willing to avenge Merrick Garland by using every obstructionist trick at his disposal, progressives will scapegoat him and turn him into a lightning rod for their anger over Trump.

Chelsea 2022!

Defensive Driving

The Vodka Pundit tackles Uber's autonomous driving and leaves us with this:

I’ve found that the best way to avoid an accident is to imagine the stupidest thing each driver around you could possibly do in each instant, and then to count on them actually doing it. (This method prevented me, barely, from being forced into a concrete highway divider just yesterday by a careless driver in a black Nissan Murano.) But can Uber or anyone else create an algorithm for cynical imagination?

"[C]reate an algorithm for cynical imagination?"?!? Isn't that why we have Twitter?

Silver Lining Playbook

OK, the Republicans melted down on AHCA and the Russians Are Coming (if they aren't already here but we have some good news - Trump did not sue a teenager with scratching kittens.

YEAH, YEAH: Let me not short-shrift the Keystone pipeline announcement. Trump looked excited and engaged on television, and why not? He actually knows quite a bit about permits and building. Time for an infrastructure bill!

Perils Of Pauline, Trumpcare Edition

Politico tries to cover the latest plot twists. I am expecting a delay in the vote, but who knows?

Israeli-American Teen Arrested In Bomb Hoax Calls

Oy:

U.S.-Israeli teen arrested in Israel over bomb threats to Jewish centers

By Jeffrey Heller | JERUSALEM

A man was arrested in Israel on Thursday on suspicion of making dozens of hoax bomb threats against Jewish community centers in the United States, Australia and New Zealand over the past three months, police said on Thursday.

Sources familiar with the case gave the suspect's age as 19 and said he is Jewish and holds Israeli and U.S. citizenship. A police spokesman said the suspect's motives were still unclear to investigators.

U.S. federal authorities have been investigating a surge of threats against Jewish organizations, including more than 100 bomb threats in separate waves over the past three months against Jewish community centers (JCCs) in dozens of states.

Haaretz broke this. More details:

The suspect has lived in Israel many years. The army refused to draft him after finding him unfit for service. The suspect's motive is unknown, but police accuse him of hundreds of incidents involving threats to institutions around the world, including Israel, over a period of two or three years.

Some five computers were confiscated as well as other equipment, including antennas he used to and allowed him to use other people's network to commit the alleged crimes. This initially threw off the police and it led them to question others whose network were used. Eventually, the police created a profile of the suspect and the technology to find him. Police say that he attempted to grab the gun of an officer that came to his home to arrest him.

This challenges the narrative, especially since Trump took heat for suggesting it might be premature to assume the hoaxing was attributable to neo-Nazis.

Gorsuch, And The Russians Are Coming (Or Here!)

The news overload continues.

Here We Go Again

I bet there is news happening.

T-Rex on North Korea: “The policy of strategic patience has ended"

Yikes. Not exactly "I believe it is peace for our time".

The NY Times coverage includes this crystallization of the conventional wisdom regarding the motivation of the reigning NoKo thugs:

But classified assessments of the North that the Obama administration left for its successors included a grim assessment by the intelligence community: that North Korea’s leader, Mr. Kim, believes his nuclear weapons program is the only way to guarantee the survival of his regime and will never trade it away for economic or other benefits.

The assessment said that the example of what happened to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, the longtime leader of Libya, had played a critical role in North Korean thinking. Colonel Qaddafi gave up the components of Libya’s nuclear program in late 2003 — most of them were still in crates from Pakistan — in hopes of economic integration with the West. Eight years later, when the Arab Spring broke out, the United States and its European allies joined forces to depose Colonel Qaddafi, who was eventually found hiding in a ditch and executed by Libyan rebels.

#ShePersisted!

Lest you marvel at the capability of the NSA, one clue as to the NoKo thinking came from their own media. Here is the BBC from last September:

Might Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi explain Kim Jong-un's determination to get his own nuclear arsenal?

The lynching of the Libyan leader after he had renounced nuclear weapons and the hanging of the Iraqi president have been cited by the North Korean media as the rationale for their own country's determination not to be put off by sanctions despite the poverty there.

As it is sometimes put: Gaddafi gave up the bomb and lost his head. Saddam was toppled because he did not have it.

After Pyongyang's last nuclear test in January, a commentary in North Korea's media said: "History proves that powerful nuclear deterrence serves as the strongest treasured sword for frustrating outsiders' aggression."

It continued: "The Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq and the Gaddafi regime in Libya could not escape the fate of destruction after being deprived of their foundations for nuclear development and giving up nuclear programmes of their own accord."

Pretty subtle, but we managed to crack the code. Of course, inscrutable hints were dropped even back in 2011:

SEOUL, South Korea — A North Korean statement that Libya’s dismantling of its nuclear weapons program had made it vulnerable to military intervention by the West is being seen by analysts as an ominous reinforcement of the North’s refusal to end its own nuclear program.

North Korea’s official news agency carried comments this week from a Foreign Ministry official criticizing the air assault on Libyan government forces and suggesting that Libya had been duped in 2003 when it abandoned its nuclear program in exchange for promises of aid and improved relations with the West.

Calling the West’s bargain with Libya “an invasion tactic to disarm the country,” the official said it amounted to a bait and switch approach. “The Libyan crisis is teaching the international community a grave lesson,” the official was quoted as saying Tuesday, proclaiming that North Korea’s “songun” ideology of a powerful military was “proper in a thousand ways” and the only guarantor of peace on the Korean Peninsula.

Odd that the failing NY Times forgot to blame Bush when they forgot to mention Hillary's Libya debacle.

Bracing For The Storm

Real, metaphorical, whatev.

Away We Go

Tournament weekend. And for the NBA fans, there is no air left in what should have been a titanic Spurs/Warriors Saturday night showdown.

When You've Lost The Rolling Stone...

Oh, my:

Why the Russia Story Is a Minefield for Democrats and the Media

Russia scandals have bloodied the Trump administration. But it carries dangers for those reporting it

Let me skip to the conclusion:

Hypothesize for a moment that the "scandal" here is real, but in a limited sense: Trump's surrogates have not colluded with Russians, but have had “contacts,” and recognize their political liability, and lie about them. Investigators then leak the true details of these contacts, leaving the wild speculations to the media and the Internet. Trump is enough of a pig and a menace that it's easy to imagine doing this and not feeling terribly sorry that your leaks have been over-interpreted.

If that's the case, there are big dangers for the press. If we engage in Times-style gilding of every lily the leakers throw our way, and in doing so build up a fever of expectations for a bombshell reveal, but there turns out to be no conspiracy – Trump will be pre-inoculated against all criticism for the foreseeable future.

The press has to cover this subject. But it can't do it with glibness and excitement, laughing along to SNL routines, before it knows for sure what it's dealing with. Reporters should be scared to their marrow by this story. This is a high-wire act and it is a very long way down. We might want to leave the jokes and the nicknames be, until we get to the other side – wherever that is.  

Loss of credibility for the Opposition Party is certainly one possible problem. Andrew McCarthy notes another - we are poised somewhere along a continuum which runs from "OMG, Trump stole the election, thank Heaven Obama launched an investigation" to "There was never anything there, how can we tolerate the deployment of the full investigatory weight of the US Government in an attempt to find dirt on an Obama rival?".

Where we end up may well make history. OK, a lot of that has been made recently, but still - even more history.

 

I Write Of Missing Persons

The failing NY Times circles back to Towergate. I trust neither Trump nor the Opposition Party, but Trump is not tweeting on this right now (or is he?!?) so we poke at whatever is in front of us:

WASHINGTON — President Trump has no regrets. His staff has no defense.

After weeks of assailing reporters and critics in diligent defense of their boss, Mr. Trump’s team has been uncharacteristically muted this week when pressed about his explosive — and so far proof-free — Twitter posts on Saturday accusing President Barack Obama of tapping phones in Trump Tower during the 2016 campaign.

The accusation — and the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, and the former national intelligence director, James R. Clapper Jr., emphatically deny that any such wiretap was requested or issued — constitutes one of the most consequential accusations made by one president against another in American history.

Hmmph. Denials from Comey and Clapper? They forgot to mention Obama's non-denial denial so swiss-cheesy his own guys backed away from it; a tweet from Jon Favreau:

I'd be careful about reporting that Obama said there was no wiretapping. Statement just said that neither he nor the WH ordered it.

The Clapper denial is somewhat undermined by Clapper's track record on this sort of thing.

As to Comey, his 'emphatic denial' has been made to reporters or their sources, not the public, and seems to include a critical caveat. This is from earlier NY Times reporting:

WASHINGTON — The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, asked the Justice Department this weekend to publicly reject President Trump’s assertion that President Barack Obama ordered the tapping of Mr. Trump’s phones, senior American officials said on Sunday. Mr. Comey has argued that the highly charged claim is false and must be corrected, they said, but the department has not released any such statement.

Mr. Comey, who made the request on Saturday after Mr. Trump leveled his allegation on Twitter, has been working to get the Justice Department to knock down the claim because it falsely insinuates that the F.B.I. broke the law, the officials said.

Trump's claim insinuates that the FBI broke the law? Taken absolutely literally, I suppose so - Obama can't legally order such a wiretap since it requires a court-issued warrant. But can Obama pound the table and demand his underlings apply for such a warrant, even on thin (dare we say 'Trumped-up?) evidence? Of course he can.

But why would he? Suppose it wasn't Obama himself but an Obama loyalist such as AG Lynch giving the orders. Maybe in addition to slow-walking the Hillary email 'investigation' Ms. Lynch made a bold effort to spin NSA intel about stray Russian chatter into political gold. If one day we learn that she ordered her team to apply for warrants against Trump and/or his associates, does that exonerate Obama? If we learn that the DoJ applied for warrants against Trump's associates but not Trump himself does that mean Trump's accusation was wrong, even though Trump would inevitably be captured as an "incidental collection" on the tapped lines of the people he regularly spoke with?

The original Times piece presents other puzzles:

It is not clear why Mr. Comey did not issue a statement himself. He is the most senior law enforcement official who was kept on the job as the Obama administration gave way to the Trump administration. And while the Justice Department applies for intelligence-gathering warrants, the F.B.I. keeps its own records and is in a position to know whether Mr. Trump’s claims are true. While intelligence officials do not normally discuss the existence or nonexistence of surveillance warrants, no law prevents Mr. Comey from issuing the statement.

Well, the FBI certainly ought to know what warrants they requested and what taps they implemented. But could the DoJ team on its own initiative apply for a warrant (criminal or FISA) without a request from the FBI? I have no idea and the Times sheds no light here. All that is clear is that Comey could deny this himself, but hasn't.

All that said, today's Times piece certainly captures Team Trump backpedaling from Trump's Saturday Tweetstorm. But as to concluding that neither Trump nor his associates were targeted by a lawful (although possibly an over-reaching) lawful warrant, well, I don't know why people would be sure that we know it didn't happen. Or did.

As to whether Trump should resolve this by asking the DoJ for a review of their warrant requests - OMG, wouldn't that potentially be interference with an ongoing investigation?

Trump's deplorable impulse control notwithstanding, kicking this over to Congress is a good idea. Or a special counsel, despite the ongoing lack of any there there.

Stephen Hayes is excellent on the fog at the heart of the fog. So is Byron York. And for our friends on the left, Masha Gessen warns of Russia: The Conspiracy Trap.

ERRATA: Mr. York includes this metaphor:

"There's a lot of smoke, but there hasn't been that smoking gun yet," Todd said. "At what point should the public start to wonder this is all just smoke?"

Which segues irresistibly to the old Russian proverb and Bob Hope's take on it.

Don't Know Much About History, Snopes Edition

Snopes "fact-checks" a rhetorical turn by HUD Secretary Ben Carson:

Did Ben Carson Liken Slavery to Immigration?

The retired neurosurgeon and former presidential candidate made a controversial comment about immigration and slavery in his first address as HUD secretary.

OK, Carson provoked outrage with this:

That’s what America is about. A land of dreams and opportunity. There were other immigrants who came here in the bottom of slave ships, worked even longer, even harder for less. But they, too, had a dream that one day their sons, daughters, grandsons, granddaughters, great-grandsons, great-granddaughters might pursue prosperity and happiness in this land.

Clearly Carson understood they were slaves, but immigrants?!?

Carson presents a defense and Snopes weasels towards a 'guilty' verdict:

“I think people need to actually look up the word immigrant. Whether you’re voluntary or involuntary, if you come from the outside to the inside, you’re an immigrant. Whether you’re legal or illegal, you come from the outside to inside, you’re an immigrant. Slaves came here as involuntary immigrants but they still had the strength to hold on.”

(For what it’s worth, “immigrant” is typically defined as “a person who migrates to another country,” with the word “migrate” implying a voluntary action. Standard English usage does not classify the forcible abduction and involuntary transportation over national boundaries of human beings, lacking any choice or intent to live in their new location, as a form of “migration.”)

Closing with a parenthetical aside? Weird. But I can help!

John Kennedy, a name still familiar to Democrats and progressives, wrote a pamphlet in 1958 titled "A Nation Of Immigrants". Later (8/4/1963) it became a NY Times guest editorial. In his usage, everyone (except Native Americans) is an immigrant from somewhere else:

Ah, well, that was 1958 and Kennedy wasn't woke. But Barack Obama echoed JFK in a 2015 naturalization ceremony (h/t Charlie Spiering):

Just about every nation in the world, to some extent, admits immigrants. But there's something unique about America. We don't simply welcome new immigrants, we don't simply welcome new arrivals, we are born of immigrants. That is who we are. Immigration is our origin story. And for more than two centuries, it's remained at the core of our national character. It's our oldest tradition. It's who we are. It's part of what makes us exceptional.

After all, unless your family is Native American, one of the First Americans, our families—all of our families—come from someplace else....

[Skip and]

So life in America was not always easy. It wasn't always easy for new immigrants. Certainly, it wasn't easy for those of African heritage who had not come here voluntarily and yet in their own way were immigrants themselves. There was discrimination and hardship and poverty. But, like you, they no doubt found inspiration in all those who had come before them. And they were able to muster faith that, here in America, they might build a better life and give their children something more.

I should add that Obama showed some consistency. Back in a naturalization speech in 2012 he said this:

We say it so often, we sometimes forget what it means -- we are a nation of immigrants.  Unless you are one of the first Americans, a Native American, we are all descended from folks who came from someplace else -- whether they arrived on the Mayflower or on a slave ship, whether they came through Ellis Island or crossed the Rio Grande. 

Lest you think Obama stands alone in remembering JFK's construction, here is a Jan 29 2017 post from the reliably progressive Daily Kos:

We are a nation of immigrants. Unless you are Native American, you have ancestors who came here from somewhere else.

...

But this country has a checkered past when it comes to immigration and the treatment of those who do not look or worship like the majority of Americans.

There are Chinese, Irish, Japanese, the children of slaves brought here against their will, and others. Chinese immigrants came here to build the transcontinental railroad. They looked different, they ate different foods, and had different customs. From 1850 on, discriminatory laws were enacted against them. In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act.

...

The Irish were the victims of stereotyping—as alcoholics, or as being controlled by the ward bosses. The Japanese were forced into internment camps during World War II, a black mark on our nation’s history that we should never forget, and never allow to happen again. The treatment of African Americans in this country has been horrendous. Volumes have been written on this, so you would think at this point in our history we would be living in a world where race did not matter. But we don’t.

Believe it or not, 48 comments and none denouncing his equation of slavery and immigration. Selective sensitivity?

Just one more - maybe it's a Kennedy thing, but here is historian David Kennedy writing in The Atlantic in 1996. He is quite clear that immigrants includes slaves.

My point? maybe Ben Carson is more familiar than the Snopes team with the viewpoint adopted by JFK and echoed through the years down to Obama.

(Maybe).

Increasing My Paranoia

Wikileaks does a filedump of CIA hacking techniques. Folks looking for a tie-in to the Trump scandals can start here:

Another program described in the documents, named Umbrage, is a voluminous library of cyberattack techniques that the C.I.A. has collected from malware produced by other countries, including Russia. According to the WikiLeaks release, the large number of techniques allows the C.I.A. to mask the origin of some of its cyberattacks and confuse forensic investigators.

Pretty tame! Let's go to a Russophilic site (linked by Drudge!) for a table-pounding take:

Wikileaks: CIA 'Stole' Russian Malware, Uses It to ‘Misdirect Attribution’ of Cyber Attacks

"Russian" hacking? It could have just as easily been the CIA

Oh, brother. So when the Intelligence Community concluded that Russian hackers took down the Hillary and the DNC it coulda maybe been a CIA op? What's this now, an anti-Hillary faction plotting (with an election-eve boost from Comey!) to halt the Hillary Express?

Go long paranoia - lefties will be freaking out about this.

UPDATE: The theory lives! However...

Of course, there’s nothing particularly controversial about the CIA accumulating malware. Prior to the publication of the so-called “Vault 7” files, it was widely accepted that the CIA—like the National Security Agency—frequently uses hacking tools, including those not created by American coders. Any number of cybersecurity experts familiar with attacks by “state actors” would have gladly admitted as much, even before the WikiLeaks release.

While reporting in December that a U.S. cybersecurity firm was “highly confident” that Russia was behind the DNC attack, the Daily Dot noted that, “Attribution with regards to cyberattacks is difficult and often problematic,” adding: “Malware can be stolen; it can be re-packaged and sold on the black market; and it can be used as well to throw off investigators.”

That these new CIA documents help illustrate how nebulous cyberthreat attribution can be is a good thing. But ultimately, they offer no proof that the CIA had any hand in hacking the Democrats.

 

Monday Morning

The tradkiti.on Institutional Overload open thread, as the Trump's Watergate Tweetshow engulfs us.

Sessions Recuses

Jeff Sessions has recused himself from investigating the Russian ties to the Trump campaign.

A helpful WaPo timeline is here. The second in command, Dana Boente (who was Acting AG after Ms. Yates was fired) is presumably in charge of deciding whether to appoint a Special Counsel.

It's an amusing detail but let me highlight this solid shoe-leather reporting by the Lichtblau, Shear and Savage of the failing NY Times:

Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri, cast doubt on Mr. Sessions’s explanation that he had met with the Russian ambassador because of his duties as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, saying that was beyond the panel’s jurisdiction.

“I’ve been on the Armed Services Com for 10 years,” she wrote on Twitter on Thursday. “No call or meeting w/Russian ambassador. Ever. Ambassadors call members of Foreign Rel Com.”

Yeah, that's what she wrote. Sadly, some of her earlier Tweets told a different story, as discerned by Charles CW Cooke of NRO. Glenn Kessler of the WaPo has more, so the day may come when the Times corrects this.