What should we do about likely Russian interference in the next election? Personally, I think it would be helpful if the Democrats acknowledged the full extent of Russian trickery in the last one. Here are the WaPo editors fretting about 2020:
The Stanford report includes 45 recommendations for protecting the U.S. democratic process. Some three years after Vladimir Putin’s government planted trolls and bots on social media sites to propagandize for Donald Trump, hacked into the emails of officials on Hillary Clinton’s campaign and probed election infrastructure for vulnerabilities, the president’s team has not pursued a single one of them.
Conspicuously absent: the Russian disinformation campaign that led to the Steele dossier and Trump's possible impeachment. Well, the IG report seems to be on deck for late summer/early fall, so maybe Congress will come back from recess and gain a new perspective.
Do let me note that some of the proposals loke like recycled non-starters from the evergreen campaign reform wish list:
Something like the Honest Ads Act is also necessary to require that platforms reveal who paid for political ads that do run — using the names of responsible individuals, rather than only opaque organizations.
Anonymous criticism has a long, proud tradition in American politics, although the legacy media commitment to doxxing those with whom they disagree may change that. (New media rule - protect your sources and screw everyone else).
Some of the other suggestions look like pure showboating. This is from a Dana Milbank rant questioning the patriotism of Cocaine Mitch:
Not three hours after Mueller finished testifying, Mark Warner (D-Va.), vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, went to the Senate floor to request unanimous consent to pass legislation requiring presidential campaigns to report to the FBI any offers of assistance from agents of foreign governments.
Oh, please: Putin says something to Trump and the FBI is what, going to investigate them both? Little problems with executive privilege and the primacy of the Executive Branch in conducting foreign policy, one might think. And just what is "assistance"? Is it also a violation if the US President asks a foreign leader to help with his campaign by cutting him some slack until after the election? Lock 'em up!
SEOUL (Reuters) - President Barack Obama was caught on camera on Monday assuring outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he will have “more flexibility” to deal with contentious issues like missile defense after the U.S. presidential election.
Obama, during talks in Seoul, urged Moscow to give him “space” until after the November ballot, and Medvedev said he would relay the message to incoming Russian president Vladimir Putin.
The unusually frank exchange came as Obama and Medvedev huddled together on the eve of a global nuclear security summit in the South Korean capital, unaware their words were being picked up by microphones as reporters were led into the room.
U.S. plans for an anti-missile shield have bedeviled relations between Washington and Moscow despite Obama’s “reset” in ties between the former Cold War foes. Obama’s Republican opponents have accused him of being too open to concessions to Russia on the issue.
Whatev. Obama probably won't be getting jailed for that.
BONUS GLOOM: If I were advising Putin I'd urge him to focus on hacking voting machines in some swing states and a few Blue enclaves such as CA and NY. Don't worry about actually changing any vote totals - just leave a credible trail and be sure to get "caught". Partisans on both sides will take it from there, discrediting both the Electoral College and popular vote totals. Chaos!
Hard though this may be for our friends on the left to imagine, Putin doesn't (and probably didn't) care who wins. He cares that the two sides are at each other's throats. Mission Accomplished!
Yes, yes, as I recall the IC reports, Team Putin started out sowing discord but switched to backing Trump, the longshot. Their plan was, hmm, to see Hillary win anyway and ensure a bitterly hostile new Administration? Uh, OK. Meanwhile, the sources for the Steel dossier exercise were what, Red Rogues who went off-message?
Of course, that IC assessment came from a group that, a decade earlier, was reviled on the left for producing politicized intel about Iraq's WMDs. But the idea that the bipartisan Washington establishment could agree on a politically motivated story discrediting Trump? Inconceivable. OK, also not supported by the Senate Intel report, but I have the same objection.
My guess: Had Hillary not blown a layup the House and Senate Republicans probably would have spent the last few years entangling her with the Steele dossier, the FISA warrants, and the same material that will be covered in the upcoming IG report. Did Team Obama spy on their political rivals to boost Hillary? Bitter division was inevitable. I wonder if we'd be talking impeachment? First husband-wife to be impeached - put that under "records that will never be broken".
CLASSIC SCOOTER: Long time Yankee fans remember Phil Rizzuto, Bill White and Frank Messer as a legendary radio partnership. One slow afternoon (the Yanks were probably running it up on the Red Sox) the topic turned to baseball records that will never be broken. Dimaggio's 56 game hitting streak was on the mountaintop, of course, along with Ted Williams batting .400.
Anyway, the Scooter was thinking outside the box so he suggested Don Larsen's World Series perfect game as unbreakable. Bill White noted that someone else might come along and pitch another such game, to which the Scooter replied "That would TIE the record!".
Good point. And Hillary won't be getting impeached, so that record hasn't even been set.
LATE ADDITION: The American Prospect manages to present the Republican side of the debate, as of Nov 2017. Yes, its the same "Chilling free speech" points made for years, but with a new Dem counter, namely, Reds under every bed.
Only a progressive could fail to find this "protection" of the small, grassroots efforts to be funny:
Conservatives object that new internet restrictions would block ordinary Americans and small, grassroots groups from speaking freely in politics. An analysis by the Institute for Free Speech even raises the specter that the Honest Ads Act, for one, would impose the heavy hand of government on individual websites and email communications. But this line of argument conflates unpaid political discourse and communications, which are not even under discussion, with paid campaign ads. The legislation would apply only to the largest online platforms, and to political advertisers who spend $500 or more on online platforms that receive at least 50 million unique visitors in the U.S. per month.
$500! That'll net the big fish! What, this was written by Dr. Evil? Cue the laughter. $500 here and $500 there and pretty soon you're talking a real pittance. The Russkies spent $100,000 in 2015/16 and people laughed, since total ad spending was around $8 billion.
New!!!!
Posted by: MissMarple2 | July 28, 2019 at 11:04 AM