Sunday Funnies

Last on the Russians

Hopefully the last, anyway.

If the report had explained how the Russians convinced Hillary Clinton not to campaign in Wisconsin (yes, that's Speaker Ryan with the sickest of burns), that they brainwashed her staff to order those buses of SEIU ground troops headed for Michigan to turn around and go back to Iowa, or show proof that Fancy Bear or Cozy Bear put DNC emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop (which prompted James Comey's letter), then I can be convinced.

But I couldn't find that in the report.  Did I just miss it?

As I blogged on December 13, the Russians did something.  But whatever they did had an indeterminable effect on the 2016 election, because the US intelligence officers who compiled the report did not go there.  The report does say that.

“We did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election,” the report stated.

If you don't want to accept that Clinton did it to herself, if you can't blame the polling that missed the mark, and if you think Comey was not at fault with his reopening and reclosing le' affaire email, then maybe you should just fall back to that old reliable, time-tested yet threadbare excuse: blaming the Green Party and Jill Stein.

House Democrats are calling for an independent investigation into the matter.  I support that.  "The Russians did it" is trying on the wardrobe of the JFK assassination conspiracy, so why not?

Latest on the Russians

-- Obama got his classified report on Russian interference in the 2016 election yesterday; the outgoing president said he needed "no additional evidence" to eject the Russian diplomats from the country last month.  Trump is getting his briefing this morning.

Note the first source I linked to above.  It's the most thorough and comprehensive report I have found, and it's also the same source James Clapper denigrated in his testimony before Congress yesterday.  Read RT's account of Clapper's opinion of RT here, after you read the link in the previous sentence.

-- This is compelling:

US intelligence has identified the go-betweens the Russians used to provide stolen emails to WikiLeaks, according to US officials familiar with the classified intelligence report that was presented to President Barack Obama on Thursday.

And so is this.

Via NBC's William Arkin, Ken Dilanian and Hallie Jackson: "A senior U.S. intelligence official with direct knowledge confirmed to NBC News that the report on Russian hacking delivered to President Obama Thursday says that U.S. intelligence picked up senior Russian officials celebrating Donald Trump's win. The source described the intelligence about the celebration, first reported by the Washington Post, as a minor part of the overall intelligence report, which makes the case that Russia intervened in the election."

More, from the Washington Post's original story: "The ebullient reaction among high-ranking Russian officials — including some who U.S. officials believe had knowledge of the country's cyber campaign to interfere in the U.S. election — contributed to the U.S. intelligence community's assessment that Moscow's efforts were aimed at least in part at helping Trump win the White House. Other key pieces of information gathered by U.S. spy agencies include the identification of "actors" involved in delivering stolen Democratic emails to the WikiLeaks website, and disparities in the levels of effort Russian intelligence entities devoted to penetrating and exploiting sensitive information stored on Democratic and Republican campaign networks."

-- Clapper testified that Julian Assange and Wikileaks put American lives at risk, reported by the AP and widely distributed from news gatherers across the nation and the world.  That assertion was disproved three and one-half years ago.

The US counter-intelligence official who led the Pentagon's review into the fallout from the WikiLeaks disclosures of state secrets told the Bradley Manning sentencing hearing on Wednesday (July 13, 2013) that no instances were ever found of any individual killed by enemy forces as a result of having been named in the releases.

Brigadier general Robert Carr, a senior counter-intelligence officer who headed the Information Review Task Force that investigated the impact of WikiLeaks disclosures on behalf of the Defense Department, told a court at Fort Meade, Maryland, that they had uncovered no specific examples of anyone who had lost his or her life in reprisals that followed the publication of the disclosures on the internet. "I don't have a specific example," he said.

So maybe Clapper was talking about Edward Snowden.  The report on that from two years ago has a whole lot of redactions; too many, in fact, to be inferred by the reader that Snowden's disclosures threatened anyone's life, and too many even to be implied by the writers of the report.

The DIA, which provides military intelligence to the DOD, summarized the task force's work in a 39-page report dated December 18, 2013 and titled "DoD Information Review Task Force-2: Initial Assessment, Impacts Resulting from the Compromise of Classified Material by a Former NSA Contractor." (Jason Leopold) obtained a copy of the heavily redacted report last year, which concluded that "the scope of the compromised knowledge related to US intelligence capabilities is staggering."

But explicit details about the alleged damage Snowden caused, identified in the 39-page report as "grave," were omitted from that document as well. In fact, the existence of the DIA's report had been unknown until the White House secretly authorized the declassification of select portions of it so two Republican lawmakers could undercut the media narrative painting Snowden as a heroic whistleblower.

-- The report that Obama received and Trump is getting is to be made public very shortly, maybe even this afternoon, with as much classified information Clapper says can be declassified as possible.

I'll wait for that news before I change my mind about this all being an obsession.  Note that two long-term and highly tenured former employees of the NSA and the CIA asserted yesterday that the DNC emails were leaked and not hacked, and carefully explains the difference.

Hack: When someone in a remote location electronically penetrates operating systems, firewalls or other cyber-protection systems and then extracts data. Our own considerable experience, plus the rich detail revealed by Edward Snowden, persuades us that, with NSA's formidable trace capability, it can identify both sender and recipient of any and all data crossing the network.

Leak: When someone physically takes data out of an organization — on a thumb drive, for example — and gives it to someone else, as Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning did. Leaking is the only way such data can be copied and removed with no electronic trace.

Because NSA can trace exactly where and how any "hacked" emails from the Democratic National Committee or other servers were routed through the network, it is puzzling why NSA cannot produce hard evidence implicating the Russian government and WikiLeaks. Unless we are dealing with a leak from an insider, not a hack, as other reporting suggests. From a technical perspective alone, we are convinced that this is what happened.

Lastly, the CIA is almost totally dependent on NSA for ground truth in this electronic arena. Given Mr. Clapper's checkered record for accuracy in describing NSA activities, it is to be hoped that the director of NSA will join him for the briefing with Mr. Trump.

Former NSA director Mike Rogers is indeed among the four heads of national security briefing Trump this morning.  Look out for a Tweet from Trump today about it.

-- Assuming the Russian/Wikileaks dots are eventually connected, Trump has problems that go beyond being proved mistaken, and having to repair relations with the DHS, NSA, CIA, etc.  Congress is establishing a formal objection to his Twitter criticism of America's spooks and spies, forcing the prez-elect to backtrack slightly.

Within the transitioning administration to come, there are serious differences of opinion about the roles of the various agencies.  Remember: NSA-designate Michael Flynn, like Trump, admires the Russkies.  CIA chief-to-be Mike Pompeo is the farthest thing from a friend of the Kremlin, however.  Clinton's CIA director, James Woolsey, abruptly left his role as adviser to the transition team earlier this week, possibly because of this opinion of whatever game it is Trump is playing.  But the new DNI guy overseeing the whole lot is former Indiana Senator Dan Coats, whose own views of Russia have been so critical that Moscow has banned him from traveling there.

So that's all I got for now.  More as it develops.

Update: Michael Dorf posits the various what-ifs, with a great deal of food for thought.  And Juan Cole has the righteous smackdown of everyone.  The following excerpt does not do justice to a full understanding of the matter; read the whole thing and then read it again.

(Chuck) Schumer seems to have been celebrating that we are no longer a democracy, but that even an elected president has to defer to the intelligence establishment in Washington or else must fear that they will play dirty tricks on him and undermine him.

Shouldn’t the Democratic Party senate minority leader be standing for democratic values, not advising the president to shut up if he knows what’s good for him?

So to conclude, this is a sorry spectacle. Yes, Putin is a thug who should not have unilaterally annexed Crimea, and so created a European crisis that has yet to be resolved. But yes, the US has acted thuggishly -- the unprovoked and monstrous invasion of Iraq is a recent example -- and US aggressiveness toward Moscow after the collapse of the Soviet Union bears some of the blame for Russia’s bullying insecurity. And yes, Russia likely engaged in hacking during the US election and hoped to tilt the playing field toward Trump; but they likely failed to have any significant effect on the outcome. And yes, Clapper and other US intelligence officials have hacked everybody and his brother both abroad and inside the US, so they are hardly morally superior to Putin.

Now we have a food fight full of ignorance and hypocrisy or both, in which the Washington Establishment professes itself shocked, shocked that any hacking of one country by another could have gone on. Trump has continued his creepy bromance with the Kremlin and wants to get his information from any source that agrees with his prejudices. The Democrats have taken advantage of the story to paint Trump as a Manchurian candidate, and some of them seem to delight in the idea that Trump may provoke the CIA to do to him what Oliver Stone thinks it did to JFK.

Nobody and nothing here to admire.

The Russians come to the Capitol today

Congress opens hearings on the Russian affair today, indeed as I type.  Here's a few things to pay attention to as they go, and John Brennan says us doubters should not rush to judgement.  While we wait for the truth (a word tenuously defined these days) to be revealed, let's laugh at Hair Furor and the nation's clandestine services, who cannot even agree what day of the week they were supposed to meet for his intelligence briefing on the matter.  Remember that the president-elect said last week that he would have a big reveal for us "on Tuesday or Wednesday" of this week; that didn't happen on time, either.

This is a shit-or-go-blind choice for America.  I find myself in the position of agreeing with Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald -- but uncomfortably alongside Trump and Sarah Palin -- and opposed to Paul Ryan, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and 97 other senators by Graham's math.  A very strange place to be.

Don't let it be written that I never offered a self-deprecating cartoon.

There remains, to this moment, no conclusive evidence that the Russians gave Julian "Assuage" (Freud would be so pleased with Trump's unpresidented auto-corrections) the DNC emails that either undermined Hillary Clinton's White House bid in drip-drip-drip Chinese water torture-style, or simply revealed the rigged Democratic primary everyone (save a few Hillbots practicing denial in advance) saw happening without the benefit of purloined electronic correspondence.  And we laypeople may never be allowed to know what really happened with Russia and Wikileaks, and partly because even the definition of 'classified' information is now so nebulous, as we know from James Comey's revelations with regard to her email server.

So if I'm wrong about the nefarious Putin and his Manchurian president-elect, I'll own it just as soon as I know it.  Which may be as soon as this morning.  Watch C-Span for the hearings or check your Twitter for what trends (I'm seeing "DNI Clapper" as I hit publish on this post).

Update: DNI James Clapper's testimony revealed essentially nothing this morning (see also the Tweet feed in the top right column).  Maybe when the unclassified report he has promised to release next week is made public, I can be persuaded.

Scattershooting DC, the EC, and the inauguration

-- Some folks are still in denial.

More than 50 Electoral College members who voted for Donald Trump were ineligible to serve as presidential electors because they did not live in the congressional districts they represented or held elective office in states legally barring dual officeholders.

That stunning finding is among the conclusions of an extensive 1,000-plus page legal briefing prepared by a bipartisan nationwide legal team for members of Congress who are being urged to object to certifying the 2016 Electoral College results on Friday.

“Trump’s ascension to the presidency is completely illegitimate,” said Ryan Clayton of Americans Take Action, who is promoting the effort. “It’s not just Russians hacking our democracy. It’s not just voter suppression at unprecedented levels. It is also [that] there are Republicans illegally casting ballots in the Electoral College, and in a sufficient number that the results of the Electoral College proceedings are illegitimate as well.”

With the College's vote set to be affirmed by Congress tomorrow -- Wisconsin still hasn't finished -- I don't see this changing the result any more than I did the recount (speaking of that, read this).

Update: Still one more last-gasp attempt to stop Trump.

Protests in the nation's capital can be a high good time, but if you're planning on going this year, you'll have to face off with the very worst of the MAGAmericans, like these dudes, who are warming up by fighting among themselves.

-- Anti-Inauguration Day protests, mostly of the quieter and more passive-aggressive variety and held in or close to your city, are IMO a much more effective way in this post-truth era we've entered to demonstrate non-compliance with the Trump World Order.  Charles Blow helps out with some suggestions.  He smartly advises against mere resistance.

Exclaiming your resistance, while necessary, is insufficient. Resistance is a negative position. While negativity in the face of this menace is justified and admirable, negativity alone is a fractional response. As with most things in a fully articulated life, balance is required. You need to augment your outrage with actions that are affirming, behaviors that reinforce principles and values.

When politics seem out of your control, remember that community and culture are very much in your control. We help shape the world we inhabit every day. A life is a collection of thousands of decisions, large and small, made every day. Make those decisions with purpose and conviction, especially for Jan. 20.

The point is not necessarily to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power, but rather to deprive it of oxygen and eyeballs; to plant a flag of resistance firmly at the opening gate. This doesn’t mean that people won’t attend or watch. They will. But every station that carries it, as many will, should feel the impact of your absence.

Start by taking, or arranging to take, the day off and attend something that lets you avoid the broadcast of the inaugural and get creative from there.  As referenced previously, a general strike on January 20th would be an excellent idea.

-- Black Lives Matter has worked.  (Pay attention, but give no credence to, conservative trending topics this morning.  These daily eruptions, stoked by the likes of Breitbart and Daily Caller, are only intended to keep the hate fires burning.)

The number of unarmed black men shot and killed by police in the U.S. last year was less than half the total for 2015, according to one database, suggesting that due to nationwide protests, better training or other factors, what the media has called “a national crisis” could be abating.

Police used fatal force on 16 unarmed black men in 2016, according to a Washington Post database. That is down from the 36 unarmed black men police had killed in 2015. Police used fatal force on one unarmed black woman in 2016 and two in 2015.

Separating the real news from the fake outrage is going to be tougher in 2017; resolve to to make the effort anyway.