Home Blog Page 5

Why ‘Fire and Fury’ Made Trump Erupt

Credit: Gage Skidmore, Flikr

Michael Wolff’s new book on President Donald Trump is either an abject work of fiction or among the scariest documents in recent memory. Recent developments argue for the latter.

The story it tells, of a chaotic White House occupied by an ill-prepared, if not unfit, President consumed by insecurities and vanity leaves us gasping for air. Democrats, the news media, and never Trump Republicans have made the same argument for months. But, here it’s not “the establishment,” not the “fake news,” nor “crooked Hillary” that are plunging the dagger into Trump — it is Trump’s employees, his friends, his allies. And, the picture that emerges is of a cartoonish character, mostly unaware of himself, oblivious to the demands of the office, and incapable of it besides.

There’s a lot of sloppiness about Wolff’s reporting, and reason to suspect his journalistic scruples. On several occasions, he gets names or titles wrong. He refers to Dick Armey as former Speaker of the House (he wasn’t), he misidentified Mike Berman, a lobbyist, for Mark Berman, the Washington Post reporter. And, several people have denied saying what he quotes them as saying or accuse him of quoting off-the-record comments by name.

And, those disinclined to believe it will point to what Wolff wrote in the book’s preface: “many of the accounts of what has happened in the Trump White House are in conflict with one another; many, in Trumpian fashion, are baldly untrue. Those conflicts, and that looseness with the truth, if not with reality itself, are an elemental thread of the book.”

Nevertheless, a lot of this rings too true to be ignored. And, as Wolff has gleefully observed, Trump has spent the last two days demonstrating that the book’s broad themes are mostly on point.

A ‘Stable Genius’

On Saturday morning, in a jarringly unhinged set of Tweets, Trump declared himself a genius. “[T]hroughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart.” He cited his election win, which he says demonstrates he’s “not smart, but genius….and a very stable genius at that!”

Normal people do not talk like this. Ronald Reagan, as Trump observed in his tweetstorm, also faced questions about his mental stability. But, he never provided such strong reasons to suggest that those questions were justified.

Inside Trump’s West Wing

In Wolff’s telling, Trump’s West Wing is populated by a cast of hangers-on, B-team politicos, family members and a smattering of earnest public servants, all of whom share, to varying degrees, a weary contempt for the man who occupies the Oval Office. The consensus view, Wolff tells NBC’s Today Show, is that “he’s like a child.”

A major theme of Fire and Fury is the low regard with which the people closest to Trump hold him. Eight different people close to Trump are quoted calling him an “idiot,” “moron,” “stupid,” or “dumb.”

“For Steve Mnuchin and [then-chief of staff] Reince Priebus, he was an ‘idiot,’” Wolff writes. “For Gary Cohn, he was ‘dumb as s**t.’ For H. R. McMaster he was a ‘dope.’” After a phone conversation, media mogul Rupert Murdoch, who reportedly speaks frequently with the President, muttered “what a f—ing idiot” as he hung up from a particularly exasperating conversation.

In Wolff’s many months of reoccurring visits to the White House, peddling around the West Wing, interviewing, and loitering in the lobby making small talk, he develops a fluency in the inside jokes and unspoken gestures that document this contempt as well as the on the record quotes. Wolff describes Kellyanne Conway, among Trump’s most passionate public defenders, as privately expressing her view of him with “a whole series of facial expressions, eyes rolling, mouth agape, head snapping back.” Michael Anton, a senior official in Trump’s National Security Council, had “perfected a deft eye roll (referred to as the Anton eye roll).”

Fire and Fury’s account of the early months of the Trump Presidency is a surreal tale of people who never expected to be there, trying to figure out how to run the world’s most powerful country without an instruction manual. The picture Wolff paints is one of crippling dysfunction, a staff divided into factions and consumed by intramural squabbles, as an oblivious President live-Tweets Fox News and sucks up to grandees.

The story that Wolff tells reinforces the suspicion that Trump’s aspirations to the Presidency were driven far more by vanity than a genuine dedication to public service. In Wolff’s telling, it is Trump’s burning desire for fame and adulation that animate him above all else. All politicians have egos. But, what Wolff describes is a debilitating narcissism so epic that it blinds him.

Wolff’s account colors in what we probably already knew. Trump’s obsession with the size of his inauguration crowd, his pointless insistence that voter fraud accounted for Hillary Clinton’s popular vote margin, and the daily stream of self-aggrandizing tweets already provided pretty good evidence that he was unhealthily self-obsessed.

Trump was elected, in large part, because he came from outside Washington. A certain lack of understanding of the finer points of a vast Federal bureaucracy was to be expected.

Voters understood much of this going in, and weren’t too bothered by it. Many Trump supporters, disgusted at what they view as a weak and cowardly Republican establishment, see Trump’s bravado is no vice. They elected him to tell it like it is and don’t much mind, even applaud, the bucking egotism that he brings with it. It was what they believed equipped Trump to bring about forceful change, to drain the swamp and throw out the “establishment” on its ear.

Trump was elected, in large part, because he came from outside Washington. A certain lack of understanding of the finer points of a vast Federal bureaucracy was to be expected. But, the Trump of Wolff’s account is more than just unprepared, he is too wrapped in self-absorption to recognize this, much less correct it. A year into his Presidency, his grasp of policy appears as tenuous as ever.

Still, despite all this, Trump’s Presidency has seen some successes. Tax reform, a strengthening economy, and gains against ISIS are all real accomplishments. Many of the early fears about Trump have proven unfounded. After some initial shock and awe, his administration settled into something that looked more like a conventional Republican policy agenda. He hasn’t pulled out of NAFTA or NATO. Threats of a trade war with China have faded. Whatever authoritarian tendencies Trump may have are tempered by a fundamental lack of aptitude for pulling levers of political power.

The question now is how much real effect the book will have. Wolff’s account hardens the opposition against him. This might make independents more reluctant to return to the Trump fold. But, Trump supporters are generally unwilling to accept negative information about Trump. They will assume that it’s more fake news. Still, coming from Trump allies, it is a little harder to ignore.

The Bannon Break

The comments of Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon are a particularly sharp sword aimed at the heart of Trump’s base. There has long been a tension between Trump and Bannon over who is the true leader of the anti-establishment populist movement that propelled the former to the Oval Office. Is it Bannon, the evangelist who gave the movement its intellectual form, or Trump, the man its adherents championed as President? Now that Bannon has sailed away from Trump-land and burned his ships, will Trump fans be less credulous of him?

Bannon’s comments were remarkable for their savagery. He struck Trump where it hurt the most: Russia and his children. Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting in Trump Tower with a Russian lawyer to get dirt on Hillary was “treasonous” and Special Counsel Robert Mueller was going to get Trump for money laundering whether or not he was complicit in Russia’s election meddling…right after he cracks Don Junior “like an egg.”

Bannon, whose proselytizing of populist bombast defined the Trump movement, cannot be easily dismissed as an establishment shill. But, Bannon’s relationship with Donald Trump was always one of cynical opportunism. His break with Trump must be seen in the same light. Ultimately, when forced to choose between the two, most Trump supporters will choose the President. Yet, the episode may plant seeds of doubt that could diminish the enthusiasm of Trump’s supporters to defend him in the future.

https://prodroughlyexp.wpengine.com/2017/08/steve-bannon-leaves-behind/

Even dismissing Bannon’s likely self-serving attacks, and accounting for Wolff’s embellishments, the impression  of a chaotic early White House led by a man unprepared and possibly unfit for the office, is hard to shake.

In succeeding months, John Kelly appears to have contained at least some of the chaos. With the passage of tax reform and the subduing of ISIS, Trump’s Administration has notched some real successes too.

Yet, Trump’s flaws are still on regular display in the petty resentments, boisterous self-promotion and rampant perfidy that pours forth from his Twitter feed. And, there’s little to suggest that he’s developed a proficiency or even a basic grasp of policy details.

Make no mistake, Michael Wolff is out to sell books. And his cartoonish portrayal of a bumbling President is surely overwrought. But, Wolff’s account, as gossipy and unreliable as it may be, adds texture to what most people already suspect: the emperor has no clothes.

Mueller, the FBI and That ‘Insurance Policy’ Text

Last May, the appointment of Robert Mueller as Special Counsel to lead the Russia investigation was applauded by both Republicans and Democrats. Mueller is a Republican known for professionalism, lack of partisanship and integrity. He was seen as the perfect choice to conduct an impartial investigation.

But in recent months, as Mueller has begun handing down indictments and guilty pleas, he has become the focus of growing attacks from President Trump’s allies as the leader of a partisan “witch hunt.” So, how did Mueller, a buttoned-down, by-the-book former FBI Director end up the villain?

The investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election has infuriated President Trump nearly every day since he took office. He’s called it a hoax, a “witch hunt” and a taxpayer-funded charade. He pushed former FBI Director James Comey to make it go away. Comey refused. Then, his frustration with the Russia investigation boiling over, Trump fired him.

The ‘Single Greatest Witch Hunt’

After Trump fired Comey, it was hard to see how the FBI could carry out an impartial investigation into Russia. Whoever Trump nominated to replace him would fear that, if they pushed too hard in investigating Russia, they might suffer the same fate. And that’s where Robert Mueller comes into the picture.

A Special Counsel is appointed to investigate matters that raise a conflict of interest. And this was a textbook case. Eight days after Comey was fired, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, a Trump appointee, made the decision to name Mueller special counsel.

The morning after Mueller was named, Trump tweeted his fury. “This is the single greatest witch hunt of a politician in American history!”

But, it’s important to remember that it was one of Trump’s own appointees — not Hillary Clinton, not some deep state cabal, that appointed the special counsel. And under the circumstances, Rosenstein had no other choice.

As 2017 wound down, the attacks on Mueller grew louder. In early December, news broke that months earlier, Mueller had removed Peter Strzok, a Senior FBI agent working on the probe, from the investigation after learning Strzok had sent personal text messages disparaging of Trump. While this might have been seen as an indication that Mueller was trying to protect the investigation from bias, conservative commentators pounced nonetheless.

The texts between Strzok and another FBI agent, Lisa Page, with whom he was having an affair at the time, were mostly typical political banter. He ridiculed some of Trump’s more shocking comments and called him an idiot. And, they weren’t all about Trump. In one text, Stryzok praised John Kasich. In another, he complained about the media’s bias in favor of Hillary Clinton.

‘Insurance Policy’

But, a text Strzok sent to Page in August of 2016, discussing an “insurance policy” has received a great deal of attention.

“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office, — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”

FBI agents are allowed to have political opinions. It would be silly to suggest that only political allies of a target of an investigation can give them a fair shake. Political views only become a problem if they form the basis for some sort of official action. Is that what’s being suggested here? Probably not.

Exactly what Strzok meant by “insurance policy” is a matter of intense debate.

Many conservative commentators argue that he was suggesting stepping up the Russia investigation to thwart Trump’s chances of winning. If so, it would be very concerning. Using a law enforcement agency to influence an election is highly illegal.

But, that did not happen. There was a lot of debate within the FBI that summer about whether they should publicly reveal the investigation into Trump. FBI Director Comey and his Deputy Andrew McCabe were concerned about inserting the FBI into the political rough and tumble of the campaign in a way that might impact the outcome of the election. And, they feared that showing their hand before the investigation was more developed might prompt the Russians to cover their tracks before they could understand what happened.

It appears that this was the context for Strzok’s tweet. According to a Wall Street Journal report, sources close to Strzok say the text was addressing a point Page had made in a meeting with Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe. Because Trump was unlikely to win, she argued, there was little urgency to investigate potential collusion between Trump and Russia.

In his text, Strzok disagreed. They needed to gather as much information as possible, even if it meant the investigation would become public. If Trump won, it would be vital to know whether any of his appointees had been compromised by Russia. That may be unlikely, but so is dying at 40, yet you buy an “insurance policy” anyway. Ultimately, Strzok’s argument for a more aggressive investigation was overruled by Comey and McCabe, who favored Page’s more passive approach.

Without more context, it’s hard to know for sure what the right interpretation is. However, the Justice Department’s inspector general is investigating this among other things and is expected to report back this Spring. Whatever the case, it does seem that Strzok held strong opinions about Trump. Mueller‘s decision to remove him from the investigation seems appropriate.

The bottom line: if the FBI was really trying to stop Trump, they’d have taken the investigation public before the election. The fact that they chose to wait is a pretty good indication that wasn’t the objective. When Robert Mueller’s investigation is done, he’ll either have to goods or he won’t. The evidence, not the political preferences of the people who helped gather it will be all that matters.

The Science of Hangovers

It is a cruel irony that the fun of a night of drinking tends to be directly correlated to the level of misery we experience the morning after. And as we get older, it doesn’t get any easier. “At some point,” Dan Brooks wrote in The New York Times Magazine, “we discover that innocent behaviors, like drinking 10 beers and yelling about the Hold Steady until the lights come on, now result in terrible consequences.”

Science has figured out a lot of things — the birth of the universe; cures for diseases; and, magic devices that allow us to communicate with friends, read about hangovers, and argue with strangers on Twitter from just about anywhere. Surely there must be some way to enjoy the revelry of a boozy evening without all the head-throbbing hell of a hangover the next day.

But, until recently, there had been distressingly little serious scientific effort put towards the study of hangovers.The science of why we get hangovers has been mostly an educated guess. Happily, things are starting to change. Over the past few years, researchers have begun to put a dent in the fog surrounding our post-drinking foggy-headedness.

We should all know by now that heavy boozing can have lots of terrible consequences beyond just hangovers. It can cause health problems and prompt bad decisions with life-changing consequences too.

National Institutes on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism

The upside of drinking is that alcohol triggers a release of dopamine and urges to dance on tables and hug your friends while slurring something about “I love you man!” The effect is particularly pronounced in the nucleus accumbens, one of the brain’s pleasure centers and the amygdala, a part of the brain that stores memories of the bad things that happened last time you got drunk and thought it was a neat idea to jump off a hotel balcony into a swimming pool. But, drinking also has effects on the brain and the rest of the body that makes the next day a living hell.

Dehydration is Only Part of It

Dehydration has long been among the more popular explanations for hangovers. But, it turns out that may be wrong — or at least not completely right. Dehydration probably does play some role. Alcohol suppresses vasopressin, an anti-diuretic hormone produced by the pituitary gland that promotes reabsorption of water by the kidneys. A dearth of vasopressin causes the kidneys to allow more water to pass into the bladder rather than being returned to the body, an effect easily observed in the long late-night bathroom lines at bars. In short, and this should come as a surprise to no one, you pee more when you’re drunk. For every refreshing Hendricks’ gin and tonic you drink, you’ll lose anywhere from two to four times as much water.

Dehydration tends to cause headaches, dizziness and other unpleasantries. Still, dehydration alone does not account for the singular agony of a raging hangover. Drinking water or sports drinks will make a hangover a bit less brutal, but it won’t cure it. There must be more too it.

Hangovers and the Brain

You rarely get a hangover while you’re drinking. The hangover starts only after your blood alcohol concentration begins to fall. In fact, hangover severity reaches its peak when blood alcohol levels fall to zero. This provides an important clue.

A typical hangover may just be a milder version of the alcohol withdrawal syndrome suffered by alcoholics who give up the bottle. Which is why the “readministration of alcohol” — science-speak for a morning after Bloody Mary — tends to temporarily make things better. The exact mechanisms for how this happens are just beginning to be understood.

Ethanol in booze binds to nerve receptors normally occupied by gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), an important neurochemical messenger that calms brain activity. Awash in GABA-like ethanol molecules after that last round of beer pong, to keep everything in balance, the brain cuts back on GABA and kicks production of an excitatory neurotransmitter called glutamate into high gear.

Meanwhile, down in the liver, your body is furiously filtering out the alcohol you’ve filled it with over the course of the evening. As the alcohol departs, your brain is left with a deficit of GABA and a surplus of high-octane glutamate. The imbalance sends the nervous system into an overexcited state, which is why you wake up suddenly in the night after drinking.

Richard Olsen, a neuro­scientist at UCLA has been studying these neurophysiological effects with an eye towards developing a hangover cure. Olsen thinks a compound that blocks alcohol from acting on certain GABA receptors could mitigate its unpleasant after-effects — and he’s found a promising lead.

Jing Liang, one of Olsen’s graduate students, began testing Chinese herbs traditionally associated with moderating the effects of alcohol. Liang discovered that one herb, called Hovenia, contains a molecule called dihydromyricetin that acts on the right GABA receptor. Controlled experiments with dihydromyricetin in rats and not-so-controlled experiments conducted by Liang, Olsen and their colleagues at local bars following scientific conferences have shown promise.

“Jing [Liang] gave a talk at a meeting about our results, and we invited our friends to the bar afterward to try it out,” Olsen told Wired. “Now, this is not publishable, and you can’t use it for evidence for the FDA, but it’s good for us to know what kind of dose we should be using in our clinical trial—and that it doesn’t hurt anybody and does something to us that we want.”

The scientists who took dihydromyricetin before drinking reported feeling less drunk, and less hangover the next day, according to Wired.

Several anti-hangover supplements are now on the market boasting dihydromyricetin as an active ingredient.

Another group of researchers led by Dutch scientist Joris Verster, have styled themselves as the Alcohol Hangover Research Group, or AHRG for short. AHRG has been developing some important new science on the topic. They even made a logo — a beer and an empty wine glass lying on its side.

Verster and his AHRG colleagues favor a theory that actually an inflammatory response is a likely culprit. Studies have found elevated levels of cytokines, which are signaling molecules released in response to trauma and inflammation, after drinking. It turns out, that injecting cytokines in otherwise healthy people creates symptoms that closely resemble a hangover. As Adam Rogers wrote for Wired:

A team in Korea noticed that hangovers are accompanied by elevated levels of molecules called cytokines, which are used as communication signals by the immune system. If you inject those into a healthy subject, that person will start to have all kinds of familiar-sounding symptoms, including nausea, gastrointestinal distress, headache, chills, and fatigue. Potentially even more interesting, higher-than-normal cytokine levels also interfere with memory formation—which might account for ethanol-­related lapses in recall as well.

This explains why Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) such as Ibuprofen work reasonably well at moderating the effects of hangovers. Perhaps more sophisticated anti-inflammatory drugs could be developed that work even better.

Another contributing factor might be acetaldehyde, which is produced as alcohol is metabolized in the body. Most people break it down before it becomes much of a problem. But, acetaldehyde is toxic and if you drink enough, you’ll probably be hugging the toilet as your body tries to expel it.

Trace chemicals and impurities called congeners may also contribute to hangovers too. Joris Vester studied these effects and created this useful chart:

J.

Methanol, a byproduct of fermentation found in higher levels in whiskey and red wine, might be part of the reason these drinks cause worse hangovers than high-quality vodkas, which have almost no congeners at all. Sugary drinks could also trigger blood sugar effects that compound the consequences.

 

Let’s be clear, getting blitzed is not a great idea. But, if you must, science is here to help:

  • Drink High-Quality Vodkas — Higher-end vodkas with fewer congeners are less likely to produce hangovers. If you’re going to drink a lot, splurging on the top-shelf stuff may be worth it. Avoid bourbons, which contain the most congeners. Also, binge drinking red wine, which also contains a lot of congeners, isn’t the brightest move either.
  • Drink Lots of Water — Dehydration isn’t the only cause of a hangover, but every little bit helps. Drinks with lots of electrolytes like Pedialyte and Gatorade are good too.
  • Take NSAIDS — Taking a couple ibuprofen or aspirin before bed after drinking can work wonders. Just don’t take Tylenol. It inhibits liver function and can theoretically kill you if you take it while drinking.
  • Hair of the Dog May Work…Temporarily — It’s merely delaying the inevitable, but if you want to fend off your hangover for a bit longer, and you haven’t had too much, a few mimosas might help.
  • Dihydromyricetin Supplements — Although there are as yet no conclusive studies, they seem to work in rats and, at least anecdotally, seem to help with people too.

Forgetting The Past: The U.S. Response to Russian Disinformation

Russia’s interference during the 2016 elections was not a fluke. Rather it reflects ongoing efforts which date back more than a century. The U.S. government’s response – or lack thereof – to Russian disinformation campaigns reflects a remarkable lack of historical insight and more than a little naivety among policymakers. Long-running reluctance among U.S. policymakers to confront the Kremlin’s active measures campaigns emboldened Russia further.

A recent article in the Washington Post highlighted the danger posed by underestimation of your adversary. In it, President Obama’s deputy secretary of state said the administration thought Russian disinformation would not succeed in the U.S. “I thought our ground was not as fertile,” said Antony J. Blinken, President Barack Obama’s deputy secretary of state. “We believed that the truth shall set you free, that the truth would prevail. That proved a bit naive.” That is an understatement. To believe that is to believe that a former KGB colonel would abandon long-held Russian intelligence tradecraft.

What Is Russian Disinformation and When Did It Begin?

Thomas Rid, Senate Intelligence Committee, March 30, 2017

Thomas Rid, a professor at Kings College and expert in cybersecurity, noted in testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee that the most concise description of disinformation comes from the former head of East Germany’s disinformation arm, who said a powerful adversary such as the United States “can only be defeated through . . . a sophisticated, methodical, careful, and shrewd effort to exploit even the smallest ‘cracks’ . . . within their elites.” Thus, the Russians and their allies use pre-existing schisms among groups to further drive the sides apart.

The use of disinformation by the Russians has its origins in the Tsarist era when the secret police sowed dissent among emigre groups through the clandestine placement of pro-Imperial Russia articles in selected journals. Herbert Romerstein, an expert in Soviet espionage, wrote that disinformation as a Soviet weapon began in 1923 with the proposed establishment of a KGB “special disinformation office to conduct active intelligence operations.”

By the mid-1950s, the KGB had established Department D, a directorate dedicated to disinformation. Rid testified that during the Cold War, the KGB ran more than 10,000 individual disinformation operations aimed at Western democracies. A declassified CIA study of Soviet disinformation cites two examples of Russian active measures in the 1960s. The KGB in 1963 disseminated rumors about FBI and CIA involvement in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, which may have influenced the conspiracy theories popularized by Jim Garrison, Oliver Stone, and others. A second example dates from the Vietnam War when the KGB circulated a forged letter, purportedly authored by a US military research agency staffer, that contended the U.S. had used biological weapons in Vietnam and Thailand.

Russian Disinformation in the 1980s

Rid testified that Russian disinformation operations hit a high-water mark in the 1980s. To counter the KGB’s active measures, the U.S. government in 1981 established an Active Measures Working Group. Declassified CIA memorandums available on the agency’s website show that the intelligence community was so concerned about the level of Soviet disinformation campaigns in the 1980s that it held a top-secret two-day conference on the topic in the summer of 1985.

An impetus to the conference may have been one of the most successful KGB disinformation operations ever launched. In 1982, the KGB began disinformation campaign, which claimed that AIDS was created in U.S. biological warfare laboratories with an aim to decimate developing countries. The campaign was so effective that within a decade, one out of four African-Americans believed HIV was created by the U.S. government to infect blacks, and 15 percent of Americans agreed that AIDS was created in a government laboratory.

During the 1984 Olympic Games in Los Angeles, the Soviets tried to sow dissent among athletes. The KGB published a fake leaflet supposedly written by the KKK threatening black athletes. The KGB sought to fan fears of racism through the depiction of Africans hanging from trees.

A CIA study on Russian disinformation campaigns noted that in 1987 Moscow launched active measures that blamed the CIA for the mass-suicide of over 900 members of the People’s Temple in Guyana in 1978. Its centerpiece was a book by three Soviet journalists who contended that the CIA had killed the cult members “for their intent to gain asylum in the USSR.” That same year, a KGB disinformation campaign contended that wealthy Americans were importing Latin American to butcher them and use their body parts for organ transplants.

https://prodroughlyexp.wpengine.com/2017/12/a-complete-guide-to-russian-social-media-disruption-campaigns/

1990s Lull Followed by a Dramatic Increase

The collapse of the Soviet Union saw a sharp drop off in the KGB’s disinformation campaigns.  Or, as Professor Rid put it, there was “a long intermission” of such operations throughout the 1990s.

As a result, President Clinton shut down the U.S. government’s counter-disinformation arms. The last director of the U.S. Information Agency told the Washington Post the Clinton Administration “thought it was all over and that we’d won the propaganda war.” That view was mistaken. In fact, the Russians merely switched tactics from print media to the Internet with dramatic results.

Russia, in 2005, launched RT, the television network that disseminates pro-Russian perspectives on news events along with a good bit of disinformation. RT’s launch preceded a measurable uptick in Russian active measures operations. Two years later, the Russians launched cyberattacks that disabled Estonian banks, government agencies and news media. The Russians launched similar attacks against Georgia in 2008.

The Gerasimov Doctrine

Disinformation and cyberwarfare became incorporated into the Russian military strategy in 2013 as part of what has come to be known the Gerasimov Doctrine, named after the Russian chief of the general staff Valery Gerasimov who laid out its core principles in an article entitled “The Value of Science Is in the Foresight,” published in Military-Industrial Kurier.

The very “rules of war” have changed. The role of nonmilitary means of achieving political and strategic goals has grown, and, in many cases, they have exceeded the power of force of weapons in their effectiveness.

The focus of applied methods of conflict has altered in the direction of the broad use of political, economic, informational, humanitarian, and other nonmilitary measures—applied in coordination with the protest potential of the population.

All this is supplemented by military means of a concealed character, including carrying out actions of informational conflict . . . .

– Valery Gerasimov, “The Value of Science Is in the Foresight,” Military-Industrial Kurier, Feb. 2013. As translated from Russian in Military Review, Jan-Feb 2016.

Gerasimov explained his new doctrine in a 2013 speech in which he said political goals are to be obtained through the “widespread use of disinformation . . . deployed in connection with the protest potential of the population.”

The Chinese had earlier adopted cyberwarfare and disinformation into their military strategy. A senior CIA official gave a speech in early 2000 in which he noted that four years earlier a Chinese general wrote that in future wars computers would be a target: “We can make the enemy’s command centers not work by changing their data system. We can cause the enemy’s headquarters to make incorrect judgments by sending disinformation. We can dominate the enemy’s banking system and even its entire social order.”

Gerasimov Doctrine in Action

Rid testified that in 2014 Russia’s shift in tactics became apparent especially in military intelligence, the GRU. An intercepted GRU report documented how Russia created trolls to spread disinformation on social media during the annexation of Crimea. The GRU increased its cyberwarfare during the occupation of Ukraine. As the Washington Post article noted, less than a week into that campaign, GRU-created fictitious Facebook accounts had garnered 200,000 hits a day.

Yet, the U.S. still did not react. NATO officials had personally warned President Obama of the new Russian threats. White House aides wanted the U.S. to counteract the Russian disinformation campaigns, but President Obama “brushed aside the idea as politically impracticable,” according to the Washington Post.

By early 2015, the GRU’s disinformation and cyberwarfare operations had targeted military and diplomatic entities worldwide. Among the targets were the private accounts of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joseph F. Dunford, the current and former U.S. ambassadors to Russia, NATO officials, and Russian dissidents and opposition leaders.

According to Rid, Russian intelligence began employing Wikileaks as an outlet for files obtained through its cyberwarfare operations and, over the next year, created at least six new front organizations, including DCLeaks and Gucifer 2.0, for the same purpose. The GRU also began to shift from worldwide military and diplomatic targets to U.S. political targets, which included Hillary Clinton’s personal email account. Clinton campaign staffers, and the DNC. Professor Rid likened the DNC hacks to “a carefully executed physical break-in in which the intruders used uniquely identical listening devices; uniquely identical envelopes to carry the stolen files past security; and uniquely identical getaway vehicles.”

Gentlemen Don’t Read Each Other’s Mail

A State Department official in 2015 proposed to target Russian trolls who were prominent online – so-called “influencers” – with pro-American propaganda. Then-Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. vetoed that proposal. In his view, the U.S. “should emulate the Russians.”

That rationale immediately brings to mind Henry Stimpson when he closed the so-called Black Chamber – the forerunner of the National Security Agency. Despite its remarkable success during World War I, Simpson famously declared that “Gentlemen don’t read each other’s mail.”

A 1950 document in the NSA’s online archives states that Stimpson had acted on the orders of President Hoover, who wanted the Black Chamber terminated. Perhaps, we might speculate, Mr. Clapper was similarly simply echoing the views of President Obama.

The poet George Santayana famously remarked that “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” A corollary may be that those who ignore past military operations will forever be targets of them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Five Things About Christmas You Probably Didn’t Know

Much of what you think you know about Christmas is wrong: Christmas is the day Jesus was born (it’s not); it’s a timeless tradition of family togetherness (nope); and, by the way, your Christmas tree? It’s totally a pagan symbol.

1. Christmas Was Once a Rowdy Street Party

The time of family togetherness — and shopping — that we now associate with Christmas is a relatively recent invention. Up, until the 19th century, Christmas was a wholly different affair. What was it like? The words to “We Wish You a Merry Christmas” provide a hint: “bring us some figgy pudding” “and a glass of good cheer,” and by the way, “we won’t leave until we get some.” What’s all this about demanding pudding and booze and refusing to leave until it’s provided? Seems kind of pushy.

Now bring us some figgy pudding
Now bring us some figgy pudding
And a glass of good cheer.

Good tidings we bring to you and your kin
We wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy new Year

We won’t go until we get some
We won’t go until we get some
We won’t go until we get some, so bring some out here

That’s because, until the 19th Century, most working-class people spent Christmas at the pub getting sloshed before stumbling out into the street and going from house to house demanding food and drink. In a way, it was like drunken adult Halloween, minus the trouble of having to find a costume. As The Economist explained in this years Christmas Double Issue, “Mostly this was tolerated in good humour—a kind of ritualised disorder, when the social hierarchy was temporarily inverted.”

Early Puritan colonists in Massachusetts actually canceled Christmas altogether. (Leave it to the Puritans to spoil all the fun.) By the mid-nineteenth century, as the industrial revolution moved more people into cities, things started to get out of control. Christmas celebrations often were hard to distinguish from street riots. Newspapers started to encourage people to stay home with their families, and soon, new Christmas traditions were born.

2. The Star of Bethlehem Might Not Be a Star at All

There are a number of theories to explain just what it was the Wise Men saw, but among the most promising is that it wasn’t a star at all, rather it was a rare triple conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter. When this happens, the earth, sun and Saturn and Jupiter line up three times in a short period of time. This would create a remarkable sight in the sky sure to catch the attention of the Wise Men, who are thought to be astrologers from Babylon — present-day Iraq.

One of the unusual aspects of the biblical story is that the Wise Men saw the star in their home country, then saw it again after meeting King Herod in Jerusalem and followed it to Bethlehem. The appearance and disappearance of a triple conjunction would explain this.

There was a triple conjunction in 7 BC, on May 29, Sept. 29, and Dec. 4. Jesus birth came in the time of King Herod, according to the Bible. Herod is thought to have died in 4 BC. So, it would have been three years before Herod’s death, which would have fit the biblical timing.

There are other theories too, including a comet noted by Chinese astronomers in 5 BC in the constellation Capricorn, a Nova (the bright birth of a new star), and other planetary alignments. Dr. David Hughes, a physicist at the University of Sheffield in England published an exhaustive study of all the competing theories in the scientific journal Nature in 1976 and included an interesting chart illustrating how well they track with the timing in the biblical account.

Hughes, David. Nature, Vol. 264. Dec. 9, 2976.

But, the triple conjunction theory fits all the facts of the biblical account well, says Tim O’Brien, who is associate director of Jodrell Bank Observatory in Cheshire, England. “You would [only] get a triple conjunction like this about every 900 years,” he says. So, it would clearly portent something important. “A triple conjunction of this kind ticks all the boxes.”

3. Jesus Wasn’t Born on Dec. 25

There’s nothing in the Bible to suggest Dec. 25 as the day of Jesus birth. Early Christians chose various days to celebrate the Messiah’s birth before eventually settling on Dec. 25. The Roman emperor Constantine proclaimed Jesus was born on November 18th. A third century Christin document thought to have originated in North Africa pegs it as March 28. Either are more likely candidates than December 25th.

In Luke’s gospel (Luke 2:7-8) shepherds are said to have been watching over there flocks at night.

7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them. 8 And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night.

December would have been cold and rainy in ancient Judea, so shepherds would be unlikely to be tending their flocks outdoors. In December, they would bring their flocks into a shelter at night. Shepherds would only have their flocks outside at night in the spring or early fall. Further, the biblical account in Luke (Luke 2:1-4) also tells us that Jesus was born around the time of a Roman census.

2 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while[a]Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register. 4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David.

These didn’t occur in the winter when rain and rutted roads would have made travel arduous. Generally, a census would take place in the spring or summer when the weather was better. In fact, there’s actually no real evidence at all that Jesus was born on December 25th. That date was chosen for other reasons (more on that later).

4. Christmas is Probably a Repurposed Pagan Holiday

The reason we celebrate Christmas on December 25th goes back to Ancient Rome. The first time we hear of Jesus birth date as December 25th is centuries later in a fourth-century Roman almanac.

The most popular theory for how we settled on December 25th is that it coincided with the Roman pagan festival of Saturnalia, which took place in late December to coincide with the winter solstice. The Roman Emporer Aurelian set the date of the feast of Sol Invictus, the pagan sun god, as December 25th in 274 AD. It’s very plausible that early Christians simply repurposed the feast of Sol Invictus for the celebration of Jesus’ birth.

Recruiting pagans to Christianity, was a priority of early Christians. Fixing the celebration of Christ’s birth to an already established pagan holiday may have made it more attractive to potential converts says historian William Walsh. “[T]he important fact then … to get clearly into your head is that the fixing of the date as December 25th was a compromise with paganism” (William Walsh, The Story of Santa Klaus, 1970, p. 62).

However, Christian writings from around this time make no reference to this. Instead, they see the coincidence of Christ’s birth with the solstice as an auspicious sign. Early Christians weren’t known to adopt other pagan customs, that came later. It wasn’t until the reign of Emperor Constantine a century later that Christians began to adopt some aspects of pagan culture, such as turning pagan temples into churches.

Another theory is that the timing of Jesus’ birth was set to the timing of Jesus Crucifixion. The Biblical account tells us the crucifixion took place during Passover, so early Christians had a more precise idea about its date. Third century Christians thought that Jesus’ death and conception, later celebrated as the Feast of the Annunciation, occurred on the same day. C.E. Tertullian of Carthage calculated that the date for both was March 25. Add nine months, and you get December 25th.

5. The Christmas Tree Began as a Pagan Custom

Queen Victoria and Prince Albert with a Christmas tree at Windsor Castle. Illustrated London News, 1848.

Our contemporary celebration of Christmas includes many pagan trappings. But, most came later. Many pagan cultures had traditions of bringing greenery into the home around the winter solstice to represent new life and renewal amid the bleak mid-winter gloom. The Christmas tree first emerged in 16th and 17th century Germany. But, Christmas trees were not widely seen in England and the United States until the mid-nineteenth century when Queen Victoria, borrowing a tradition from the childhood of her German mother, displayed a Christmas tree at Windsor Castle. An illustration of Victoria and Albert’s Christmas tree was published in the London News in 1848 and was republished in America two years later. From then on, Christmas trees were a hit.

The true meaning of Christmas has little to do with what date you celebrate it or how. There’s nothing in the Bible that tells us how we should celebrate it, or even that we must celebrate it at all. Over the centuries, ideas and traditions have been borrowed from different cultures to create the festive joyous season that we celebrate now as “the most wonderful time of the year.”

In Attacking Politico’s Hezbollah Bombshell, Team Obama Fires Blanks

The Obama Administration diaspora had something of a reunion this week. The occasion, a coordinated effort at damage control, an attempt to tourniquet a wound to President Barack Obama’s legacy inflicted by an exhaustively reported 14,000-word rock-solid piece of investigative journalism by Politico’s Josh Meyer.

Meyer’s article, “The Secret Backstory of How Obama Let Hezbollah Off the Hook,” details the extreme lengths to which the Obama Administration went in pursuit of a dearly sought nuclear deal with Iran.

The story concerns Project Cassandra, the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) pursuit of Hezbollah’s international criminal syndicate, which led directly back to the terrorist group’s state-sponsor, Iran.

As the DEA closed on Hezbollah’s billion dollar a year criminal enterprise, which included drug and weapons trafficking, money laundering and other criminal activities, the Obama Administration, fearful of rocking the boat with its negotiating partners in Iran, “threw an increasingly insurmountable series of roadblocks in its way,” Meyer wrote.

Meyer’s story, supported by dozens of interviews, court documents, and government records, meticulously details the attempts by Obama Administration higher-ups to frustrate Project Cassandra’s efforts to confront Hezbollah. Among other things, Meyer’s story alleges that the Obama Justice Department refused requests to file criminal charges against:

  • Hezbollah’s well-connected envoy to Teheran;
  • a Lebanese bank that allegedly laundered billions in alleged drug profits, and;
  • a central player in a U.S.-based cell of the Iranian paramilitary Quds force.

The Obama State Department refused to assist efforts to arrest high-value Hezbollah targets as well, and it, along with the Justice Department, blocked DEA’s efforts to pursue other Hezbollah targets abroad.

“This was a policy decision, it was a systematic decision,” David Asher, a Defense Department official involved in launching Project Cassandra is quoted by Meyer as saying. “They serially ripped apart this entire effort that was very well supported and resourced, and it was done from the top down.”

Firing Blanks

Judging by the ferocity of the response, the story — to say the least — struck a nerve. Obama-allies came out guns blazing. But mostly, they were firing blanks. Not one of the, mostly mid-level, former Obama officials that attacked the story could point to anything specific that was inaccurate about it. Nor did they offer specific alternative explanations for any of the incidents detailed in the story.

What they provided instead was a tantrum of non-denial denials coupled with hyperbolic attacks on Meyers and his sources that were worthy of a Donald Trump tweet-storm. “The allegations in the Politico story are so ludicrous and the sourcing so nebulous that one can only conclude that the reporter was misled by those who clearly had a political agenda in getting him to write this story,” shouted Nick Shapiro, Deputy Chief of Staff to Obama’s CIA Director John Brennan in a statement to the Washington Post.

“The narrative presented in this report in no way resembles reality,” declared Obama National Security Council spokesman Ned Price, also quoted by the Post, before going on to falsely claim Meyer refused to allow Obama officials to comment in the story, “suggesting,” he said, “the reporter had an agenda and narrative from the start.”

In other words, “fake news,” a reporter with an “agenda,” coupled with non-specific denials. Sound familiar? Obama-world is tearing a page so cleanly out of the Trumpian playbook that Donald Trump should demand they pay royalties for aping his intellectual property.

The Interagency Id

As a spokesman for enforcement and terrorist financing in the U.S. Treasury Department under President George W. Bush, I dealt with many of the same challenges with which the Obama Administration was surely grappling. Every administration must weigh conflicts between law enforcement, diplomatic, and intelligence prerogatives and make some tough calls to reconcile them.

While I forcefully opposed the Iran Deal, I do believe that Team Obama honestly (if naively) thought it a critical national security priority. And, anyone paying attention at all could see how desperately the Obama team wanted a deal with Iran, a prize that they hoped would be the centerpiece of President Obama’s legacy.

What is actually “ludicrous” is the suggestion that there would not be resistance from some quarters of the Obama administration to actions against Hezbollah targets that might rock the boat and threaten one of the Obama Presidency’s most cherished priorities, a nuclear deal with Iran.

The Obama defenders reject the notion that they did not seek to aggressively confront Hezbollah. As Meyer notes in the story, they point to a handful of prosecutions — eight to be exact — as evidence. But, from their point of view, it’s reasonable to assume that Team Obama believes striking a deal with Hezbollah’s state-backers in Tehran counts as part of that “aggressive” approach. Once you accept this premise, the definitions for “aggressive” get colored in many shades of gray. No one says there was an explicit edict to take it easy on Hezbollah, but that was the effect of the way the Obama Administration sorted competing priorities. Something like the DEA’s efforts against Hezbollah, which would push really sensitive buttons with Iran, would surely be weighed against the risks posed to the drive for a deal with Iran.

As one former Senior Obama National Security Official told Meyer, “[y]our approach to anything as complicated as Hezbollah is going to have to involve the interagency [process], because the State Department has a piece of the pie, the intelligence community does, Treasury does, DOD does.”

It was likely death by “interagency process” — a gauntlet filled with bureaucratic rivalries, wonkish navel-gazing, ponderous meetings, and boundless timidity — that sealed the fate of Project Cassandra initiatives. Here, even good ideas — especially when they pose risks to the President’s top priority — can simply get bogged down in bureaucratic inertia.

As Meyer notes in his article, the competing interests of various agencies tugged at Project Cassandra. As DEA and the FBI sought to build criminal cases, intelligence agencies preferred clandestine approaches. The State Department, always hypersensitive to political blowback and diplomatic complications, resisted both criminal and covert approaches.

Obama Administration partisans, including former National Security Council spokesman Ned Price, insisted that the Administration separated efforts to confront Hezbollah from the broader goal of a nuclear deal:

“The Obama administration said time and again that the nuclear negotiations with Iran were confined exclusively to that narrow issue. We did not make concessions in other arenas, and we most certainly did not curtail or attempt to influence any active investigations, including by the Drug Enforcement Administration. To the contrary, we aggressively countered Hezbollah’s terrorist plotting and other malign activities before and after the Iran deal came to fruition and while it was being negotiated,” Price told the Washington Post.

Obama defenders feel justified in asserting that there was no formal stand-down order on Hezbollah — and this may be true. But, none was needed. The bureaucracy has its own way of imposing its will and snuffing out that which is undesirable to the President’s priorities.

In their minds, the death by interagency process suffered by Project Cassandra efforts was merely the consequence of appropriate vetting rather than affirmative decisions to “let Hezbollah off the hook.” Whatever they tell themselves, the outcome is the same. At the end of the day, the interagency process is the collective unconscious of an Administration. And the Obama Administration’s id had a clear orientation towards policies that facilitated engagement with Iran. As Meyer wrote:

“The administration’s eagerness for an Iran deal was broadcast through so many channels, task force members say, that political appointees and career officials at key agencies like Justice, State, and the National Security Council felt unspoken pressure to view the task force’s efforts with skepticism.”

Perhaps the roadblocks encountered by Project Cassandra weren’t the product of an explicit decision to go easy on Hezbollah, but they were the subconscious expression of where the administration’s priorities lay, played out in a consistent pattern of reluctance to confront Hezbollah as they sought to woo the terror group’s patrons in Tehran.

Katherine Bauer, who served in the Treasury Department during the Obama Administration, confirmed this view in testimony earlier this year to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. “[U]nder the Obama administration … these [Hezbollah-related] investigations were tamped down for fear of rocking the boat with Iran and jeopardizing the nuclear deal,” she said in her written testimony to the Committee.

It also, in part, reflects a more sanguine view of Hezbollah embraced by Obama Administration officials. Hezbollah has over the years expanded its activities beyond terrorism to include more benign humanitarian relief and political advocacy. This is especially true in Lebanon, where Hezbollah is a legitimate political party that doles out aid to the underprivileged alongside its traditional role as Iran’s armed paramilitary and terrorist proxy defending Shiite interests against Sunni rivals. Obama officials, including former CIA Director John Brennan, tended to prefer a glass-half-full view of Hezbollah that stresses its less malignant side.

The softness towards Hezbollah also fits within a pattern of Obama policies sympathetic to Iran, such as the decision to back Nouri al-Maliki, a Shia and Iran’s preference to lead Iraq, over more moderate Sunni elements.

Tommy Vietor, a former Obama National Security Council spokesman tweeted that the Politico story was “so manufactured out of thin air that it’s hard to push back except to say that it’s a figment of the imagination.”

For anyone who has traveled in these precincts, and knows much about where the Obama Administration placed their priorities, it requires no imagination at all.

Of Course Die Hard is a Christmas Movie

Nothing says Christmas like Bruce Willis crawling around in ventilation ducts hunting terrorists. Die Hard is a yippie-ki-yay Yuletide fable with all the classic elements of a Christmas movie. Inexplicably, a majority of Americans don’t see it this way.

In 2015, Raleigh, NC, based polling outfit PPP found that just 13% of Americans thought Die Hard was a Christmas movie, while 62% thought it was not. I presume the remaining 25% hung up in disgust at the absurd suggestion that Die Hard is anything other than a holiday classic. It is high time to put this matter to rest. Of course Die Hard is a Christmas movie. Don’t be ridiculous.

Die Hard takes place on Christmas Eve at a Christmas party, and features a plot that is timeless Christmas movie fare: the story or an intrepid hero who overcomes adversity to save Christmas and reconnect with what is truly important.

In Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer, Rudolph must save his girlfriend, Clarice. In Die Hard, Bruce Willis’ John McClane must save his wife. Rudolph battles the abominable snow monster, McClane battles abominable terrorists. Rudolph gets hit in the head by a stalactite, John McClane walks barefoot across broken glass. See? Same.

A grinch character is also a common theme in Christmas movies. Who could be more Grinch-like than Alan Rickman’s Hans Gruber, the terrorist villain of Die Hard? In The Grinch Who Stole Christmas, The Grinch wants to steal Christmas cheer; in Die Hard, Gruber wants to steal Christmas cheer too — in the form of several hundred million dollars. In both movies, the bad guy character is forever changed. The Grinch’s heart grew ten sizes that day; in Die Hard, Gruber fell out of a window…well, close enough.

Like many Christmas movies, Die Hard is, at its core, a tale about a protagonist who forgets what is really important, only to find it again in the end. In the beginning of the film, McClane’s petty resentments about his wife’s career ambitions have estranged him from the people he cares for most, his wife and daughter.

As Drew Taylor writes for Moviefone, “during the course of the movie, McClane is transformed. When he emerges, bloodied and burnt, at the end of the movie, his wife can barely recognize him. And how does she address him? ‘Jesus Christ,’ the kid whose birth we’re ostensibly celebrating on Christmas Day.”

I rest my case.

In classic Christmas movie style, John McClane fights through adversity to find the true meaning of Christmas: family, selflessness, and love. In the end, McClane and his wife are reconciled and he’s determined to be the great dad we always knew he could be. In the final scene, we see McClane and wife kissing, framed by shreds of paper falling gently around them like snowflakes. The strains of “Let It Snow” fade in, and Christmas is saved.

Five Things People Misunderstand About the Tax Bill

The Republicans are finally at the finish line of a massive tax cut bill, the first major legislative accomplishment of Donald Trump’s Presidency and the biggest overhaul of the tax code in three decades. But, tax policy is mindbogglingly complex. Sorting through all the hot takes and rhetoric can leave your head spinning. Here are five things people most commonly misunderstand about the tax bill explained.

1.

Does it pay for itself?

The tax cut bill will pay for itself in terms of greater economic growth, but not enough to offset the reduction in government revenues. It will reduce federal revenues by about $1.47 billion dollars on a static basis. But, that’s only if everything stays the same. Lower taxes will also result in stronger economic growth. However, there’s debate about exactly how much. The Tax Foundation, a non-partisan but conservative-leaning think tank, estimates that the U.S. economy will be about $4 trillion dollars larger over the next decade than it would otherwise have been without the tax cut — in this sense, it does pay for itself. Other models suggest more modest growth, but most agree that the bill will boost tax revenues which, at least to some extent, will offset the static cost of the bill. On a dynamic basis, which takes this economic growth into account, the price tag is considerably less — only $448 billion according to the Tax Foundation.

SOURCE: Tax Foundation

2. Why do the wealthy and big corporations benefit most?

The centerpiece of the tax cut bill is a reduction in the corporate tax rate from 35% down to 21%. In dollar terms, this is the largest tax reduction. But, it is also the most important provision in terms of creating economic growth.

The U.S. has among the highest corporate tax rates in the world.

Source: Tax Foundation

Even taking into account various deductions and credits, the tax burden on U.S. businesses is still quite high relative to its peers. Reducing the corporate tax rate brings U.S. business taxes in line with other countries, giving businesses less reason to move overseas where taxes are lower. This will mean more jobs in the U.S. and stronger economic growth that raises wages for ordinary Americans. Pretty much all of the economic growth the tax bill creates comes from this provision.

It is true that the largest share of the tax cuts go to wealthier individuals. But, it’s important to remember that wealthier people pay the largest share of taxes already. This doesn’t  change under the tax bill.

Source: Pete Peterson Foundation

3. Is eliminating tax deductions bad?

The tax code is such a maddening mess because it’s not just about taxes. For years politicians have used it as a way to subsidize things they like without actually calling it a subsidy.

The result is dozens of tax deductions and tax credits that taxpayers must wade through to figure out how much they actually owe. To make the tax code simpler, you need to eliminate many of these deductions, all of which are popular with somebody.

The bill does eliminate most individual tax deductions and limits others. But, it also increases the standard deduction. This will allow most people to file their taxes without having to itemize deductions, vastly simplifying the process of filing taxes:

Increases the standard deduction from:

  • $6,500 to $12,000 for single filers;
  • $9,550 to $18,000 for heads of household, and;
  • $13,000 to $24,000 for joint filers.

For most taxpayers, the higher standard deduction will make up for any lost tax benefits of deductions being eliminated. Also, it does maintain three of the most common deductions.

Tax Deductions Maintained

  • Deductions for charitable giving;
  • mortgage interest, up to $750,000; and,
  • state and local income and property tax up to $10,000.

The bill also doubles the child tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000. Unlike a deduction, which reduces the amount of income on which you pay taxes, a tax credit directly reduces your tax bill.  So, if you owe $10,000 in taxes and have one child, you can subtract $2,000 from what you owe, reducing your tax bill to only $8,000. It also makes up to $1,400 of this tax credit refundable. This means if you owe no taxes, you get a $1,400 tax refund anyway.

How much you will benefit will depend on the tax deductions you take. Limits on state and local tax deductions, for example, will mean that if you live in a high tax state and pay a lot of state taxes, you may not see as big a benefit as those in low tax states. Likewise, if you take an unusually large number of deductions, you might not benefit as much. But, between reduced rates and the larger standard deduction, the vast majority of people will come out ahead.

4. Will it really help the economy?

There’s no question that tax cuts create economic growth, although there’s room for debate about how much. The Tax Foundation estimates that the bill will create 339,000 jobs over the next decade, increase wages by 1.5% and increase GDP by 1.7%. Other models may predict more modest growth effects, but none suggest that there will be no growth at all.

SOURCE: Tax Foundation

5. Will regular  Americans  benefit?

Most taxpayers would see their taxes reduced. All tax brackets receive a cut, and middle-class families with children make out especially well, mostly due to the doubling of the child tax credit, which is used by 22 million taxpayers. Exactly how much any individual person benefits depends a lot on your particular situation. The Tax Foundation provides a good breakdown of the impact on various hypothetical taxpayers. 

However, to reduce the cost of the bill over the ten-year budget window, Congress decided to make most of the individual tax cuts temporary. If the tax cuts aren’t restored before they expire in a few years, then it is true that a lot of people would see their taxes go up. This is a budget gimmick necessary to get the bill through the Senate without requiring 60 votes. But, Congress may correct this down the road. So, in the short term, the tax bill will benefit most people; in the long term, it may not depending on how confident you are that Congress will go back and fix it.

Bottom line

The tax bill isn’t the apocalypse its detractors claim, but it isn’t perfect either. Like most legislation, it is the product of political compromises that will thrill some and infuriate others. It will simplify individual taxes and make U.S. businesses more competitive. Most taxpayers will see their bill to Uncle Sam reduced and all Americans will benefit from stronger economic growth.

It does create a revenue hole that Congress will eventually have to fill by future reductions in spending and Congress will also have to revisit tax reform in a few years to extend expiring temporary provisions if it is to avoid tax hikes. Also, it arguably could have gone further in tax simplification.

But, if it works as hoped, and the economy grows at a brisk pace, the flaws in the bill may not seem so worrisome. Ultimately, whether you’ll think this bill is good or bad boils down to whether you believe that America will benefit more from putting additional money in the hands of the private sector or keeping it in the hands of the federal government.

The Case for Mueller

As Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation has heated up, the President’s allies see evidence of a partisan witch hunt. Anti-Trump text messages sent by Peter Strzok, an FBI agent dismissed from Mueller’s team; connections between some of the attorneys Mueller has hired and prominent Democrats; and, an apparently cozy relationship between the FBI and the firm responsible for a Democrat-funded opposition research dossier prepared by a British spy provide ammunition.

https://prodroughlyexp.wpengine.com/2017/12/war-robert-mueller/

Mueller has assembled a first-rate team of investigators and prosecutors. It is true that some among his team have given money to Democrats and aren’t big Trump fans. But, this should not be surprising.

Half of the country opposed Trump’s election, and among the ranks of elite lawyers Mueller had to draw from as he built his team, a dim view of Donald Trump is the norm. Because the law specifically forbids Mueller from considering political affiliation in hiring, it was inevitable that the Special Counsel’s team would include a fair amount of people with political views divergent from those of the President.

In Washington, a town where people are defined by partisan affiliations, it’s always possible to make the case that partisan bias is at play. The question, as it relates to Mueller, is have those partisan affiliations improperly tainted the investigation? The facts of the matter argue against it.

Mueller is a Republican with a reputation for fairness. And his actions, including  reassigning Strzok, suggest that he takes the investigation’s impartiality seriously. Lawyers and investigators are professionals trained to set their personal political views aside as they go about their work. When that work is completed, they’ll either have the goods or not. It doesn’t much matter  whom they preferred in the 2016 election.

When the FBI was investigating Hillary Clinton’s emails last year, some of her partisans lodged similar complaints of partisan bias. And, they too had good reason. Although he was appointed by President Obama, FBI Director Jim Comey is a Republican who has given money to Republican Presidential candidates after all

Trump evokes strong opinions, so it is hard to imagine an investigation that would be truly impartial. The furor tacitly implies that only those friendly to Trump should be permitted to conduct the investigation. That makes little sense.

Investigators and prosecutors are not judge and jury. It will be courts that decide whether or not they have proved their case. When it comes to Trump, it is a Republican Congress who will decide whether Mueller’s findings merit impeachment.

If Mueller has overstepped the line, that will only become clear after his investigation is concluded. Congress and the courts will have the opportunity to weigh this question in light of the evidence presented. But, one might suspect that all this witch hunt stuff is less about getting to the truth than discrediting Mueller and his investigation.

The War on Robert Mueller

When Robert Mueller was first named as Special Counsel, both Republicans and Democrats praised the choice. Mueller, a Republican, a Marine Corps combat veteran and former FBI Director is widely regarded as a straight-shooter whose principal concern would be getting to the truth.

“Mueller is a great selection. Impeccable credentials. Should be widely accepted.” Rep. Jason Chaffetz, House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman, May 17, 2017

“Robert Mueller is superb choice to be special counsel. His reputation is impeccable for honesty and integrity.” Former House Speaker and Trump ally Newt Gingrich, May 17, 2017.

At the time, President Trump argued that he had nothing to do with Russia and neither did his team. His allies took him at his word. If that was the case, then Mueller would surely exonerate Trump.

Many months later, it is clear that the President’s team had more than a little to do with Russians, although there is no direct evidence of criminal complicity in Moscow’s meddling in the 2016 election. Still, as Mueller’s investigation unfolds, the expanding web of relationships between people in Trump’s orbit and Russia grows more troubling.

Mueller has secured two indictments of Trump associates on matters indirectly related to Russia. Former Trump Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort and his business partner Rick Gates, who also worked on Trump’s election effort, turned themselves in to authorities after being indicted on tax and money laundering charges related to work prior to joining the Trump campaign for Ukraine‘s former President Viktor Yanukovych, a close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump’s former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and a campaign foreign policy adviser, George Papadopoulos have both plead guilty to lying about contacts with Russia.

https://prodroughlyexp.wpengine.com/2017/11/mueller-indictments-explained/

https://prodroughlyexp.wpengine.com/2017/12/what-dmichael-flynns/

And there are other troubling signs as well. Donald Trump Jr’s June 2016 meeting with a Russian lawyer on the promise of receiving damaging information about Hillary Clinton, which never materialized, nevertheless indicated that Team Trump was at least open to receiving Russian help. It bears noting that it was a month later Wikileaks began to produce damaging emails about Hillary Clinton that were hacked from the DNC by Russia’s intelligence services.

Trump’s unusual affinity for Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, and reluctance to accept the conclusion of U.S. intelligence agencies that Moscow was behind the DNC hacks and other efforts in 2016 meant to swing the election in his favor raise eyebrows further.

As the shadow cast by Mueller’s investigation over the White House looms more menacingly, Trump and his allies have stepped up efforts to discredit him.

In an unusual move, Trump’s Department of Justice released a slew of anti-Trump text messages sent between Peter Strzok, an FBI agent reassigned by Mueller from the probe earlier this year, and his paramour, another FBI agent Lisa Bloom.

“The fix was in against Donald Trump from the beginning, and they were pro-Hillary, They can’t possibly be seen as objective or transparent or evenhanded or fair.” – Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway on Fox.

Pro-Trump media, especially Fox News Channel, has breathlessly reported this as an epic scandal that vindicates their belief that Mueller has been running a political witch hunt all along. The fact that Mueller removed Strzok from his team months ago precisely because of these anti-Trump views often goes unmentioned.

Fox, whose owner Rupert Murdoch and biggest star Sean Hannity frequently speak with Trump, has led the charge against Mueller. Over the weekend, Fox host Jesse Watters suggested that Mueller’s investigation was tantamount to a coup. “But, the scary part is we may now have proof the investigation was weaponized to destroy his presidency for partisan political purposes and to disenfranchise millions of American voters,” Watters warned.

Counselor to the President Kelly Anne Conway, appearing with a chyron on screen, “A coup in America?” egged him on. “The fix was in against Donald Trump from the beginning, and they were pro-Hillary,” Conway said. “They can’t possibly be seen as objective or transparent or evenhanded or fair.”

“The anti-Mueller rhetoric in conservative media right now is part of a feedback loop.” – Nicole Hemmer

In an appearance on “Hannity” recently, Fox News legal commentator Greg Jarrett charged that Mueller “has been using the FBI as a political weapon. And the FBI has become America’s secret police.” Garrett compared it to Soviet-era KGB tactics. Hannity agreed. “This is not hyperbole you are using here,” he said.

It’s not clear how much of Fox’s excited hyperbole is a bid to keep its audience engaged and how much is intended explicitly to help Trump. But, as CNN media critic Brian Seltzer has observed, it’s forming a “feedback loop” between the cable network and its number one fan, the President of the United States.

“The anti-Mueller rhetoric in conservative media right now is part of a feedback loop,” Nicole Hemmer, who writes about conservative media, told CNN’s Brian Stetler.

“Conservative media personalities know Trump hates the investigation and wants it shut down,” she said in an email. “They bash the investigation and Mueller, and when Trump sees that happening (say, on ‘Fox & Friends’) it reinforces his belief that the investigation is illegitimate and that he should do something to end it. The likely consequence is that this increases the odds of Trump attempting to fire Mueller.”

Adding to the ruckus, Trump’s campaign attorney sent Congress a letter on Saturday complaining, rather dubiously, that Mueller “improperly” received emails from the Presidential transition on the dubious basis that the emails, sent from government email addresses and government computers, were, in fact, private property.

Trump’s allies in Congress have also raised the possibility that the FBI may have obtained a FISA warrant authorizing surveillance on Carter Page, a Trump campaign aide, and possibly others, based on an opposition research dossier prepared by a former British spy and funded by Democrats. Trump’s administration has so far refused Congressional requests to view the dossier and confirm whether these suspicions are true.

https://prodroughlyexp.wpengine.com/2017/12/the-case-for-mueller/

Firing Mueller would allow Russia to become even more of an all-consuming distraction for the White House than it already is.

All this has led many to worry that the aggressive attacks on Mueller may be intended to provide a pretext for firing Mueller over the Christmas holidays. In Congressional testimony last week, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who would be the official tasked with doing it, said that he would only dismiss Mueller for cause and knew of nothing that would justify it and on Sunday, Trump told reporters that he was not contemplating firing Mueller.

That is reassuring. If Trump were to fire Mueller, it could provoke a constitutional crisis the likes of which the nation has not seen since Watergate. Rosenstein would likely resign rather than follow the order, just as President Nixon’s Attorney General did when he was ordered to fire Archibald Cox. It would also deepen, rather than assuage, suspicions of malfeasance in regards to Russia, allowing the issue to become even more of an all-consuming distraction for the White House than it already is.

Mueller’s investigation is looking less likely to produce the kind of blockbuster collusion that his detractors imagine. The chaotic shot from the hip Trump campaign does not appear well-suited for complex international conspiracies.

At this point, there’s little hard evidence to suggest that Trump himself was complicit in Russia’s efforts. It’s possible that at least some in Trump’s orbit could have been in knowingly in cahoots with the Russians. But, it’s more likely that any cooperation with the Kremlin was unwitting.

It’s plausible to speculate that the infamous Trump Tower meeting might have been a ruse intended to gauge how Russian intervention on his behalf would be received in Trump World. Donald Trump Jr’s emailed response to an offer of dirt on Hillary Clinton from the Russian government, “I love it,”may have been all they needed to know. If so, it might be unsavory, but not illegal.

Trump’s bigger risk is that Mueller might find grounds to charge Trump with obstruction of justice in firing FBI Director James Comey. But, here too, things aren’t all that clear-cut. Trump clearly had the power to fire Comey and there’s an unsettled Constitutional question of whether Presidential powers are sufficiently absolute as to render a President essentially immune obstruction statutes. A Republican Congress will be inclined to see it Trump’s way.

Perhaps this is why in recent days, Trump has grown more relaxed, people close to Trump say, about what Mueller might find, telling confidants that despite it all he’s confident that Mueller will exonerate him. If so, the President’s allies would be well-served to calm down and let the Special Counsel go about his work.

Still, some argue its the wrong time to let up on the gas. “You’re starting to win over mainstream conservatives to the backlash over overreach,” a source close to the White House told Axios. Where the White House goes next may be decided Tuesday when Trump’s lawyers meet with Special Counsel for a status conference.

Trump and Russia: Choose Your Own Adventure Style

President Donald Trump may very well have not been involved in any collusion with Russia. To date, there’s no hard evidence that he was. Yet, at nearly every turn, he’s chosen the option that looks the most suspicious.

President Trump’s unshakeable affinity for Russian President Vladimir Putin, his reluctance to accept Russia’s culpability in meddling during the 2016 election, and the repeated failures to disclose contacts between Trump associates and Russians give the whiff of something more troubling. Perhaps Trump’s odd behavior is some mixture of stubbornness, indignation at the suggestion that his victory wasn’t legitimate, and a genuine belief that he is being unfairly persecuted. Still, if he’s done nothing wrong, Trump has managed to make an unholy mess for himself that was completely unnecessary.

To understand why reasonable people have come to suspect something shady might be going on between Trump and Russia, put yourself in Trump’s shoes and choose your own adventure.

It’s 2015, and you’re asked if you’ve met Putin, whom you’ve (probably) never actually met. Do you:

  1. Lie about it and brag. “Yes…and we got along great by the way!”
  2. Tell the truth.

You choose 1.

It’s 2016 and Donald Trump Jr. is offered dirt on Hillary Clinton courtesy of the Russian government, do you:

  1. Notify the FBI of a foreign power’s intention to intervene in the election.
  2. Respond “I love it” and set up a meeting with the senior campaign team.

You choose 2.

Russia hacks the emails of the opposing party. Do you:

  1. Strongly condemn a foreign adversary’s attack on an American political institution.
  2. Refuse to condemn it and joke that maybe Russia should find Hillary’s deleted emails.

You chose 2. Nobody laughs.

A month before the election, US intelligence services publicly point the finger at Russia for the DNC hack. Do you:

  1. Call for an investigation and immediate steps to secure the electoral process against foreign interference.
  2. Dismiss it and become angry that Russia is being blamed.

You choose 2.

Accurate news reports of contacts between the Trump team and Russian officials surface. Do you:

  1. Have your spokeswoman claim it “never happened” and deny “any communication between the campaign and any foreign entity during the campaign.”
  2. Acknowledge it and explain that the contacts were perfectly appropriate.

You choose 1.

When asked about your extensive business interests connected to Russia, do you:

  1. Explain that, as a savvy businessman you saw opportunity in an emerging market and Russian hunger for US real estate investments.
  2. Insist you have nothing to do with Russia.

You choose 2.

You are now President-elect. Amid unconfirmed reports that your campaign may have promised to lift sanctions in exchange for Kremlin help in the election, your predecessor places tough new sanctions on Russia. Do you,

  1. Support the President.
  2. Your incoming National Security Advisor contacts Russia’s ambassador to counsel patience (possibly without your knowledge.) and then lies about it.

You choose 2.

US intelligence services brief you on Russia’s efforts to influence the election. Do you,

  1. Call for a full-scale investigation and steps to harden computer networks and election systems against future hacking.
  2. Acknowledge that it “probably was Russia,” but downplay the significance.

You choose 2.

When confronted in an interview with evidence that Russian President Putin has been behind atrocities, do you:

  1. Exclaim “you think our country is so innocent!”
  2. Express concern and vow to press Putin on the issue.

You choose 1.

You finally meet with President Putin. He denies Russian involvement in 2016 election meddling. Do you,

  1. Reverse your position and take Putin’s word for it over your own intelligence agencies.
  2. Send a tough message that makes clear The US will not tolerate interference in our electoral process.

You choose 1.

After the White House is informed that your National Security Advisor lied about earlier contacts with the Russian Ambassador about sanctions exposing him to blackmail, do you:

  1. Immediately revoke his security clearances and fire him.
  2. Ignore it for weeks until the pressure becomes untenable and then fire him.

You choose 2.

When your FBI Director resists your demand for loyalty and your requests to curtail the FBI’s investigation into Russian interference, do you:

  1. Fire him with a phony explanation about mishandling the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email and purported low morale at the Bureau.
  2. Acknowledge his independence and pledge cooperation.

You choose 1.

When asked in an interview why you fired your FBI Director, do you:

  1. Stick with the talking points.
  2. Contradict what your own White House has been saying for days and admit it was because you were frustrated with the Russia investigation.

You choose 2.

Your firing of the FBI Director triggers a Special Counsel to continue the Russia investigation independently. Do you,

  1. Recognize that your erratic behavior is making things worse.
  2. Repeatedly call the Special Counsel’s investigation a “witch hunt,” attack the media as “fake news,” and try to deflect attention to Hillary Clinton’s alleged misdeeds.

You choose 2.

The Special Counsel issues indictments and your former National Security Advisor pleads guilty to lesser charges in exchange for his cooperation:

  1. Turn the attacks on the investigation and the media up to 11 and attempt to discredit your former National Security Advisor.
  2. Recognize that you are sabotaging your own Presidency and focus on your work.

You choose 1.

If you chose the same as Trump every time, congratulations, you’ve completely undermined your own Presidency for no apparent reason. You’ve provided more than enough material to drive an investigation that will paralyze your Presidency and, with your ham-handed attempts to derail the Russia investigation, you’ve exposed yourself to obstruction of justice charges. My hunch is you chose more wisely.

The Republicans After Alabama

Photo credit: Michael Vadon, Gage Skidmore

In a stunning nail-biter, Democratic Senate Candidate Doug Jones managed to prevail in Tuesday’s special election in Alabama, a state that hasn’t sent a Democrat to the U.S. Senate in decades. Democrats were thrilled by the victory. The defeat of Roy Moore, who had the backing of President Donald Trump and his former chief strategist Steve Bannon, was also met with jubilation within the demoralized ranks of movement conservatives and centrists still trying to tough it out in the Trump-Bannon GOP. Still, the civil war within the GOP ignited by Trump’s ascendance didn’t end in Alabama, and the disparate reaction to the Alabama Senate results among Republican factions only highlights the depth of its schism.

Still, for Republicans who face a difficult mid-term election next year, Jones’ win isn’t all bad news. In the long-run, it may actually benefit Republicans more than Democrats. Democrats would have surely used the controversial figure of Roy Moore as a club to bludgeon vulnerable Republicans. The loss of a single Senate seat seems a price worth paying if it means holding on to control of Congress.

A Hard Sell

Roy Moore’s loss was not quite the rebuke of Trumpism that many pundits make it out to be. Yes, an anti-establishment populist evangelical conservative like Roy Moore should have won easily in deep red Alabama. But even in Alabama, where statewide GOP candidates routinely win with double-digit margins, a Republican candidate as deeply damaged as Roy Moore is a hard sell. Facing a slew of credible charges of alleged pedophilia, Moore was a dead man walking.

There was little anyone, including President Trump, could have done to rescue him. Although his candidate lost, Alabama proved President Trump still a force to be reckoned with. Exit polls showed Moore won late-deciders by a wide margin — 56-37, likely due to Trump’s last-minute endorsement. Without it, Moore’s losing margin would have likely been wider.

Within the Bannonite wing of the GOP, which these days includes much of the Republican base, Moore’s loss was not a decisive blow. Rather, it only reinforced their distrust of Republican leaders.

Most base Republicans never believed the allegations against Moore. Rather, they dismissed them as machinations of an establishment-media cabal they view as the real enemy. The Bannonites blame Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and other establishment Republicans who turned their back on Moore, when allegations of sexual misconduct surfaced, for the loss. Now, they plan to turn the fire back on Republican leaders.

A “source close to Bannon” told Kevin Cirilli, a reporter form Bloomberg TV, that Trump’s former strategist is as determined as ever. “This doesn’t stop Steve’s war against the establishment, all it does is pour gasoline on top of it,” the source tells Cirilli.

Andy Surabian, an aide to Bannon, said Trump’s base will punish McConnell by beating establishment-backed candidates in Senate primaries next year. “After doing everything in their power to throw this election to a liberal Democrat, the McConnell establishment should expect the very same America First movement that elected the president in 2016 to be out for their blood in 2018,” Surabian said.

But, the establishment is not taking this lying down. Josh Holmes, a former long-time aid to McConnell leveled his fire on Bannon: “Steve Bannon managed to do the impossible, and he should’ve forever secured a place in the Democratic consultant hall of fame,” Holmes said in an email exchange with NBC News. “It was thought to be damn near impossible for a Republican to lose the state of Alabama, but Steve Bannon hadn’t run a race there.”

Republicans Show Little Sign of Bolting

Despite Roy Moore’s flaws, 91% of Republicans still voted for him. While not as high as the 98% of Democrats that voted for Jones, it is nevertheless a vivid illustration of just how deeply Trumpian populism has affected the psyche of Republican base voters. For them, the Republican Party elite in Washington — many of whom opposed Moore — are held in near equal contempt as Democrats.

Exit polls found that half (52%) of Alabama special Election voters thought the allegations against Roy Moore were “definitely or probably true.” Unsurprisingly, Doug Jones (89%) and write-in candidates (2%) took the vast majority of these votes, while Roy Moore dominated the 43% of voters who thought the allegations “definitely or probably false.”

What was a bit more surprising is that a not insubstantial number of Alabama voters, 8%, believed the allegations against Moore were true, yet voted for him anyway. For these voters, disgust with the Washington establishment or the importance they place on wedge issues like abortion outweighs something Roy Moore did over three decades ago.

It’s likely that the broad bipartisan condemnation of Moore nationally counterintuitively helped him in some quarters. The allegations against Roy Moore were rated the single most important factor for only 7% of voters, accorded to exit polls. But, among the 34% of voters who said that the allegations were “one of several important factors” in their vote, 15% voted for Moore. Most of these likely didn’t believe the charges against Moore. Rather, anger that they were made in the first place was a motivating factor.

To much of the country, Roy Moore is an unhinged loon. (Your humble blogger would tend to agree with this assessment.) But, for at least some Alabamians, the attitude was, he might be a loon, but he’s our loon. They seemed to be saying, the media and Washington establishment aren’t going to tell me how to vote and I’m going to vote for a pedophile just to prove the point.

For Republicans, a Blessing in Disguise

In the long term, a one-seat pickup for Democrats comes at the expense of an opportunity for bigger Democratic gains down the road. Doug Jones’ win is a temporary problem for Republicans. He will be filling the remainder of a term that expires in two years. Republicans will almost certain to recapture the seat in 2020. If Roy Moore had won, the damage to Republicans might have been greater.

Roy Moore’s loss will spare Republicans from a bruising fight, which would further deepen the fractures within the party, over whether to pursue his expulsion from the Senate. The GOP already faces headwinds in the 2018 mid-term elections. Moore’s election would have only made matters worse. Had Moore won, Democrats would likely have used the controversies swirling around him to tarnish Republicans in swing districts. Given Republicans’ razor-thin margins in both houses, it’s a complication the GOP would just as soon avoid.

Historically, a new President’s party loses House seats in the first midterm election. Ronald Reagan lost 26 in 1982 and Barack Obama lost 61 in 2010. There’s a tight correlation between Presidential approval and midterm performance. With President Trump’s 37% approval rating well below Obama or Reagan at this point, Republicans have reason to worry.

Democrats were fired up against Trump in 2017 races, and not just in Alabama. In races earlier this year in Virginia and New Jersey, Republicans faired poorly all the way down the ballot. This was especially true of Republicans who occupy districts that trend Democratic. Democrats likely will capitalize on that energy again in 2018. Further, Democrats now lead Republicans by 15 points on the generic ballot, a hypothetical match-up of a generic Republican versus a generic Democrat that is historically a very reliable leading indicator of midterm election performance.

Monmouth University, Dec. 13, 2017

The Senate presents less risk for the GOP than the House. The high number of Democratic Senators up for re-election next year relative to Republicans should allow the GOP to maintain a majority in the upper chamber.

But, in the House, things look grimmer. There are 23 GOP House members in districts that voted for Hillary Clinton and 42 in districts Trump won by less than 50%. Democrats only need 24 seats to gain control.

Steven Wolf, Daily Koz

It’s likely that the Republicans’ challenges would have been compounded by the election of Roy Moore, whom much of the country believes is guilty of sexual misconduct, as a Republican Senator. “If there is any small comfort to be found in Tuesday night’s results,” Ned Ryun, who runs American Majority, a conservative grassroots organization wrote in a Fox News column, “it’s that Democrats can’t hang Roy Moore around Republicans’ necks — or Trump’s for that matter — in 2018.”

Roy Moore’s loss could end up proving decisive in preventing Democrats from gaining control of the House next year, and potentially the Senate in 2020 when more Republicans are up for re-election. Sometimes, losing has its advantages.

How Progressives Perpetuate the Concept of a Deep State

DC AT NIGHT

President Trump, advisors such as Steve Bannon, and many of the electorate who support him, believe there is a “deep state” composed of the media, officials appointed by President Obama and allies of the former President who actively seek to undermine Mr. Trump and his administration. The President and his coterie did not invent either the term or the concept. But they have brought it from the fringe into the political mainstream and cleverly use it to garner more support from their base.

Democratic lawmakers, Mr. Obama, the media, and progressive activists say the President’s embrace of the deep state concept is a paranoid conspiracy and, thus, yet another example of his unfitness for the office of the President. They also actively resist any of the President’s proposals or people he nominates for appointive office.

The President’s belief in the deep state and the left’s actions and reactions create a feedback loop: Mr. Trump firmly thinks there is a plot to delegitimize his presidency; many on the left proudly proclaim that Mr. Trump is “Not My President” and call themselves the resistance; Mr. Trump points to those comments and Tweets as evidence that the deep state exists and is bent on his impeachment at worst, or political stalemate at best.

A History of the Deep State

The concept of a “deep state” dates back to the early 20th century Republican movement in Turkey. It comes from the Turkish term “derin devlet,” used to describe the groups that Turkish revolutionary and founding President of the Republic of Turkey Mustafa Kemal Atatürk created to conduct clandestine acts – which included coups and assassination of opponents – designed first to overthrow the existing regime and then to protect the new secularist order. The term “deep state” has since come to mean an unelected shadow government that exists to keep itself in power or restore itself to leadership.

It is unclear when the idea of a deep state entered American consciousness. Some political scientists say it has always been with us, part of what Richard Hofstader dubbed “The Paranoid Style in American Politics.” Others say it emerged with wild conspiracy theories about the Trilateral Commission and the George W. Bush administration’s purported complicity in the September 11th terror attacks, supposedly to help Israel and provoke a Middle East war.

Whichever is correct, the deep state was popularized by former congressman Ron Paul, who in his 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns, claimed there was a deep state of neoconservatives whose aim was to continue the policies of President George W. Bush.

The Deep State Has Deep Resonance

Today, the deep state is a favorite boogeyman of conspiratorial talk show hosts like Alex Jones. But it is not just confined to them. A recent poll showed that 48% of Americans believe in the existence of a deep state. Think about that for a second: Nearly half of all U.S. citizens actually think there is cabal hidden inside the federal government that seeks to undermine it from within. President Trump merely tamps into that belief system.

The President’s acceptance of a deep state is understandable. During the presidential primary campaign, a number of prominent Republicans — which included senior members of the Bush administration and former national security experts — aligned against Mr. Trump as part of the self-described “Never Trump” movement. At the Republican National Convention, “Never Trumpers” allied with Ted Cruz partisans even went so far as to seek to deny Trump the Party’s nomination on the convention floor. Add to that Hillary Clinton’s famous remarks that called Mr. Trump’s supporters “a basket of deplorables.”

Mr. Bannon, in a speech to the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) in February of this year, said a key item on the President’s agenda was the “deconstruction of the administrative state.” The deep state and the administrative state are functional equivalents to the Party’s far-right Bannonite wing.

The President and Mr. Bannon believe that the news media assists the deep state through the promulgation of news reporting critical of Mr. Trump, all of which they dismiss out of hand as “fake news” designed to undermine Mr. Trump and ultimately destroy his administration. For them, there is no greater example of the alliance between the deep state and the elite media than the Russia investigation, which they see as nothing less than a seditious conspiracy to oust President Trump.

The Resistance

Progressive lawmakers, activists, and commentators do a lot to reinforce the President’s views. On November 10th – a mere two days after Mr. Trump was elected – there were protests in New York, Chicago, New Orleans, Oakland and Portland (Oregon) in which protestors chanted and held signs which declared that Mr. Trump was “Not My President.” Within a week after the election, that theme went viral, as hashtags of “Not My President,” “Resist,” and “Member of The Resistance,” appeared on Twitter.

On January 20, 2017, just hours after Mr. Trump was sworn in, the New York Times ran an op-ed by Lindy West the title of which was “Not My President, Not Ever.” Even federal elected officials have joined the “Not My President” bandwagon. Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) has declared that Mr. Trump “is not my president.”

Numerous articles, including one in a recent volume of City Journal, have noted that President Obama has essentially become a shadow President whose apparent aim is to bring into question the legitimacy of the Trump administration. Mr. Obama has aligned himself with “”the resistance,” and former Obama staffers have hosted what they themselves called a “Resistance School” for left-wing activists.

Undermine, Undermine, Undermine

The resistance extends to elected officials. It is abundantly clear that the Democratic strategy when it comes to the Trump administration is to thwart and undermine any legislative initiative executive order or statement. Witness the lack of votes for any piece of Republican legislation, and the stridently anti-Trump rhetoric of Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) – not to mention those of Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Bernie Sanders (I-VA), Governor Andrew Cuomo (D-NY), big city mayors, and others.

The New York Times recently reported that liberal activists are in the midst of an active campaign to shut down the federal government unless protections for undocumented immigrants who arrived as minors are restored. Democratic leaders like Sen. Schumer and Rep. Pelosi are less enthusiastic about such a move if, for no other reason, fear that it might blow back on Democrats. The Times noted that the rejection of the strategy by Mr. Schumer and Ms. Pelosi “has turned part of the liberal ‘resistance’ . . . against Democratic leaders.”

As Joshua Mitchell noted in a City Journal article: ”The most remarkable fact about the post-election months has been the absolute certainty of Democrats . . . that Donald Trump is not a legitimate president and there is a need for resistance.”

Role of Bureaucrats in the Resistance

The resistance has apparently spread to federal bureaucrats. In a report about the dual directors of the Consumer Financial Protection Board – Mick Mulvaney was appointed by President Trump while Leandra English was named deputy director and contends she became the director after the resignation of Richard Cordray – The Times said: “One small group [of agency employees] calls itself ‘Dumbledore’s Army,’ according to two of the people who were familiar with their discussions. The name is a reference to a secret resistance force in the ‘Harry Potter’ books.”

The Times further reported that some agency employees who are part of the secret resistance force now communicate mostly “in person or through encrypted messaging apps.” The use of encoded messages by federal workers may be potential violations of the Federal Records Act, which makes it illegal to “actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alteration, corruption, deletion, erasure, or other destruction of records . . .”

The episode likely serves to reinforce the President’s firmly held belief that there is a secret cabal aimed at his administration. An essay titled “Trump and the ‘Deep State,’” published in the prestigious journal Foreign Affairs noted, “the White House is correct to perceive widespread resistance inside the government to many of its endeavors.”

The News Media and “Fake News”

A string of high-profile recent errors and subsequent corrections has contributed to President Trump’s faith in the reality – at least in his mind and those of his aides and supporters – of the deep state at work.

Three recent cases, two of which involved CNN — long been a chief target of the President’s claims of bias in the media — and the other of which involved ABC are but a demonstration. In June, CNN fired a trio of journalists after erroneously reported that Anthony Scaramucci, who served a scant ten days as Mr. Trump’s communications director, had ties to an investment firm linked to Russia. More recently, CNN incorrectly reported that an email Donald J. Trump, Jr. received offered advance access to Wikileaks documents hacked from the Democratic National Committee. But, the date on the email, which two sources confirmed to CNN as Sept. 4, 2016, before the documents were made public, turned out to be Sept. 14, 2016, after their public release. The mistake changed the character of the story entirely. It offered access to already public documents, and it’s not clear that the email’s sender was affiliated directly with Wikileaks at all.

Further compounding the news media’s troubles, ABC News recently suspended long-time investigative reporter Brian Ross after he inaccurately reported that Mr. Trump had instructed Michael T. Flynn during last year’s presidential campaign to contact Russian officials. As it turns out, this happened after the election.

https://prodroughlyexp.wpengine.com/2017/12/2817/

President Trump predictably responded in Tweets and comments in which he denounced all three of the reports as “fake news” – Mr. Trump’s favorite epithet for most news that he deems false or likely to harm his presidency.

Feedback Loop

Mr. Trump entered office with a preconceived notion that a deep state exists. Very little that has transpired disabuses him of that. If anything it merely has reinforced his thoughts.

Mr. Trump has endured the Never Trump movement, which sought to deny him the nomination he had all but won; declarations by prominent Americans, elected officials and voters that he is not their president; a resistance effort which Mr. Trump and commentators clearly feel has been organized and kept alive by Mr. Obama and Democratic leaders; federal bureaucrats who call themselves a resistance army; and numerous news reports that make false allegations that damage his reputation and that of his family and core advisors.

Is it any wonder that, as Senator Lindsay Graham recently remarked, President Trump “believes passionately that the liberal and left and the media are out to destroy him?” Those who vehemently oppose Mr. Trump and his policies both in public and behind the scenes have no one to blame but themselves for the continuation of the allegations of a deep state.

What’s Going to With the Alabama Senate Race? It’s hard to tell.

Looking at Monday’s polls of the Alabama Senate race, Republican Roy Moore is either up 9 points, according to Emerson College, or Democrat Doug Jones is up 10, according to Fox News. Both Fox and Emerson produce reputable polls that have a decent track record. But, they can’t both be right. One of them is spectacularly wrong.

The 19 point gulf between Fox and Emerson’s results probably has a lot to do with differences in the methods used to poll people and who pollsters assume will show up to vote.

“There are, to oversimplify a bit, two important parts to polling,” the Washington Post’s Phillip Bump writes. “The first part is getting a sense for how people plan to vote. The second part is matching those results to who actually will vote.”

A tough nut to crack

Special elections have relatively small voter turnout. Figuring out which group of people will actually show up is a tough nut to crack. In polls of conventional races, past election results are usually a pretty good predictor of the electorate. Polls are usually closely grouped because they make roughly similar assumptions of the voters that turnout. Not so here.

In the Alabama race, unprecedented national media attention and salacious allegations throw an additional monkey-wrench into predicting an already difficult to predict special election turnout. Are Democrats more fired-up to defeat Moore? Are Moore voters shy about revealing their intention to vote for an alleged sexual predator?

How pollsters answer questions like these will strongly impact their results. Given all the uncertainty, Monmouth University’s pollsters threw up their hands and simply released results under a variety of turnout scenarios. Under their 2017-based turnout model, Moore and Jones are tied at 46%. Assuming the electorate looks like they did in the 2014 mid-terms, Moore wins 48-44. But, if the electorate reflects voters in the 2016 election, Jones is up 48-45.

Survey Monkey took a similar approach, releasing results for a range of turnout assumptions . “Minor differences in the methods used to model or select the likely electorate produce wildly varying estimates in Alabama,” Survey Monkey CEO Mark Blumenthal wrote. “Data collected over the past week, with different models applied, show everything between an 8 eight percentage point margin favoring Jones and a 9 percentage point margin favoring Moore.”

Blumenthal reckons that releasing a range of results is probably a better way to do it in an unconventional race like this. The lesson from 2016, he told Politico, is that pollsters were too preoccupied with prognostication. “We should not be getting into the minutiae of what fraction of a percent the lead is for one candidate or the other,” he said.

Compounding the problems, pollsters are finding it increasingly difficult to get a representative sample of voters, which is forcing greater reliance of weighting to get their sample to reflect how they expect the electorate to look. For example, pollsters may have trouble reaching African-Americans in sufficient numbers, so will “weight” the votes of the ones they do have more heavily. This adds a degree of subjectivity into the mix.

Another issue that seems to be causing a lot of variation between polls is how the questions are asked. As Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight explained in an extensive analysis Monday, automated polls that auto-dial voters and have them respond by pressing keys or answer computerized voice prompts, have tended to show Moore ahead. Polls using live interviewers have tended to favor Jones.

As Silver points out, one big difference is that automated polls are prohibited by law from calling cell phones. Because just over half of Americans no longer have a land-line, IVR polls exclude a substantial number of people. And, those with only cell phones tend to vote differently. Fox News’ poll showed a 30% advantage for Jones among cell phone callers. Automated pollsters are not unaware of this problem and use weighting to try to compensate for its effect. But, as fewer and fewer people have landlines, it’s possible that automated polls are undercounting a meaningful slice of the electorate.

However, there is also some thought that people might be less willing to cop to voting for a controversial candidate when talking to a real person on the phone. While studies have shown that the evidence for this is weak, in the unique situation of a candidate accused of molestation of teenage girls, perhaps it could be a factor. If so, how people answer automated poll questions might better reflect how they will behave in the voting booth.

“It’s worth keeping in mind that one difficulty in polling Alabama’s electorate is that very few, if any, pollsters have a track record there.” Monmouth’s Patrick Murray told Politico. “This lack of familiarity is further compounded by the unpredictability of special elections.”

Analysts say Moore is the likely winner…maybe

Polls show Democrats have an advantage in excitement about the race.  In Fox’s poll, among likely voters, 50% of Democrats said they were “extremely interested” in the race versus 45% of Republicans. Among likely voters who were “extremely interested,” Fox’s poll has Jones ahead 53-40, a commanding 13% lead. But, enthusiasm expressed to a pollster doesn’t always translate to actually going to the voting booth, and reliable voters for Republicans may just be unenthusiastic about their candidate but turn up and vote for him anyway. And as weird as this election year period in history is, a good many may turn up tomorrow and make up their minds as they walk in. Fox News’ poll found that 8% were still undecided. That could be significant.

If a normal electorate for an Alabama special election turns out tomorrow, Moore probably wins. That leads most analysts to give the edge to Moore in spite of Jones’ lead in the Fox Poll. Nate Silver says that Moore is more likely to prevail, but cautions that Jones has about as good a shot at winning (30%) as Trump did in 2016. And we all know how that turned out. Monmouth’s Murray agrees, adding that “there is still an opening for Jones.”

Still, the bottom line is anyone who tells you they know for sure what’s going to happen Tuesday is probably just guessing.

How ‘A Charlie Brown Christmas’ Became One of the Most Beloved Holiday Albums of All Time

When CBS got a look at A Charlie Brown Christmas for the first time, they were not pleased. A mildly depressed Charlie Brown’s meandering search for the true meaning of Christmas, amid all the consumerism of the modern holiday season, wasn’t exactly the uplifting romp network executives had expected. And then there’s its unconventional jazz soundtrack from Vince Guaraldi, an up and coming musician few had ever heard of.

“They wanted something corporate, something rousing,” Jerry Granelli, the drummer for the Guaraldi combo, told Rolling Stone in 2015. “They thought the animation was too slow. They really didn’t like that a little kid was going to come out and say what Christmas was all about, which wasn’t about shopping. And then the jazz music, which was improvised — you know, the melodies only take up maybe 30 seconds.”

The melancholic childishness of the music is among the timeless charms of A Charlie Brown Christmas. But, at least at first, CBS executives didn’t see it that way. “There were specific negative comments about the music, the piano music, some of the voicing, which sounded kind of amateurish,” former CBS executive Fred Silverman said in the 2015 documentary, The Making of ‘A Charlie Brown Christmas.

If the voicing sounded amateurish, it’s because it was. The actors weren’t professionals and the vocal performers were a choir of regular children from St. Paul’s Episcopal Church in San Rafael, California recorded in three sessions over two weeks. Producer Lee Mendelson and Guaraldi rejected the exacting perfection demanded by choir director Barry Mineah and pushed for the “kids to sound like kids.”

The album happened quite by accident. As Producer Lee Mendelson was driving across the Golden Gate Bridge one afternoon, he heard Guaraldi’s “Cast Your Fate To The Wind” on the radio. “[‘Wind’] was improvisational jazz for adults, but it had kind of a whimsical quality,” Mendelson said. It was a style that might be perfect, he thought, for a documentary on Peanuts creator Charles Shultz he was working on at the time.

Vince Guiraldi Trio

Guaraldi, was a relatively unknown up and comer on the jazz scene. So, Mendelson called Ralph J. Gleason, a jazz critic at the San Fransisco Chronicle. “Do you have any idea in the world who Vince Guaraldi is?” Mendelson asked. In fact, Gleason told him, he and Guaraldi were scheduled to have lunch the next day. Guaraldi and Mendelson met soon after and began working together on the Schultz documentary. That project never aired, but some of the music Guaraldi wrote for it, including the show’s central theme song “Linus and Lucy,” would be recycled for a new special, A Charlie Brown Christmas.

Guaraldi originally wrote the special’s opener, a gentle, slightly mournful waltz called “Christmas Time is Here,” as an instrumental. But, Mendelson thought it would be better with vocals. Sitting at his kitchen table, he hastily scrawled the lyrics on the back of a napkin.

“It was just a strange marriage of between a bluesy jazz song and having words that embellished Christmas,” Mendelson told Vice News. “I don’t know why it worked. It shouldn’t have, but it did.”

Guaraldi‘s other original songs included “Skating,” a bright shimmering ditty to accompany the show’s ice skating scene and “Christmas Time is Coming,” which provided bouncy energetic backdrop for the children’s party scene.

Guaraldi reworked classic standards too and made them his own. From the album’s opener, a brightly reimagined “O Tannenbaum,” to the haunting, slightly off-key “Hark! The Herald Angels Sing,” Guiraldi’s covers have made enduring contributions to the holiday cannon.

The result is an album that is a complex mix of melancholy and child-like wonder. Like the show’s protagonist, Charlie Brown, it is a quirky underdog that didn’t have great expectations for itself yet persevered in the end.

Since it’s debut in 1965, A Charlie Brown Christmas has sold 4 million copies becoming  one of the two best-selling jazz albums of all time along with Miles Davis’ kind of blue. In 2012, it was selected for inclusion in the Library of Congress’ National Recording Registry in recognition of its significance to American musical history.

Vince Guaraldi’s score for A Charlie Brown Christmas perfectly captures the sense of alienation that the bustle of the Christmas season can sometimes bring along with its rapturous joy too. It is a timeless gift to the ages that, a half-century on, still feels fresh and relevant when we rediscover it each year.

But, Her Emails!

Pro-Trump Congressmen are calling for a special counsel to investigate the FBI’s handling of Hillary Clinton’s emails. Aside from the words “Special Counsel,” this lede could have easily been written a year and a half ago during the 2016 election.

In July, Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee wrote to Attorney General Jeff Sessions calling for a Special Counsel to investigate alleged bias in the Russia investigation and a range of the Clinton-related matters, especially the handling of the FBI’s investigation into her emails. It’s a drumbeat they’ve kept up steadily, most recently in their grilling of FBI Director Christopher Wray in a hearing Thursday.

Never mind that the Department of Justice’s Inspector General already has an investigation into the FBI’s Clinton email investigation underway. It is unclear why an additional investigation would be necessary, and less clear still why pro-Trump Republicans feel that a special counsel is required to lead it. But, we might wonder whether it is because “inspector general” doesn’t quite have the resonance with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation they’d like.

There are certainly some marginally unsettling circumstances that merit additional inquiry. That meeting between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton looks suspicious. We don’t know what was said, but it’s not unreasonable to suppose the meeting could have been an attempt to persuade Lynch to take it easy on Hillary. Lynch’s suggestion that FBI Director James Comey refer to his agencies’ probe into Clinton’s home-brew email server as a “matter” rather than an “investigation” cannot be read any other way than an attempt to spin it in a positive light for Hillary. And, the FBI agent whom Mueller dismissed from his team after discovering anti-Trump tweets worked on the Clinton probe as well.

Democrats have also complained bitterly about Director Comey’s election-eve decision to reopen the e-mail probe, which Clinton points to as a significant contributing factor her loss. All this raises legitimate questions. Did Obama Administration higher-ups pressure the FBI to let Clinton off easy? Did Director Comey’s public comments breech Department protocols?

Both sides see political bias, which some might say is a sign the FBI plays it straight. But, an investigation to get to the bottom of it all seems warranted nevertheless. Helpfully, there’s one already well underway.

The Department of Justice’s Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, opened an investigation back in January. Horowitz told a House Oversight Committee  Wednesday that the probe has made significant progress.

“We have interviewed dozens of people. We are not at the 100 level yet, but we’re in the dozens range,” Horowitz said. “We’ve reviewed about 1.2 million records in the course of the investigation,” adding that he anticipated a final report by spring.

Yet, some pro-Trump House Republicans want to do it all over again. With apparently the only difference being that this time the investigation would be led by someone called a “Special Counsel.”

There are other issues they want to see investigated by a Special Counsel too: Donations to the Clinton Foundation, Uranium One and whether the  infamous dossier provided grounds for a FISA warrant, among others. Some of these may merit some sort of investigation, but in none of the cases are there grounds for naming a Special Counsel.

A Special Counsel is intended for situations in which there is an irreconcilable conflict of interest that would prevent a fair investigation. For example, a Special Counsel was required after President Trump fired James Comey because of the Russia investigation.

Hillary Clinton isn’t a currently serving government official. She is a private citizen. Investigating her raises no conflict of interest whatsoever. An independent investigation might have arguably been justified when Clinton’s allies in the Obama administration controlled the Department of Justice. But, it strains credulity that the House Republicans calling for a Special Counsel now are doing so because they are particularly concerned that the Trump Justice Department might be biased against her.

We might be suspicious that the real aim here isn’t to investigate anything, at least not in the traditional sense of getting to the facts. Rather, it seems intended to bolster what has always been Trump’s last and strongest line of defense — Hillary Clinton would have been worse, or at least just as bad. “See, Hillary is under a ‘Special Counsel’ investigation too,” they will say — another whattabout argument to throw cool water on the flames rising from Mueller’s investigation, which are increasingly lapping at the feet of the President and his team.

This is not to say these matters should not be investigated, just that political distractions are not the purpose of a Special Counsel investigation. The use of the Special Counsel statute to launch an investigation into a matter already being investigated, with no apparent purpose other than to provide political cover to partisan allies — and perhaps harass political enemies — would be a gross abuse of power. Credit to Attorney General Jeff Sessions who has thus far rebuffed these demands.

But, there’s a broader significance in all this. President Trump’s most ardent cheerleaders in Congress have long argued that the Russia investigation and intense media scrutiny that have dogged his Presidency are the reaction of a fearful establishment to an exceptional outsider who will drain their swamp and make America great again. Now, there appears to be a budding recognition that this defense is growing untenable. Instead, they’re settling for a different defense that tacitly implies: Trump might be corrupt, but he’s no more corrupt than the rest of them.

Why is Trump’s Decision to Move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem Controversial?

Old City from the Mount of the Olives

Jerusalem is sacred to Christians, Muslims and Jews. Who controls it is one of the most contentious issues in the Middle East peace process. It is Israel’s seat of government, but both the Israelis and Palestinians claim it as their capital.

The status of Jerusalem is one of the central issues to be resolved in any final mideast peace agreement. Because Jerusalem is disputed, foreign  governments, including the U.S., have opted to locate their embassies in Tel Aviv instead. President Trump’s decision to move the U.S. capital to Jerusalem is controversial because it implies that the U.S. is taking a side on the highly volatile question of the holy city’s status.

There is no plausible final peace agreement that does not include at least West Jerusalem under Israeli control. Realistically, it is only East Jerusalem, the territory that Israel captured in the 1967 Six Day War which includes the Old City and Jerusalem’s holy sites, that is in dispute. Moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem does not preclude East Jerusalem from becoming the capital of a future Palestinian state. As a practical matter Trump’s decision doesn’t change much.  But, it is a highly-charged symbolic issue all the same.

“The bottom line is that Jerusalem is more a symbol than a territorial negotiation,” AEI’s Dani Pletka writes. “[T]this is an emotional choice, more about feelings than about geostrategic considerations, even as it is clear there will be real strategic implications from the choice.”

Some in the Arab world refuse to recognize the legitimacy of Israel’s control of any part of Israel, much less Jerusalem. That should be unacceptable to the United States. “Indeed, many of us suspect that intransigence over Israeli sovereignty is latent anti-Semitism masquerading as thoughtful diplomacy,” Pletka says. “Dispensing with that side of the argument seems a good reason to move the Embassy and recognize the capital.”

President Trump, like most Republican Presidential candidates, pledged to relocate the Embassy to Jerusalem.  Now, Trump looks to actually go through with it. It is a long-sought victory for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that will likely tighten the alliance between the U.S. and Israel. American Jews and evangelical Christians strongly support the move as well.

However, it will surely inflame passions in the Arab world. It is a “symbolic kick in the teeth to Muslims,” writes Nicholas Grossman, an international relations professor at the University of Illinois that may complicate the Middle East peace process, making Palestinians less willing to trust America as an honest broker. Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas warned it would ignite extremism and would have “dangerous consequences” for the peace process. It could make U.S. efforts to build alliances with Arab countries in the fight against ISIS more difficult as well.

All these things may be true. But, moving America’s embassy to Jerusalem also recognizes reality. Jerusalem is Israel’s capitol. President Trump is “dispensing with the mealy-mouthed platitudes of Middle East peacemakers past,” Pletka notes. That might be a good thing.

President Trump hopes for a big, bold peace deal in the Middle East. A jolt of honesty might be what is needed to shake up the moribund peace process. But, whether President Trump knows what he’s doing remains to be seen. The proof will be in the results.

Report: Donald Trump Jr. Asked Russian Lawyer for Dirt on Hillary

The Russian lawyer at the center of the Trump Tower meeting in June 2016, has told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Donald Trump Jr. asked her for evidence of illegal donations to the Clinton Foundation, according to a NBC News report by Ken Dilanian and Natasha Lebedeva.

“The lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, told the committee that she didn’t have any such evidence, and that she believes Trump misunderstood the nature of the meeting after receiving emails from a music promoter promising incriminating information on Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump’s Democratic opponent,” the NBC report said.

In Veselnitskaya’s telling, the meeting was to be about the Magnitsky Act, an American law which imposed sanctions on Russia. Russia responded by banning U.S. adoptions of Russian children.

Trump Jr. initially issued a statement saying the meeting was primarily about adoption. A day later, as scrutiny around the meeting intensified, he issued a new statement that acknowledged that the meeting was initially set up by Rob Goldstone, an acquaintance of Trump Jr., with the expectation that incriminating information about Hillary Clinton would be provided courtesy of the Russian government.

Goldstone’s connection to Trump dates back to the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant in Moscow. Among Goldstone’s clients is Emin Agalarov, a Russian pop-star and son of Aras Agalarov, the Russian billionaire who partnered with Trump to bring the Miss Universe Contest to Moscow.

Goldstone emailed Trump Jr. that a Russian official met with Emin’s father Aras Agalarov and offered to provide “official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary [Clinton].” Trump responded, “if it’s what you say I love it.”

Veselnitskaya contends that a series of miscommunications resulted in conflicting understandings of the purpose of the meeting. “Today, I understand why it took place to begin with and why it ended so quickly with a feeling of mutual disappointment and time wasted,” Veselnitskaya wrote in written responses to the Committee. “The answer lies in the roguish letters of Mr. Goldstone.”

This latest information provides further support for Trump’s latter account. It also lends support to some intriguing theories about what exactly that Trump Tower meeting was really about, which we intend to address in a future article.

Can a President obstruct Justice? It might not matter.

John Dowd, an attorney for President Donald Trump told Axios’ Mike Allen Monday that the “President cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under [the Constitution’s Article II] and has every right to express his view of any case.”

Dowd was defending President Trump’s tweet over the weekend — which Dowd says he wrote — that cited Michael Flynn’s lying to the FBI as a reason for firing him.

“I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI,” the Saturday tweet from Trump’s @realDonaldTrump read, which attorney John Dowd yesterday claimed he wrote. “He has pled guilty to those lies. It is a shame because his actions during the transition were lawful. There was nothing to hide!”

The tweet turned out to be problematic because it would establish that Trump urged Comey to stop his investigation into Flynn knowing Flynn had committed a Federal crime. This would bolster the case for obstruction of justice against the President. Dowd now says he made a mistake.

The suggestion that a President is above the law seems absurd. President Richard Nixon argued that “when the President does it, it’s not illegal.” But, Nixon and Dowd’s point is not without merit. In the unique case of a President accused of obstructing justice in the exercise of his constitutional powers, the answer is at least muddled. The Federal criminal statute defines obstruction of justice as:

“Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress” (18 U.S.C. § 1505)

A President has constitutional authority over the executive departments, including the Justice Department and FBI. Firing FBI Director James Comey was clearly within his power. As Allen Dershowitz, a Harvard University law professor argued, “[w]hen the president asked the director of the F.B.I. to drop its investigation into Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser, or fired James Comey from the F.B.I., or provided classified information to the Russians, he was acting within his constitutional powers.”

But, as Dershowitz acknowledges, Presidents most certainly can commit obstruction of justice. Asking people to lie, bribery, and destroying evidence would all in Dershowitz’s view be obstruction of justice. “For obstruction of justice by the president,” Dershowitz says, “you need clearly illegal acts.” But, if the President acted “corruptly” in firing Comey, it arguably could transform something that is constitutionally permissible into an illegal act. Both positions are debatable.

Criminal Prosecutions Versus Impeachment

There is an important distinction between criminal prosecution and impeachment. Most legal scholars agree that a sitting President is not subject to criminal prosecution. A President can only be held accountable through the impeachment process and the ballot box. Criminal prosecution would only be possible after he left office.

Obstruction of justice was among the impeachment counts against President Richard Nixon, but they were related to other clearly illegal acts and he resigned before a Senate trial could consider the matter. Still, impeachment is an inherently political process and there is only one loosely defined impeachable offense: “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The Constitution offers no further guidance on what qualifies as a “high crime” or “misdemeanor.” The Constitution leaves it to the Congress to decide what that means.

As a legal question, whether or not a President can or cannot obstruct Justice may not prove all that important in the context of impeachment. But, it may be relevant as a political one.

President Trump continues to retain very strong support among Republicans, most of whom give every indication that they will continue to support him given even the thinnest of defenses. Most members of Congress are in safe seats. But support for impeachment could make them vulnerable to primary challenges from within their own party. This means that effectively, the standard for impeachment is what GOP members of Congress can convince primary voters warrants it.

“Given the resiliency of Trump’s core support, this is a very high bar indeed. Whatever the legality of Trump’s actions under the criminal statutes, obstruction of justice probably doesn’t clear it.”

Given the resiliency of Trump’s core support, this is a very high bar indeed. Whatever the legality of Trump’s actions under the criminal statutes, obstruction of justice probably doesn’t clear it. Until Special Counsel Robert Mueller produces concrete evidence that President Trump was complicit in Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election, impeachment seems unlikely. And even then it wouldn’t be certain.

Whether John Dowd and Allen Dershowitz are right or wrong on the legal merits, providing Trump supporters a marginally plausible defense of the President’s actions may prove a winning argument all the same.

What We Know About North Korea’s Big New Missile

Hwasong-15 launch (PHOTO: North Korean Media)

North Korea tested a brand new intercontinental ballistic missile last week — and it’s big. The Hwasong-15 is larger and more powerful than the Hwasong-14 that scared the beejezus out of everyone when they tested it over the July 4 weekend. That missile appeared to be able to reach at least some parts of the mainland U.S. The new missile can reach all of it.

Hwasong-15 mobile erector/launcher (Photo: North Korean Media)

What the Hwasong-15 Can Do

According to a North Korean government announcement after the test, the Hwasong-15 is capable of “carrying [a] super-heavy warhead and hitting the whole mainland of the U.S.” Analysts think that’s more or less true.

Like the Hwasong-14, the new Hwasong-15 is a liquid-fueled two stage ICBM, meaning that it jettisons its launch stage after its fuel is spent and continues on with a lighter second stage. The Hwasong-15’s first stage is powered by two engines rather than the Hwasong-14’s single engine. The new missile also boasts a larger second stage as well. Judging by its size, think-tank 38 North estimates that the new missile’s second stage contains 50% more propellent.

“Taken together, and applying conservative assumptions about the second-stage propulsion system, it now appears that the Hwasong-15 can deliver a 1,000-kg payload to any point on the US mainland,” 38 North says. “North Korea has almost certainly developed a nuclear warhead that weighs less than 700 kg, if not one considerably lighter.”

Other enhancements may include a capability to steer the warhead after the boost phase, allowing improved targeting precision and potentially the capacity to carry countermeasures, such as decoy warheads, designed to fake out U.S. missile defense systems. The Hwasong-15 will require additional testing, but paired with the thermonuclear warhead North Korea tested in September, this new missile will give Kim Jung Un the ability to threaten any U.S. city.

With the addition of the Hwasong-15, North Korea now has everything it needs to mount a serviceable nuclear deterrent. Following the launch, Kim Jung Un proclaimed, that his country has “finally realized the great historic cause of completing the state nuclear force.” Some have interpreted this to mean that this will mark the end of North Korea’s provocations. That is wishful thinking. The Hwasing-15 represents only the completion of the first generation of North Korea’s missile force. It will surely continue to develop it further.

What Comes Next

By American standards, the North’s shiny new ICBM would have been obsolete a half century ago. North Korea’s ICBM’s are liquid-fueled rockets, which require a lengthy fueling process that leaves them vulnerable to attack. Solid-fueled rockets, first introduced in the U.S. nuclear arsenal in the early 1960s, don’t have this problem.

North Korean is likely to continue to develop more advanced rockets, including solid-fueled designs. North Korea is also actively developing a submarine launch capability. Recent satellite imagery indicates that a submersible test stand barge it has been building is nearly complete.

U.S. Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) interceptor launches from Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA May 30, 2017 (PHOTO: DoD)

In a nuclear conflict, U.S. missile defense systems have a decent chance of destroying a North Korean missile. Still, missile interception is a tricky business. Current U.S. missile defense systems can be overwhelmed by multiple incoming warheads or decoys, a vulnerability North Korea is keen to exploit.

The U.S. is working to strengthen its missile defense capabilities. North Korea is likely working just as hard to develop countermeasures designed to foil them. These may include decoy warheads and multiple-warhead payloads. Substantial investment in missile defense technology will be required to stay ahead of the threat.

Begging for War

All this comes as U.S. F-22 stealth warplanes arrive in South Korea for exercises. A spokesman for North Korea’s foreign ministry reacted with characteristic bellicose hyperbole, saying that the U.S. was “begging for nuclear war” and branding President Donald Trump a “nuclear demon,” whatever that is.

F-22s in flight over Europe (PHOTO: U.S. Air Force)

The F-22s, America’s most advance air superiority fighter, is a potent reminder that despite North Korea’s advances in its missile program, America’s military capabilities are still light-years ahead. The U.S. has advanced stealth warplanes, the North Korean military still has a substantial number of biplanes in operational service. It would rapidly crumble against the full might of America’s military.

However, between its missiles and the sheer size of its fighting forces, North Korea is perfectly capable of inflicting substantial pain on American and allied countries in the meantime.

History suggests that a long-range nuclear missile force only emboldens rogue actors. North Korea is developing a nuclear capability precisely so it can act more freely without fear of retaliation. Recent advancements in the North’s nuclear capability give it leverage to achieve its long-term goals. The threat of a nuclear strike against the U.S. homeland will significantly constrain the options available to the U.S. to counter potential future North Korean aggression against South Korea and other American allies in the region.

We should be under no illusion that Kim is the least bit interested in negotiating this away. There is little chance the North Korea problem is going away anytime soon.

A Complete Guide to Russian Social Media Disruption Campaigns

Reprinted from “Russian Social Media Disruption Report” by Tim Boucher at timboucher.ca.

If you’ve participated at all in comments online over the past year, the certainty is near 100% that you’ve seen other people called or have been called yourself, a “troll,” “shill,” or maybe even a <gasp> “Russian.”

Accusations like these are rampant online, as is the paranoia which fosters them, thanks in no small part to a cloud of sensationalist media coverage and our seemingly intrinsic need to find bad guys lurking around every corner…

Part 1: Disrupting democracy

Showtime’s most recent season of Homeland — season 6, episode 9 (2017) — portrays a shadowy quasi-governmental, private tech startup called the Office of Policy Coordination. Located six floors underground in a nondescript office building outside Washington, DC, the company is found to be responsible for secretly running a massive army of phony sock-puppet accounts across social media, posing as ordinary people in order to advance a nefarious political agenda.

Here’s a two minute clip for reference

Airing originally in March of this year, the subplot is obviously inspired by events which transpired in cyberspace around the 2016 U.S. presidential election (along with Brexit, and possibly others), where malicious state-sponsored actors allegedly attempted to disrupt the democratic process.

We know the real world analogue of Homeland’s fictional Office of Policy Coordination to be the now infamous Internet Research Agency, or as they’re sometimes called in the media, the ‘Trolls from Olgino.’

Given the confusing, conflicting, and convoluted information out there about this alleged Russian interference, I took it upon myself to do the only logical thing any normal person would do: make a Carrie Mathison-style “crazy wall” inside my shed next to my chicken coop to try and sort it all out.

My Russian Crazy Wall, Version 1.0 (partial view)

Okay, sure, it’s not quite as crazy as Carrie’s bipolar-driven Abu Nazir wall, but it’s my first time exteriorizing my own inner crazy wall. So cut me some slack. I had to start somewhere. And I can definitely say: the process was not only extremely useful in developing my understanding, but also oddly very therapeutic.

Actress Claire Danes in front of a Homeland ‘crazy wall’

Part 2: Persona Management Software Systems

In the subsequent Homeland episode (s06e10), Carrie’s friend and accomplice Max (Maury Sterling) states: “I’ve heard rumors of social media boiler rooms like this in Russia and in China, but not here. And definitely not on this scale.”

I don’t want to tv-splain too much because I know this is just drama, but based on my research into the subject — using all open source, publicly available information, which I’ve documented with a near religious zeal over the past three weeks — Max’s statement overlooks some important facts which are likely to be known by those working IRL in the security and intelligence fields.

Namely, that in 2010, the U.S. Air Force posted a solicitation to build what amounts to exactly the type of sock-puppet app portrayed in Homeland. Or as they called it on the Federal Business Opportunities website, Persona Management Software (fbo.gov, reproduced on Archive.org, June 2010).

It is, essentially, a social media and propaganda battle-station. From the solicitation:

Software will allow 10 personas per user, replete with background , history, supporting details, and cyber presences that are technically, culturally and geographacilly [sic] consistent. Individual applications will enable an operator to exercise a number of different online persons from the same workstation and without fear of being discovered by sophisticated adversaries. Personas must be able to appear to originate in nearly any part of the world and can interact through conventional online services and social media platforms. The service includes a user friendly application environment to maximize the user’s situational awareness by displaying real-time local information.”

Through a combination of VPNs, untraceable IPs, and traffic routed through regional proxies, such a service would enable mass identity-spoofing, using persistent personas, each of which has a detailed personal and social media character history for complete verisimilitude.

So, how can we know if they are really “Russian?”

Well, you tell me — can we? All we can do is try to piece together the ? ? clues.

Though another company was ultimately awarded the contract (Ntrepid), there was a very relevant document leak by Anonymous from a security contractor called HB Gary Federal in 2011, in which that company’s own vision for such a persona management system was fleshed out in detail.

Quoting from Daily Kos’s 2011 post on the subject, which quotes the HB Gary emails themselves (archived on Wikileaks):

“For this purpose we custom developed either virtual machines or thumb drives for each persona. This allowed the human actor to open a virtual machine or thumb drive with an associated persona and have all the appropriate email accounts, associations, web pages, social media accounts, etc. pre-established and configured with visual cues to remind the actor which persona he/she is using so as not to accidentally cross-contaminate personas during use.” …

“These accounts are maintained and updated automatically through RSS feeds, retweets, and linking together social media commenting between platforms. With a pool of these accounts to choose from, once you have a real name persona you create a Facebook and LinkedIn account using the given name, lock those accounts down and link these accounts to a selected # of previously created social media accounts, automatically pre-aging the real accounts.”

Character levels

The proposal goes on to describe various “character levels” within their system, based on utility and level of content development:

  • Level 0: Quick use, no background persona required.
  • Level 1: Slightly more fleshed out, with multiple accounts across different services correlated to one another, with privacy set to high on accounts so as not to disclose too much information publicly.
  • Level 2: More detailed persistent persona with background; fleshed out with blend of automated and human-generated content history.
  • Level 3: Most detailed, developed and realistic; capable of having human-to-human (online) interactions, with multiple correlated social accounts and a realistic personal, and professional background if needed.

We can assume with a high degree of certainty, that if such advanced persona management software systems have been under development since at least 2010, that they have very probably advanced somewhat in the seven years which have passed since. To say the least…

Are they at the level of what’s depicted in Homeland’s “Sock Puppets” episode?

Hard to say —without penetrating the secret offices alleged to be using them!


Part 3: Government manipulation of social media

Whether or not our television fantasies here hew close to actual reality — and Americans have been or are currently intentionally manipulated by secret factions in the United States (e.g., the “Deep State”) — a recent report by Freedom House, a US government-sponsored NGO, announced evidence that governments of some 30 countries currently use astro-turfing techniques to manipulate opinion on social media.

For the most part, the operations of these covert cyber troops are said to have a domestic-focus, with the notable exceptions of Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election, Brexit, also likely the French and German presidential campaigns, and more recently around the Spanish independence push in Catalonia.

But the story with regards to Russia goes deeper than that…

Much, much deeper.

Reports from inside the troll farm

Over the past several years, operational details from inside the Internet Research Agency have been provided by a series of leaks from former employees, infiltrations by journalists, and break-ins by hacktivists.

Most recently:

  • Ex-IRA employee Alan Baskaev described to The Daily Beast in October 2017, an outrageous work environment, in which (among other things) the organization allegedly produced a fake Hillary Clinton sex tape intended to go viral.
  • Russian media site RBC.ru published in October 2017 a Russian-language expose of the IRA, which has become something of a canonical source in online discussions of the topic (I used Google Chrome auto-translate extension to read it). Some useful context on RBC: their offices were raided by the Russian government in 2016 after publishing documents from the Panama Papers, connecting Putin’s son-in-law to offshore assets, and ending in the sacking of their then editor-in-chief, and mass resignation of significant portion of their journalistic staff. RBC was owned until June 2017 by billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov — owner of the Brooklyn Nets basketball team, and failed 2012 presidential election opponent to Putin.
  • Collaborating with Adrian Chen of the NY Times in his seminal June 2015 article, “The Agency,” environmental activist Ludmila Savchuk took a job with the IRA, documented and leaked information to the public describing the organization’s internal structure and techniques. As in the USAF and HB Gary documents, we learn that agency employees used VPNs to mask their location while propagating through phony social media accounts propaganda talking points, keywords and targets provided by daily technical task sheets.
  • Some of Savchuk’s original leaked documents can be seen in this Mr7.ru March 2015 Russian-language article.
  • In 2014, a Russian hacker collective called Shaltai Boltai (“Humpty Dumpty”) and known in English as Anonymous International, leaked a trove of internal Internet Research Agency documents which Buzzfeed discusses in this June 2014 article. The group’s documents indicated payments to the IRA from a holding company called Concord, owned by restaurateur and Putin confidant Evgeny Prigozhin. (Prigozhin is currently under sanction by the U.S. Treasury Department.) In addition to extensive infiltration of Russian and Ukrainian media sites, IRA employees are said to have carefully studied comment systems of major platforms and news outlets around the world, and tested content enforcement policies by moderators, to ensure their work wouldn’t be banned. Their leaked documents and blog site were shortly thereafter blocked in Russia by Roskomnadzor, the federal media oversight agency, as theft of personal data. The site and some of the (Russian language) documents are mirrored here.
  • In September 2013, Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta infiltrated the organization and published a report, which included names of key personnel, such as Alexey Soskovets. Soskovets is said to have extensive contacts and involvement with Nashi and other youth groups, as well as business ties to ruling party United Russia’s Camp Seliger, the activities at which the L.A. Times described in a 2011 article:

“…thousands of young men and women are learning how to be supporters of the ruling United Russia party, future politicians and senior government officials. […] These young people are taught to open up accounts in all social networks, make as many friends as possible and thus spread information with maximum efficiency,” explained Vasily Yakemenko, founder of the Nashi youth group and head of the Federal Agency for Youth Affairs that runs the camp.”

  • Also from the 2013 Novaya Gazeta reporting, we learn that Soskovets’ own North-Western Service Agency was seeking employees to open up offices similar to the Internet Research Agency in Moscow and other cities. It is unknown how many other organizations like the IRA are in operation. Soskovets in that article discusses humans being used in place of bots, because they are much more difficult to detect than bots, which platforms are able to find and suspend easily.

Nashi leaks of 2012

Though not specifically linked to the IRA, the Nashi youth movement leaks of 2012 (which appeared just before Putin’s challenging but successful 2012 re-election for a controversial third term) provide supplemental evidence of quasi-governmental youth organizations orchestrating prototypical astro-turfing and media manipulation campaigns, as well as pro-government counter-protests. Exactly like the techniques which have been documented above by the IRA, both on and offline, but engaged at the time in embryonic form against Russian mass anti-election fraud protests of 2011–2013 and events in the Ukraine.

We see echoes in BBC reporting from March 2012 of the types of attacks which came to be common place years later during the U.S. presidential election:

“These bots succeeded in blocking the actual message feed with that hashtag,” he wrote. The rate at which pro-government messages were posted, about 10 per second, suggests they were being done automatically rather than by individuals…”

(See also: IRA support for and infiltration of social movements linked to CalexitTexas secessionBlack Matters, and Native American groups)

The facts about the Internet Research Agency

Via the above sources, we can determine a few key facts which can be used to track and organize our data.

  • It has held at least two different addresses, both in St. Petersburg: starting sometime in 2013, at 131 Lakhtinsky Prospekt (Olgino district), and moving probably in 2014 to a larger office with more staff at 55 Savushkina.
Google Street View of the famous 55 Savushkina address
  • Also referenced as sharing this address is an organization called FAN, or Federal News Agency (which Adrian Chen goes into more in his NYT 2015 piece), as well as People’s News, and potentially others which seem to cooperate to some extent in at least aggregating one another’s stories.
  • Outside of this, what we might call “facts” reported vary pretty widely. Though all seem to agree more or less on the overall structure and work carried out by the Agency, numbers of staff range anywhere from 50 up to 900 at different times, and according to different services.
  • Paid at wages well above area norms, participants worked as “internet operators,” fulfilling in 12 hour shifts content quotas which varied depending on the section they worked in: whether they were lower-level social media commentators, or more full-fledged bloggers, or worked on other kinds of content such as video.
  • Wired in September 2017 reported that the Internet Research Agency was supposedly officially disbanded in approximately 2015 (presumably due to bad press), and re-named Glavset, but operates still out of the same address.

leaked IRA employee list (in Russian) is reproduced here for reference (source I believe is Savchuk leak).

Moscow Information Technologies

Last but not least, as further proof the knowledge and technology to pull off these types of online campaigns is alive and well in Russia, we turn to the case of Moscow Information Technologies, an IT group which supports the Mayor of Moscow.

Anonymous International/Shaltai Boltai also in 2014 leaked some emailsbetween media outlets and government-linked Moscow Information Technologies which worked with Mayor Sobyanin to manipulate public opinion about his administration. Among many other activities, Moscow Times reported in May 2017:

“Sobyanin’s administration heavily invests in swaying the agenda on Yandex.News, Russia’s biggest online news aggregator.

“MIT devised a scheme wherein Moscow’s neighborhood councils (most of them totally loyal to the mayor and to United Russia) set up dozens of similar news websites that are capable of firing off volleys of nearly identical news articles promoting the mayor’s initiatives. This onslaught fools Yandex’s algorithm into thinking that something important is happening. The news aggregator doesn’t differentiate between the sources, and thus assumes there’s a news event that deserves top billing in its ranking system, if hundreds of different outlets are reporting on a single event.


Part 4: Fake news rings

Macedonia

The tactics described by ex-employees of the Internet Research Agency, combined with other leaks relating to Nashi, and those above by Moscow Information Technologies seem to paint a technical picture which just so happens to mesh handily with fake news endeavors around the world, particularly those famously run out of Macedonia.

Russian coordination?

The Guardian in July 2017 suggested Robert Mueller was looking into possible ties between these types of fake news sites, to Russian and far-right websites in the United States leading up to the election. Quoting from that article:

“Mattes, a former Senate investigator, did some digging into the sudden phenomenon of eastern European Sanders enthusiasts. He found a spike in activity on the anonymous browsing tool Tor in Macedonia that coincided with the launch of the fake news campaign, which he believes could represent Russian handlers contacting potential east European hosts to help them set up automated websites.”

“He has also found a high degree of apparent coordination in the dissemination of fake news between official Russian propaganda outlets and “alt-right” sites in the US.

“They synchronise so quickly it looks as if they know when a particularly story was going to come out,” he added. “And they all parrot the Kremlin narrative.”

Breitbart

Rolling Stone reporting in November 2017 suggests that Macedonian fake news sites were often sourcing material from U.S. based website Breitbart:

“When I traveled to Macedonia last summer, Borce Pejcev, a computer programmer who has set up dozens of fake-news sites — for around 100 euros each — said it wasn’t quite that simple. Macedonians don’t invent fake news stories, he told me. “No one here knows anything about American politics. They copy and paste from American sites, maybe try to come up with more dramatic headline.” Fox News, TruePundit.com, DailyCaller.com, InfoWars and Breitbart, he said, were among the Macedonians’ most common source material (“Breit-bart was best”).”

Another NY Times article from September 2017 explains how Breitbart’s Stephen Bannon latched onto false news and rumor-mongering out of Twin Falls Idaho, the so-called Fawnbrook incident:

“The Twin Falls story aligned perfectly with the ideology that Stephen Bannon, then the head of Breitbart News, had been developing for years, about the havoc brought on by unchecked immigration and Islamism, all of it backed by big-business interests and establishment politicians. Bannon latched onto the Fawnbrook case and used his influence to expand its reach.”

WorldNetDaily

As reported by The Intercept, November 2016:

“Other conservative content farms, including WorldNetDaily, maintained ties to the Trump election effort. Campaign finance records show that Great America PAC, a Trump-backing Super PAC, paid WND, known as the largest purveyor of Obama birth certificate conspiracy theories, for “online voter contact.”

At the end of the day, whether all of the above are somehow coordinated, or if it’s just a coincidence is a moot point since the end effect is largely the same.


Part 5: Micro-targeting

CNN, in September 2017 asked an important question regarding Russia-linked IRA Facebook ad buys targeting Baltimore and Ferguson:

“Senator Mark Warner, the top-ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Tuesday that the “million-dollar question” about the Facebook ads centered on how the Russians knew whom to target.”

Speculations are of course rife regarding the nature and connections between the Trump campaign, which was obviously served by disinformation and trolling campaigns, and agents of the Russian government. Did the Russians know which voters in which states to concentrate their efforts on? And if so, how exactly did they get this data? (And at the end of the day, does anybody even really care?)

Cambridge Analytica

Though the link is for now tenuous, one avenue of official investigation has gone after the potential role of big data company, Cambridge Analytica, which first worked on Ted Cruz’s campaign, later on Trump’s, and which may or may not have worked on Brexit. Incidentally, Breitbart’s Bannon was at one time VP of Cambridge Analytica, and held between a $1 and $5M stake in the company.

Here’s a video with a bit more info about CA’s methodology of micro-targeting individual voters based on psychological profile and tailoring campaign messaging directly to them:

Other likely suspects within the Trump administration appear to be, variously, Jared Kushner and Brad Parscale who worked on the data operation for the campaign. As well as Michael Flynn, who worked in a brief advisory role for Cambridge Analytica.

(See also: Correct the Record, Hillary PAC which used astro-turfing techniques)

Internet monitoring in Russia

Of course, the Russians may not have needed any outside help when it comes to monitoring internet activity. Since 2011, the Russian government has cracked-down hard on internet freedoms. For starters, all ISPs in Russia are required by the government to run a system called SORM (Wikipedia) which the Federal Security Service can use to access web traffic:

“It allow[s] the agency to unilaterally monitor users’ communications metadata and content, including phone calls, email traffic and web browsing activity. […] In 2014, the system was expanded to include social media platforms…

Though it is mysteriously unavailable at the time of this writing, we also have an interesting solicitation by the Russian government from 2014 for monitoring software partly entitled (auto-translation), automatic selection of media information, studying the information field, monitoring blogs and social media.”

On this, iz.ru published in January 2014 a description:

“Information materials will be preliminarily processed, they will be grouped on specific topics: the president, the administration of the president’s administration, the prime minister, opposition protests, governors, negative events in the country, incidents, criticism of the authorities.”


Part 6: Signals, indicators & detection

Facebook just announced that by the end of the year, they will offer a tool for users to see if they liked or followed accounts or pages linked to the Internet Research Agency. According to their written testimony before the Senate Select Intelligence Committee and an official blog post, Facebook said they have identified and suspended 470 accounts or pages. Twitter testified as to having identified and suspended with the help of third-party information some 2,752 accounts (full list).

Without having access the technical data which those platforms must have, we can speculate with a high degree of probability what signals and indicators Facebook, Twitter and Google must be able to use to identify potential malicious state-sponsored accounts:

  • IP (geolocation) — made unreliable by VPNs, of course.
  • Currency used for transactions — can be faked as well.
  • Credit card / bank account country.
  • Phone number (area code).
  • Shared Google Analytics ID across multiple sites.
  • Shared username/email across platforms
  • Characters unique to language x
  • Shared domain host IP
  • Outbound links
  • Inbound links
  • Country x email domains
  • Timezone activity
  • Photo EXIF data
  • Reverse-searching images
  • Shared activity patterns across accounts
  • Network connections in common on social media
  • Language cues: odd English vocabulary, construction, punctuation
  • Known talking points (themes) associated with x propaganda
  • Hashes of known bad content
  • Third-party information sources
  • Statistical analysis of search frequency

Crazy Wall, lower half, Version 2.0

Part 7: Key takeaways

  1. Making crazy walls is super fun. It’s easy to get carried away — so look for the facts.
  2. All of the Russian people I’ve met are very nice! To me, this is not really a story about any one country at all… the implications are global and actors inter-changeable in the middle and end-games.
  3. Information warfare is clearly, definitely, now ‘a thing.’ Anyone can pretend to be anyone else or anywhere.
  4. “Lots of governments are doing it.”
  5. Russian media outlet Vedomosti said in May 2014 that the techniques pioneered by the Russian government proved to be so successful at home after the mass protests that they exported them to the European and American markets.
  6. Vladimir Putin has long maintained that the internet is a CIA ploy, as an excuse to enforce ever-tighter controls over the technology. He also claims color revolutions, mass protests against the Russian government (as well as the Arab Spring) were orchestrated by foreign actors.
  7. I haven’t gone down the ? ? of whether Putin’s claims are true, but the development of such tools around 2010–2011 in the United States for use against foreign targets is certainly an interesting correlation.
  8. Based on my research, there is a stunning lack of original reporting available on these topics which are of potentially grave international importance.
  9. News outlets — even major “reputable” ones — seem to just be reporting on one another’s reporting. It’s a hall of mirrors all the way down. And it’s not just on this topic: it’s the whole news ecosystem.
  10. Fake news and so-called ‘meme warfare’ aren’t some accident of our post-modern mainstream media, but the obvious through-line of technologies whose goal is to amorally propagate information regardless of quality or veracity.
  11. Fact-checking as a counter to misinformation, disinformation, propaganda and fake news is not a fool-proof process. It is made all the more difficult when there are very few, or only obscured sources available to the public. (See #6)
  12. I’m not crazy about what Wikileaks has done politically, but as a tool for organizing leaked documents for further research by members of the public, it fills its niche. Otherwise you end up chasing sketchily-hosted .zip files which are long since taken down…
  13. Wikipedia articles are as good as the sources they cite.
  14. Fact-TRACKING may ultimately prevail over fact-checking. That is, in a world of dwindling original sources, and an endless multitude of rip-offs and copies, perhaps there is an epidemiological approach that could be applied to tracking the origin and distribution of blocks of information (e.g., “facts,” factoids, sound-bites, or memes for that matter). Blockchain for news, anyone?

Part 8: In conclusion:

The best conclusion I think we could draw from this investigation is one I’ll borrow from Kester Ratcliff’s article on open source intelligence for beginners:

“The internet will continue to be a confusing information-psychological warzone until the networked-ness of information is made visible so that people can easily and instantly see where stuff’s coming from and who/ what it’s associated with and what effects their interacting with it may have.”

Strictly speaking, this isn’t a “Russia issue” at all. Any malicious actor could weaponize these vectors. It’s an information issue. And it’s here to stay until we do something about the entire system, not just the symptoms.

Until then, I’ll keep working on my crazy wall.

I have a feeling we’re going to need it…

Crazy wall entity cards on my chicken feeder

 

What to Take From the Brian Ross Face-Plant

As news broke of President Trump’s former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s guilty plea, ABC News Chief Investigative Correspondent Brian Ross appeared live on air with a bombshell. As part of his plea agreement with Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Flynn was prepared to testify that President Trump directed him to contact the Russians during the campaign. It directly contradicted Trump’s denials of Russian contacts during the campaign. Not only was he aware of them, he directed them.

Speculation raged that this might be the first real evidence directly implicating the President in Russia’s election meddling. Stock prices plunged, Twitter went wild and hundreds of other media stories linked to it.

Boom.

But, the story was suspiciously thin — based on just one unnamed source described as a Flynn confidant. The problem with one source is that source could be wrong.

A midday update clarified why Trump instructed Flynn to contact Russia: to discuss how they might work together to fight ISIS, which seems entirely appropriate. And then late Friday, ABC issued a correction that Trump had not had this conversation with Flynn during the campaign, it was instead a few days after the election —- a key detail that entirely changed the import of the story. The bombshell was a bust. On Saturday, ABC News announced it was suspending Ross and issued this statement:

“We deeply regret and apologize for the serious error we made yesterday. The reporting conveyed by Brian Ross during the special report had not been fully vetted through our editorial standards process. As a result of our continued reporting over the next several hours ultimately we determined the information was wrong and we corrected the mistake on air and online.

“It is vital we get the story right and retain the trust we have built with our audience — these are our core principles. We fell far short of that yesterday.”

Trump supporters jumped on the correction as vindication that Trump was right all along. It was all fake news.

On Saturday evening President Trump weighed in on Twitter:

What happened here is a black eye for ABC, but it is not vindication of President Trump’s charge that news outlets systematically concoct “fake news” in order to damage him.

In any enterprise that involves human beings, there will be mistakes and errors in judgement. Journalism is not immune to the human condition.

The suggestion that a professional journalist would deliberately report a false story is absurd. For the journalist responsible, it is at best humiliating, and at worst, career-ending. Deliberately publishing fake news is professional suicide.

It’s not the news outlets that post corrections you should suspect, it’s the ones that don’t. The measure of a credible news outlet is not whether they make mistakes — they ALL will at some point — rather it’s what they do next. Real news will correct a story when they learn of an error. There will be a scramble to figure out what went wrong. ABC is in the middle of that process right now.

The press plays a critical role in a democracy and enjoys special constitutional protections as a consequence. With that comes unique responsibilities.

Anonymous sources are critical for reporting on sensitive matters those in power would prefer not be known. A ban on anonymously sourced stories would be a grave disservice to the public interest. But, when they are used, they must be subjected to far greater scrutiny, especially in the case of stories with implications as explosive as the collusion of an American President with a foreign power’s meddling in a US election.

Brian Ross’ decision to rush to air with a report based on just one anonymous source was remarkably careless. He put the desire to beat the competition on air with a scoop ahead of the competition above his responsibility to the public interest. It was reckless — not only for the damage to ABC’s credibility but to that of the news media broadly. At a time when trust in the press is at an all-time low and there is little margin for error.

The Russia story is the kind of thing that can get a reporter’s heart racing. The exhilaration of being the one to uncover a historic scandal is intoxicating. But, the truth may be far more boring. As Axios’ Jim VanDahei wrote, “the atmosphere of hysteria is dangerous.” Everyone needs to take a deep breath.

I’ve worked with Brian Ross in the past, and respect the important reporting he and his team have done over the years. Yet, as a veteran journalist he knows better. ABC’s decision to suspend him was the right one. But, it’s not enough.

Among the reasons people so distrust the media is that they understand so little of how it works. Transparency, especially at moments like these, is the best antiseptic. ABC owes the public an explanation at least as thorough as that which Ross demands of the subjects of his stories. In a Tweet, Ross seemed to agree:

 

What Does Michael Flynn’s Guilty Plea Mean for Trump?

Editor’s Note: This story has been updated to reflect ABC News’ correction of their reporting, cited in this article, that Flynn was prepared to testify that Trump ordered him to contact Russia during the campaign. It was in fact shortly after the election.


Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn plead guilty to lying to the FBI Friday about his interactions with Russian officials as part of a deal with Special Counsel Robert Mueller to secure Flynn’s cooperation in Mueller’s broader probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

Trump’s lawyer Ty Cobb said in a statement that “nothing about the guilty plea or the charge implicates anyone other than Mr. Flynn.” Which is literally true. But, the White House should be very nervous all the same.

Flynn’s cooperation could have significant ramifications for Trump. ABC’s Brian Ross reported that Flynn is prepared to testify that Donald Trump directed him to contact the Russians shortly after the election about a coordinated strategy to fight ISIS in Syria.

Flynn’s testimony for the first time implicates Donald Trump directly in contacts with Russia, but the timing and nature of them suggest nothing particularly inappropriate.

However, if Flynn implicates Trump in more nefarious things, even things not directly related to collusion in Russia’s election meddling, it would put Trump’s efforts to pressure then FBI Director Jim Comey to drop his investigation of Flynn in a troubling light and bolster a case for obstruction of justice.

Under the deal, Flynn will pay a $250,000 fine and could face five years in prison, but will avoid jail time for now. Flynn also negotiated an agreement that his son Michael Flynn, Jr. will not face charges.

Flynn is now the fourth Trump campaign official to be charged with felonies by Mueller and he is unlikely to be the last. But, none of the charges so far directly relate to the core allegation of “collusion” in Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. At this stage in the investigation, the charges Mueller is bringing are more about securing cooperation as Mueller seeks to understand exactly what went on between Trump’s team and Russia during the campaign.

Mueller’s willingness to cut a deal with Flynn underscores the value of his cooperation in this effort. But, it also suggests that Mueller may have bigger fish to fry, and more shoes to drop.

James O’Keefe and the Fakeness of “Fake News”

James O’Keefe’s “caper” as he likes to call them, involved an effort to trick The Washington Post into publishing a phony story about a woman named Becca Phillips who falsely alleged that she had an abortion after Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore got her pregnant at 15 years old. It blew up in his face. As CNN’s Chris Cillizza, who spent a decade in the Washington Post’s newsroom wrote, it was never going to work.

O’Keefe’s business model is entrapment. It involves scamming unwitting marks into saying embarrassing things on hidden camera and selectively editing them to make them to make them appear as nefarious as possible. Some of his early efforts, such as his sting on ACORN, a Democratic Party aligned grassroots group, bore fruit. But, most, especially those targeting media have been duds.

O’Keefe’s bizarre 2010 plot to lure then CNN investigative correspondent Abbie Bordeau under the guise of an interview into a romantic tryst that he intended to film on hidden camera was foiled by a staffer who ratted him out.

In this most recent case, O’Keefe was undone by the very journalistic ethics that he intended to expose as lacking. When Becca Phillips contacted the Washington Post, the paper’s reporters did their homework. They found inconsistencies in her story. She claimed to have lived in Alabama as a teenager, yet had an Alabama cell phone number. When they researched her they discovered a GoFundMe page from someone with her name to raise money to move to New York for a job in the “conservative media movement.” Phillips’ daughter was a donor. When Post reporters confronted her with all this she crumbled.

The flaw in the plan was a fundamental lack of understanding by O’Keefe, who claims to be a journalist, of how journalism actually works.

“The problem,” Cillizza wrote, is “if O’Keefe knew anything about how large media organizations like the Post and CNN work — is that neither of these organizations would ever simply run with a story from one woman about an alleged forced abortion without doing the most basic fact checking.”

O’Keefe’s flawed assumption that real journalists operate on the same shoddy ethical code and partisan motivations that animate his efforts was his undoing.

O’Keefe’s flawed assumption that real journalists operate on the same shoddy ethical code and partisan motivations that animate his efforts was his undoing. But, rather than concede this, as a real journalist might, he dug his hole deeper, releasing a hidden camera video of Washington Post staffers essentially admitting that the Post operated exactly as it should.

In the video, a Washington Post reporter explains the distinction between news reporters who generally try to get to the facts and the editorial/opinion side of the operation, which is decidedly antagonist towards President Donald Trump. Later, another Post staffer reveals that Trump is good for business – no surprise there.

Occasionally, even the best journalists get it wrong. But, unlike O’Keefe, they usually try to correct their mistakes. Earlier this year, the Washignton Post erroneously reported a Russian effort to hack a Vermont utility. It turns out that an IT tech had misinterpreted data in server records. The Post corrected the story and then devoted an entire article to detailing what went wrong.

For all its unsavory elements, the affair provides a counterpoint to those who claim that the media is simply a shill for left-leaning political interests. Yes, media bias exists, but that does not mean that everything you don’t like in the news is a product of it.

James O’Keefe’s latest hidden camera “sting” was intended to expose the media’s bias — a willingness to publish anything so long as it damaged Republicans. Instead, it revealed the exact opposite — professional journalists who ran down bogus claims and found them wanting.

It’s no secret that elite reporters take a dim view to President Donald Trump. Trump’s perfidious rants against mainstream media outlets as “fake news” and simultaneous embrace of hair-brained conspiracy theories could hardly be expected to win him friends in newsrooms populated by people who separate fact from fiction for a living. But, that does not mean that they abandon journalistic standards to the point that they will knowingly publish things that are not true. The same cannot be said of James O’Keefe.

READ MORE

https://prodroughlyexp.wpengine.com/2017/06/veteran-journalist-explains-new-media-really-works/

https://prodroughlyexp.wpengine.com/2017/02/trumps-war-media-enters-new-phase/

https://prodroughlyexp.wpengine.com/2017/02/trumps-war-on-the-press/

https://prodroughlyexp.wpengine.com/2017/02/the-year-that-truth-died/

Is There a Mole at the NSA, or Is It Russian Disinformation?

Back in March, we speculated that the point behind the Russian hacks and Wikileaks document dumps during the 2016 election was to create a mole hunt in our intelligence agencies. There now are indications that our speculation was spot on.

The New York Times recently reported that, largely as a result of Wikileaks and the publication of other documents, the National Security Agency (NSA) is in the midst of a mole hunt.That report also tends to confirm speculation which we have privately heard from people in the intelligence community: that Russia may have multiple sources within the NSA that are supplying it with some of our most closely guarded secrets.

Multiple NSA & CIA Hacks

In the past few years, the NSA and CIA have been hit with multiple hacks and leaks, each of which targeted different sets of secret documents.

The most highly sensitive intelligence work product is carefully compartmentalized, which means that people who work on one “product” may not know what others are doing unless they have a need to know. To further protect our secrets, the “consumer” of the most secret “product” does not have access to other secrets outside of the are they work on. So, a policymaker working on counterterrorism wouldn’t have access to nuclear bomb designs. Unless, of course, they are at the upper levels of a spy agency or the government.

The fact that the NSA and CIA have been the target of a plethora of hacks greatly concerns the intelligence community because it implies that either multiple hackers have managed to breach NSA’s computer security there are multiple moles at the agency, or – the worst case scenario – someone with a very high security clearance is a spy.

What about the Shadow Brokers?

One of the most publicized hacks was by the Shadow Brokers, a group the intelligence community has associated with Russian intelligence. For example, the Times reported that the Shadow Brokers referred to NSA’s hacking tools with a name first used by Kaspersky Lab, which the U.S. suspects is tied to Russian intelligence.

But that assumption has been shaken by on-line posts that claim to be written by the Shadow Brokers. The posts show more than a passing knowledge of English, U.S. culture and politics – which includes, as the Times noted, references to President Trump’s base, details of Steve Bannon’s departure from the administration, the Freedom Caucus, the “deep state,” the Alien and Sedition Act and other items.

Even more frightening is that the Shadow Brokers appear to know the names of specific NSA employees and the projects on which they worked. You can learn English. You also can learn about American culture and politics in a few hours with Google searches. What you cannot easily find are the names of workers or contractors at our most secret agency and their work product. For that you need highly classified and restricted insider information.

Is It Disinformation?

For some time, we have heard rumors from the intelligence community of the possible existence if a super mole – someone embedded in the highest levels of the CIA or NSA who has been on the Russian payroll. And the Shadow Brokers posts hint at that.

On the other hand, the posts could be nothing more than a Russian disinformation campaign. The very word “disinformation” is a transliteration from Russian the Russian term dezinformatsiya, which refers to a Soviet-era Russian tactical intelligence weapon first deployed in 1923 when the country created a special disinformation office to conduct active measures intelligence operations.

As William Safire noted, Soviet disinformation included the “manipulation of a nation’s intelligence system through the injection of credible, but misleading data.” The Russian disinformation tradecraft has not changed much since the Soviet era.

The Great Mole Hunt

Whether there is a super mole or it is disinformation, the result is the same: both the CIA and NSA are in the midst of major mole hunts. Just as we predicted back in March would happen.

NSA employees, according to the Times, “have been subjected to polygraphs and suspended.” The agency has active investigations against at least three former employees or contractors.

It should go without saying that the mole hunts have sowed suspicion and demoralized employees. Our intelligence sources tell us that many current high-tech NSA and CIA workers are looking for private sector employment.

With just the implication of a spy or spies with access to multiple intel products the Russians may have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams — crippling the NSA from the inside.

What the Bizarre Defense of Roy Moore Says About Our Current Political Moment

Today we learned that Roy Moore, the moralizing populist candidate for U.S. Senate and darling of the anti-establishment populist right, attempted to molest a 14 year old girl. We also learned that the incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, known for his hostility towards Islam, allegedly was involved in a scheme to take $15 million from an Islamist aspiring autocrat in exchange for kidnapping and extraditing one of his political opponents.

This was all before noon.

Welcome to a typical day in 2017, where scandals that once would have transfixed the nation for months come and go in a matter of hours. Where nativist populism untouched by reality provides a get out of jail free card. Where charlatans battle imaginary cabals of international elites, taking jack-hammers to the foundations of western civilization while purporting to be its saviors. And where moral outrage is principally a form of political expression having little to do with morals.

It is in this environment that the same people who spun themselves up into a furious lather over an absurdly unhinged conspiracy theory about a pedophilia ring run by Democratic Party elites out of a Washington, DC pizza joint can excuse Roy Moore’s transgressions with under-age girls and anti-Muslim nativists are unfazed that former National Security adviser Michael Flynn conspired to do the bidding of Turkey’s Islamist President Recep Erdogan when the price was right.

“The paranoid style in American politics” is nothing new. It was the title of a 1964 essay published in Harper’s, which traced the long history of “heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy” in U.S. politics. It is a phenomenon of the right and the left. Leftist ANTIFA protestors justify violence in opposing violence and suppression of free speech in the name of defending freedom. But, today it is the right where the paranoid style has taken hold most firmly.

The insurgent populist nationalists like Donald Trump, Steve Bannon, Roy Moore and Michael Flynn style themselves as the vanguards of a battle against a cabal of greedy elites bent on our national destruction. They leverage kernels of truth — the corrosiveness of career politics, the callous disregard of Washington elites towards the suffering of working people and the inanity of a political correctness run amuck — to weave an alternate reality in which these are the defining features of an all powerful conspiracy of a corrupt malevolent establishment. It draws its power from the perverse comfort afforded by the idea that fixing out nation’s problems requires only replacing establishment politicians. It is fertile ground for charlatans and unhinged lunatics whose only qualification is their denunciation of establishment elites.

An optimist will look to history for reassurance. After all, these periods of madness always proved temporary. Is this time different? There’s reason to worry.

Never before has a candidate of the paranoid style managed to win the presidency as Donald Trump did last year. The choose your own reality of social media bubbles and the shattering of the media landscape into a constellation of news sites catering to every conceivable worldview make this a uniquely perilous moment. And then there’s the bizarre twist of a foreign adversary, Russia, devoting state-level resources to turbocharging the fraying of the bonds of democratic civil society.

There is reason to fear that the moorings of objective truth and shared ideals are now so battered that they have grown too brittle to prevent our political discourse from breaking permanently loose of reality. The vast wealth of information available today allows for rationalization of just about anything. And the more immersed people become in these alternate realities, the more resistant to contrary facts they become.

Today, the most important political divide is no longer left versus right, it is reality versus nonsense. Whether conservative or liberal, our most urgent political task today is to keep nonsense from winning.

The North Korea Nuclear Threat Explained

As U.S. President Donald Trump arrives in Asia, we look at the North Korean nuclear threat in our first Roughly Explained video.

Over the past few months, North Korea has steadily upped the ante with a series of provocative missile and nuclear tests aimed at demonstrating a capability to strike the United States. So, why is all this happening? Why is this tiny little country led by a dynasty of odd little men with hilarious haircuts and absurd suits so obsessed with nuclear missiles? Is North Korea just crazy or is there something more to it?

How Washington Keeps Piling on Debt

It’s been nearly 20 years since the last time the U.S. government managed to not spend more than it brought in. No one in their right mind would lend money to a business that has been running in the red for decades. So how is it that Washington can keep borrowing?

First, it’s important to understand that sovereign debt – the debt of governments – is a vastly different animal from private debt. They are both debt, sure, much like blue whales and orangutans are both mammals. You can’t look at sovereign debt purely in terms of a lender/borrower relationship.

At its simplest, governments amass debt to satisfy constituent demands for spending beyond what they are willing to accept in taxation. Because any consequences exist beyond the next next election cycle, politicians have little incentive to spend responsibly. You catch more votes with the honey of government programs than bitter austerity.

How Does the Federal Government Gets Away With Borrowing So Much?

Sovereign debt serves a vital function in the broader economy. Governments have the power to levy taxes and compel people to pay them. So, in most cases, there’s little risk that a country like the U.S. won’t be able to muster the financial means to meet their debt obligations. This makes sovereign debt a relatively safe way to hold a particular currency while receiving interest. You could stuff money under your mattress, but if you did, inflation would erode its value over time. It would be a far better idea to buy U.S. Treasury notes that at least pay you a little interest.

Because they are easily traded and widely available, US Treasuries are the preferred collateral for business transactions. Regulatory standards often require holding U.S. Treasuries too.

Trading partners like China also have good reason to amass U.S. debt. The U.S. trade deficit in goods means there are more Dollars chasing Yuan. Left to its own devices, Yuan would rise relative to dollars making Chinese products more expensive in Dollar terms. Printing Yuan and buying U.S. Dollar denominated assets has allowed China to manage the value of the Yuan to keep its products competitive in dollar terms. U.S. sovereign debt provides a safe means of doing so. (This practice has been a matter of contention between the two countries. China has been relaxing it’s controls on the Yuan in recent years, which has allowed it to rise in value against the dollar.)

Does the Debt Matter?

For the moment, there’s more demand for U.S. government debt than even the most wildly fiscally irresponsible generation of politicians in Washington has yet managed to meet. As a result, the U.S. has been able to borrow at rock-bottom interest rates in recent years.

This has effectively masked the fiscal consequences of big deficits and growing debt. The interest payments the U.S. pays out each year remains roughly in line with historical norms in spite of Washington’s profligacy.

 

But, what happens when the world has all the US government debt it needs? The interest the US has to pay will rise dramatically. Because interest rates on everything from car loans to credit cards are tied to U.S. Treasuries, consumer spending will get crushed, slowing the economy.

Over time, the interest payments the government must make on its debt will eventually swamp other priorities. According to the latest estimates spending on government debt service is on track to exceed spending on defense within the next decade. The government will eventually have no choice but to raise taxes or dig the hole deeper by borrowing more, further dragging down the economy.

Currently, the Congressional Budget Office projects interest rates on U.S. government debt to rise from 2.5% now to 4.4% over the next 20 years. If interest rates were 1% higher than estimated for each year, the federal debt would rise to 188% of GDP by 2026. To put this in perspective, this is a little higher than the current debt-GDP ratio of Greece.

There are some who argue that huge deficits aren’t such a big deal. Modern Monetary Theory argues that debt is merely a policy tool that provides governments a mechanism for creating money and stimulating economic activity. Because the government has the ability to compel payment of taxes and print more money, it cannot ever become insolvent. Deficit spending simply can be thought of as an alternative method of printing money that simultaneously creates new financial assets through government spending. So, the risk in deficit spending for countries that can print their own currency is not insolvency but inflation. So long as inflation is contained, the ratio of tax revenues to government spending is not strictly relevant.

Color us skeptical. Opponents of MMT warn that risks of inflation are higher than supposed and the availability of government debt crowds out private investment that would otherwise allocate economic resources more efficiently.

The only responsible assumption is that America’s fiscal path is unsustainable. Unfortunately, in today’s Washington, responsible assumptions don’t carry much weight.

The Mueller Indictments Explained

Recently, Special Counsel Robert Mueller made the first indictments in his probe of Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election. Three Trump campaign staffers are facing charges, not all of which are directly related to Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election.

Former Trump Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort and his business partner Rick Gates, who also worked on Trump’s election effort, turned themselves in to authorities Monday after being indicted on tax and money laundering charges. The charges are related to work prior to joining the Trump campaign for interests in Ukraine. Both have plead not guilty.

Separately, George Papadopoulos, a former Trump campaign foreign policy advisor pleaded guilty to lying to FBI agents about contacts with Russia last year.

Neither indictment directly implicates President Trump in Russian meddling in the election. However, it adds to the mounting evidence that Team Trump was willing to accept Russian offers to help Trump win the election.

The recent indictments are also likely an effort on Special Counsel Mueller’s part to compel cooperation in the larger Russia election probe.

The allegations against Manafort and Gates stem from lobbying activities on behalf of a Ukrainian billionaire and an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin and work for Ukraine’s former pro-Russian President Victor Yanakovich.

Manafort and Gates are accused of using a series of overseas shell companies to hide millions of dollars that flowed from their Ukrainian clients and lying to investigators about the the whole sordid mess.

Manafort joined the Trump campaign in March of 2016, eventually becoming its chairman. But, Trump parted ways with Manafort a few months later as reports about Manafort’s Ukraine activities began appearing in the press. Gates remained in Trump’s orbit in various capacities until April of this year, when he was ousted from a lobbying group set up to support Trump’s agenda.

Who is George Papadopoulos?

While the indictments against Manafort and Gates are not directly related to collusion in Russia’s election meddling, the charges against George Papadopoulos, have a more direct link.

In March of 2016, Papadopoulos, who had previously served as a foreign policy advisor to Ben Carson’s campaign, secured a new role on Trump’s foreign policy advisory committee

Shortly after being invited to join Trump’s campaign, Papadopoulos met a professor in Italy, reportedly Joseph Mifsud, director of the London Academy of Diplomacy.

Mifsud, who claimed close connections to the Russian government, took a keen interest in Papadopoulos after learning that he would be serving on Trump’s foreign policy team.

It was around this same time that US intelligence agencies believe hackers associated with Russia’s intelligence services breached the Gmail account of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and penetrated email servers of the Democratic National Committee.

Two days later, in a meeting with Washington Post editors, President Trump listed Papadopoulis as a member of his foreign policy team, noting that Papadopoulis was an “excellent guy.” It was the first time many in Washington had ever heard the name George Papadopoulis.

Over the next few weeks, Misfud introduced Papadopoulos to officials at the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs as well as a woman purporting to be Vladimir Putin’s niece. Working with his new Russian contacts Papadopoulos attempted several times over the next few months to set up meetings between the Trump campaign and Russian officials.

In late April Papadopoulos met with Misfud again in London. It was at meeting that Misfud revealed that the Russian government possessed a trove of thousands of emails damaging to Hillary Clinton and her campaign.

Three months later, as the Democratic Party’s convention got underway Wikileaks began releasing the hacked emails of Podesta and other democratic officials, which were believed to be the fruits of a Russian government hacking operation.

It’s important to note that merely talking to Russian officials is not necessarily illegal. It is lying about those conversations that got Papadopoulos in trouble. In this case, as in so many others, it was the cover-up that was the crime.

In July of this year, FBI agents quietly arrested Papadopoulis at Dulles airport. He reportedly has been cooperating with authorities ever since.

Eagerness
Alongside earlier revelations that Mr. Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. enthusiastically embraced an offer of incriminating information about Hillary Clinton from the Russian government in taking a meeting with a Russian lawyer, there is now little doubt that Russia offered help Trump’s campaign and at least some on his team were happy to accept it. While that meeting did not apparently yield dirt on Hillary it bears noting that Mr. Manafort also attended.

Plea Deals 

The indictments against Manafort and Gates demonstrate that Mueller is taking a wide-ranging approach to this investigation. It seems likely that this may also be part of an effort to secure testimony on the broader issue of collusion in Russia’s scheme to influence the election. For the 68 years old Manafort, the up to 20 years in prison he is now facing provides a strong incentive to cooperate.

The White House, predictably, hauled out its all purpose rebuttal — it’s all fake news. Trump  tweeted that Papadopoulos is a liar, and downplayed his association with the Trump campaign.

But, there is likely more to come. At Papadopoulos’s plea hearing this month, Aaron S.J. Zelinsky, a prosecutor on Mr. Mueller’s team, said “there’s a large-scale, ongoing investigation of which this case is a small part.”

In other words, we are closer to the beginning than the end, of the Russia investigation.

The GOP Tax Plan Will Grow the Economy…and the Trade Deficit Too

A new study from Boston University has some great news for the GOP. According to Boston’s research, the GOP plan for tax reform could increase GDP by as much as 5 percent and wages by as much as 7 percent depending on the year considered.  This translates to almost $4,000 dollars in take-home pay for the average American.  Not only that, but the study found that the GOP tax plan could also be revenue neutral. Meaning all these newfound liberal deficit hawks would have nothing to complain about. Unfortunately, good news usually sometimes comes with bad. The bad news is that according to the same analysis the growth would come from something that President Donald Trump has railed against for years, trade deficits.

Many argue that President Donald Trump’s screeds on the campaign trail about manufacturing and the United States “losing” to foreign countries is the reason he was elected. There is some truth to that. Voters in rust belt states like Michigan and Wisconsin, who have arguably been most hurt by global trade, helped Donald Trump gain the 270 electoral votes necessary to win. Of course, most economists at the time criticized Trump’s arguments as antiquated and noted that the country is overall better off with globalization than without it. This latest study seems to prove these economists right.

The huge GDP growth that the Boston University study predicts comes from something called capital inflows, “…The inflow of foreign capital increases U.S. output and the productivity of U.S. workers. Depending on the year, it raises GDP by 3 to 5 percent and real wages by 4 to 7 percent”

Capital inflows are foreign investment, both real and financial, into a country in the form of increased purchases domestic assets. Capital inflows are calculated as part of something known as the balance of payments.  The balance of payments, without getting too much into the weeds, is basically the balance of money flowing in out of the country. For example, money flows out when we buy goods from China and then it flows back in when China invests in an American company. Give or take a few lopsided currency exchanges the balance of payments is always zero. Hence the word balance. This balance is why so many economists criticized Trump’s arguments against trade. All that money that China gets from us comes right back into the US economy.  This is why the GOP tax plan could enrage Trump and his supporters.

Reducing the corporate tax rate would make America an even more attractive place to invest. This is precisely why President Trump is so strongly behind it. However, as more money flows into the United States fewer goods will leave creating a bigger trade deficit. Harvard Economist, Greg Manikew, explained the inverse relationship in the New York Times almost a year ago,

“The trade deficit is inextricably linked to this capital inflow. When foreigners decide to move their assets into the United States, they have to convert their local currencies into American dollars. As they supply foreign currency and demand dollars in the markets for currency exchange, they cause the dollar to appreciate. A stronger dollar makes American exports more expensive and imports cheaper, which in turn pushes the trade balance toward deficit.”

There are only two ways to get American dollars. Convert currency or sell something to someone who has dollars. As Manikew points out, if a bunch of foreign investors convert their money to dollars this will cause the US dollar to appreciate. The more expensive the US dollar is the less attractive our goods are to world markets. This will cause our trade deficit to increase as fewer countries buy American goods. If foreign investors decide to make products and sell them in American markets as a way to get US dollars the result will be the same.

The details of the GOP tax plan have yet to be released. However, the framework is well known and President Trump is right to support it. Making America a better place to do business is something Trump should tout and demand from Congress. However, making America a better place to do business will exacerbate the very problem that Donald Trump ran against in 2016 and still harps on to this day. President Trump will have to decide if he wants to grow the economy or shrink the trade deficit. There seems to be a direct correlation between growing trade deficits and economic growth. For five decades our economy exploded along with the trade deficit and no one really cared.  Five percent GDP growth more than likely will have the same effect.  At that point, Trump ‘s biggest problem will be if anyone notices his new slogan, Make Trade Deficits Huge Again.

RECENT POSTS