Amaryllis
Amaryllis's JournalEllen interviews Bush: "George W. Bush Warns That Putin Wont Stop Unless Someone Stands Up To Him"
Includes video but wouldn't let me paste video URL. Worth watching.
Former President George W. Bush warns that Russian leader Vladimir Putin will “push and push and push until someone stands up to him.”
Bush made the comments on “Ellen,” in response to President Donald Trump’s suggestions that the U.S. could pursue warmer relations with Russia. Last year, intelligence officials concluded that Russia interfered in the presidential election with the goal of helping Trump get elected. Many in Washington, D.C., have pushed for a probe into Trump administration’s ties to Russia.
Bush warned that it’s dangerous to appease the Russian president.
“I had a contentious relationship with him and I think whoever the president is, is going to find out that Putin will push and push and push until someone stands up to him,” Bush told Ellen DeGeneres on the show broadcast Thursday.
snip
In the wake of Trump’s repeated attacks on the press, Bush also spoke of the traditional ties that a president has with the media, calling it a “symbiotic relationship.”
“Here is what I believed when I was president, post-president – the nation needs a free and independent press. And the reason why is, is that power can be very corrupting and we need a press court to hold politicians to account, including me,” he said. “ I didn’t like it sometimes when people said things, you know, about me but you know that’s the job. I’m going to drop a big word on you – symbiotic relationship.” Being powerful, Bush said, doesn’t make anyone immune to criticism or to a corruption investigation.
MOre:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/george-w-bush-putin_us_58b82616e4b01fc1bde63b6d?section=us_politics
September Russian cyberattack campaign on state electoral systems intensified alarm at Obama W.H
"But what was going on in the meetings was unclear to the officials, and the intercepted communications did little to clarify matters — the Russians, it appeared, were arguing about how far to go in interfering in the presidential election. What intensified the alarm at the Obama White House was a campaign of cyberattacks on state electoral systems in September, which led the administration to deliver a public accusation against the Russians in October."
So does anyone really think the Russians didn't go so far as to manipulate the vote count if they attacked state election systems?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/us/politics/obama-trump-russia-election-hacking.html?_r=0
5 Trump Cabinet Members Who've Made False Statements to Congress
As most of the world knows by now, Attorney General Jeff Sessions did not tell the truth when he was asked during his confirmation hearings about contacts with Russian officials.
But Sessions isn’t the only one. At least four other cabinet members made statements during their nomination hearings that are contradicted by actual facts: EPA Chief Scott Pruitt, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, and Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price.
The statements were all made under oath, except those of DeVos. It is a crime to “knowingly” lie in testimony to Congress, but it’s rarely prosecuted.
https://www.propublica.org/article/five-trump-cabinet-members-made-false-statements-to-congress?utm_source=pardot&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dailynewsletter
Deputy AG Boente to take over campaign-related investigations, new Trump nominee confirm hearing 3-7
So what do we know about Rod Rosenstein? Does he also have hidden Russia connections?
"Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself on Thursday from any Justice Department investigations into Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election, as well as any inquiries into ties between the Donald Trump campaign and Russian officials.
“I have now decided to recuse myself from any existing or future investigations of any matter relating in any way to the campaign for president of the United States,” Sessions said at a press conference at the DOJ. “This announcement should not be interpreted as confirmation of the existence of any investigation or suggestive of the scope of any such investigation.”
Going forward, Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente will handle all campaign-related investigations. Trump’s permanent nominee for the post, Rod Rosenstein, has a confirmation hearing on March 7."
MOre:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jeff-sessions-russia-trump_us_58b86f4ce4b01fc1bde6e0cf?
http://heavy.com/news/2017/03/rod-j-rosenstein-deputy-attorney-general-united-states-incumbent-nominee-donald-trump-russia-investigation-jeff-sessions-maryland-federal-judge-district-court-wife-kids-lisa/
Defense Against the Dark Arts: Networked Propaganda and Counter-Propaganda
Defense Against the Dark Arts: Networked Propaganda and Counter-Propaganda
Jonathan Stray
Computer scientist and investigative journalist. Teaching at Columbia.
In honor of MisinfoCon this weekend, it’s time for a brain dump on propaganda — that is, getting large numbers of people to believe something for political gain. Many of my journalist and technologist colleagues have started to think about propaganda in the wake of the US election, and related issues like “fake news” and organized trolling. My goal here is to connect this new wave of enthusiasm to history and research.
This post is about persuasion. I’m not going to spend much time on the ethics of these techniques, and even less on the question of who is actually right on any particular point. That’s for another conversation. Instead, I want to talk about what works. All of these methods are just tools, and some are more just than others. Think of this as Defense Against the Dark Arts.
Let’s start with the nation states. Modern intelligence services have been involved in propaganda for a very long time and they have many names for it: information warfare, political influence operations, disinformation, psyops. Whatever you want to call it, it pays to study the masters.
(snip)
But for me, the most surprising conclusion of this work is that a source can still be credible even if it repeatedly and blatantly contradicts itself:
Potential losses in credibility due to inconsistency are potentially offset by synergies with other characteristics of contemporary propaganda. As noted earlier in the discussion of multiple channels, the presentation of multiple arguments by multiple sources is more persuasive than either the presentation of multiple arguments by one source or the presentation of one argument by multiple sources. These losses can also be offset by peripheral cues that enforce perceptions of credibility, trustworthiness, or legitimacy. Even if a channel or individual propagandist changes accounts of events from one day to the next, viewers are likely to evaluate the credibility of the new account without giving too much weight to the prior, “mistaken” account, provided that there are peripheral cues suggesting the source is credible.
More:
https://medium.com/tow-center/defense-against-the-dark-arts-networked-propaganda-and-counter-propaganda-deb7145aa76a#.l98g5znwj
"There was no mention of Russia meddling": Shep Smith breaks with Fox News praise of Trumps speech
Shep Smith responded to President Donald Trump’s Tuesday night address in his segment on Wednesday, pointing out that there was no mention of Russia whatsoever, including “its meddling in our election or his team’s communications with Russian officials.”
Shep added that the speech came on the same day that “House Republicans killed a Democratic measure that would have pressured the Justice Department to turn over documents related to the Trump administration’s ties to Russia. There are currently multiple investigations into this issue.”
He noted that there are transcripts available of the conversations between former Gen. Michael Flynn and the Russian ambassador he spoke with that could answer some of the questions that the president won’t answer, such as whether there was Russian interference in the election.
“Democrats want them published, now Republicans have blocked the first attempt to make them public.” He also noted the confusion on Russia’s side as President Vladimir Putin is reportedly “waiting for Trump to make clear the official Russian policy,” Shep said. “That’s the word from Putin’s own spokesperson after a lack of Russian mention at last night’s address to Congress.”
"
Check out video. He even interviews a Politico reporter!
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/there-was-no-mention-of-russia-shep-smith-breaks-with-fox-news-effusive-praise-of-trumps-speech/
Watch Live: Resistance outside WH right now with Rosie O'Donnell - link
Watch here:
https://www.facebook.com/FoodandWaterWatch/videos/10154525157238031/
Sponsored by Food and Water Watch
Before Donald Trump's first address to Congress this evening, Food & Water Watch is co-hosting A Resistance Address right now outside the White House to show that resistance is STRONG and that Trump's agenda does not represent American values.
WATCH LIVE: A Resistance Address outside the White House with Rosie O'Donnell!
Trump's first month in office has been a disaster. His discriminatory agenda is putting people across the country directly in harm’s way, undermining equality for all and putting our planet in danger.
Here at Food & Water Watch, we believe that everyone deserves access to safe food and clean drinking water. When Trump tries to undermine the Environmental Protection Agency and the enforcement of our critical laws to protect our food and water all Americans will be impacted, and low-income communities will be hit the hardest. We simply can't ensure protections for our food and water without equality for all.
But if history tells us anything, it's that we can prevent the worst by uniting people, building people power in our communities and organizing against these attacks.
Together, we can resist Trump's attacks, protect our most vulnerable and rebuild a future we can all believe in.
That's why we're LIVE from outside the White House with speakers from diverse organizations and groups of people who have been impacted and harmed by the Trump administration’s policies, including women, people of color, members of the LGBTQ community, environmental and immigrants’ rights groups. And, the rally will be headlined by actor and advocate Rosie O'Donnell.
These diverse voices make it clear that the Trump administration does not represent the values of most Americans.
While not everyone can be with us in D.C., we want to make sure YOU have a chance to be part of the action:
Click here to watch a livestream of the Resistance Address on our Facebook page.
You don't need to have Facebook to watch.
OR you can follow the #ResistanceAddress on Twitter to get live updates and photos.
You don't need to have Twitter to follow along.
While Trump has gone to great lengths to try to divide us, we will come together to protect the rights of everyone to live and thrive.
http://act.foodandwaterwatch.org/site/MessageViewer?dlv_id=79689&em_id=68494.0
Ever wonder how they plan to enforce those bathroom laws? (Toon)
Credit to keithbvadu2 who posted this in a reply on a thread last week, but it is so good I thought it deserved its own thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8699540
Justice Dept. appears to be deliberately sowing chaos in the courts reviewing Trumps travel ban
The Trump administration’s nonsensical claim that its executive order both does and does not exist.
By Dahlia Lithwick
When Donald Trump put his sloppy, ill-conceived, and surely unconstitutional travel ban into effect earlier this month, the impact on immigrants, travelers, and refugees was immediate and devastating. Weeks after the ban was stayed by a federal appeals court, travelers at airports continue to be searched, harassed, and detained based on their religion, country of origin, and also nothing.
But sowing mayhem among travelers is only half the fun of the immigration ban. Trump’s Justice Department also appears to be taking pains to spread confusion and chaos in the courts that have been tasked with reviewing the ban. While the drama surrounding the litigation seems to have peaked with the president’s threats toward the judges involved, the cases have moved onward. In the litigation that resulted in the nationwide stay, Washington and Minnesota v. Trump, papers filed this past weekend reflect the states’ growing frustration with the Justice Department’s absurd contention that they are both replacing the travel ban with a newer one and also that they intend to continue to defend the existing ban in the courts.
A quick recap: A federal judge, James Robart, stayed the travel ban on Feb. 3 and the 9th Circuit unanimously upheld that order a week later. When a larger panel of the 9th Circuit was poised to revisit that decision en banc, the Justice Department asked them not to, promising that a new executive order was imminent. That directive conflicted with a status report the DOJ had filed days earlier claiming that “Defendants ... believe it is appropriate for the parties to proceed with briefing on plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction despite Defendants’ pending appeal.” All that was two weeks ago, and there’s been no additional clarity in the intervening days about what’s going on here. It was unclear at the time whether the DOJ would stop defending the old order, or just that they didn’t want the 9th Circuit to wade in. Since then they have sought to delay the proceedings in the federal district court and again in the 9th Circuit.
On Friday, in response to another DOJ motion claiming the 9th Circuit should not hear this case, Washington State filed a motion calling out the Justice Department for the illogic of its two simultaneous litigation postures. The government is filing a motion asking the 9th Circuit to “hold proceedings in abeyance,” because there is ostensibly an imminent order to replace the old one, while at the same time the president is saying that the old order is being defended in the courts.
As the motion filed Friday puts it, in an epic feat of understatement: “Throughout these proceedings, there appears to have been a lack of communication between the Department of Justice and the White House.” The filing notes that on the same day the DOJ asked the 9th Circuit to stand down from reviewing the old order, “the president informed the nation that he is pursuing his appeal in the 9th Circuit.” The states quote the president at his press conference stating, “We’re issuing a new executive action next week that will comprehensively protect our country. So we’ll be going along the one path and hopefully winning that, at the same time we will be issuing a new and very comprehensive order to protect our people.” The filing also quotes White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer saying just last week that “with respect to the executive order, there are several courts that this is being fought in—10 or so—and we continue to deal with that in all of those venues. And then again, I guess, the only way to say this is, then obviously on the dual-track side we have the additional executive order that we’ve talked about earlier that will come out and further address the problems.” The filing also tartly notes that for a case that was once characterized at DOJ as raising “urgent national security issues,” the infinite delays the agency is now seeking at the 9th Circuit are hard to understand.
This is all confusing in the extreme for those attempting to litigate the immigration ban in courts across the country. They are being told that the order is and is not in effect, is and is not being replaced, and is and is not urgently needed to keep us safe. Here’s hoping that the next filing from the Justice Department will clarify things. It’s hard enough to litigate in a world of “alternative facts.” Litigation in the world of “alternative law” has rapidly become untenable.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/02/the_trump_administration_claims_its_immigration_ban_both_does_and_doesn.html?wpsrc=newsletter_tis&sid=589dfd6ebcb59c58118b45d5
As with so much of what this admin does, it's hard to know what is incompetence and what is deliberately creating chaos.
SCOTUS Reprimands Anti-LGBTQ Groups for Misgendering Trans Student Gavin Grimm
In March, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board, a case about transgender bathroom access. Gavin Grimm, the plaintiff—who has legally and medically transitioned from female to male—argues that under Title IX, his high school must let him use the men’s bathroom. The case has drawn a great deal of interest from both liberal and conservative advocacy groups, many of which have filed amicus briefs in support of either Grimm or his school. Three of these briefs caught my eye this week—one filed by Liberty Counsel, and two filed by the National Organization for Marriage together with the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence. These briefs, which argue against Grimm’s right to use the men’s bathroom, identifies him this way in their front-page captions (emphasis mine):
G. G., BY HER NEXT FRIEND AND MOTHER, DEIRDRE GRIMM
But the Supreme Court, as well as all lower courts, identify him this way:
G. G., BY HIS NEXT FRIEND AND MOTHER, DEIRDRE GRIMM
That slightly odd formulation reflects the formal way that federal courts style a juvenile litigant’s name. (Grimm is 17.) It also obviously necessitates a gendered pronoun use. Did these anti-LGBTQ groups misgender Grimm by mistake? I posed the question to Liberty Counsel on Wednesday, and the organization confirmed that it used a female pronoun because “Gavin Grimm is a biological girl who now says she subjectively ‘identifies’ as a ‘boy.’ ”
These groups may passionately believe that Grimm is a girl—but unfortunately for them, they aren’t entitled to change his gender in the caption of their amicus briefs. The court has very specific rules governing these briefs, and Rule 34 of the Rules of the Supreme Court requires that each brief “shall bear on its cover ... the caption of the case as appropriate in this Court.”
MOre:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2017/02/24/supreme_court_reprimands_groups_for_misgendering_gavin_grimm.html
Profile Information
Member since: Mon Nov 29, 2004, 10:18 PMNumber of posts: 9,524
