U.S. Intelligence Report Contradicts Donna Brazile In Email Scandal

220px-donna_brazile_1We discussed earlier how Donna Brazile, the interim chair of the Democratic National Committee, denied the legitimacy of emails that showed her leaking a question to Hillary Clinton that would be asked verbatim at the CNN downhill event. The media has largely declined to investigate the claim, including confirming the receipt of the earlier email from the Clinton staffer. Now additional emails allegedly show Brazile secretly feeding information to the Clinton campaign. Again, there has been relatively little media attention to the story and CNN initially issued a remarkably weak response that it was “uncomfortable” with the new disclosures on Brazile’s actions while a CNN commentator. While CNN Worldwide President Jeff Zucker later called Brazile’s actions “disgusting” and others have denounced her actions and later contradictions, the DNC stuck with Brazile even praising her post-scandal appearance before staffers (with one notable exception). More importantly, despite the ease of simply questioning the other recipients to confirm or disprove Brazile’s claims, reporters have done little to confirm whether Brazile lied or told the truth about the emails (a significant story during the campaign). Now, the declassified intelligence report appear to directly dispute what Brazile has said but it is unclear if anyone in the media is willing to pursue the story against one of the most powerful figures in Washington Democratic circles.

The report states that the email material did not contain “any evident forgeries.” In other words, they were real emails, not forged. Yet, Brazile repeatedly insisted that the emails were doctored or forged.  That would seem to make this an even bigger story. If Brazile was telling the truth, the intelligence report is manifestly false or misleading.

During the campaign, Brazile dismissed the email and told Megyn Kelly that “I have seen so many doctored emails. I have seen things that come from me at 2 in the morning that I don’t even send. I will not sit here and be persecuted, because your information is totally false.” At the time, I noted that no one seemed even remotely interested in questioning the recipient: Clinton Campaign Adviser Jennifer Palmieri. Media could have asked to see the original emails since both Brazile and Palmieri had them. Instead, it was complete silence. Notably, Palmieri has been repeatedly on air but not (as far I as I find) asked to produce the emails or confirm Brazile’s account.  She has also not come forward with information despite being referenced in numerous publications in the controversy.

Now the question is whether the Washington media corp will confront Brazile and demand to see these emails to determine whether she knowingly lied to the public and the press.

The report also highlights the difficulty that many in Washington are facing in trying to rally the public against Russian hacking. Many citizens may not be as mortified that Russia revealed how their leaders were lying to them. The emails showed how the Washington establishment — including the press corp — misled the public and colluded behind the scenes. It is a hard sell to tell the public that they should be disgusted by Russia showing them how their leaders are dishonest, disloyal, and often despicable in their conduct.  While I view the allegations of Russian involvement to serious, the Washington establishment has little standing with voters to raise objections about their private alliances and communications being disclosed.  Only a third of voters felt that the Russians influenced the election (though another poll shows over half are “concerned”).  What is clear is that many voters valued the information and, if powerful individuals like Brazile lied in response to the disclosures, the hacking of the emails are unlikely to be the primary focus of voters.

248 thoughts on “U.S. Intelligence Report Contradicts Donna Brazile In Email Scandal”

  1. @Jay S

    KR: “But for the sake of argument, let’s say the Russians did hack the DNC emails. How does exposing the undemocratic machinations of the DNC leadership constitute the ‘subversion of our political process’? ”

    JS: “Because the Russians put their thumb on the scales, in favor of Trump.”

    KR: So, In other words, it’s OK for the Clintonistas to put their feet on the scales to subvert the democratic process to ensure that Clinton defeated Sanders, but it wouldn’t be OK for the Russians to expose that subversion?

    Remember, no one has ever disputed the authenticity of the DNC emails as reported out by Wikileaks, whatever the source.

    JS: “As for Binney and McGovern, their opinions should carry more weight than the combined multi-agency assessments contained in the just-released report?”

    KR: Most assuredly. They are both greatly experienced, disinterested intelligence professionals and principled whistleblowers of the first rank. Look them up. And unlike the current Director of National Intelligence, neither has ever lied to Congress under oath, or tried to subvert a Senate Intelligence Committee investigation of the CIA, as did the current CIA Director. See “Senate investigator breaks silence about CIA’s ‘failed cover-up’ of torture report”

    1. So the (at least) dozens and probably hundreds of intelligence professionals who worked to produce this report are all wrong, and Binney and McGovern are right ? And you base this on your opinion re the current DNI and CIA director? Are you claiming that the report contents were manufactured from whole cloth, or dictated by the agency heads? So I guess I am now waiting for numerous intelligence professionals to come out of the woodwork and claim their work was coerced …..

      1. Jay S – it was not Intelligence Professionals who wrote the original report, it was a third-party CapitalG, a Google funded company who wanted to be a player in the Clinton campaign. According to their report, they never got to look at actual computers or servers, they just tracked patterns of hacking.

        1. By “original report,” do you mean the one released on Friday? If you DON’T mean the one released on Friday, are you claiming that that one (the Friday one) was NOT the product of our intelligence services, and was produced by some outside agency? With contents dictated by the Clintons? If you believe that, then certainly dozens and dozens of our professional intelligence staffers and analysts will come out of the woodwork to disavow the report. Hasn’t happened yet, though.

          1. Jay S – by original I mean the one written by the third-party contractors and used as the basis for the hacking decision.

              1. Ken Rogers – you can find the source on the internet. Should not take much searching.

  2. Europeans, who at first worshiped Obama, are now laughing @ him over this hacking hissy fit.

  3. Hey Paul, if you are in the mood for a dystopian read I am currently engrossed in “The Mandibles: A Family, 2029-2047” by Lionel Shriver. She’s one of my fav contemporary writers and this novel is excellent!

    1. My favorite dystopian tale is, of course, “The Handmaid’s Tale.” The only thing about that novel that doesn’t ring true, is that it is set in Cambridge MA. Should have been set someplace in Alabama, Kentucky, Kansas or Idaho.

      1. “The Handmaid’s Tale.” The only thing about that novel that doesn’t ring true,

        You’ve outed yourself as a head-case held together with thioridizine.

      2. I just saw this evening that a new video production of “The Handmaid’s Tale” has been made, and is being released on HuLu sometime this Spring or Summer.

  4. One of Brazile’s emails up here admits that she is “bent”. I don’t know what that means. I think she is mad about all the email BS.

    1. Naaahhhh, she’s from Kenya, like Obama. Or Uganda. Or the North Pole. Maybe she should send in and get one of those DNA assessments…. But I’m not sure why this should matter at all.

        1. Jay, I remembered seeing this on Louis Gates’ program. She is just another hated “demoncrat” to use Amber’s words.

  5. Is Donna Brazile from Brazil?

    A lot of folks get last names from the place they hailed from before they hit Ellis Island or New Orleans on the way in. John Podesta’s grandfather was from Podesta, Italy and his real last name was Corleone.

  6. @ Brooklin Bridge
    “At the same time, for our news media to tilt the campaign process in favor of one or another of the candidates for the US presidency IS EXACTLY what we (sic) are accusing Russia of: Tampering with the US election and therefore with US Democracy. And since they are utterly silent about what Brazile has done, they are as complicit as she is in trying to tilt the election to Hillary. The hypocrisy of blaming Russia (with no proof) for manipulating our Democracy and ignoring Donna Brazile (with plenty of proof available) for doing the exact same thing is just mind boggling.”

    Not only have the vast majority of the Corporate Media overlooked Brazile’s behavior, they made it abundantly clear throughout the recent presidential race that Hillary was the chosen candidate of the Powers That Be, not only through editorial endorsements, but by their massively selective reportage on the candidates.

    Yes, members of the US Country Club are subject to different rules than the rest of the world, and it has to be continually pointed out, as you’ve done, how truly rank is their self-serving hypocrisy.

    1. Thanks Ken and nice summary – US Country Club and their self-serving hypocrisy – in particular.

    1. Autumn – that is ironic considering the Guardian was outed for a Fake News story the other day. 🙂

      1. Paul, right on! We need to keep calling them all out – if we’ve learned anything at all this past year is to read a variety of news sources and then do our own vetting as best as we can =)

  7. slohrss29 & BB – spot on posts – but y’all should know better than to have a reasoned, factual discussion with a DNC cultist. Partisan blindness is a “yuuge” problem.

  8. http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/07/politics/russia-us-obama-putin-intel-pushkov/index.html“In his latest tweet, issued Saturday afternoon, Pushkov said that Republicans trusted Putin more than they did the Democratic Party.
    Translated, like the others, from Russian, it read: “Obama dismayed: Republicans trust Putin more than the Democrats. This is the ‘merit’ of the Democrats and one of the results of Obama’s presidency.”” True, Putin is the great white hope for some of them. Some xenophobes in Europe feel the same way.

  9. Jay S,

    So, Democrats are the enemy, Putin is our true friend ?

    Come on, man. Just the way you phrase it should tip you off to a major problem you have with such slanted allegiance to a very corrupt part of a very corrupt system – our duopoly.

    First – and, again, come on, you know better – you make it sound like I’m accusing ALL Democrats. And the Putin best buddy bit. You are putting what I said into an absolutely absurd context that no one is even remotely suggesting.

    And by the way, it’s not just the Democrats. The Republicans in Congress are in this up to their eye balls; I specifically mentioned John McCain and Lindsey Graham. There are plenty of others.

    But just because some Republicans have entered the fray, does not mean Democrats get an automatic pass. Your loyalty is harming the process by making it that much more difficult, mostly for you, to get at the truth. Right now, the Democratic party leaders – the DNC, along with Hillary and the Obama administration are the ones who have placed themselves under the microscope by making these crazy, unsubstantiated, dangerous, assertions. Some War-Hawk Republicans are going along for a Cold War ride, but they didn’t start this fiasco.

    1. Well said BB, yes, the DNC started the train, and the neo-con repubs are jumping on quick. They only good thing out of this is that the duopoly does expose itself for all to see here.

      1. Hey Slohrss29 – always good to hear from you – hope your N.Y. is great!

        They only good thing out of this is that the duopoly does expose itself for all to see here.

        Yes and no. They have exposed themselves all right, but I suspect about 60% of the country has swallowed it. Perhaps the Silver Lining is for even a few of us to see just how corrosive and powerful propaganda is on all sides. Jay S is no dope. It’s a real eye opener for leftists such as myself to see this tribal loyalty just as strong (and for the moment, STRONGER) on the Democratic side of the duopoly as the Republican side. I can’t help looking inward. I escape some of this stuff, but not all – and we are all most blind to our own faults. Ugg!

        Scary stuff.

    2. My position is that the Russians are dangerous and formidable hegemonists. Putin is turning out to be Stalin with a short haircut, less bloodthirsty but far cleverer. If any of you are explicitly or implicitly advocating an isolationist foreign policy, I would say you are misguided or naive.

      The real or exaggerated misdeeds of various Democrats is infinitesimal potatoes, compared to the risks of outside hijacking or derailing of our political process. I fear we may end up as a Russian client state.

      1. Putin is an authoritarian who is doing the best he can for his country as he sees it. There are good and bad despots and some of the bad ones turn out to be good for a given situation (at least if you are a Russian in this case).

        Sure, Putin might present a danger to the U.S. at some future point, but for what ever reason, he has been the more reasonable leader on the international front for the last decade. It’s not so much that he has outsmarted Obama, Obama has tripped himself up, over and over, and Putin comes out looking good each time. And for the near term, Russia is simply too small and weak economically to present a serious danger. Moreover, treating them as the enemy by definition – rather than a cold but accurate appraisal of our differences – is just as destructive as the perpetual mistreatment of the other by both sides of our duopoly.

        Don’t swallow old stereo types about anyone who isn’t an American and who realizes his country’s interests do not – for the moment – align with ours when we are in Empire building mode.

        1. I have read that in the 1930s, many influential Britons reacted to Hitler’s repudiation of the Versailles Treaty and reoccupation of the Rhineland, by saying he was just a good patriotic German wanting to do what was best for Germany.

          I do not trust Putin to be just a good patriotic Russian. Especially since he has effectively squelched any political opposition within Russia, and is likely one way or another to be “president for life.”

          1. Bad comparisons. Just mentioning Hitler ever time you want to make your point compelling, well, it has the opposite effect.

            1. No, you are mistaken. In all my posts, this is the first and only time I have ever invoked Hitler. But my point was not so much about Hitler, as it was about the British influential class back then. Many influential Britons (even the Duke of Windsor, the abdicated ex-king) were fond of the authoritarian state they saw developing in Germany.

      2. … and who knows — Trump may owe millions or billions to Russia for his various projects, and thus be subject to blackmail. Since Trump’s finances are deliberately opaque, it is a fair question.

      3. Here’s what dear leader has to say about the US military: “I told you earlier all the talk of America’s economic decline is political hot air. Well, so is all the rhetoric you hear about our enemies getting stronger and America getting weaker,” Obama said in his last annual State of the Union address Jan. 12, 2016. “Let me tell you something: The United States of America is the most powerful nation on Earth. Period. Period. It’s not even close. It’s not even close. We spend more on our military than the next eight nations combined.”

        Jay, are you questioning Obama and the US military’s might?

        Do you really think that a candidate (Clinton) who controlled much of the MSM, enough so to write their stories, check their stories, pull stories off the air and demand journalists be silenced isn’t a real problem for our democracy? Do you not think that inciting violence (by Clinton) at your opponent’s campaign rally is fine? Are you good with Clinton fixing a primary? Are these actions really small potatoes to you? They aren’t to me.

        1. So, where were all the partisans at Clinton rallies shouting “Lock him up! Lock him up!” ?? All the incitements to violence that I saw, were inspired by the Orange-Haired One.

          As for the State of the Union message in 2016, those were really feel-good statements. What was he supposed to say, “Things suck!” ? Every SOTU speech, from every President, comes across as polyanna-ish optimism.

          1. There were so few people at the pathetically few Clinton “rallies” even if they had been shouting “lock him up” it would not have been enough to register.

            BTW: “Lock HER up” was a favored chant by Progressives who went to Philly.

            1. But we would never know that since the MSM ignored all of the protests going on at the DNC and there were many. But who knew?

        2. ” Are you good with Clinton fixing a primary? Are these actions really small potatoes to you? ”

          Even assuming that is accurate, I certainly believe that any primary shenanigans are, yes, infinitesimal potatoes compared to outside campaign meddling by foreign powers.

          It comes down to whether or not you believe Democrats are more dangerous that Russians (… or Chinese or North Koreans).

          1. Jay S – there was serious talk that the Obama forces had meddled in some of the primaries knocking Hillary out. That may be why it was “Her time.”

      4. Putin bears little or no resemblance to Joseph Stalin. Putin is a Machiavellian machine boss with circumscribed and practical goals. He is not and almost certainly will never be a generator of 8-digit, 7-digit, or 6-digit death tolls, nor is he attempting to reconstitute Russian society. His portfolio of actions and policies are not abrasive to Russian public opinion. He’s old (64), he’s been a consequential figure in Russian politics for over 20 years, and he’s been the top dog for 17 years. You have a passable (not flawless) idea of that which he’s capable and of his preferred methods. The smart money says it won’t get much worse than it has been.

        1. You’re right – Putin doesn’t have a mustache, and Stalin never rode around on horseback without a shirt. I also agree that he is a Machiavellian machine boss. But I am not sure at all that his goals are circumscribed. One thing he certainly did do, that makes me very nervous, is that he basically suppressed democratic (small d) dissent within Russia during 2011. Do you think he will ever cede power in his life? Hillary’s calling him out on this was, in our intelligence community’s report, why Putin sought payback by meddling in our election in favor of Trump.

          As for the supposed “smart money,” — sadly — my bets would be that it WILL get worse. Perhaps not for ordinary Russians, but probably for those in neighboring countries. I guess we shall see …..

    3. “Some War-Hawk Republicans are going along for a Cold War ride…..”

      In your view, are there any Russian machinations which deserve a military or other serious response? McCain was in the Navy, and Graham I believe is still a reserve officer. Military people above all others have the most sober view of the downsides of war. McCain especially, since he was a tortured POW in Viet Nam. But, as Franklin Roosevelt once said, crawling into bed and pulling the covers over your head is not a realistic way to deal with a threat.

      My own opinion is that once Putin feels confident he has neutered any possible US response, and minimized NATO, he will actively move to dominate or even absorb the Baltic republics, the Ukraine, and possibly even Poland and Finland.

          1. Interesting question – as we know from WWII the Swedes like to play both sides.

      1. I’ve got to attend to some things, but briefly; even if Russia were to re-establish ALL of the former satellite countries as part of a new USSR, it would be but a spec by comparison to U.S. military might. That he would actually do so is beyond absurd since it would require far more financial input from Russia than it has to offer and the returns would be almost nothing in comparison to the outflow. This is one of the things Russia has learned from its previous experience.

        If Trump is truly looking for ways of mutual financial benefit (I’m skeptical), then I imagine there will be a bit of give and take on both sides and that the US will come out somewhat/to a lot ahead. But it will be pure sanity for both countries compared to the outrageous game of RR the Democrats are playing right now.

      2. re: ” Military people above all others have the most sober view of the downsides of war.” SOME military people like General Wesley Clark, Jim Webb and Veterans for Peace have a “sober view”

        McCain and Graham are warmongers – they are keeping the MIC in business.. NATO has been steadily moving to Russia’s borders. We are provoking them. Paula and Linda are annoyed that there is a cease-fire in Syria brokered by Russia.

  10. @Jay, January 7, 2017 at 10:40 am

    “Bill –
    “Haven’t you been following the tone of all these Turley threads? The Democrats are the enemy ! Clinton is the devil ! Putin is our best pal ! Our fearless leader Trump has a beautiful brain !

    “The subversion of our political process by the Russians is small potatoes, compared to the myriad transgressions of the Democrats.”

    As former NSA technical director William Binney and former CIA analyst and POTUS-briefer Ray McGovern have pointed out, the evidence clearly indicates a leak, rather than a hack.

    But for the sake of argument, let’s say the Russians did hack the DNC emails. How does exposing the undemocratic machinations of the DNC leadership constitute the “subversion of our political process”?

    Inquiring minds wish to know.

    1. “But for the sake of argument, let’s say the Russians did hack the DNC emails. How does exposing the undemocratic machinations of the DNC leadership constitute the “subversion of our political process”? ”

      Because the Russians put their thumb on the scales, in favor of Trump.

      As for Binney and McGovern, their opinions should carry more weight than the combined multi-agency assessments contained in the just-released report?

      1. Jay S – let’s assume for the sake of argument that the Russians hacked the DNC and gave the Podesta emails to Wikileaks. Now the problem is: How much did that affect the election? Unless you were following the leaks, the MSM didn’t give you much about it and covered for the DNC. Only Fox and other conservative sites exposed the emails from Podesta. There was enough blowback that some hit the MSM at some point, but did it actually change votes? Well, it might have changed votes by Bernie voters who felt rightly he got screwed by the DNC. However, the fault lies on the DNC, not the Russians. They put the fix in for Hillary. They fed the questions to the moderators. They screwed over Bernie. It wasn’t the Russians.

        1. Trump won because of a few thousand votes in a few swing states. It is impossible to know at this point how much of this could be attributed to Russian actions. If there had been “fair and balanced leakage” about goings-on within the Trump campaign and Republican party, who can say what might have happened?

          I personally believe that there is equal or more dirt on the Republican side, and that the Russians have hacked it as well. I further believe they just sat on it to help Trump get elected, and are further sitting on it in case they need to blackmail him in the future.

          1. Jay S – considering that Trump was campaigning against Hillary, the MSM and the Republicans, I think a look at the Republican emails would be interesting.

          2. You can’t possibly believe that putting Hillary and Bill back into the White House was a good idea. Trump won because he ran a better campaign and actually had a message that resonated with voters.

                1. Bob – evidently Hillary has not said no, so the field is open. I assume it is a Democratic city, so she would just have to duke it out with de Blasio. That would be an interesting fight. 😉

                  1. Please, no.

                    She would beat deBlasio if she did run, but she won’t. I read that John Podesta and Neera Tanden attended a de Blasio fundraiser last week….so, no, she’s not doing it.

          3. Jay –
            If your definition of winning is solely because of numbers (“a few thousand votes in a few swing states”), then I could agree with you. And, I will for the moment, accede to possible – though yet not completely proven – inappropriate foreign intervention in the 2016 POTUS election.

            BUT HRC had –
            – far more unlimited funds than DT; why did she not spend _ALL_ that dough?
            – ran for office before; why didn’t she focus more on the Electoral states she needed?
            – political savvy; why didn’t she do more to suppress her ‘skeletons’?
            – MSM on her side; why didn’t they do truly all in their power to help her?

            I offer the proposition that HRC, DNC, MSM, and others (NOT including The Ruskies) – for whatever reason – held back, and simply ‘let’ Trump win.

            I leave it to all our colleagues here – and the conspiracy theorists elsewhere – to figure out why.

          4. I personally believe that there is equal or more dirt on the Republican side,

            You need that.

        2. By the way, it also seems to me that Fox News, Breitbart, etc., are effectively the current “mainstream medium”(s), with much more clout than traditional outlets. Every fast food joint or donut shop with a TV, has Fox news on all the time.

          1. Jay S – Maybe it is just my bad luck but every place I go has CNN playing.

        3. Hard to say one way or the other when you are talking about 77,00 votes in three states. You could fill Lambeau field with that amount of people and that is about it. I think Clinton’s highly touted but poorly executed campaign was more responsible for her loss than was Putin.

          1. When things were that close, it is hard to know in hindsight which straw broke the camel’s back. But I think it would be naive to assert that Russian actions had no effect whatsoever.

              1. In the long run I’m hopeful. Not so much in the short run. Don’t forget that back in 2014:

                Rep. Greg Walden of Oregon, the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, proclaimed Wednesday that Republicans may have built a “hundred-year majority” in the House.

                “We’re as back to a majority as any of us have seen in our lifetimes. It may be a hundred-year majority,” he said.

                or maybe even a thousand-year Reich. (No, I didn’t mention Hitler here !)

  11. I believe Brazile is a liar and certainly like to see her gone. But giving a candidate the exact wording on a question whose subject was virtually 100% certain to be asked, would not seem to require an investigation of the highest order…..

    RUSSIA HACKS ELECTION! and DIM DONALD REFUSES TO FINDINGS! Those should have been your morning threads….at least if one were not jonsing for a Supreme Court appointment (after the idiot Johnson (where’s the USA) threw your name out there who knows what you’d do) and/or a faux news contributor.

    Your comparisons (Brazile to RUSSIAN HACKING) are incredibly weak. At this point, I’d have to guess your threads are written by some hacker in eastern Europe.

    1. Bill –
      Haven’t you been following the tone of all these Turley threads? The Democrats are the enemy ! Clinton is the devil ! Putin is our best pal ! Our fearless leader Trump has a beautiful brain !

      The subversion of our political process by the Russians is small potatoes, compared to the myriad transgressions of the Democrats.

      1. Let me guess Jay – you also think Mexico is going to pay for the wall? “You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on”

        1. Mexico is going to pay for the wall. That hasn’t changed – says Kellyanne Conway. There are many for Mexico to ‘pay’ for the wall. Think about it.

        2. Bill –
          My post just above was intended as sarcasm. I hope you got that.
          And no, the Mexicans are not going to pay for the wall. They will tell Trump to pound sand. What can Trump do, invade them? My own opinion is that some part of the wall will get built or started, to pacify Trump’s rabid supporters. But that the effort will peter out after awhile, as costing too much. And I agree with your quote re fooling some of the people.

          1. Jay S – if we start taking a portion of the remittances to Mexico, we can pay for the wall very handily.

        1. You say that like ‘chaos’ is a bad thing. Chaos theory is about surprises and the unpredictable – kinda sounds like this election. There may be method to the seeming madness and in the end we find that Trump is a popular and surprisingly effective president.

    2. i became suspicious the other day when the gallup poll was called the gallop poll. lol Great post…:).

  12. @Wonderer, January 7, 2017 at 12:43 am
    “What’s the problem here, Ben? She *IS* one of the most powerful figures in Washington Democratic circles. The fact that the media hasn’t pursued this story is appalling.”

    It “appalls” you because you don’t yet realize that the Corporate Media are the professional public relations arm of the Corporatist Government. They pursue only stories that are consistent with the Corporatist Government’s agenda, i.e., do nothing to seriously challenge the economic and political power of the US Oligarchy, what C.Wright Mills referred to as the “Power Elite.”

    1. Absolutely and that includes Fox’s News Corp. Since the prof makes appearances on these networks it would be tough to be too harsh on them.

  13. I find it curious and appalling that Turley puts up issues like this one re Brazille, but has yet to offer a direct thread re the report about the Russians and the election. Are we supposed to believe that Brazille is a really compelling matter, whereas Russian meddling in our electoral process does not merit direct discussion?

    1. Jay I recently in the DC metro area for almost 10 years. I don’t think you get what this whole thing is about.
      it’s a big game aimed at distracting sooo many other things that are going on and it’s sole purpose is to divide and conquer.
      You can bend over and grab the soap or you can ask is this really a shower I’m in.
      The choice is yours pal.
      Turley is not part of the problem, he’s the Oracle.
      Follow the law my friend.

        1. Jay – Democrats have never been my friend. Putin has never been my enemy. I don’t trust either.

          1. “Intel community says Putin tried to influence the election. US may charge him with espionage & impersonating a New York Times editor.” -Ann Coulter tweet

        2. Yes, Putin is sponsoring white nationalist candidates in Europe also. Marie le Pen is one of his candidates also. They do consider dems to be the enemies of their white nationalist fronts.

          1. Aren’t you just using the same argument to bring validity to your position? You clearly state your personal ideals are the correct one, and all others are not to be tolerated. It’s also misleading that you say “white nationalists” instead of just “nationalists.” Many countries are coming to the conclusion that local leadership reflects the needs of a constituency better than some bureaucratic institution in a faraway land. I have not read where nationalism is illegal anywhere. Just because you are opposed to it does not make it such. You ARE the perfect illustration of the whole problem here. The Democrats have gotten to the point where they have confused their ideals with legality, and that is a serious problem–which are seeing played out. Your position of disqualifying any other viewpoints philosophically removes you from the argument.

            1. Somehow, patriotism, and the belief that your country is better than all the Third World dictatorships where women are flogged, has been ascribed evil tendencies. Unless you use moral relativism to state that your country is no better than, say, Haiti, the rape capital of the world and home to the Tonton Macoute, then you are clearly a white nationalist racist and a bad, bad person.

              Nowadays, if Reagan called the US a shining city on the hill, or Kennedy made any moving statements about what we can do for our country, they would be called white nationalists of the alt right.

              It has grown so tiresome to constantly be called evil for political differences that the overwhelming majority of states firmly rebelled. It just gets old.

        3. No entrenched self serving politicians are the enemy. Putin wishes he could get this much attention everyday.
          All of this started right around the time the Saudis said that they would not cut back on production.That put a squeeze on smaller but more dependent oil suppliers like Russia and all of a sudden they weren’t so rich anymore. This has all been about attention in the most faux reality sense.
          we are about to sentence a FOUR STAR Marine Corps General for leaking secrets about a major offensive cyber attack WE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA committed on a sovereign nation’s major energy infrastructure.
          The damage was tangible and documented.
          The damage to our country relative to this hacking BS is nothing more than a propaganda vehicle to set a standard for what’s really acceptable.
          get it? The more we keep focusing on the theatrical aspects of the Russian’s involvement in out election just diminishes our culpability elsewhere in the world squirt as far as our transgressions goes.
          step back and look closely at what OUR government has been doing.
          Donna Brazile is just a stooge.

          1. How about a post our new Exxon defense secretary, Rex Tillerson. Talk about a fox in a henhouse…. Brazile has no power now and never did.

            1. You have a pitifully small comprehension of current events. Could you not understand the ramifications of Roscoe’s statement? If you are a on-the-dole shill, you better step up your game or your funders should re-examine their investment.

            2. Goldie, If you have time I suggest you read “Angler” by Barton Gelman.
              The chapter on how Cheney selected himself as the VP pick, A Very Short List, is very insightful to the world we now live in.

          2. Well said Roscoe. And very sad. And it’s also very sad that this propaganda has been executed so very poorly. I think they did a lot better job at selling the war in Iraq. People have just gotten that bad. Or, “more stupider” as I like to say.

            1. The people, both the generators and the recipients have just gotten numb and lazy.
              As long as the Dow keeps rising, all is good for those that matter.
              you used to be able to get a return on savings, used to be able to get a return on CDs, used to be able to get a return on real-estate,, now it’s the big boy game of the stock market only.
              Average chumps are consumers who pay interest and the chosen class receives it.

              1. Once Trump put in all those Goldman guys their stock took off like a bottle rocket. Follow the money as they say.

                  1. Roscoe – the State of California has hired Eric Holder to defend them against Donald Trump. The down payment is 75k.

                    1. Autumn
                      1, January 7, 2017 at 12:22 pm

                      Is CA too big to jail? =)
                      Oh, so California should be jailed for not wanting to comply with Trumpie’s plans to pollute the air? Sounds fascist….

                  2. Trump ran against Goldman in his ads and now he has at least 4 of their officials in positions. That is a record. Hypocrisy or a con? Or both?

          3. Roscoe,

            The treatment of American Whistle Blowers, or more specifically, those who leak information revealing major corruption or internationally illegal activity, regardless of party, is deplorable and Obama has raised it to the top of the sky scraper even compared to Bush II. Your article on retired Gen. James Cartwright is a good example and not the only one. What has been done to Assange, to Manning, to Snowden, and so on, is indicative of a country far more like North Korea than what we would like to imagine the United States to be: openess, fair mindedness, and the same rule of law for everyone. One can only prey that history will rake Obama over the coals for this. It’s is hard to even fathom the extent of the damage he personally has done to our Democracy, and yet, if only that were all he had done… 🙁

            That said, what the DNC and the Obama administration are doing with their hacking gambit is no small potatoes and at the end of the day, neither is Donna Brazile. There is no proof the government is willing to share with it’s citizens that we should re-open the cold war with nuclear powered Russia because it’s manipulated our electoral process. Cold war with Russia is a non trivial event, and for those in an absolute panic about Trump, actually for all of us, just consider the package of TNT that Obama is handing off to Trump whether he, Trump, likes it or not. At the same time, for our news media to tilt the campaign process in favor of one or another of the candidates for the US presidency IS EXACTLY what we are accusing Russia of: Tampering with the US election and therefore with US Democracy. And since they are utterly silent about what Brazile has done, they are as complicit as she is in trying to tilt the election to Hillary. The hypocrisy of blaming Russia (with no proof) for manipulating our Democracy and ignoring Donna Briazile (with plenty of proof avaiable) for doing the exact same thing is just mind boggling.

            1. Agreed.
              There is a certain level of entrenched political chicanery that is and has been present we just have been able to see the depth of it now in our digital age.
              The result though is one sided. if the GOP hacked the DNC that would be different and leave a totally unacceptable set of finger prints from the crime.
              If the Russians are the scapegoats it allows any member of the media/political establishment class to observe working and successful strategies to subterfuge agendas and opinions.
              I firmly believe that Putin is potentially dangerous but Donna Brazile is like all of those professional athletes who used steroids but their use didn’t make a difference on their careers or performance.
              she fit a perfect female black minister profile that was useful to the DNC, but in the end she still is just a stooge to me.
              The most dangerous person at CNN is Wolf Blitzer and maybe Barbara Starr.

              1. Good point about Russia being a convenient patsy avoiding the issues of blaming Republicans (who would be in a much stronger position to fight back). Always make it a third party that the majority already distrust when ever you can.

    2. I don’t find anything curious about it…. TRUMP NETWORK. It is okay to talk about a has been democrat but not the new guy in town and his billionaire kleptocracy.

    3. Jay S – it is interesting that the ‘report’ of Russian hacking comes from a Google funded company. Google was a large funder of Hillary. They were never allowed to examine the DNC computers or mainframe. They have two supposed actors with made up names. They identify them as Russian, but other than attacks on other mainframes, there is no connection to Russia. They did not explain how they got into the server to get the data on Trump, but we do know that Podesta was an idiot an fell for a phishing scheme.

      1. Are you claiming that the official report of the Government intelligence agencies “comes from a Google funded company”? And that our intelligence analysts are all directly or indirectly in the pay of the Democratic party ??

        1. Jay S – I am saying that the hacking report was written by a third-party company built with Google money, now called CapitalG. I am saying that Google people supported Clinton financially and this company wanted to be on the Clinton team. All 17 Intelligence Agencies are relying on this report.

          1. Interesting Paul. I read it yesterday, as did Darren. It’s a laughably unprofessional regurgitation. It reads like a Facebook spat. Complete with “… and they did this… and they did that…” Probably written by someone with connections without actual qualifications.

            But this all seems to be working well. The focus has shifted from prosecuting the Clintons, so I guess they are feeling pretty good about things. Never mind the ramifications…

            1. Wasn’t that Trump’s choice? Did not he admit he led his followers on? Suppose he can always gin that up if the economy falls apart.

              1. If the economy falls apart, it will be Obama’s fault or Hillary’s fault, even if they are years out of public life.

          2. I found this significant also Paul. Since when does the FBI allow evidence to go unexamined at the request of a suspect in the crime? Well, they do it all the time! But still, this isn’t actual cyber forensics. It’s a terrible investigative move which allows crucial information to remain uncovered. It is laughable and shows no integrity at all.

    4. Jay,

      You really don’t care if Donna gave questions to Hillary to swing the primary to her? I thought you were upset about election interference! Well, this constitutes interference in an election. If you want to read about the other parts of this report, those are discussed in the MSM and on other sites.

      Please take some time to read Karen’s very thoughtful post near your comment.

  14. I could live with the silence on “one of their own”, Donna Brazile, if the msm would just be honest about the whole Russian Hacking fiasco cooked up by the DNC and now taken up and doubled down on by every military whacko such as Nancy Pelosi or John McCain or Lindsey Graham or Dianne Feinstein.

    An article on the intercept gives a good summary of the latest report where “high confidence” in Russian Hacking – including Putin’s involvement – is only equaled by total lack of evidentiary information.

    The author offers his personal belief that some hacking is involved, and while that is certainly possible, one has to always come back to the fact that, the information that the DNC and the administration and now officially the NSA, the FBI and the CIA, want us to believe is undermining our Democracy; that information is…, g-a-s-p, The Truth. Shhh!, the Russians are telling the truth. We’re doomed.

    In other words, all these august institutions we are supposed to have absolute faith in (or risk being condemned as unpatriotic) are telling us that Democracy is most at threat when the TRUTH is brought out by a foreign power against the will of the politicians being exposed. It just doesn’t add up. It’s absurd on the face of it. Far more likely is that the information was leaked by internal DNC sources or other American sources to Wikileaks and Guccifer 2.0 and disseminated to news media from there and then largely swallowed up in silence by said news media and instead replaced with fictitious, partisan, look over there finger pointing at Russia.

    The main stream media is, for the most part, completely silent on the irony, not to mention absurdity, of truth as the ultimate weapon to destroy US Democracy and on the fact that such nonsense puts in question the whole theory of Russian hacking or tampering with the US election in the first place.

    The Donna Brazile cover up is nasty and very revealing, but it still pales compared to this wholesale corruption of using our intelligence agencies to disseminate dangerous propaganda (cold war with a major Nuclear power IS dangerous). It’s right up there with using those agencies to involve us in a major preemptive war that had zero justification and killed thousands of American citizens and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.

    1. and killed thousands of American citizens -> and killed thousands of American Soldiers…

      1. I agree, BB this is an excellent analysis.

        It is the content of the e-mails which matter. Who believes, for example, that if it was only Clinton discussing her yoga classes and Chelsea’s wedding that the e-mails would have mattered at all?

        Isn’t it Rove who said to attack your opponent accusing him of doing what you are doing? That’s clearly the Clinton and minions strategy here. Clinton and minions without a doubt interfered in the US election. She engineered her primary win against Sanders. This is ignored.

        Clinton and minions also interfered in the election by using trolls and favored media to denigrate her opponent. As the MSM has been shown to be a major colluder in this project they have said nothing. Next we should examine CTR, a supposed independent organization which was actually illegally directed by the Clinton campaign to place trolls in social media to work on her behalf. We also see her campaign, at the top, directed by Clinton herself, actually organizing violence at rallies of her opponent, an act which is extremely irresponsible and illegal. This is buried and going uninvestigated.

        If the govt. is concerned with interference in our elections and democratic process, the Clinton campaign should be immediately investigated.

        Donna has given several responses to the question of whether she passed along questions to Clinton. At one point she claimed if she had done so, it wasn’t a big deal. In fact, a DNC operative and member of the press intending to influence an election by colluding with one candidate over another is indeed a serious matter.

        As with every other lie and illegality staring the press in the face, it is simply ignored by the MSM. Instead, we are told Putin ruined our election by allowing the people to see the truth. This is a bizarre claim, obviously being made on behalf of Clinton to cover both her tracks and the tracks of those in the MSM who colluded with her campaign. It is also useful in ginning up a war with a nuclear armed power.

        The lies of the Clinton campaign staff, of Clinton herself and of the media which fails to fairly and responsibly report any information regarding these lies is appalling. This is as undemocratic as it gets.

        Clinton, along with Donna, don’t need Putin to discredit them. Their own words and actions work perfectly well for this purpose!

        1. … She engineered her primary win against Sanders. This is ignored.


          We also see her campaign, at the top, directed by Clinton herself, actually organizing violence at rallies of her opponent, an act which is extremely irresponsible and illegal. This is buried and going uninvestigated.

          A good round-up of what we confront as news: Buried, uninvestigated, ignored. It’s depressing…

    2. You’ve encapsulated the issue sublimely – if only there were anything sublime about it!

    3. So the Democrats are the true enemies of America and the Russians are our dearest buddies, who would never do anything to meddle in our affairs?? I must have fallen down the rabbit hole. The Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, I suppose.

      1. Boy, your childish absolutes certainly become tedious after a while. You might want to think a little broader. You are generally in a discussion with adults here. My 17 year old stopped this line of reasoning when he was 11.

        1. I generally refrain from name-calling, but — Listen, bleep-hole. I am a lot older than you are. I have experienced politics and international affairs from every angle. But if “thinking a little broader” means accepting a Quisling government in Washington, I don’t think I care to go along.

                  1. Jay S – went to a friend’s 99 bday this year. There is every indication he will make it to 100. Having lunch with him tomorrow.

    4. Well said BB. As we have discussed before, it’s beyond amoral that these people would sink to this level to justify themselves. They are urinating on the graves of all the people who worked and died to keep WWIII from happening and to end the Cold War over the span of about 45 years. All of us who grew up under this real threat must see how morally bankrupt these representatives in government really are. The fact that these people are willing to grasp at whatever situation is available to put them in a better position, even if it could lead to unprecedented death and destruction, is OK as long as it advances their position (or they can profit from it). And this has nothing to do with Trump, except that at least Orange one is smart enough to know continually throwing matches at gasoline can just isn’t very smart. It’s also jaw-dropping that so many clueless people would jump on a bandwagon that could lead to their ends. I always thought we would do a full descent into “Idiocracy,” but I didn’t see as part of this the desire to possibly wipe out the species again after we made it through once. 30 years ago this whole situation could have been a political comedy, not it’s just sad reality.

      I don’t know about some of you, but this just feels like the justification of the Iraq war all over again, except for all the marbles this time. The same gullible ones are there once again, just different names this time. Same small petty arguments. Guess nothing really changes.

      1. Missed this comment. Thanks, back soon. Good news! Can’t wait to read the link!

    5. At the absolute worst, the DNC is admitting that Hillary Clinton lost because truthful, factual evidence came out of her wrongdoing, provided by a foreign country.

      We all know that China and Russia spy on us constantly. That was the entire premise behind the Clinton mishandling of classified information scandal. That’s why deliberate or negligent mishandling is a criminal act. It puts our sensitive information at risk.

      Considering the eponymous domain she used, it’s likely that Russia has some of her emails.

      Assange has been adamant that Russia was not behind the Wikileaks data dump. One source is supposed to be an inside leak. Even if he was wrong, this can perhaps explain to the far Left why what Hillary did was so very wrong. Why taking a Blackberry with her classified information on it into cyber hostile territory was so negligent it left investigators gobsmacked. Why uploading her server to the Cloud by a company with no clearance whatsoever left people wondering why she wasn’t in jail. Why wiping her server after she was subpoenaed and then lying about it was wrong.

      So far, the only proof I have read of Russia’s involvement was that officials sent each other congratulatory messages that Trump won. Perhaps they didn’t like Hillary’s reset button. Perhaps they were rejoicing on all the money they saved on not having to bribe her. Perhaps they leaked the emails. Who knows? We won’t until we have the evidence.

      Again, even if they are right, and the Russians gifted this intel to Assange, it wasn’t fabricated information. It was factual information that changed the narrative from “right wing conspiracy” to she, and the DNC, really were guilty of serious wrongdoing.

      I would like any evidence they have to be released to the American people, barring anything classified. In any case, I’m sure the Russians have greatly enjoyed seeing America revealed for being pay to play, biased against any non-establishment candidate, and all the other behind the scenes shenanigans, whether they were involved or not.

      1. Joy Reid Verified account

        Joy Reid Retweeted Erika Heidewald

        Exactly. And Wikileaks doesn’t even hide their goal: a kind of tyranny via threat of public humiliation. It’s “cross us and we dox you.”

        1. who the f*&ck cares what Joy Reid “thinks” or tweets? She is a useless, stupid MSM c&*nt! Goldie, I hope whatever money you are making is worth it.

          1. Joy is a very bright insightful well educated African American woman although a bit biased. Not surprised you Breitbart types have disdain for her. You seem to call those that oppose your point of view “demons”, “cultists or “paid” rather than making valid arguments Perhaps you are one of nick’s gals. You seem knowledgeable about paid trolls. I am not paid but dedicated to the resistance.

            1. I grew up without much money but saved and invested well and do no need to earn petty cash on internet. Does not sound appealing at all and I am grateful I do not need to do that. 🙂

      2. Karen – we know there is a leak because someone leaked the “secret report” to the news before Trump was briefed.

  15. Here’s my analogy to trying to understand Issacbasonkavich:
    to paraphrase the clip:

    “wait i speak special needs Canadian”
    Cut me some slack jack. . .

    1. None of the beloved spoof movies of the past 40 years could be made today due to PC.

      I can make a pterodactyl!

Comments are closed.