Wednesday, January 31, 2018

Benjamin Wittes - the Nunes Memo scandal

It is an unnerving moment in our history.  And it is going to get worse before it gets better.  Contrary to Ross Douthat's delusion that the SOTU provided a glimpse of a successful presidency - this is how democracy dies. - gwc



Rep. Joseph Kennedy III delivers Democratic response to Trump SOTU

Well done.




Monday, January 29, 2018

Big Lies, Law Enforcement, and the Defense of Rod Rosenstein - Lawfare

Big Lies, Law Enforcement, and the Defense of Rod Rosenstein - Lawfare
by Benjamin Wittes

The defense of democratic institutions, norms, values and culture does not always involve standing up for people who have acted heroically. Stories feel better, of course, when it does—when honor goes to those to whom people rally because they have behaved admirably; when the music swells in our minds and it all feels like a screenplay. But democracies don’t function like neatly-ending screenplays. The characters on whom democracies depend may perform erratically; citizens may not fully understand their conduct or motives; people may not trust them.
I have not held back from criticizing Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein over the past few months. I  for his role in enabling President Trump’s firing of James Comey as FBI director. I  that he should resign in response to Trump’s attacks on the integrity of the Justice Department—and I questioned his honor when he didn’t respond loudly and clearly to the president’s attacks on federal law enforcement. More recently, I  his decision to throw two FBI employees to the wolves by allowing the public release of their text messages during a pending investigation by the Justice Department’s inspector general. Jack Goldsmith has asked questions of his own, such as  from the Mueller investigation when his own involvement in Comey’s firing would seem to require it. Rosenstein’s behavior, to put it simply, has not inspired my admiration.
And yet: The defense of Rosenstein represents an imperative for everyone who is concerned about the Trump administration’s predations against the independence of law enforcement.
There will come a time to litigate the question of Rosenstein’s handling of the many bizarre questions he confronted in his role as deputy attorney general. Today is not that day. Today is a day to understand that apolitical law enforcement is stronger with him than without him, and that it would suffer a genuine blow if the president and the House Intelligence Committee chairman can lie the deputy attorney general out of government.***

Sunday, January 28, 2018

Laurence Tribe on Rep. Joe Kennedy




Friday, January 26, 2018

We Can’t Win in Afghanistan Because We Don’t Know Why We’re There - The New York Times

We Can’t Win in Afghanistan Because We Don’t Know Why We’re There - The New York Times
by Steve Coll
“The United States is not losing in Afghanistan, but it is not winning either, and that is not good enough,” reads the opening sentence of a top-secret review of the war in Afghanistan commissioned by President George W. Bush in 2008, according to multiple participants in that review. Subsequent classified reviews of the American strategy in the war have repeated that conclusion.
The Trump administration undertook the latest rethinking of the war in August. President Trump’s advisers again reviewed its causes: opium, corruption, ethnic factionalism and, above all, the support and sanctuary provided to the Taliban by Pakistan, through the covert action arm of its powerful spy agency, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence.
Why is this problem so hard? Why, since the Sept. 11 attacks, has the United States been unable to prevent Pakistan, a notional ally that has received billions of dollars in aid, from succoring the Taliban at such a high cost in American lives and Afghan misery?
One major reason is American war aims in Afghanistan have been, and remain, riddled with contradictions and illusions that Inter-Services Intelligence can exploit. President Bush, President Barack Obama and President Trump have all offered convoluted, incomplete or unconvincing answers to essential questions: Why are we in Afghanistan? What interests justify our sacrifices? How will the war end?
Mr. Trump is departing from his predecessors by getting tougher on Pakistan. His administration is withholdingas much as $1.3 billion worth of annual aid to Pakistan until it does more to pressure the Taliban. Unfortunately, the record of using threats and sanctions to change Pakistan’s conduct is a dismal one, and the influence and leverage of the United States in Pakistan is shrinking.
Continue reading the main story
Mr. Trump is not the first ***
***For the United States, an alternative to pursuing difficult and uncertain negotiations would be to give up and leave, but the most likely result of a unilateral military pullout now would be more violence and rising influence for the Taliban and the Islamic State.
The most rational course is one for which President Trump would seem poorly suited: to work closely with allies, prioritize high-level diplomacy, be smart in pressuring the Inter-Services Intelligence and accept that in Afghanistan, a starting point for any international policy is humility.

Dutch agencies provide crucial intel about Russia's interference in US-elections - Media - Voor nieuws, achtergronden en columns

Dutch agencies provide crucial intel about Russia's interference in US-elections - Media - Voor nieuws, achtergronden en columns
Hackers from the Dutch intelligence service AIVD have provided the FBI with crucial information about Russian interference with the American elections. For years, AIVD had access to the infamous Russian hacker group Cozy Bear. That's what de Volkskrant and Nieuwsuur have uncovered in their investigation.
It's the summer of 2014. A hacker from the Dutch intelligence agency AIVD has penetrated the computer network of a university building next to the Red Square in Moscow, oblivious to the implications. One year later, from the AIVD headquarters in Zoetermeer, he and his colleagues witness Russian hackers launching an attack on the Democratic Party in the United States. The AIVD hackers had not infiltrated just any building; they were in the computer network of the infamous Russian hacker group Cozy Bear. And unbeknownst to the Russians, they could see everything.

That's how the AIVD becomes witness to the Russian hackers harassing and penetrating the leaders of the Democratic Party, transferring thousands of emails and documents. It won't be the last time they alert their American counterparts. And yet, it will be months before the United States realize what this warning means: that with these hacks the Russians have interfered with the American elections. And the AIVD hackers have seen it happening before their very eyes. 

The Dutch access provides crucial evidence of the Russian involvement in the hacking of the Democratic Party, according to six American and Dutch sources who are familiar with the material, but wish to remain anonymous. It's also grounds for the FBI to start an investigation into the influence of the Russian interference on the election race between the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and the Republican candidate Donald Trump.

Thursday, January 25, 2018

Compensation claims over Sanchi collision may be complex due to Iran’s sensitive diplomatic status: report - Global Times


Mussel farm, Zhejiang, China

Compensation claims over Sanchi collision may be complex due to Iran’s sensitive diplomatic status: report - Global Times
As a massive oil spill caused by the crash of Iranian tanker Sanchi earlier this month continues to spread across the East China Sea, fishermen and sea farmers in China's largest fishing hub are worried about potential ecological damage.

The fully laden crude tanker, owned and operated by the National Iranian Tanker Company (NITC), suffered a major explosion and sank eight days after its collision with Hong Kong-flagged freighter CF Crystal.

The foreign tanker was carrying condensate, an ultra-refined, highly volatile form of ultra light oil used to make products such as jet fuel. Satellite images show that the spilt oil covered 332 square kilometers of water on Sunday, The Cover reported.

In the winter, low temperatures reduce evaporation speed, leaving massive condensate floating on the surface as waves spread. Experts warn of the serious immediate and long-term impact on the marine environment.

"The oil on the surface evolves to be highly concentrated, which hinders the respiration of marine life. Oily water containing sulphide can also poison and even kill sea creatures. Without professional treatment and scientific management, its harm will soon become obvious," Huang Weiqiu, a professor at Changzhou University Petroleum Engineering Department, interpreted.

The unpredictable expansion of the massive oil slick worries many fishermen in Zhoushan, Zhejiang Province, which is China's biggest and most important fishery hub.

Sun Yun (pseudonym), who farms mussels in the sea off Zhoushan, is one of them. After the crash, he was in a panic and rightly concerned about the potential ecological and economical effects on his livelihood. He recruited people to observe if there was oil floating near his sea area and purchased heavy metal test papers to prepare for subsequent risks.

Some other local residents remained relatively calm about the potential risks, counting on pure speculation. "The sea area is vast. I guess there would not be a serious problem as long as the wind blows strongly," a resident who lives in Zhoushan city was quoted by Chinese media jiemian.com as saying.

Trump and the great GOP abdication - The Washington Post


This is on the money.  If you believe that Trump is a dictatorial threat the central mission today is not maximalist demands, It is defending the republic, the fundamental structures of democratic government.  - gwc

Trump and the great GOP abdication - The Washington Post
by Greg Sargent

THE MORNING PLUM:
Something remarkable is happening in our politics right now. On multiple fronts, it has fallen to Democratic elected officials to step up and defend the integrity and basic functionings of our government — against Republican efforts to pervert and manipulate them in service of the goal of shielding President Trump from accountability.
At the same time, in some cases Democrats have escalated their tactics in a kind of guerrilla operation designed to smuggle as much basic information about this great GOP abdication out to the public as possible.
Today, I’m told, Sen. Mark Warner (Va.) — the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee — will publicly say that classified information debunks the arguments reportedly made in the now-notorious secret memo by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), which bolsters the idea that the Russia investigation is a Deep-State Coup against Trump. Nunes has made this memo available to members of Congress, in what Democrats charge is a selective cherry-picking of intelligence designed to arm Republicans with talking points to discredit the Russia probe.

Wednesday, January 24, 2018

Trump Says He Is Willing to Speak Under Oath to Mueller - The New York Times

Trump Says He Is Willing to Speak Under Oath to Mueller - The New York Times
WASHINGTON — President Trump said on Wednesday that he was willing to speak under oath to Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential campaign.
“I’m looking forward to it,” Mr. Trump said of talking to Mr. Mueller, ending months of speculation over whether he would submit to questions from the special counsel, who is also believed to be looking into whether the president sought to thwart the inquiry.
Mr. Trump spoke with reporters in the doorway of his chief of staff’s office, an impromptu news conference before he departed for the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.


He also said he would be willing to answer questions under oath, but not until after asking whether Hillary Clinton, his 2016 campaign rival, has spoken under oath to the F.B.I. in the investigation into her use of a private email server while she served as secretary of state. Mrs. Clinton gave a voluntary interview to investigators in July 2016.

This is how democracies die | Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt | Opinion | The Guardian

This is how democracies die | Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt | Opinion | The Guardian
Defending our constitution requires more than outrage
Blatant dictatorship – in the form of fascism, communism, or military rule – has disappeared across much of the world. Military coups and other violent seizures of power are rare. Most countries hold regular elections. Democracies still die, but by different means.
Since the end of the Cold War, most democratic breakdowns have been caused not by generals and soldiers but by elected governments themselves. Like Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, elected leaders have subverted democratic institutions in Georgia, Hungary, Nicaragua, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, Sri Lanka, Turkey and Ukraine.
Democratic backsliding today begins at the ballot box. The electoral road to breakdown is dangerously deceptive. With a classic coup d’état, as in Pinochet’s Chile, the death of a democracy is immediate and evident to all. The presidential palace burns. The president is killed, imprisoned or shipped off into exile. The constitution is suspended or scrapped.


On the electoral road, none of these things happen. There are no tanks in the streets. Constitutions and other nominally democratic institutions remain in place. People still vote. Elected autocrats maintain a veneer of democracy while eviscerating its substance.
Many government efforts to subvert democracy are “legal”, in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy – making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption or cleaning up the electoral process.
Advertisement
Newspapers still publish but are bought off or bullied into self-censorship. Citizens continue to criticize the government but often find themselves facing tax or other legal troubles. This sows public confusion. People do not immediately realize what is happening. Many continue to believe they are living under a democracy.
Because there is no single moment – no coup, declaration of martial law, or suspension of the constitution – in which the regime obviously “crosses the line” into dictatorship, nothing may set off society’s alarm bells. Those who denounce government abuse may be dismissed as exaggerating or crying wolf. Democracy’s erosion is, for many, almost imperceptible.***

Stop Whining, Move Forward – Talking Points Memo

The Democrats cannot and must not be a wrecking ball - because it is not Trump and the GOP that we would be wrecking:  it is the effectiveness of government - for which we stand.  Government stoppages - like that we just saw - are a tactic that cannot be sustained.  How long and how often are you going to withhold the paychecks of soldiers, sailors, and federal employees?

 As Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann warned several year ago "it's even worse than it looks".  The message: the Republicans have become an extremist anti-government party, uninterested in governance but committed to making it ineffective.  Now the wreckers have elected a President.  That he's a wrecker himself increases the marginal cost but basically he's their man and they're sticking with him.

The Democratic Party is the minority - the opposition party.  It is the party of government - the one that believes in government and is committed to defending the gains won: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, environmental protection, personal liberties, and the protection of women and minorities. 

That is their job and throwing wrenches into the machinery does not advance the necessary functions of government - on the provision of which the future of a progressive agenda rests. - gwc

Stop Whining, Move Forward – Talking Points Memo
by Josh Marshall

The fact that Democrats believe in government and have constituencies who depend on it, both as federal employees and beneficiaries, makes the dynamics of the shutdown waiting game inherently different and more difficult for Democrats. This is certainly a disappointment. Democrats have essentially agreed to punt and come back to the same challenge in three weeks. Democratic self-flagellation gives President Trump an opening for bragging and chortling. None of that is fun.

But the takeaway here is wrong. I don’t think it’s right to see this as Democrats trying to replicate the Tea Party playbook. They could try that. Many Democrats would like to see them try it. But they actually haven’t. The particular dynamics of the Senate mean that Republicans require 60 votes for some budgetary legislation. (The only reason they needed it in this case was because they wanted to pass their tax cut with 50 votes.) 

But look at the alternative. If your takeaway here is that Democrats were trying to shut down the government what you’re really saying is that Democrats must vote yes on any continuing resolution no matter what is contained in it. That is obviously an untenable position. What we’re losing sight of here is that, yes, Republicans control the entire federal government. This amounted to legislative hostage taking in reverse.

Look at the big picture.

Democrats are in the same position they were a week ago. Listen to people talking this morning and you would think that Democrats surrendered their leverage and a major point of policy and suffered a damaging political blow. Neither is true. Trump’s high-fiving Stephen Miller and talking shit on Twitter doesn’t really matter as anything more than a head game. It’s conventional bully tactics. It doesn’t move votes. It only has an impact to the extent you bring to the table an internal drama about Democratic ‘toughness’ and forget that being in the minority is hard.

Monday, January 22, 2018

This is how democracies die | Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt | Opinion | The Guardian

This is how democracies die | Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt | Opinion | The Guardian
Defending our constitution requires more than outrage
Blatant dictatorship – in the form of fascism, communism, or military rule – has disappeared across much of the world. Military coups and other violent seizures of power are rare. Most countries hold regular elections. Democracies still die, but by different means.
Since the end of the Cold War, most democratic breakdowns have been caused not by generals and soldiers but by elected governments themselves. Like Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, elected leaders have subverted democratic institutions in Georgia, Hungary, Nicaragua, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, Sri Lanka, Turkey and Ukraine.
Democratic backsliding today begins at the ballot box. The electoral road to breakdown is dangerously deceptive. With a classic coup d’état, as in Pinochet’s Chile, the death of a democracy is immediate and evident to all. The presidential palace burns. The president is killed, imprisoned or shipped off into exile. The constitution is suspended or scrapped.
On the electoral road, none of these things happen. There are no tanks in the streets. Constitutions and other nominally democratic institutions remain in place. People still vote. Elected autocrats maintain a veneer of democracy while eviscerating its substance.
Many government efforts to subvert democracy are “legal”, in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy – making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption or cleaning up the electoral process.
Advertisement
Newspapers still publish but are bought off or bullied into self-censorship. Citizens continue to criticize the government but often find themselves facing tax or other legal troubles. This sows public confusion. People do not immediately realize what is happening. Many continue to believe they are living under a democracy.
Because there is no single moment – no coup, declaration of martial law, or suspension of the constitution – in which the regime obviously “crosses the line” into dictatorship, nothing may set off society’s alarm bells. Those who denounce government abuse may be dismissed as exaggerating or crying wolf. Democracy’s erosion is, for many, almost imperceptible.