Advertisements

Byron York: On Russia Hacks, it’s Jump-to-Conclusions vs. Wait-and-See

cia-floor

The intelligence community’s response: Fuhgeddaboudit.

Byron York writes: President-elect Trump stirred yet more controversy Saturday night when, as he entered his New Year’s Eve party at Mar-a-Lago, he said he is not convinced the intelligence community is sure about allegations Russian hackers sought to influence the election.

“I just want them to be sure, because it’s a pretty serious charge,” Trump told reporters, “and I want them to be sure.”

The next morning, Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, scoffed at Trump’s statement. “This is the overwhelming judgment of the intelligence community and, frankly, all of the members of the intelligence committees in Congress, Democrats and Republicans,” Schiff said on ABC Sunday. “None of us have any question about this. The only one who does apparently is Donald Trump.”

That is not the case. There are, in fact, members of the intelligence committees who do have questions about this. Yes, many Republicans believe Russian hackers tried to mess with the U.S. presidential campaign in some way, mostly because they believe Russian hackers are always trying to mess with U.S. systems and institutions. But when it comes to solid information on precisely what was done, and on evidence of motives, many Hill Republicans are mostly in the dark — because the intelligence community has kept them there.

[Read the full story here, at Washington Examiner]

Subscribe today to get intelligence and analysis on defense and national security issues in your Inbox each weekday morning from veteran journalists Jamie McIntyre and Jacqueline Klimas.

putin-don-draper-shrug

Remember that before Christmas the intelligence community refused to brief the House Intelligence Committee, telling lawmakers they can wait until intel officials finish the investigation ordered by President Obama. In response, House committee chairman Rep. Devin Nunes argued that the Director of National Intelligence was “obligated to comply” with a House request, and that the committee was “deeply concerned” by the DNI’s “intransigence.”

The intelligence community’s response: Fuhgeddaboudit.

So the wait to learn more goes on. Meanwhile, a number of Democrats are arguing that the evidence is so overwhelming that Congress must establish a special investigating committee, even though there will already be multiple investigations of the Russia matter in the standing committees of Congress. Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

WaPo: 50% of Clinton Voters Believe Russia ‘Tampered with Vote Tallies in Order to get Donald Trump Elected’

scream-queens-scream

The story deals largely with the fact that party breakdown determines the conspiracy theories people are willing to believe or not. Interestingly enough, when looking at the results, Republicans (in particular, Trump voters) are less likely to believe conspiracy theories than Hillary voters. For example, the ‘Pizzagate’ conspiracy that said leaked emails from the Clinton campaign talked about a pedophilia ring run out of pizza parlor, shows 46% of Trump voters believe it but 53% do not.

panic-betty

Bitter Clinton voters are more easily persuaded, however, especially when it comes to the belief the Russians hacked our voting systems to help Trump:

Trump voters and Clinton voters also look differently at two Election Day conspiracy theories: that Russia actually hacked the votes to change the election results, and that there were, as Donald Trump suggested, there were “millions of people who voted illegally.”

Half of Clinton’s voters think Russia even hacked the Election Day votes (only 9% of Trump voters give that any credibility at all). Six in ten Trump voters believe there were millions of illegal votes cast on election day. Read the rest of this entry »


Russian Hacking: Was it a Proportional Response? Retaliation for State Deptment Sponsorship of Anti-Putin Protests in Europe?

Did Vladimir Putin specifically target Hillary Clinton through a Russian email hack? Or was she a convenient target for a greater goal? AEI Resident Scholar Leon Aron explains.

Putin-Breaking-Bad


Through the Looking Glass

ft-trump

CIA says Moscow’s efforts specifically intended to hurt Clinton’s election prospects.

Donald Trump has rejected the assessment of the US intelligence community that alleged hacking by Russia in the months before the election was aimed at helping the property mogul beat his rival Hillary Clinton.

“These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction,” the Trump transition team said after the Washington Post reported that the CIA had concluded that Russia tried to sway the race in his favour.

russian-lit-FP

Ahead of the election, the White House accused Russia of interfering with the democratic process. But the Washington Post on Friday said the CIA had concluded that the efforts were specifically intended to hurt Mrs Clinton. The paper said Russia had hacked both the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee but only given information taken from the Democrats to WikiLeaks, which then released it before the election. The RNC had previously denied suggestions that it was hacked.

“It’s pretty clear to me that WikiLeaks was designed to hurt Clinton and it could be us tomorrow.”

Lindsey Graham, Republican senator

Charles Schumer, the New York senator who will become the top Democrat in the Senate in January, on Saturday called for a congressional investigation into the alleged Russian hacking. “That any country could be meddling in our elections should shake both political parties to their core. Senate Democrats will join with our Republican colleagues next year to demand a congressional investigation and hearings to get to the bottom of this,” said Mr Schumer. “It’s imperative that our intelligence community turns over any relevant information so that Congress can conduct a full investigation.”

Democrats, including those who are disappointed that Mrs Clinton lost the election despite winning the popular vote, are frustrated at the lack of scrutiny of events that they believe may have influenced the outcome of what was one of the most bitter elections in modern American history. Read the rest of this entry »


[VIDEO] Krauthammer: ‘Ridiculous’ for Clinton Camp to Attribute Trump’s Election to White Supremacy 

Well, look, every time liberals lose, they accuse the other side of all kinds of isms. That’s been going on for 50 years. At a certain point they run out of steam. You can argue that, yes, there were times when Trump might have allowed sort of going beyond the bounds of what is tolerable in political speech. But to attribute the loss to racism or an appeal to white supremacy I think is ridiculous. She didn’t even show up in Wisconsin. She lost Wisconsin. There were layers and layers of mistakes that she made, and in the end, the reason she lost is she had nothing to say. She was running because it was her turn. There was no way — remember from one of the internal messages that were leaked on WikiLeaks, someone said, “What is our message?” This is from inside the campaign. She would like to blame it on the basket of deplorables. I don’t think that’s going to hold up. Yes, you can launch a criticism of some of the things that were happening on the edges of the campaign. But it does not account for the outcome.

Read more at The Corner 

 

 


Stop Hating White People and Maybe They’ll Vote for You 

It’s either that or the Magical Intersectional Muslim Transwomen Coalition.

Daniel Greenfield writes: After a competitive race between the FBI and sexism, the left decided to blame “white people” for Hillary’s defeat.

Racist white people refused to vote for a white woman who was married to the country’s first black president. Samantha Bee, who enjoyed 15 seconds of fame replacing John Oliver, Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart as the whiny obnoxious lefty id, declared that white people ruined America.

“Spare me the euphemisms. White people made Trump president,” a Washington Postheadline blared. “White people did this. And maybe (hopefully) not my friends — but certainly their cousins, their uncles, and their friends,” a racist Vox writer shrieked.

“White people elected Donald Trump,” Vice bleated. “White people put Trump in office,” Fusion whined.

[Read the full story here, at Frontpage Mag]

Majorities of white people did indeed vote for Donald Trump. Oddly enough the left’s culture war of hating white people has only made them more likely to vote for anyone other than the left.

tumblr_ogyatrdtco1so28u7o1_1280

Funny how that works.

Trump won by boosting margins and turnout among working class white voters. The same group that the left trashes in its tirades about “white people”. When Samantha Bee says that white people ruined America, she isn’t talking about herself or the white hipsters sharing her videos on social media. We all know it means the bad kind of white people who shop at Walmart instead of Whole Foods, who drink Pabst unironically, who don’t listen to TED talks or own their privilege, who didn’t graduate from Amherst or from any college, but who fly American flags, drive pickup trucks and serve in the military.

tumblr_inline_ogy3jblytw1r3uhnd_540

A whole lot of those folks used to vote Democrat. Some kept on voting that way until fairly recently.

But the left grabbed the wheel of the Democrat Party, shoved the white working class out the door and replaced it with a glittery rainbow coalition of illegal aliens, Muslims and transgender activists who lost the White House, Congress, the Supreme Court and all but a handful of state legislatures.

[Read the full text here, at Frontpage Mag]

Forget losing the South. That’s old news. Republicans won Pennsylvania and have the biggest legislative dominance since Eisenhower. Trump came the closest since Nixon to taking Minnesota and Republicans now have a state senate majority. Do we really need to talk about Wisconsin, Ohio or Michigan?

What happened?

White men were racist and sexist. The white men who had voted for Obama but switched to Trump were more sexist than racist. The white women who voted for Trump over Hillary were, in the words of Hillary’s communications director, suffering from “internalized misogyny”.

Or maybe they just didn’t like being hated. Here’s what the left’s social justice politics had to offer them.

tough-white

“White Women Failed Hillary Clinton. They Also Failed Other Women”, “White Women Sent a Terrible Message on Tuesday”,   “Blame White Women for Country’s Failure to Shatter Glass Ceiling” and “White Women Sold Out the Sisterhood and the World”. Maybe even the galaxy and the universe.

The latter article whined that, “Most white women don’t want to be part of an intersectional feminist sisterhood” because they “identify more with white men than they do with black women, Latina women, Muslim women, transwomen” and defected from “the coalition of nonwhite, nonstraight, nonmale voters who were supposed to carry Clinton to a comfortable victory”.

Why would they ever do that?

starbucks

In that intersectional feminist sisterhood, white women occupy the lowest possible rung and are constantly denounced for their privilege. White feminism is a slur. Why didn’t white women want to stick around in the intersectional sisterhood where they can be inferior to Muslim nonstraight transwomen and fight for their right to blow themselves up in the ladies’ room of a Target? Read the rest of this entry »


Sacre Bleu! La Victoire de Donald Trump Envoie la Politique Française Brouiller

france-le-panic

The French say that things often come in threes. After Brexit, a Trump victory in the US, will Marine Le Pen win the French presidential election next May? She is certainly hoping she will be no exception to the rule.

Philip Kyle reports: “Their world is crumbling. Ours is taking shape.” It is with this tweet that MEP Florian Philippot, Marine Le Pen’s right hand man, welcomed Donald Trump’s presidential win. A few minutes earlier, Le Pen, herself, congratulated the President-elect and the “free American people”. Stunned by Trump’s historical win, the eyes of the world turned towards France.

“According to an insider, Le Pen did not believe Trump could win, nor did she believe a few months ago that the Brits would vote to leave the EU. The de-globalisation process which seems to have taken everyone by surprise, herself included, has forced all other candidates across the French political spectrum to review their campaign methods and their political discourse.”

The French say that things often come in threes. After Brexit, a Trump victory in the US, will Marine Le Pen win the French presidential election next May? She is certainly hoping she will be no exception to the rule.

sad-french-clown

The 48-year-old far right leader has been quite discreet since the beginning of the school year. It is part of her strategy: let the conservatives and the socialists fight among themselves, sit back and watch her approval ratings soar while they do so.

“Trump’s victory was too good, however, for Le Pen to stay silent. Tweets, interviews and even an appearance on the Andrew Marr show: the leader of the National Front was keen to capitalise on the triumph of another candidate who, like her, styles himself as an “anti-elite” leader.”

Every poll has, for some months now, consistently shown that Le Pen will qualify for the second round of the presidential election. Most of them even show that she will be ahead of all other candidates after the first round. Le Pen will officially launch her campaign in February, once both the conservative and socialist primaries are over and once she knows who her main competitors are. Before then, there is no need for her to get too involved.

marine_le_penfrench_far-right_party_leader

“Every poll has, for some months now, consistently shown that Le Pen will qualify for the second round of the presidential election. Most of them even show that she will be ahead of all other candidates after the first round.”

Trump’s victory was too good, however, for Le Pen to stay silent. Tweets, interviews and even an appearance on the Andrew Marr show: the leader of the National Front was keen to capitalise on the triumph of another candidate who, like her, styles himself as an “anti-elite” leader.

[Read the full text here, at telegraph.uk]

According to an insider, Le Pen did not believe Trump could win, nor did she believe a few months ago that the Brits would vote to leave the EU. The de-globalisation process which seems to have taken everyone by surprise, herself included, has forced all other candidates across the French political spectrum to review their campaign methods and their political discourse.

This is particularly true of the conservative candidates who will be facing each other in the first round of the primary on Sunday. The contest seems to all come down to one question: who is best equipped to defeat Marine Le Pen next May?
Read the rest of this entry »


Media: ‘We Didn’t Get It. We Still Don’t Get It’

media-panic

It would be too horrible. So, therefore, according to some kind of magical thinking, it couldn’t happen.

imrs-php Margaret Sullivan writes: To put it bluntly, the media missed the story. In the end, a huge number of American voters wanted something different. And although these voters shouted and screamed it, most journalists just weren’t listening. They didn’t get it.

They didn’t get that the huge, enthusiastic crowds at Donald Trump’s rallies would really translate into that many votes. They couldn’t believe that the America they knew could embrace someone who mocked a disabled man, bragged about sexually assaulting women, and spouted misogyny, racism and anti-Semitism.

stildontgetit

Sanctimonious and condescending, this self-serving passage perfectly illustrates  Washington D.C.’s contempt for the American public.

It would be too horrible. So, therefore, according to some kind of magical thinking, it couldn’t happen.

millen-anguish

Journalists — college-educated, urban and, for the most part, liberal — are more likely than ever before to live and work in New York City and Washington, D.C., or on the West Coast. And although we touched down in the big red states for a few days, or interviewed some coal miners or unemployed autoworkers in the Rust Belt, we didn’t take them seriously. Or not seriously enough.

110628_washington_post_ap_605-e1314912828580

And Trump — who called journalists scum and corrupt — alienated us so much that we couldn’t see what was before our eyes. We just kept checking our favorite prognosticating sites and feeling reassured, even though everyone knows that poll results are not votes.

[Read the full story here at The Washington Post]

After all, you never know who’ll show up to vote, especially when votes are being suppressed as never before. And even the most Clinton-leaning prognosticators allowed for some chance of a Trump win.

A taxi passes by in front of The New York Times head office in New York

But no one seemed to believe it in their bones. We would have President Clinton, went the journalistic conventional wisdom, and although she would be flawed, she would be a known quantity. There was a kind of comfort there.

5things.jpg

[MORE – The Federalist]

Make no mistake. This is an epic fail. And although eating crow is never appealing, we’ll be digesting feathers and beaks in the next weeks and months — and maybe years.

The strange thing, of course, is that the media helped to give Trump his chance. Read the rest of this entry »