"The Global Consciousness Project, also known as the EGG Project, is an international multidisciplinary collaboration of scientists, engineers, artists and others continuously collecting data from a global network of physical random number generators located in 65 host sites worldwide. The archive contains over 10 years of random data in parallel sequences of synchronized 200-bit trials every second."
This is simply more damnable icing on the corrupt cake.
The things he says, and the way he says them are purposely ambiguous, so that to even an expert witness in syntax, one would not be able to definitively say that he unquestionably stated a thing certain.
That’s how the mafioso talks. They’re deliberately ambiguous, vague, and speak in riddles and figurative language, such as “I hear you paint houses,” which means “I understand that you’re a hit man and kill people.”
Simply read what he says.
It’s as clear as a bell that he’s being ambiguous. But by the same tone, it’s equally clear what he wants.
“Something bad happened. When the right answer comes out, you’ll be praised.”
-and-
“The people of Georgia are angry, the people of the country are angry. And there’s nothing wrong with saying, you know, that you’ve recalculated. So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have. Because we won the state. So what are we going to do here, folks? I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break. There’s no way I lost Georgia. There’s no way. We won by hundreds of thousands of votes.”
Neal Katyal, a Georgetown law professor who was Acting Solicitor General in the Obama administration, said Trump’s use of language is “the way that people in organized crime rings talk. I’ve heard the extraordinary excerpts that the Washington Post has and, at least based on those excerpts, it sounds like Donald Trump is talking like a mafia boss, and not a particularly smart mafia boss at that. This is the way that people in organized crime rings talk, and you see it there.”
“This is, you know, the heart of what the abuse of power that our founders worried about so much is — it’s, you know, the idea that the government official can use the powers of his office to try and stay in office and try and browbeat other officials that disagree with them.”
“So, one question is whether or not a high crime and misdemeanor was committed, certainly the tape makes it sound like it has. The second is whether or not there has been a criminal offense and the federal code 52 U.S.C. 20511 prohibits a federal official from interfering in a state election process.”
Note: We are reposting (with a new introduction) an article from Nov. 9, 2019, written during hearings on Trump’s conversation with Ukraine’s president, as it appears relevant to this week’s impeachment trial.
“Nothing the President said on January 6th was inciteful, let alone impeachable,” the Republican Party is arguing during former president Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial, “and in fact, President Trump urged supporters to exercise their rights ‘peacefully and patriotically.’”
Of course, Trump did not directly instruct his supporters to attack the Capitol, stop official proceedings and threaten members of Congress until they agreed to keep Trump in power, despite the election results. That is not how he talks. In the past, Trump has said that, “I did not make a statement that, ‘You have to do this or I’m not going to give you A.’ I wouldn’t do that.” We know from former Trump attorney Michael Cohen that Trump does not like to say things explicitly when they might get him into trouble. Instead, he prefers to communicate indirectly.
Cohen has said Trump “doesn’t give orders. He speaks in code. And I understand that code.” That’s the way that Mafiosi speak to each other, to avoid trouble. In my book on the political economy of trust, I discuss the oblique ways in which Sicilian Mafiosi communicate with one another and how this affects trust and distrust among them, building on the work of sociologists such as Diego Gambetta.
Popular culture shows how mobsters communicate in code when they are worried about being overheard by law enforcement, using indirect language to describe their intentions, so as to make it harder to pin responsibility on them. Similarly, Trump very possibly never said explicitly that Ukraine would be frozen out unless it helped discredit Trump’s potential election rival. Sondland’s testimony suggests that Trump tried to get Ukraine to hurt his presidential opponent through intermediaries using careful language that left no doubt what he wanted, but did so in a way that would preserve a crucial minimum of deniability.
Ambiguity makes it difficult to prove intent.
There is a reason why mob bosses prefer ambiguous language: it makes it harder to prove charges against them. The same is plausibly true for Trump. That is especially so when much of the jury (in this case, Republican senators) have strong political reasons to want to find Trump innocent. Trump has made a very successful career out of speaking in code, and ruthlessly throwing subordinates under the bus when they do what he wants them to do but then gets caught. It’s unlikely that he is going to stop any time soon.
Trump Call to Georgia Lead Investigator Reveals New Details
by Cameron McWhirter
Updated March 11, 2021 10:08 am ET
ATLANTA—Then-President Donald Trump urged the chief investigator of the Georgia Secretary of State’s office to Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Thursday, January 7, 2021
U.S. Capitol Police in plain clothes stand behind barricaded doors to the House floor and draw pistols upon Trump 2020 mobsters who violently invaded the U.S. Capitol Building, Wednesday, January 6, 2021 during the Constitutionally-ordered tallying of the states’ certified Electoral College votes.
The shocking events that unfolded yesterday in our nation’s capitol – rioting thugs, marauders, and hooligans who violently overthrew and violently invaded our Nation’s Capitol building complex thereby participating in insurrection after being egged on by their losing candidate, the soon-to-be-former President Trump – are unprecedented. Not since the War of 1812 when British soldiers breached and burned our nation’s capitol has the capitol been invaded. The sad part is, that it was brought about EXCLUSIVELY by a Lying, Lawless and Treasonous American President – Trump – whom the GOP has coddled and cultivated.
Again, yesterday’s domestic terroristic events were brought about exclusively by President Trump, who has consistently falsely asserted that he “won” the 2020 General Election, despite numerous Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Monday, November 9, 2020
America has a NEW President!
Despite efforts by malign internal actors, heads of government agencies, individuals who are domestic enemies of our Constitution and of The People, who abused governmental resources to thwart freedom…
The People have SPOKEN LOUDLY.
Vice President Joe Biden, Official Portrait 2013
Democratic principles, honesty and the rule of law have worked AGAIN.
Our democratic republic is STRONG!!
Liberty is POWERFUL!
Evil is defeated!
Our United States of America has a NEW PRESIDENT-elect!
In response, a longtime friend and colleague wrote “Not for long , the dead people and illegals that spoke will be discredited.”
My friend, the false and malicious things you wrote are not only lies, but they’re old lies – VERY OLD. One would think that you’re stuck in a time warp of some kind.
What concerns me about your outdatedness, is that the truth of what I wrote, that in this election, something happened which has NEVER BEFORE happened, which is individuals who are OFFICIAL AGENTS of the United States Government, as malign actors, abused their high office, and ACTIVELY played roles to DELIBERATELY thwart freedom, and The People’s Right To Vote.
That was done by Postmaster General Louis DeJoy through the United States Postal Service Read the rest of this entry »
And then, there’s Professor Dr. Michael McDonald, PhD, of the University of Florida, who administers the United States Elections Project website which compiles early voting return statistics, and a few days ago found that over 8 million ballots had been cast, eclipsing by a factor of 10 the number of ballots cast in the last presidential election at this point in the cycle. When interviewed by Reuters on October 9, said, “We’ve never seen this many people voting so far ahead of an election. We’ve never seen this many people voting so far ahead of an election. People cast their ballots when they make up their minds, and we know that many people made up their minds long ago and already have a judgment about Trump.”
Today, the Election Project is reporting that voters have cast a total of 18,105,692 ballots in the reporting states – over double the number a few days ago – which at this point, is 13.1% of the total votes counted in the 2016 general election.
Based upon the Early Voting returns from 34 states and the District of Columbia, Professor Dr. McDonald is Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Sunday, September 20, 2020
“I want you to use my words against me:
If there’s a Republican president in 2016,
and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term,
you can say ‘Lindsey Graham said,
‘Let’s let the next President,
whoever it might be,
make that nomination,”
and you could use my words against me,
and you’d be absolutely right.”
– South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, to the Senate Judiciary Committee March, 10, 2016
BACKGROUND: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had earlier died unexpectedly during his sleep while on a hunting trip in Texas on February 3, 2016, thus creating an opening on the nation’s highest court. Within an hour of the national notice of Justice Scalia’s death, Senate Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (KY) had issued a statement to the effect that he would not grant any consideration (floor vote) to any nominee from President Barack Obama.
In that speech, Biden argued that then-President George H.W. Bush should wait until after the November General Election to put forth any nominee to any potential Supreme Court vacancy which might arise during the summer, or if not, should establish a precedent, and nominate a moderate whom would be acceptable to the then-Democrat-controlled Senate.
Republicans later began to refer to that concept as the “Biden rule,” though Biden reiterated that he had always thought that the President and Congress should “work together to overcome partisan differences” when considering judicial nominees.
South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, (R)
Linked above from C-SPAN are South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham’s full remarks (approximately 6 minutes) to the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 10, 2016 on the matter of consideration of SCOTUS nominees in an election year.
In his remarks, he noted that he had voted FOR Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor NOT because he agreed with them ideologically, but because he thought they were qualified.
In those same remarks, he also warned also of an increasing tendency of the Senate toward rancor, like in the House of Representatives, and of ideological partisanship accompanying judicial nominees, some of which COULD in the FUTURE be significantly detrimental to the nation because of a nominee’s unfitness for the bench, and an ideological unwillingness of the controlling party to compromise, or for an unwillingness of dissenting members in the controlling party to vote against an unqualified candidate put forth by the controlling party.
C-SPAN VIDEO DESCRIPTION: The Senate Judiciary Committee held a business meeting on whether to hold a hearing on a Supreme Court justice nomination to replace Justice Antonin Scalia. Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R-IA) said Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Wednesday, September 16, 2020
The mythical Trump voter, the ones who don’t regularly show up to vote at elections, are often cited as the ones who helped put Trump over the top in the 2016 General Election.
Also sometimes also called “secret,” “hidden” or “shy” Trump voters,” they’re often identified demographically as being White, largely middle-to-lower class, with only a high school education, or less.
Before the November 2016 General Election, in March that same year, the Pew Research Center did some investigation on such a matter – the occasional voters, sometimes also known as those individuals who say they voted, but didn’t – long before it was “a thing.” Here’s what they found: “16% of those who say they “definitely voted” in the 2014 midterm election have no record of voting in commercially available national voter files.”
Their work was definitely cut out for them, because as they acknowledged, “while the presence of a record of voting almost certainly means that a person voted, the absence of a record doesn’t necessarily mean they did not.” In other words, a person could be registered to vote, but for one reason or another, they may not have exercised their right to vote, or, a record of their participation in the election is not available. In election parlance, that’s called a voting mismatch – the uncertainty of knowing whether someone registered to vote did, or did not vote.
“Respondents who say they turned out to vote in a particular election is often far greater than the proportion of the population who turned out according to official turnout tallies,” and “one-size-does-not-fit-all when it comes to the best way to validate registration and turnout across U.S. states.”
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Wednesday, March 11, 2020
Ed. note: This entry was written shortly after HRC made her remarks, found transcribed herein, but remained unpublished. As of publication today, Wednesday, 11 March 2020, Tulsi Gabbard remains a candidate to be the Democratic Party’s Presidential Nominee, though her viability as a candidate is practically non-existent, while Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders are the two major candidates remaining in the race.
Tulsi Gabbard, Official Portrait
In the recent edition of the podcast “Campaign HQ with David Plouffe,” (Google podcast link) the former 2008 Obama campaign adviser interviewed Hillary Clinton on a wide range of topics, primarily about strategy and tactics that Trump and Republicans will most likely use in an attempt to defeat the 2020 Democratic party presidential nominee.
In the hour-long, often-rambling podcast, guest Hillary Rodham Clinton, whom was the 2016 Democratic nominee for POTUS, a former U.S. Secretary of State, and a former United States Senator from New York, obliquely and surreptitiously accused Tulsi Gabbard, a current Major in the Hawaii Army National Guard, current Hawaii U.S. Representative (D-CD2), and Iraq War Veteran, of being a “Russian asset.”
The shocking incredulity which Hillary accuses a fellow Democrat of being – an open traitor to our nation, not merely a “faithless” candidate – could possibly be taken seriously, if not at face value – but for at least two things:
Tulsi Gabbard, Promotion to Major
1.) Tulsi Gabbard is a Major in the Hawaii National Guard, and as such, has sworn an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same…”;
2.) Tulsi Gabbard is an Iraq War Veteran, and;
3.) Tulsi Gabbard is a current Representative for Hawaii’s 2nd Congressional District, and in that capacity has similarly sworn an oath of fealty – fidelity to and support of the Constitution.
If what Hillary surreptitiously claimed, suggested, or intimated (she did not mention Rep. Gabbard by name) were true (which it is not), Tulsi would be an open traitor – and she is not.
The seriousness of such charges are not to be taken lightly, which is also why, in large part, that they’re incredulous. Hillary’s claims are not even specious, they are fully unjustified, and wholly unwarranted. And so, they should not, and cannot be taken seriously.
Most American journalistic and media outlets have hardly taken notice, save for a nominal categorical mention on Twitter, and a CBS Evening News report by Norah O’Donnell, and one, or two other stories, including Fox News Tucker Carlson’s brief interview with Tulsi Gabbard about the ordeal shortly after it came to light.
Even Chuck Todd, the marshmallow-soft replacement for the late, take-no-prisoners attorney/host Tim Russert on NBC’s once-revered Sunday newsmaker program Meet the Press, only had a passing interaction on the subject with South Bend, Indiana “Mayor Pete” Buttegieg, who is also a Navy Iraq War Veteran and Democratic candidate to be the party’s Presidential Nominee. Their brief exchange follows:
CHUCKTODD: Before I let you go, I was curious if you had any reaction to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton implying that Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard might be a Russian asset.
MAYORPETEBUTTIGIEG: What I’ll say is, I’m not going to get into their dispute. What I will say is we know right now –
TODD: Is that appropriate?
BUTTIGIEG: Well, I suppose when you become a private citizen you can say whatever you want. But…
TODD: I understand that, but she’s a sitting member of Congress. She served.
BUTTIGIEG: Well, I certainly honor her service. As we saw in the debate, I also have strong disagreements with her on topics like Syria. But the bigger issue here is Russia is working to interfere with our elections right now. And we know a big part of how they’re going to do it is exploiting divisions among the American people, with their information operations. We’ve got to become a harder target and as president, I will make sure using all of our tools, diplomatic, economic, and security there is enough deterrence that Russia, or any country, would never again calculate that it is in their interest to mess with our democracy.
TODD: I just wonder if you are comfortable at all – I mean, throw a charge out there making her deny it. That’s a Trumpian move.
BUTTIGIEG: Well, we got to focus on the task at hand right now. And that includes making sure that this presidency comes to an end. That is my focus. That, and what happens after this presidency comes to an end.
TODD: So, you’re comfortable with Hillary Clinton’s critique of Tulsi Gabbard and how she went about it?
BUTTIGIEG: No, I’m not. I’m also not getting in the middle of it because we as a party and as a country have to focus on the future.
NBC’s Chuck Todd was asking “Mayor Pete” Buttegieg about the exchange with David Plouffe and Hillary Clinton in which she spoke about the possibility of another unexpected potential outcome like 2016 (in which the Vladimir Putin-run Russian government significantly meddled online using false narratives and “bots” to alter the outcome according to their wants, thereby getting Donald Trump elected), and the likelihood of Trump’s re-election in conjunction with the possible strategy and tactics they’ll use against the Democratic nomine.
The pertinent part comes about 35 minutes into the one-hour interview. After her controversial remarks, the podcast took a break. In context, and in pertinent part, she said the following: Read the rest of this entry »
Good, bad, or indifferent, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
Like him, love him, or loathe him… this is the beginning of the end of Biden.
Republicans are preparing to burn their crosses in Biden’s political front yard in retribution for Trump’s impeachment.
It makes no difference if their investigation into Biden, Biden & Burisma is based upon illegitimate and disproven false claims, because they will pillory, draw, and quarter Joe Biden until the only thing remaining of him are his his bloody political entrails which will be strewn from coast-to-coast.
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Friday, March 6, 2020
Bernie should announce that he’s choosing Warren for his VP running mate.
U.S. Senators Bernie Sanders (VT-I), and Elizabeth Warren (MA-D).
Ideologically, they’re 2 peas in a pod. Her supporters would (or, at least should) DEFINITELY support Bernie, even since she is no longer running, and would most assuredly pitch in if he named her as his VP choice.
However… the VP is a politically dead-end job, since in the history of our nation, aside from succession, ONLY 5 VPs have ever been elected in their own right.
Only 13 former Vice Presidents have ever been POTUS, who all arrived in office either through succession, or through election apart from succession.
“To date,
16 Senators have also served as
President of the United States.
Three Senators,
Warren G. Harding, John F. Kennedy, and Barack Obama moved directly from the U.S. Senate
to the White House.”
That’s 16/45, or 35.5%, of all POTUSes who were ever a Senator.
And 3/16, or 18.75%, were elected as POTUS directly from the Senate.
Historically, and statistically, it doesn’t look good for Biden.
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Friday, February 28, 2020
Crooked Hillary…
Everyone who pays attention to the news – especially political news – has heard the phrase uttered by the Current White House Occupant, sometimes also known as POS45. There’s even a Wikipedia page of the nicknames he gives folks.
Que sera, sera… eh?
Nevertheless, recall the 2016 General Election?
Why, of course you do!
Who could forget it, right?
I mean, it was a choice between “the devil you know, and the devil you don’t know.” Either way, it was a devil. But at least with one, you could half-way predict what that devil might, could, or possibly would do.
Not so with the other devil.
Or, put another way, a known quantity versus an unknown quantity.
And, time has proven it to be the case.
But for all the investigations which have been launched against her, or about her, and her dealings, nothing has stuck. So maybe she’s the “Teflon Don,” rather than her husband “Blowjob Bill,” eh?
And, perhaps you may recall how she later revealed in her book, an excerpt of which was made into a Politico article, what she’d found when she was briefly DNC chair, specifically, how a back-room deal was struck between Hillary and the DNC a year before the 2016 election campaign season began.
“I had promised Bernie when I took the helm of the Democratic National Committee after the convention that I would get to the bottom of whether Hillary Clinton’s team had rigged the nomination process, as a cache of emails stolen by Russian hackers and posted online had suggested. I’d had my suspicions from the moment I walked in the door of the DNC a month or so earlier, based on the leaked emails. But who knew if some of them might have been forged? I needed to have solid proof, and so did Bernie.
“So I followed the money. My predecessor, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had not been the most active chair in fundraising at a time when President Barack Obama’s neglect had left the party in significant debt. As Hillary’s campaign gained momentum, she resolved the party’s debt and put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its operations.”
Focus upon that last sentence – “It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its operations.”
“…for which she expected to wield control of its operations.”
That, my friends, is a classic example of a quid pro quo – giving one thing of value in exchange for another thing of value. Legally defined as a type of valid contract, the quid pro quo is not an illegal act in and of itself, per se, and must be considered within context to determine if it was an illegal act, or not.
There’s little-to-no question that it was unethical, at the very least, and certainly hasn’t reflected positively on the party, nor upon Hillary.
But how did it get to that point?
After the convention, Ms Brazile called Gary Gensler, Chief Financial Officer of Hillary’s campaign, who told her that the Democratic Party was broke and $2 million in debt.
Stewardship of the party’s finances was in shambles, to say the least, and it was due in significant part, or so she claims, from her predecessor Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, a Representative from Florida’s 20th Congressional District.
Ms. Wasserman-Schultz, as you may recall, also later resigned as DNC Chair after a tranche of WikiLeaks emails showed she had given significant help to Hillary during her Presidential campaign, rather than remain a supportive, yet independent observer. So perhaps it was for the best, anyway.
Not everyone in the party had been happy with her at the helm, either. Lis Smith, a longtime campaign operative, former Communications Director, and former Deputy Campaign Director for candidates like Martin O’Malley, Bill de Blasio, Claire McCaskill, and Barack Obama, said of Wasserman-Schultz’ resignation that, “Her resignation is good news for Democrats, and great news for anyone who believes the DNC needs wholesale reform. Hopefully we can all learn from her little experiment this past primary season and never repeat it as a party.”
Senator Sanders was more diplomatically circumspect in his remarks, saying that, “While she deserves thanks for her years of service, the party now needs new leadership that will open the doors of the party and welcome in working people and young people. The party leadership must also always remain impartial in the presidential nominating process, something which did not occur in the 2016 race.”
But, back to the story at hand.
Ms. Brazile wrote that while she was interim DNC Chair that, “I wanted to believe Hillary, who made campaign finance reform part of her platform, but I had made this pledge to Bernie and did not want to disappoint him.” But in her search for the “smoking gun,” after diligent efforts, speaking with numerous party lawyers and officials who feigned knowledge or responsibility, she continually came up empty-handed… until later. She wrote:
“When I got back from a vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, I at last found the document that described it all: the Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America.
“The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook [Hillary’s Campaign Manager] with a copy to Marc Elias [General Counsel for Hillary’s campaign]—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.”
She wrote that while she was the interim DNC Chair, she experienced some unusual events, which at the time, seemed nothing more than purely odd, if not curious, but certainly not suspicious, nor even eyebrow-raising. One of those trifling matters was that, as chair of the party, she was hamstrung from doing anything the party chair would have normally done, such as write press releases, unless Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Tuesday, February 11, 2020
Should you want what your enemy wants for you?
That’s essentially the question that many should be asking themselves.
Our enemies, America’s enemies, the enemies of freedom, desire our destruction.
That’s a given.
Knowing that they desire to see America destroyed, they all have various tactics and strategies which they hope will accelerate, and prove successful in their effort to destroy America.
Should America do what our enemies want us to do?
Should America cower and coalesce to them?
Or, perhaps, should America stand firm in the beliefs and practices which made us strong?
The answer, I think, is obvious.
We should stand firm in the in the beliefs and practices which made us strong.
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Thursday, March 2, 2017
There is clear, unambiguous evidence that “Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations.”
A header appears upon EVERY page and states: “This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment; its conclusions are identical to those in the highly classified assessment but this version does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign.”
Several “Key Judgments” are made in the report issued by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence which is dated 6 January 2017.
Among them: We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President elect-Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.
• We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.
• Moscow’s approach evolved over the course of the campaign based on Russia’s understanding of the electoral prospects of the two main candidates. When it appeared to Moscow that Secretary Clinton was likely to win the election, the Russian influence campaign began to focus more on undermining her future presidency.
• Further information has come to light since Election Day that, when combined with Russian behavior since early November 2016, increases our confidence in our assessments of Russian motivations and goals.
Moscow’s influence campaign followed a Russian messaging strategy that blends covert intelligence operations — such as cyber activity — with overt efforts by Russian Government agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social media users or “trolls.” Russia, like its Soviet predecessor, has a history of conducting covert influence campaigns focused on US presidential elections that have used intelligence officers and agents and press placements to disparage candidates perceived as hostile to the Kremlin.
• Russia’s intelligence services conducted cyber operations against targets associated with the 2016 US presidential election, including targets associated with both major US political parties.
• We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks.
• Russian intelligence obtained and maintained access to elements of multiple US state or local electoral boards. DHS assess es that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying.
• Russia’s state-run propaganda machine contributed to the influence campaign by serving as a platform for Kremlin messaging to Russian and international audiences.
We assess Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the US presidential election to future influence efforts worldwide, including against US allies and their election processes.
—//—
Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking
President Obama in December. Some in his administration feared that intelligence about Russian interference in the 2016 election could be covered up or destroyed. Credit Al Drago/The New York Times
By MATTHEW ROSENBERG, ADAM GOLDMAN and MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT
MARCH 1, 2017
WASHINGTON — In the Obama administration’s last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government. Former American officials say they had two aims: to ensure that such meddling isn’t duplicated in future American or European elections, and to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators.
American allies, including the British and the Dutch, had provided information describing meetings in European cities between Russian officials — and others close to Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — and associates of President-elect Trump, according to three former American officials who requested anonymity in discussing classified intelligence. Separately, American intelligence agencies had intercepted communications of Russian officials, some of them within the Kremlin, discussing contacts with Trump associates.
Then and now, Mr. Trump has denied that his campaign had any contact with Russian officials, and at one point he openly suggested that American spy agencies had cooked up intelligence suggesting that the Russian government had tried to meddle in the presidential election. Mr. Trump has accused the Obama administration of hyping the Russia story line as a way to discredit his new administration.
At the Obama White House, Mr. Trump’s statements stoked fears among some that intelligence could be covered up or destroyed — or its sources exposed — once power changed hands. What followed was a push to preserve the intelligence that underscored the deep anxiety with which the White House and American intelligence agencies had come to view the threat from Moscow.
It also reflected the suspicion among many in the Obama White House that the Trump campaign might have colluded with Russia on election email hacks — a suspicion that American officials say has not been confirmed. Former senior Obama administration officials said that none of the efforts were directed by Mr. Obama.
President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia. Credit Alexei Nikolsky/Sputnik
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Sunday, November 13, 2016
November 12, 2016
Day 4: The shit’s starting to hit the fam… er, fan
Donald Trump, the GOP Presidential nominee who appears to have won the 2016 General Election, has reportedly made remarks that he might not, after all, as he proclaimed in his “Contract with the American Voter” that he would “5.) Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act. Fully repeals Obamacare and replaces it with Health Savings Accounts, the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines…”
Strike One:
According to his first post-election interview, which was exclusive to the Wall Street Journal, “President-elect Donald Trump said he would consider leaving in place certain parts of the Affordable Care Act,” and that “Mr. Trump said he favors keeping the prohibition against insurers denying coverage because of patients’ existing conditions, and a provision that allows parents to provide years of additional coverage for children [up to age 26] on their insurance policies.”
President-elect Donald Trump leaves a meeting with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), at the U.S. Capitol November 10, 2016 in Washington, DC Zach Gibson/Getty Images
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Tuesday, October 18, 2016
By many accounts, the 2016 Presidential Election year is a complete campaign in the ass. Two deeply flawed candidates manipulated and exposed deeply flawed processes in both major political parties, not the least of which is for the GOP, how to vet their candidates more thoroughly, and have the ability to remove them from official party candidacy, and for the Democrats, how to maintain candidate neutrality, and prevent party officials from influencing candidates of the top officials’ choosing toward nomination. I predict many much-needed changes on the horizon for both parties… following the November General Election.
WARNING: This is a long post. It is also my final political post before the election.
I am not an editorial writer but today I am going to play one on Facebook. First, let me say, everyone is welcome to comment; however, if your comment uses foul language or is abusive to anyone else, your comment will be deleted. One of the great problems we have today is our lack of ability to disagree and still have civil discourse; therefore, we will practice it or be censured. Keep in mind, this is my opinion and you do not have to agree with it. Thank your First Amendment rights for that.
By now, we all know this presidential election cycle has presented us with the two poorest candidates in memory, perhaps in all of American history. Certainly there have been poor candidates running for one party or the other throughout our history but not facing one another in the same election.
They have turned the presidential debates into bad Saturday Night Live skits. In fact, I doubt the writers of SNL would have been able to dream up anything this hideous. The American political scene will never be the same and Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Monday, October 3, 2016
Someone opined that they hoped the 2016 GOP Presidential nominee would be elected.
I couldn’t disagree more.
Here’s why:
As we have suffered, never before has there been a more grotesque figure campaigning for the noble office of the President.
The candidate has never served in an office of Public Trust, nor ever served in any Elected Office. There is literally no shred of evidence of governing competency, much less experience, in any Public Office, and though our Constitution states that the minimum eligibility requirements for the office are to be “a citizen of the United States… the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States,” we have never elected an individual as President whom has never served in any capacity of Public Trust, nor Elected Office.
And so, in that regard, the candidate is a significantly Unknown Quantity. That can be, and often is, fraught with enormous peril.
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Wednesday, September 14, 2016
There are NO GOOD choices in this General Election.
We have: The Devil We Know vs The Devil We Don’t Know.
We also have: Choosing the lesser of two evils is still a choice FOR evil.
Granted, someone WILL be elected, and granted further, s/he won’t be liked by those whom didn’t vote for the winner.
The two major party’s candidates are almost universally disliked within and without the parties. And that is a very sad state of affairs. It is, in large part, why there was such enormous support for Bernie Sanders… who is the opposite side of the same coin as Trump.
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Friday, July 24, 2015
There are numerous reasons, actually.
Here are a few:
He has an excellent political background/pedigree/experience.
• In 1978, aged 26 he was elected to the Ohio State Senate’s 15th Senatorial District, and remains OH’s youngest ever elected state senator
• In 1982, he was elected to the US House of Representatives 12th Ohio District, where he served from ’83-2001 (was re-elected 8 times) by at least 64% each time
• In 2010, he was elected governor, and in 2014 re-elected in a landslide, carrying all but 2 counties (86/88) – including the traditionally Democratic-leaning Hamilton county, where Cincinnati is located
Ohio Governor John Kasich (2010 & 2014)
He has done quite well by Ohio voters.
• His approval rating (always fluctuating for any elected figure) among Ohioans, has been as much as 77%.
• He expanded Medicaid in Ohio (which reduces uncompensated care & increases hospitals’ solvency)
• He saved $3Billion in the Medicaid budget, and slowed growth in the plan from 9%-3%, the lowest rate nationally
• He used cost-saving reforms & turned a $6-8 Billion Ohio budget shortfall into a balanced budget without raising taxes
• During his first term as governor, he grew the “Rainy Day Fund” (surplus) from $890M-1.5B
• In his first budget, he implemented a Personal Income Tax cut
• In his second budget, he implemented a 10% Personal Income Tax cut, and a 50% Small Business Income Tax cut
• During his first term as governor, he created 316,800 new jobs, and the state Unemployment Rate fell from 9.4% to 5.1%
• Education funding is at the highest level it’s ever been
• Because of Criminal Justice reforms, Ohio’s recidivism rate (reoffending) of prisoners is the lowest in the nation
• He has vigorously worked Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Tuesday, August 5, 2014
Alabama is a deeply “red” state (some say “redneck,” which may also be accurate), which is to say, that the state has historically voted Republican for the past several years; all of the state’s top office holders are Republicans, and both houses of the legislature are similarly controlled by Republicans.
The website 270ToWin.com had this remark about the state’s political alignment: “Alabama became a GOP stronghold starting in 1964, voting for Democrats only in 1968 and 1976 (for native son George Wallace and Jimmy Carter, respectively). The initial shift was largely in response to white conservative voter uneasiness with the civil rights legislation that was passed in the mid-1960s, which was effectively exploited by the Republicans’ “Southern Strategy.” In 2012, Mitt Romney beat Barack Obama by about 22%, almost identical to John McCain‘s margin of victory in 2008.”
Frankly, the Democratic party in Alabama has been virtually decimated, and there are very few candidates identifying themselves with the party. Many state office-holders are running unopposed, including other Federal seats, including incumbent United States Senator Jeff Sessions.
Taking a clue from the George Wallace playbook (Wallace was a STRONG and almost constant campaigner), there are 67 reasons why I wouldn’t give Parker Griffith a strong chance at winning the governorship.
“This is, you know, the heart of what the abuse of power that our founders worried about so much is — it’s, you know, the idea that the government official can use the powers of his office to try and stay in office and try and browbeat other officials that disagree with them.”
Warm Southern Breeze 