Monitoring Biden and other Contemporary Events

My best new word for the week:

Mephitic

@snood,

That word stinks!

0 Replies

@hightor,

When did President Obama learn of Hillary Clinton’s “homebrew” e-mail server, through which she funneled even the most sensitive electronic correspondence as secretary of state? “At the same time everybody else learned it through news reports,” the president said in March 2015. According to newly released private e-mails among Clinton advisors, that was not true.

“Looks like POTUS just said he found out HRC was using her personal e-mail when he saw it in the news,” wrote Hillary Clinton for America spokesman Josh Schwerin upon learning of Obama’s contention.

“We need to clean this up,” replied Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s former chief of staff at the State Department. “He has e-mails from her — they do not say state.gov.”

Indeed. As we learned last month, Barack Obama used a pseudonym in e-mail communications directly with Hillary Clinton. “How is this not classified,” remarked Huma Abedin when confronted with e-mails investigators believed were Obama’s pseudonymous communications with Clinton, according to a report released by the FBI.

The revelation that the Clinton campaign was shocked by Obama’s claim he did not know about Clinton’s server seems to have spooked the White House, too. Press Secretary Josh Earnest immediately went to work cleaning up the president’s remarks.

“The president, as I think many people expected, did over the course of his first several years in office trade e-mails with his secretary of state,” Earnest said last March. “The point that the president was making is not that he didn’t know Secretary Clinton’s e-mail address. He did. But he was not aware of the details of how that e-mail address and that server had been set up or how Secretary Clinton and her team were planning to comply with the Federal Records Act.”

Circumstantially, this is all starting to look pretty damning. The president’s initial reaction was to make a misleading remark about what he knew regarding Clinton’s e-mail server because, per the White House and now the Clinton campaign, he did know of it.

Furthermore, the president or his staff went to great lengths to make sure Barack Obama’s name did not appear in any of those e-mails in which he corresponded with Clinton on her unsecured e-mail server.

Even Hillary Clinton’s own running mate could not bring himself to state on the record that the president was entirely honest when he told CBS News in March 2015 that he first heard about Clinton’s illicit server from press reports.

The president so routinely appeals to ignorance when asked about damaging news involving his administration that it’s become a cliché.

Obama claimed he was caught unawares by the scandals involving gun-walking into Mexico, the NSA’s spying on foreign leaders, Gen. David Petraeus’ leak of sensitive information to the woman with whom he was having an affair, the IRS scandal, the Veterans Affairs scandal and the Justice Department’s monitoring of journalists, among others.

Barack Obama leaves office in just under three months, and there is little to no appetite among either the press or congressional Republicans for examining his record of dissimulations in office. Hillary Clinton’s trials are only just beginning.

Pessimistic conservatives who have assured themselves Donald Trump will be setting the party’s agenda from a cable news studio for the foreseeable future place an undue amount of faith in the media’s ability to set the agenda in an off year. If, as it appears likely, the House Republicans will retain their majority, House committees will be tasked with reviewing legislation and investigating the revelations in these e-mails.

Trump isn’t going away in November, but nor is he going to be dictating the Republican Party’s priorities. The House GOP, presumably still led by Paul Ryan, will.

Clinton and her allies will want to move on from these damning election-year revelations when she gets into office. They will surely deploy the preferred Clintonian tactic of calling shocking and new revelations regarding past events “old news.”

But the fact that so much of this has been under-examined as Donald Trump’s noise machine has filled the air will ensure that most of the public still finds these revelations worthy of serious investigation even after Nov. 8. It won’t be old news to them. And Donald Trump won’t be around to change the subject anymore.

Noah Rothman is assistant online editor of Commentary.

3 Replies

@Builder,

You're getting really sleepy, Builder, you can barely keep your eyes open. You just had enough life left in you to dig up some dumb story from six years ago, and as usual, one which doesn't even confirm your allegations.

No one cares about that crap anymore and only idiots did when it was current.

FAIL.

0 Replies

Quote:

Just a week ago, a judge ordered the release of the affidavit on which the FBI applied for a search warrant for Mar-a-Lago. That document revealed that Trump had taken highly classified documents from the government and held them in insecure locations. That document was horrifying, but it referred only to documents the government had already recovered, not the ones for which it would go on to search for on August 8.

Today the unsealing of a court filing revealed that the August 8 search turned up more than 11,000 documents or photographs that were not classified, 31 documents marked CONFIDENTIAL, 54 marked SECRET, and 18 marked TOP SECRET. In addition, agents found 48 empty folders marked CLASSIFIED, and 42 empty folders marked to be returned to a military aide. Those documents were not filed with the envelopes.

This story is unprecedented and explosive. As Sue Gordon, who was principal deputy director of national intelligence from 2017 to 2019, told MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace yesterday, in addition to the potential for exposing national secrets, the exposure of the networks and techniques that were in those documents could unravel intelligence networks that took decades to build.

The implications for the destruction of our national security at Trump’s hands are enormous.

And yet, after President Joe Biden’s speech last night saying that “Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic,” Republicans have rushed to attack Biden as divisive, hateful, or disparaging of half the country, claiming far more support than they have. Biden offered them an off-ramp from this profound scandal, inviting them to stand on the side of defending democracy, and they refused it.

They have tied themselves to what looks like it is on the way to becoming the biggest attack on our national security in our history, but it is not clear to me that even remaining Republican voters will be okay with the compromise of our national security. National security used to be very important to Republicans.

Trump’s attorney general Bill Barr seemed today to be trying to get whatever is left of the Republican establishment to abandon the former president. He told two different Fox News Channel programs: “I…think for them to have taken things to the current point, they probably have pretty good evidence…. I think the driver on this from the beginning was…loads of classified information sitting in Mar-a-Lago. People say this was unprecedented, well it’s also unprecedented for a president to take all this classified information and put them in a country club.”

“I can’t think of a legitimate reason why they…could be taken…away from the government if they’re classified.” He added that he was “skeptical” that Trump had declassified the documents. “I think it’s highly improbable, [and]...if in fact he sort of stood over scores of boxes, not really knowing what was in them, and said ‘I hereby declassify everything in here,’ that would be such an abuse and…shows such recklessness it’s almost worse than taking the documents.”

Among all the Republican backlash over Biden’s speech, today, veteran CNN White House reporter John Harwood said:

“The core point he made in that political speech about a threat to democracy is true.

“Now, that’s something that’s not easy for us, as journalists, to say. We’re brought up to believe there’s two different political parties with different points of view and we don’t take sides in honest disagreements between them. But that’s not what we’re talking about. These are not honest disagreements. The Republican Party right now is led by a dishonest demagogue.

“Many, many Republicans are rallying behind his lies about the 2020 election and other things as well. And a significant portion—or a sufficient portion—of the constituency that they’re leading attacked the Capitol on January 6th. Violently.

“By offering pardons or suggesting pardons for those people who violently attacked the Capitol, which you’ve been pointing out numerous times this morning, Donald Trump made Joe Biden’s point for him.”

Shortly afterward, Harwood announced he was no longer with CNN.

A source told Dan Froomkin of Press Watch that Harwood had been told last month he was being let go, despite his long-term contract, and that he used his last broadcast to send a message.

hcr

2 Replies

@hightor,

That part about MSNBC letting Harwood go “in spite of his long-term contract” is confusing to me.

Or, I guess maybe I’m confused about just what exactly having a contract with a megabucks company like MSNBC means.

I’ve been thinking the whole purpose of two parties entering contracts was to bind them into certain actions, and bind them from certain actions. Like, the employee can’t use illicit drugs. And the employer can’t fire you without compelling reason.

1 Reply

@snood,

Here's the Fox News take on it – yes, there are better sources of information but I think their take on it is probably widespread. Bezos at the WP, Warner at CNN, etc – I miss an independent press.

CNN shakeup: From MSNBC hosts to White House, liberals furious over John Harwood's exit

CNN viewers believe Harwood was ‘a second public sacrifice’ on the heels of Brian Stelter's exit

Quote:

Liberal viewers are peeved that CNN White House correspondent John Harwood is leaving the network, openly mourning the outspokenly left-leaning journalist.

Harwood’s departure comes as CNN’s new management continues to shake things up in an attempt to "tamp down spectacle" and make the network less polarizing. Last month, CNN dropped left-wing media host Brian Stelter, who regularly insisted he was a non-partisan journalist despite a long history of bashing conservatives and pushing liberal talking points.

When some liberals grumbled about Stelter’s exit and praised him as a truth-teller standing up to so-called bothsidesism, others felt the response proved he simply provided "anti-conservative porn for the left." Harwood’s exit is conjuring up a similar response, as he often took on the role of a liberal pundit despite his correspondent title, blasting former President Trump and Republicans.

New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen believes Harwood is the "second public sacrifice" from CNN's parent company, Warner Bros. Discovery.

"Pending any other explanation, this looks to be a second public sacrifice and warning to the CNN staff, after Stelter's," Rosen wrote.

"Left Anchor" podcast host Ryan Cooper asked, "So John got sacked for forthrightly stating what the Trump movement is, do I have that right?"

MSNBC's Mehdi Hasan wasn't thrilled Harwood won't be around to bash "GOP extremism and threats to democracy" any longer.

"This is not good," Hasan wrote. "John was one of the best political reporters at CNN and, I should note, regularly called out GOP extremism and threats to democracy, including last night and today."

White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain retweeted a message in support of Harwood, a sign the Biden administration isn’t pleased with his exit.

"This is very sad. @JohnJHarwood represents the best of journalism, besides being a terrific person," left-leaning scholar Norman Ornstein wrote in the message shared by Klain.

Washington Post blogger Greg Sargent called it a "huge loss" for CNN and wrote that Harwood "was an unflinching critic of Trump and the GOP, especially their slide into authoritarianism, a rarity in the MM [mainstream media]."

Attorney Marc Elias, who once served as Hillary Clinton's general counsel, is also a fan of the now-former CNN reporter.

"If this is a sign of the new CNN, it is in real trouble. John was one of the most incisive voices on the network. I look forward to seeing where he lands next," Elias wrote.

MSNBC’s David Corn praised Harwood for his constant Trump bashing.
CNN CEO Chris Licht has put his stamp on the network in his first year.

"Tremendous loss for CNN—and the nation. He had told the truth about Trump’s war on democracy," Corn wrote. "And CNN didn’t want that?"

HuffPost reporter Jonathan Cohn added, "I read @JohnJHarwood religiously and plan to continue doing so at whatever outlet is smart enough to grab him."

Tim Fullerton, a former digital staffer for Barack Obama, called Harwood "one of the best."

"He's one of the reporters who truly gets the moment we are in. Excited to see where he goes next. I'll be following," Fullerton wrote.

Controversial 1619 Project creator Nikole Hannah-Jones asked "what is CNN doing" in response to the news.

Harwood’s last appearance on CNN came Friday morning when he blasted Trump as a "dishonest demagogue" while praising President Biden's Thursday speech on Republican threats to democracy.

"We’re brought up to believe there’s two different political parties with different points of views, and we don’t take sides in honest disagreements between them," he said of journalists. "But that’s not what we’re talking about. These are not honest disagreements; the Republican Party right now is led by a dishonest demagogue."

source

1 Reply

@hightor,

All those takes about the different motives for releasing Stelter and Harwood are certainly interesting.

I was simply wondering about the legality of firing someone with whom the company had a long term contract,

1 Reply

@snood,

You're right, I haven't seen that question addressed. Do they (the employers) have to pay some kind of settlement? Or accuse the employee of violating the terms? People usually avoid breaking contracts because it reflects badly on credibility. What reporter would sign a multi year, multi million dollar contract with a firm that does this?

0 Replies

@hightor,

To be honest, I don't think Biden's broad condemnation of republicans, while true, (kind of like Hillary's "deplorable" comment was very true) will go down well with more moderate and independents. I mean, Biden already has folks like us who are more political with a decided political side so to speak. It gives Fox News and the like ammunition to paint those of us who have common sense who has watched the events and changes republican leaders and governors and the like have been making since really the 1/6 riot against the capital unfold, to be as nasty and divisive as Trump used to be towards the "left" and all other folks other than those like themselves.

Obama wouldn't have made a mistake like that, in my own opinion, but he would have gotten the point across nonetheless.

I had a hard time coming up with the words to adequately explain what I meant, not sure if I can, but I think the speech ended up stressing a "us and them" point of view which I think will go down as well as the "deplorable" description. Hopefully not as much as I am making out.

1 Reply

@revelette1,

Biden does have a pugnacious side. But don't you think he drew enough distinction between the traditional Republicans and the MAGAtards?

1 Reply

@Builder,

more of your usual qanon bullshit.

0 Replies

@Builder,

cut the bullshit.

0 Replies

@hightor,

The media and the public haven't seemed to be too good at discerning distinctions. I need to re-read his speech, but I am not sure if he did. I'll get back to that. However, even if he did, one of the things we didn't like about Trump (among a thousand and one) was he was a president only for those only on his side.

For example, from what I know, which is kind of limited. When you are preaching in a church, if you just go painting everyone as sinners who should all be straight up sent to hell, you won't be able to guide those who are listening to change their way of life very well. In other words, even Trumpers might be capable of seeing that the path they are taking is a dark and dangerous one which threatens all the country has stood for since the progress of the civil rights and all those good things of which we used to be so proud of.

2 Replies

@revelette1,

I've said this on other threads, but here seems as good a as any.

Putting the existence of God/gods to one side, they can be divided into tow groups.

There are those who look at what unites us, they try to reach out across cultures and beliefs.

Then there are those who do the exact opposite, divide people up into sheep and goats, us and them.

It's not just the theists who do this, there are plenty of sneering atheists who treat other people as if they're stupid for believing in something.

At its extreme you have cult leaders, what cults need more than anything else are enemies and lots of them.

That way you can convince them of the need to stick with the cult, the world is a dangerous place, it's the only way to stay safe.

0 Replies

@revelette1,

revelette1 wrote:

The media and the public haven't seemed to be too good at discerning distinctions. I need to re-read his speech, but I am not sure if he did. I'll get back to that. However, even if he did, one of the things we didn't like about Trump (among a thousand and one) was he was a president only for those only on his side.

For example, from what I know, which is kind of limited. When you are preaching in a church, if you just go painting everyone as sinners who should all be straight up sent to hell, you won't be able to guide those who are listening to change their way of life very well. In other words, even Trumpers might be capable of seeing that the path they are taking is a dark and dangerous one which threatens all the country has stood for since the progress of the civil rights and all those good things of which we used to be so proud of.

If Joe Biden had done less rhetorically than he did, Rev, the "equivalence" would have been discerned as a comparable to Trump's Charlottesville comment, "...very fine people, on both sides." One side in Charlottesville had protestors...the other had neo-Nazi KKKers.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Of course you’re right, Frank. Any way that Biden parsed his words would’ve been spun as “decisive” by the right, because they’ve got nothing else but lying and denying.

2 Replies

@Builder,

Quote:

When did President Obama learn of Hillary Clinton’s “homebrew” e-mail server, through which she funneled even the most sensitive electronic correspondence as secretary of state?

Of course, Hilary was cleared of all wrongdoing by that FBI guy, Comey. He offered Hilary-apologists the course of least resistance on their path to ignoring the facts. And, of course, they bit.

Odd that Comey would let her off the hook after coming to this conclusion:

"We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent."

"She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account."

But the inspectors general of the State Department and the nation’s intelligence agencies said the information they found was classified when it was sent and remains so now. Information is considered classified if its disclosure would likely harm national security, and such information can be sent or stored only on computer networks with special safeguards.

Of course, Hilary was cleared of all wrongdoing by that FBI guy, Comey. He offered Hilary-apologists the course of least resistance on their path to ignoring the facts. And, of course, they bit.

Odd that Comey would let her off the hook after coming to this conclusion:And even when shown this:

WASHINGTON — Government investigators said Friday that they had discovered classified information on the private email account that Hillary Rodham Clinton used while secretary of state, stating unequivocally that those secrets never should have been stored outside of secure government computer systems. . .

they follow the lead of the nightly news anchor when it comes to thinking for themselves.

Hilary has said for months that she kept no classified information on the private server that she set up in her house so she would not have to carry both a personal phone and a work phone. Her campaign said Friday that any government secrets found on the server had been classified after the fact.

But the inspectors general of the State Department and the nation’s intelligence agencies said the information they found was classified when it was sent and remains so now. Information is considered classified if its disclosure would likely harm national security, and such information can be sent or stored only on computer networks with special safeguards.

1 Reply

@snood,

Quote:

“decisive”

derisive?

#DamnYouAutocorrect

1 Reply

@Region Philbis,

Region Philbis wrote:

Quote:
“decisive”
derisive?

#DamnYouAutocorrect

Dang. I meant deVisive

0 Replies

Monitoring Biden and other Contemporary Events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know