[nige1]

Winstonm, on 2018-February-19, 16:28, said:

When an indictment places names with the faces inside a foreign intelligence operation, it gives pause to those who might think they can hide behind layers of deceit.

It shows that the US is better than Russia at spying or lying or both

[Winstonm]

nige1, on 2018-February-19, 18:59, said:

It shows that the US is better than Russia at spying of lying or both

My understanding is the source was Dutch intelligence - how does that fit into your narrative?

[barmar]

Winstonm, on 2018-February-19, 19:05, said:

My understanding is the source was Dutch intelligence - how does that fit into your narrative?

Networking with other intelligence agencies is one way to be more effective. That's the nice thing about having allies.

[barmar]

Winstonm, on 2018-February-19, 11:36, said:

I wonder how much influence the algorithms used by social media platforms and search engines have on partisan echo chamber mentality - and how do we find a way to undo the damage we are doing to ourselves by enabling tribal-partisanship that emphasizes exclusion as the sole solution to problems.

There's probably not much that can be done about it. People tend to gravitate towards sites that to their belief structures. E.g. religious people don't tend to frequent sites that debate religion (unless they want to troll them). Social media newsfeed algorithms simply make it easier. It's like the way conservatives prefer to watch Fox News, which reinforces their existing beliefs.

BTW, from what I've heard, a big reason that the Russians were able to hijack Facebook for their efforts was because FB was trying not to be partisan. They didn't want to appear biased towards the left by blocking pro-Trump propaganda.

[Winstonm]

CNN is reporting this morning that a lawyer connected to Gates and Manafort has been indicted.

Reuters confirms but doesn't say he is Manafort's or Gates's lawyer.

Quote

The indictment against Alex Van der Zwaan also accuses him of deleting or otherwise not producing emails sought by the Special Counsel’s office, which is investigating possible ties between President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia.

Edit: NTY reports this attorney has connections to only Gates.

Edit: A little more information:

Quote

The London-based son-in-law of a Russian businessman is set to plead guilty Tuesday afternoon in Washington to making false statements in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s probe of alleged Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, according to a new court filing.

Alex Van der Zwaan was charged with one count of making false statements, a felony, about his work as an attorney employed by a law firm engaged in 2012 by the Ukraine Ministry of Justice to prepare a report on the trial of former Ukrainian prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko.

[y66]

From Jonathan Bernstein at Bloomberg:

Quote

Post-Trump, we have to question whether party actors really were responsible for eliminating those candidates who failed basic party vetting -- folks such as Gary Hart in 1984 and 1988, Howard Dean in 2004, or Newt Gingrich in 2012 -- or if they lost for other reasons. Did the process change in 2016? If so, can the parties adjust? Was it just the Republicans?

The first test of all of this will be very simple: How many of the 20 or more Democrats who are doing candidate-like things will still be around when it comes time to do formal candidate announcements? Kornacki is correct that the current field is unusually large, but if normal patterns hold, several of them won't still be running in 2020. There's no specific test for this, but let's say that if more than a dozen Democrats survive to contest the Iowa caucuses, it would be evidence that something's gone wrong.

The other question is: Even if Democratic party actors are still in control, what will they make of Trump's presidency? One option is they could see it as evidence they had used too narrow a screen for presidential candidates, and they could even seek out those without traditional qualifications. The other option, which is somewhat more likely, is that they'll be especially wary of untested aspirants; instead of treating Trump as a sign that anything goes, they'll treat him as solid evidence that an unconventional candidate would be a huge risk.

Will Dem's continue to back establishment candidates like former Virginia governor and Clinton protege Terry McAuliffe or find their soul again by backing someone like kenberg's new senator Chris Van Hollen? It's early to speculate about individuals but perhaps not too early to ask what Dems have learned and what they want.

[hrothgar]

cherdano, on 2018-February-19, 16:00, said:

What I haven't yet understood about the IRA indictment - what, exactly, is the purpose?

Usually you bring indictments to jail people (or put them on bail) and put them on trial. Everyone acknowledges this won't happen with any of the individuals charges in this indictment. So why? And why now? If this was towards the end of the investigation, I could understand putting down a marker, saying "We were tasked with, among other things, investigating Russian election meddling, and here is what we found. Just put that down for the record." But with an ongoing investigation, what good does it do to publish this now? Is it meant to be a marker for later charges of conspiracy against Americans?

I also found it curious that it did not mention the most influential part of Russia's (sorry Nigel) election meddling - the hacking of Podesta's email account and leaking of his emails.

I heard some followup discussion on this topic yesterday and this morning.

A number of people are noting the specific nature of the charges that Mueller is pursuing in these indictments.

Mueller is making the following claim:

• Individual failed to disclose a set of activities designed to impact the 2016 election to the FEC
  
• In doing so, these individuals prevented the government from exercise appropriate oversight and therefore obstructed justice

I have seen claims that this is foreshadowing the set of charges that Mueller will bring against other individuals.

The set of charges are interesting and side step some problematic issues that might cause difficulties prosecuting a different set of charges.

[Winstonm]

This may help clarify the arguments Richard posted.

Quote

Obstruction of justice is the impediment of governmental activities. There are a host of federal
criminal laws that prohibit obstructions of justice. The six most general outlaw obstruction of
judicial proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1503), witness tampering (18 U.S.C. 1512), witness retaliation
(18 U.S.C. 1513), obstruction of congressional or administrative proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1505),
conspiracy to defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. 371), and contempt (a creature of statute, rule
and common law).

[Winstonm]

It is curious that this latest unsealed indictment indirectly involves an oligarch of the Alpha Group, whose investment portfolio includes Alpha Bank. To review, the Alpha Bank server is the one that had the odd and numerous connections to the Trump server.

[Winstonm]

And the beat goes on, the beat goes on....

Quote

Democrat Linda Belcher was just pronounced the winner of the special election in Kentucky’s House District 49, a seat that Donald Trump carried by a 72-23 margin in 2016 and that went 66-33 for Mitt Romney in 2012.

Her 68-32 victory represents a ridiculous 45-point improvement on Hillary Clinton’s performance. In fuller context, it’s a little less ridiculous than that. Belcher had previously represented this district in the state legislature, lost a very narrow 50.4-49.6 race in 2016; then the man who defeated her, Dan Johnson, killed himself while under a cloud of sexual assault allegations. The GOP nominated Johnson’s widow and Belcher reclaimed her old seat.

Still, Belcher improved by 18 points on her own margin from just 15 months ago — a very clear sign of Democrats’ down-ballot recovery in the Trump era

.

[y66]

From Let Teenagers Vote by Jonathan Bernstein at Bloomberg:

Quote

Joshua Douglas argues that the Parkland students organizing against gun violence are a great demonstration of why 16- and 17-year-olds should be allowed to vote. See his recent law review article here.

This is one of my longtime hobbyhorses, and so I certainly agree. Indeed, I'd go lower, setting the voting age at 13 or 14, although I'm open to arguments for making it a bit higher or lower. Sixteen, however, is to me an easy call.

Part of my case for young voting that Douglas doesn't mention in his column is that, for me, voting is the training wheels of political participation. And yet we not only allow more sophisticated political action from high school students -- everything from organizing marches to lobbying their legislators to electioneering -- but we also generally encourage and praise it. The plain fact is that these sorts of activities, which no one has ever suggested banning as far as I know, are more difficult and more influential than single votes can ever be. So why should we prevent them from voting?

My best guess is that it wouldn't have much of an effect on election results. Right now, young people appear to be heavily Democratic, but over time it's shifted back and forth. It's also almost certainly the case that turnout among young people would run in the family; high school sophomores or juniors whose parents rarely vote would surely be less likely to take the initiative on their own. Indeed, I suspect eligible high-school-age voters would tend to have low turnout rates overall, just as traditional college-age young people are relatively infrequent voters. I do agree with Douglas, however, that getting in the habit during high school would probably tend to increase participation going forward.

The bottom line for me is that democracies should expand the franchise whenever possible, and they should have very strong reasons to deny the vote to any citizen -- or to make it difficult for any eligible voter to exercise their right. I've been arguing the case for young people voting for some time now and haven't heard any strong reasons against it. If people in the 17th century had decided on giving the vote from birth, with parents voting for their children until they were old enough to vote for themselves, we would consider that correct and natural and a gross violation of democracy if anyone tried to take away those votes. I don't support voting from birth. But 16- and 17-year-olds? Of course.

I feel sure even blackshoe agrees with this.

[RedSpawn]

nige1, on 2018-February-18, 15:06, said:

I agree with most of that. Countries spy on each other and continuously spew self-serving propaganda. Rival parties, employees, and Individual hackers are also busy.

Nevertheless, I concede that Russia is a likely suspect in the Clinton email hacking.

Possibly.

But what I am still wondering is did Russia hack the Democratic National Committee server? And if that possibility existed, why was the Democratic National Committee able to have a 3rd party service provider obtain possession of the server and conduct a forensic investigation regarding a matter of national security and federal election meddling?

The FBI, Homeland Security, and the intelligence services dropped the ball by allowing the chain of custody of the evidence over this matter to enter the private sector. This makes me wonder what did the FBI, Homeland Security, and Western intelligence services know when this server was hacked since they continued to act like it was a "random" hacker who had accessed the proprietary data?

While Homeland Security took ownership over jurisdiction regarding state owned election information technology equipment, exactly whom was responsible for ensuring that private servers owned by the RNC and the DNC don't fall prey to cyberattacks that could also influence the outcome of federal elections?

Source: https://www.dhs.gov/...s-cybersecurity
https://www.dhs.gov/...cture-critical#

None of the federal agencies attempted to get a Supreme Court injunction to preserve the integrity of the evidence to determine if the DNC hack was a larger element of the alleged federal election hacking that Russia coordinated.

Source: http://www.slate.com...rowdstrike.html

[Winstonm]

Quote

Kushner Doesn't Want To Give Up His Security Clearance As John Kelly Cracks Down: Report

White House senior adviser Jared Kushner doesn’t want to give up the interim security clearance that gives him access to highly classified information, even though his current duties likely don’t require him to view top-secret material, The New York Times reported on Tuesday.

1) Kushner family business has a $1.2 billion loan payment due February of 2019. https://www.bloomber...-hunt-for-cash/
2) Kushner has a history of private meetings with foreigners. http://nymag.com/dai...-red-flags.html
3) Kushner has access to state secrets that foreign powers might want. http://www.newsweek....oesnt-it-814190

The first question is: Why is John Kelly stripping Kushner of access to those secrets?
The second question is: If he can do his job without clearances, why is Kushner pushing so hard to keep his access?

[Winstonm]

y66, on 2018-February-21, 09:04, said:

From Let Teenagers Vote by Jonathan Bernstein at Bloomberg:


I feel sure even blackshoe agrees with this.

I turned 18 in 1969, eligible to be drafted and be sent to Vietnam yet could not vote. I had to pay taxes, yet I could not vote for my representation in government. This was our argument then - and I believe it still holds. If you are old enough to pay any type of tax, you should have the right to vote for those who are responsible for imposing those taxes.

[kenberg]

y66, on 2018-February-21, 09:04, said:

From Let Teenagers Vote by Jonathan Bernstein at Bloomberg:


I feel sure even blackshoe agrees with this.

I dunno one way or the other about blackie, but I don't agree with it.

By comparison with many young people, I think I was given quite a bit of both independence and responsibility when I was fairly young. At 13 I was on a borderline so I could go to either of two high schools. I chose. It was not the best choice, but it was entirely my choice. At 15, I chose the car I wanted to buy, I hitchhiked back home to let my parents know I had picked the car and that their signature was needed. I paid for it. At 17 I decided to go to college rather than join the Navy, paying the tuition was my responsibility. I got a scholarship. My father never did see why a perfectly healthy youngster would want to go to college but it was my choice.

But these were personal choices. I was fine with waiting to turn 21 before taking on the responsibility of choosing a president. I was a regular newspaper reader going back to before the start of the Korean War, that started when I was 11. I was an Adlai Stevenson supporter when I was 13, although I did wear an I Go Pogo button. But the adults were the ones that voted. That seemed right to me. Still does.

[barmar]

y66, on 2018-February-21, 09:04, said:

From Let Teenagers Vote by Jonathan Bernstein at Bloomberg:

I'm a little unsure about this. The students we've seen on TV in the past week are not typical, IMHO. I was in the top 5% of my high school class, and it was a pretty high-achieving school, yet most of my friends and I were still not very politically aware. This was in the late 70's, and we became aware of foreign affairs mostly because the OPEC oil embargo caused gas rationing, just at the time when we were getting our driver's licenses (I'd just gotten mine and had the chore of waiting on lines at gas stations).

The Parkland students are amazingly eloquent, but they've been energized and forced to grow up by a specific event. I wonder how many of them we'd have considered competent to vote a few weeks ago. Teenagers are prohibited from many adult decisions because we don't think their judgement is mature enough. Of course there are many exceptions.

Then again, we don't have a competency requirement for adult voters, either. Maybe instead of an age requirement there should be a test you have to pass. In such a system, I wonder if Donald Trump would have been eligible to vote for himself (arguably, if there were a voting competency requirement, anyone ineligible to vote should probably also be ineligible to run).

[jjbrr]

barmar, on 2018-February-21, 10:46, said:

Then again, we don't have a competency requirement for adult voters, either. Maybe instead of an age requirement there should be a test you have to pass. In such a system, I wonder if Donald Trump would have been eligible to vote for himself (arguably, if there were a voting competency requirement, anyone ineligible to vote should probably also be ineligible to run).

I feel a lot sure about this, and it's obvious to me that kids shouldn't vote about issues that affect adults. If they're passionate about something, they have plenty of avenues to be active in their community. That is enough.

A competency requirement is also wrong because it will unquestionably target minorities specifically in many states. A better method would be to have ballots with names only. If you want to vote R, you have to research who the Rs are (har har). If you can't be bothered to do any research at all, the weight of your vote should be mitigated by everyone else who can't be bothered.

[Winstonm]

jjbrr, on 2018-February-21, 11:16, said:

I feel a lot sure about this, and it's obvious to me that kids shouldn't vote about issues that affect adults. If they're passionate about something, they have plenty of avenues to be active in their community. That is enough.

A competency requirement is also wrong because it will unquestionably target minorities specifically in many states. A better method would be to have ballots with names only. If you want to vote R, you have to research who the Rs are (har har). If you can't be bothered to do any research at all, the weight of your vote should be mitigated by everyone else who can't be bothered.

As I stated above, when I was 18 and draft eligible I could not vote. My question to you is: where is the dividing line between childhood and adulthood? From what I have seen, today's 16-year-olds are every bit as mature as we were as 18-year olds.

Perhaps taxation age is too low - but appropriate age of military service is not. If you are old enough to die in combat, you should certainly be able to vote for those who placed you in that position. The current age requirement is 17. My position is that 17-years-old should be able to vote.

[jjbrr]

My instinct suggests to me completing a W4 and having income withheld should make minors eligible to vote. I suspect a working minor has a better grasp of things like taxes, FICA, healthcare, etc etc, than a kid who makes no income, pays no taxes, and is dependent on the parents' insurance.

Having said that, it is difficult for many adults to get voting eligibility, so who knows?

[kenberg]

I have this vision of a mother saying to her 16 year old son: "You can't go to vote until you have completed your math homework and cleaned your room". I see it as odd that a person still being supervised in homework and room cleaning is then going to go off and vote.

Of course there are issues of particular interest to adolescents. For me, it wasn't guns. I had a shotgun, I hunted, but nobody was shooting up schools. So let's see:
I started smoking when I was 14, the legal age was 18, I would have liked that changed.
I had to convince someone I was 14 before I could get a job setting pins in the bowling alley. I would have liked that age lowered.
Much construction work was off-limits to me until I was 18. I would have liked that fixed.
And oh yes, the age of consent was 18. I believe this applied only to girls/women. A 17 year old was a protected girl, an 18 year old was a woman. Many many boys/men, and more than a few girls/women, would have liked that law to be changed.

Ok, I grew up in the middle of the last century and the world has changed. Boys were expected to not act so stupid that they ended up dead or in jail and girls were expected to not get pregnant. We were all expected to grow up to be responsible adults. And then we would vote.

The above is simplistic I suppose. But there was this Gail Sheehy book Passages. Not that I ever read it but I gather the idea is there is a time for one thing and a time for another thing. Like in Ecclesiastes I suppose. Adolescence is a time to work out who you will be as an adult and taking steps to bring it about. Self-focus is fine for this. It is a time when you are, or can be, largely autonomous but you do not yet, I hope, have the full responsibilities of an adult. This time will not come again. It's a very important time and let's let them develop their way through it. They can think about Donald Trump later. Or now if they want, but save the voting for later.