Russian Scholar Stephen Cohen Pimp-Slaps #NeverTrumper Max Boot

Princeton professor and Russian expert Stephen Cohen went on Anderson Cooper with unhinged #NeverTrumper Max Boot earlier this week. The discussion quickly escalated when Max Boot accused Cohen of being a Russian sympathizer because he would not cheer on war with Russia. Professor Cohen destroyed him. (GATEWAY PUNDIT h-t)

Even Putin Thought Hillary Would Win. Why the Hacking Then?

See POWERLINE’S, “What Putin Was Up To?”

Yep, Russia wasn’t “helping Trump,” they were weakening Hillary’s appearance on the world stage. Neutering her and her stance. General Michael B. Mukasey makes this point and asks the question that matters:

  • “Why would Mr. Putin, an SVR alumnus, give GRU a mission meant to be highly covert? Was this a serious attempt to swing the election to Donald Trump?”

He starts his surmising with this: “AT THE TIME OF THE HACKING, VIRTUALLY NO ONE GAVE MR. TRUMP ANY CHANCE OF WINNING.”

Yep. EVERYONE thought Hillary was a sure thing.

Even Putin.

So what was Russia’s angle? I think General Mukasey has the best answer thus.

Here is the entire WALL STREET JOURNAL article by General Michael B. Mukasey mentioned by Medved, via LUX LIBERTAS:

The indictment of 12 Russian military intelligence agents last week, on charges they hacked into Democratic National Committee and other servers during the 2016 campaign, raises questions about the timing of the announcement and the work of the hackers themselves. The news came on the eve of the Trump-Putin summit. Why then?

The president was told of the indictments before he traveled. Yet the plain effect of the announcement was to raise further doubts about the wisdom of the meeting—and perhaps to shape its agenda. Neither is the business of the special counsel or anyone else at the Justice Department. The department has a longstanding policy, not directly applicable here but at least analogous, that candidates should not be charged close to an election, absent urgent need, lest the charges themselves affect the outcome. The general principle would seem to apply: Prosecutors are supposed to consider the impact of their actions on significant events outside the criminal-justice system, and to act with due diffidence.

From a law-enforcement standpoint, there was nothing urgent about these indictments. All 12 defendants are in Russia; none are likely ever to see the inside of a U.S. courtroom.

Alternative strategies were available. In 2008 Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout, known to law enforcement as the “Merchant of Death” and the defendant in a sealed indictment, was lured in a sting by U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents to Thailand, where he was seized. The Thais, to their great credit, resisted heavy Russian pressure to release him. Instead they fulfilled their treaty obligations and granted a U.S. extradition request.

It has been argued that the objective of last week’s indictments was not to prosecute the defendants but to “name and shame” them. They were named, and even their military intelligence units disclosed—but shamed? In 2006 Alexander Litvinenko, a Russian defector to the U.K., was poisoned in London with polonium from a Russian nuclear facility. Litvinenko had charged that Vladimir Putin was directly responsible for bombing a Moscow apartment building in 1999, an event used as a pretext for the invasion of Chechnya.

Andrei Lugovoi, implicated in the assassination, fled the U.K. and returned to Russia. Not only did Moscow refuse a British extradition request, but Mr. Putin decorated Mr. Lugovoi for “services to the nation.” Mr. Lugovoi was given a seat in the Russian Parliament in 2007. On that record, the 12 indicted hackers are likelier to be lionized than ostracized.

Recall also that the only basis for appointing a special counsel under applicable regulations was the conflict of interest and special circumstance presented by a Justice Department investigation into possibly unlawful conduct by the president’s campaign. Thus the initial order appointing Robert Mueller directs him to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump. ” Thus far, numerous Russians have been charged with crimes related to the campaign, and several “individuals associated with the campaign” have been charged with crimes unrelated to the charges against the Russians or to the Trump campaign. No “links” or “coordination” has been charged or even suggested.

Turning to the crime charged, and assuming that the 12 current Russian defendants are guilty, why did they do what they did, in the way that they did?

Despite the wide-eyed, golly-Mr.-Science tone in much of the news coverage, the indictment doesn’t portray cutting-edge Russian intelligence capabilities. The defendants all are said to be members of GRU, Russia’s main military intelligence unit. It is comprised largely of former special-forces types who are looked down upon by their more sophisticated competitors in the SVR, successor to Mr. Putin’s alma mater, the KGB. Their acts, as portrayed in the indictment, obviously were detected—in exquisite detail—by U.S. intelligence services. GRU’s phishing venture, although widespread, was primitive compared with the SVR’s capabilities.

Why would Mr. Putin, an SVR alumnus, give GRU a mission meant to be highly covert? Was this a serious attempt to swing the election to Donald Trump?

At the time of the hacking, virtually no one gave Mr. Trump any chance of winning. Mr. Putin is a thug, but he is not reckless. It seems unlikely he would place a high-stakes bet on a sure loser. Rather, he likely sought to embarrass the person certain to be the new president, assuring that she took office as damaged goods.

Why leave fingerprints? If the only goal was to inflict damage, the new president would have been not only damaged, but also resentful. Even the person who happily posed with a mislabeled “reset” button in frothier days likely would have turned sour.

The point likely was not merely to inflict damage but also to send a warning. Consider the Justice Department inspector general’s report on the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of an unauthorized and vulnerable email server. It found that the bureau had concluded the server could well have been penetrated without detection. Recall also that some of the people hacked by GRU agents were aware of that server and mentioned it in messages they sent, so that the Russians too were aware of it. The SVR certainly was capable of an undetected hack.

There are some 30,000 emails that Mrs. Clinton did not turn over, on the claim that they were personal and involved such trivia as yoga routines and Chelsea’s wedding. If they instead contained damaging information—say, regarding Clinton Foundation fundraising—the new president would have taken office in the shadow of a sword dangling from a string held by the Russians.

As we watch the drama of an investigation into whether the president or those close to him committed crimes to help the Russian government, it seems useful to keep in mind not only the possibilities but also the plausibilities.

Mr. Mukasey served as U.S. attorney general (2007-09) and a U.S. district judge (1988-2006).

 

If True, Trump Worked Over Putin, Big Time!

If you think Russia spent money to get Trump in office, that was the biggest waste of money in history.

  • This admin reversed the policy of the Obama administration, which stood silently when Putin’s Russia annexed Crimea and attacked Ukraine. The Trump admin has sold the Ukrainians lethal defensive weaponry, including anti-tank missiles designed to destroy Putin’s Russian tanks in the hands of separatist rebels.
  • The Trump administration has expelled 60 Russians, labeling them “spies” pretending to be diplomats.
  • About 300 men working for a Kremlin-linked Russian private military firm (many were Russian special operatives) were either killed (about 200) or injured in Syria on orders from the Trump administration.
  • Now, President Donald Trump approved sanctions on 38 different Russian companies and entities in response to Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, its presence in Ukraine, and support for the Assad regime in Syria. These entities include 7 Russian oligarchs, 12 companies they own and control, 17 Russian senior government officials, and a state owned Russian weapons trading company…. even sanctioning a member of Putin’s family.

If Putin paid for Trump, Trump is a smart mother-effer if you think the collusion story is legit. Why? Because he first used Russian interests to get the White House, and then immediately turned on Russias interests.

Putin –then — is an idiot, and Trump? A smart-as-hell-political-tactician.

[You can’t have it both ways Leftists, if your position is true, you have to say Trump is smart. But we know that you know this is just a means to get Trump impeached, and that you don’t really believe this stuff.]

CIA vs FBI – Russia and the U.S. Election

Here are some related articles… the first one in the list below is the one Dennis Prager is reading from:

YOUNG CONSERVATIVES have this clip from TOWNHALL:

…Contrary to claims made by Democrats about Russian interference helping President-elect Donald J. Trump, there is no definitive proof that the Kremlin ordered such cyber attacks. It’s all based on circumstantial evidence, innuendo, and anonymous sources that are bound by an apparent inter-agency feud between the CIA and the FBI. On December 10, The Washington Post reported that both agencies were not on the same page, which seemed to have angered Democrats:

Sitting before the House Intelligence Committee was a senior FBI counterintelligence official. The question the Republicans and Democrats in attendance wanted answered was whether the bureau concurred with the conclusions the CIA had just shared with senators that Russia “quite” clearly intended to help Republican Donald Trump defeat Democrat Hillary Clinton and clinch the White House.For the Democrats in the room, the FBI’s response was frustrating — even shocking.

During a similar Senate Intelligence Committee briefing held the previous week, the CIA’s statements, as reflected in the letter the lawmakers now held in their hands, were “direct and bald and unqualified” about Russia’s intentions to help Trump, according to one of the officials who attended the House briefing.

[…]

The competing messages, according to officials in attendance, also reflect cultural differences between the FBI and the CIA. The bureau, true to its law enforcement roots, wants facts and tangible evidence to prove something beyond all reasonable doubt. The CIA is more comfortable drawing inferences from behavior.

Our intelligence agencies don’t all agree that the Kremlin is responsible.

The talking point that 17 intelligence agencies agree that Russia was behind the hacks is not accurate….

More YOUNG CONS… “Here are the top 5 reasons why it isn’t accurate to definitively say Russia interfered in our election process. From Breitbart

  • There is actually no new information leading the CIA to its conclusion. The New York Timesreports: “The C.I.A.’s conclusion does not appear to be the product of specific new intelligence obtained since the election, several American officials, including some who had read the agency’s briefing, said on Sunday. Rather, it was an analysis of what many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence — evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments — that the Russians put a thumb on the scale for Mr. Trump, and got their desired outcome.” In other words, someone only decided after Trump won that the accusation was worth making.
  • The “evidence” that the CIA has gathered is inconclusive. The FBI also disagrees with some of the CIA’s conclusions about Russia’s motives. “While lawmakers were seemingly united on the need to present a strong bipartisan response, the FBI and CIA gave lawmakers differing accounts on Russia’s motives, according to The Post,” The Hillreported on Sunday.
  • Despite left-wing “fake news,” there is no evidence Russian hackers actually distorted the voting process.The most that the CIA is alleging is that the Russians may have helped hack of the Democratic National Committee emails, as well as (possibly) the emails of Hillary Clinton campaign chaiman John Podesta. There is zero evidence Russian hackers messed with voting. Ironically, Green Party candidate Jill Stein’s recount has eliminated any doubt about the integrity of the results.
  • Julian Assange and Wikileaks have vigorously denied that the Russians were involved in Wikileaks’ disclosures. Of the Democratic National Committee emails, Assange said: “That is the circumstantial evidence that some Russian, or someone who wanted to make them look like a Russian, was involved, with these other media organisations. That is not the case for the material that we released.” Assange made similar denials about the Podesta email leaks later in the election.
  • What would the consequences of allowing undue Russian influence in our elections be, exactly? Would we yield primacy in Eastern Europe to Vladimir Putin? Would we give up our plans for missile defense? Would we make deep unilateral cuts in our nuclear arsenal in exchange for flimsy concessions ? Would we tolerate a Russian land invasion of a friendly, pro-Western country? Would we cede the Middle East to Russian hegemony? Because Hillary Clinton and Obama already did that.

“Jay Carney Would Be Crowing” ~ Laura Ingraham (Video)

The Bottom-Line is brought to yoiu by CNSnews:

… “And that’s why Obama as the Russian troops are amassing goes on ‘Ellen,’ you know, he goes on the ‘Two Ferns’ show on the Internet,” Ingraham said. “They’re doing everything.

“You know, [Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen] Sebelius, talks about March madness so we think she’s really cool now because she actually knows what March madness is. She probably picked Stephen Austin, you know, Stephen F. Austin, now — to go to the final four,” she added.

“But none of this is mattering. I mean the fact you can throw-in some pop culture references and go on some of these cool comedy shows isn’t going to change the fact that most young people are — want choice. They want freedom. And they don’t want to be told what to do on health care. I think this is going to be a big, big problem in November,” Ingraham said.

Putin Wrestles Bears — Obama Wears #MomJeans

Watch the entire Sean Hannity segment HERE.

People are looking at Putin as one who wrestles bears and drills for oil. They look at our president as one who wears mom jeans and equivocates and bloviates. We are not exercising that peace through strength that can only be brought to you courtesy of the red, white and blue, that only a strengthened US military can do.

Putin`s Press

Some freedom of press news via Bloomberg:

President Vladimir Putin tightened his grip on Russia’s news media by abolishing the RIA Novosti wire service and handing control of its successor to a controversial televison anchor.

[….]

Putin has been criticized for rolling back press freedoms and increasing state ownership of the country’s mass media. The decision to eliminate RIA, which was founded days after Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, comes two weeks after billionaire Vladimir Potanin sold his media business to a group backed by OAO Gazprombank.

“There’s been a consolidation in the media that’s involved in outwardly directed propaganda,” Boris Makarenko, deputy director of the Moscow-based Center for Political Technologies, said today by phone. “The holding’s new boss wasn’t an accidental choice. They’ve taken a person with the ethos of a Soviet-era propagandist, not a journalist.”

Russia was ranked 148th among 179 countries in a 2013 Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders, a monitoring group based in Paris.

In Syria, The Hippocratic Oath Means `Torture`

(CBS News) In a video shot secretly inside a Syrian regime military hospital in the besieged rebel stronghold of Homs, men are blindfolded and shackled to their beds. The chains are extremely tight.

One man’s chest and hand show what appear to be wounds from a severe beating. Instruments of torture lie on a nearby table – an electric cable and a rubber whip.

The hospital staffer, who risked his life to capture this footage, said he’s seen doctors assault opposition activists.

“I have seen detainees being tortured by electrocution, whipping, beating with batons,” the man videotaping said, adding they also break their legs by twisting the feet until the leg gives.

This is not the first account of allegations of torture in state run hospitals. This week the U.N. said it had received similar video.

…read more…

But Russia says Assad is fighting “terrorists.” Yeah right.