Post by EPIC Sir Tinley on Oct 3, 2022 6:02:01 GMT -8
Fascism features two significant tenets that in America clash- Strong nationalism and an authoritarian gov't working with/controlling the capitalistic economy. -
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
For this reason American political opponents claim the other side is fascist. One side is strongly nationalistic and detests authoritarian social gov't and business co-mingling. The other side hates America and strives for one party social rule.
That conflict plays out here often, most recently here:
Arriving to bring clarity is devout leftist Matt Taibbi...
Memory Holed: "The Election Was Hacked" Matt Orfalea's terrific new video should remind everyone that "election denial" is a sequel story
Mercifully, the January 6th committee hearings in congress were canceled yesterday, presumably because Hurricane Ian’s landfall would have botched ratings. With midterms approaching, Democrats have a lot riding on January 6th and are growing impatient. New York congressman Sean Patrick Maloney, who runs the party’s campaign arm, even grumbled about a lack of indictments.
“I think it’s going to be very hard for people to understand if there aren’t actions by the Justice Department to hold people accountable,” he said.
As with Ukrainegate and impeachment, and Russiagate before that, polls show January 6th remains low on the list of voter concerns (the cratering economy is first). However, the reason it “may be hard for people to understand,” as Maloney says, is that congress has spent too much time blurring lines between election denial and conspiracy to overturn the result. If they just focused on the latter — and they have produced evidence, like Trump asking Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen to seize voting machines — the hearings might be more effective, even with Republicans.
But they haven’t been, for a reason made obvious by Matt Orfalea’s damning video — which YouTube incredibly has already demonetized — above. Amid sweeping efforts to punish election denial in the Trump context, both criminally and with censorship, an almost exactly similar denial campaign that inspired four-plus years of blue politics has been dropped down a memory hole.
Led by the losing candidate in 2016, Democratic Party politicians along with law enforcement and intelligence officials and media spent years denying the legitimacy of Trump’s presidency, based on an equally specious/dishonest formulation: “The election was hacked.” Moreover, they instigated removal efforts based on the same declare-guilt-now, prove-it-later mentality that gripped figures like Trump and Rudy Giuliani in 2020. How different really is “Just say it was corrupt and leave the rest to me” from “We just have to dig deeper, do the investigation and find it”?
The January 6th hearings ironically are an outgrowth of the Democrats’ own six-year-long election denial endeavor, involving the same people who pushed attempts to remove Trump based on manufactured theories of foreign collusion. There’s an automatic Boy Who Cried Wolf factor built in to hearings that include the likes of California’s Adam Schiff (“I can’t go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now”) or Maryland’s Jamie Raskin (“Donald Trump is the hoax perpetrated on the Americans by the Russians”).
Moreover, congressional Democrats’ successful push for censorship on platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube — a campaign that began even before January 6th — reveal that the party considers the act of denial itself illegitimate and ban-worthy, if not criminal. But how can that be if, as the video shows, the party’s own leaders engage in the same behavior? How can declaring the 2020 election illegitimate be prohibited, if saying the same thing about 2016 was and is encouraged?
The two stories obviously aren’t the same. But they’re a lot closer than we’ve been led to believe:
On December 10, 2020, after Joe Biden’s election but before the January 6th riots, Vanity Fair’s Eric Lutz went on CBS to talk about the historic implications of the 2020 race.
“When Joe Biden is inaugurated,” he said, “a huge segment of the country is going view him has an illegitimate president.” He added: “This sets a precedent now.”
Except, as seen above, the precedent already had been set. The most serious form of denial was the narrative that Russian hacking constituted a “9/11-style” emergency rendering Trump’s election illegitimate. This contention, usually phrased in a way that could lead people to believe vote tallies had been changed by Russian operatives, began before Trump was sworn in.
The late congressman Elijah Cummings of Maryland, at the time the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, set the stage on December 16, 2016, when he described opposing Trump’s inauguration as patriotic duty. “This is a 9/11 for us,” Cummings said. “I’ve said it for weeks, this is a struggle for the soul of our democracy,” adding, “We have no time for partisanship.”
The Cummings CNN appearance is worth watching in full. He cites former acting CIA director Michael Morell — who was slated to be Clinton’s CIA head before she lost — in saying Trump’s election was “the political equivalent of 9/11.” This came on the heels of anonymous officials leaking to the Washington Post their belief that the “consensus view” was “Russia’s goal” was “to help Trump get elected.”
Trump was ridiculed for pointing out this came from the same people who told us WMDs were in Iraq. Yet it was later revealed that the notion that Putin was trying specifically to aid Trump was based significantly on one human source who reported only to former CIA chief John Brennan, who admitted in a book that he overrode two senior officials to reach his conclusion. That “exfiltrated spy” story ended in bizarre enough fashion to raise serious doubts about his information. Other “evidence” contributing to that assessment involved bogus paid opposition research supplied by the Clinton campaign, which of course remained silent about its role in spreading these rumors during all the “political 9/11” talk.
Nonetheless, politicians from the start declared foreign interference on Trump’s behalf a certainty. They talked not only about things like the Wikileaks release of real emails, but incessantly referred to “attacks” on the election itself. “Our election process has been attacked,” is how Cummings put it.
Cleverly vague formulations like this led to ubiquitous use of the phrase, “Russia hacked the election,” which led to media reports saying things like, “It increasingly looks like Russian hackers may have affected actual vote totals,” which in turn pushed an increasingly high percentage of Democrats into the Q-like la-la land of thinking Russians “tampered with vote tallies.” By 2018, a YouGov poll found 67% of Democrats agreed with that proposition. Hillary Clinton was one of the worst offenders on this score, telling audiences as late as 2019 that “actual interference” took place, that “we know it happened,” but the details just aren’t known because they’re “classified.”
It’s long been understood that responsible politicians at some point must stop trying to contest results and recognize the legitimacy of victorious opponents, to protect the orderly transfer of power. This is one of the reasons Trump is deservedly criticized for his behavior after the 2020 race, i.e. he not only raised doubts about whether he would leave office voluntarily, but inspired followers to reject his successor as illegitimate. This even became part of the rationale for his removal from social media. Here’s an excerpt of Twitter’s announcement on January 8th, 2021, focusing on a Trump tweet, “I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th”:
President Trump’s statement that he will not be attending the Inauguration is being received by a number of his supporters as further confirmation that the election was not legitimate and is seen as him disavowing his previous claim… that there would be an “orderly transition” on January 20th.
Obviously in the context of January 6th the act of refusing to attend Joe Biden’s inauguration has a different meaning, but it’s still true that dozens of elected Democrats refused to attend Trump’s inauguration, from Praymila Jayapal to Jerrold Nadler to Lloyd Doggett. They were led by the late Georgia congressman and civil rights legend John Lewis, who was hailed at the time for saying, “I don’t see this President-elect as a legitimate president” because “the Russians participated in helping this man get elected.”
Definitions of “illegitimacy” spanned a range, from Cornel West’s simple complaint about “moral character” to California’s Jerry McNerney condemning the “FBI’s biased involvement.” But the most common reason Trump was deemed “illegitimate” was summed up by David Remnick, who praised Lewis and decried “a one-sided, pro-Trump… information and cyber assault” by a foreign power. That’s New Yorker-ese for “The Russians hacked the election.”
Hillary Clinton went to Trump’s inauguration, but less than a year later gave an interview saying she “really tried to get out of” going. This mimicked her pattern of conceding to Trump on election night — the main reason Politifact rates as “false” the notion that democrats “spent 4 years refusing to acknowledge Trump’s 2016 victory” — only to go on for years after publicly declaring him “illegitimate,” that he “didn’t win,” that his presidency was “stolen” from her, etc.
A recent editorial in the Washington Post cited the Sheikh Abdul Rahman case in arguing that Trump’s “Stop the Steal” talk led inexorably to illegal action. “Sometimes speech turns into an actual plan,” law professors Claire O. Finkelstein and Richard W. Painter wrote, “and in such cases the First Amendment no longer applies.”
If that’s the case, how do we characterize CIA officials in 2017 telling counterparts in foreign intelligence services not to share information with them because Russia had “leverages of pressure” on Trump — a fake news story invented by the Clinton campaign that made its way into an intelligence assessment — which all took place in the context of a wider effort to progress toward impeachment based on supposed collusion? What about a U.S. congressman, Eric Swalwell, saying Trump is a Russian agent “working on behalf of the Russians,” or fellow House member Jackie Speier saying Trump’s presidency as a “crime in progress”?
More to the point, how about former CIA head John Brennan saying Trump’s behavior exceeded the impeachment standard of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” calling it “nothing short of treasonous”? Brennan’s riff ended with an unsubtle call to action: “Republican Patriots: Where are you?”
By the time Biden and future Vice President Kamala Harris went on the 2020 campaign trail, both co-signed the “universal assessment” that Trump was an “illegitimate president” who was in office because “Russia hacked the election.” The losing Democratic candidate in the previous election was a leader in the public relations campaign. Her camp was also responsible for creating a host of fake news stories advancing it, from the smearing of Carter Page as a Russian cutout to the ludicrous Alfa-server tale to the critical, repeatedly leaked narrative that Russia had blackmail material, which led to the “leverages of pressure” story.
This is exactly the kind of behavior we’re now being told is so dangerous that it requires both censorship and official investigation. The chief difference is Trump’s efforts ended in an Airheads-style temporary occupation of the Capitol by MAGA dolts, while Democratic efforts ended in multiple, sophisticated efforts to remove Trump from the White House, either by impeachment or indictment. It can’t be held against Trump that his brand of election denial was dumber and less likely to succeed than that of his opponents. Orfalea’s video shows the double-standard. We either censor and condemn election denial, or we don’t. You can’t have it both ways, but they sure are trying.
Post by EPIC Sir Tinley on Oct 11, 2022 11:30:02 GMT -8
1-Exposure of stunning govt. propaganda campaigns and false info.: Hillary Clinton campaign mgr. who helped spread one of the most impactful disinformation campaigns in US history also involved in federally-backed censorship machine to go after Trump & his supporters in 2020. 2-Robby Mook co-founded Defending Digital Democracy Project at Harvard, which took part in private Election Integrity Partnership founded "in consultation" with federal govts' Homeland Security. 3-Mook's project was a top "tipster" about "misinformation" that needed to be censored on social media, along with the Democratic National Committee, to the "Election Integrity Project" team backed by Homeland Security. 4-Mook was also an integral player in the false Russia collusion narrative and the disproven election claim that Trump had a secret communications channel with Russia's Putin routed through Moscow-based Alfa Bank. 5-Mook, Hillary's campaign mgr., testified in a recent criminal trial that Hillary Clinton approved taking the false claim about Trump and the Russian bank to the press. 6-Here's Hillary Clinton's tweet of the false and damaging info against Trump, which many in the media picked up as if true.
7-Mook testified he got the false dirt against Trump from a Perkins Coie law partner, Mark Elias, who was working for Clinton campaign. Perkins Coie had hired the controversial firm Fusion GPS to do oppo research against Trump for Clinton. 8-Fusion GPS was, incredibly, a major source of info that the FBI used in investigating Trump for supposed Russia collusion, which came up as a dead end after Trump was smeared by the FBI and in the press for 2 yrs. 9-Harvard promoted Mook to senior fellow of its Belfer last summer.
Post by EPIC Sir Tinley on Oct 17, 2022 5:01:29 GMT -8
Paypal has been leading this truly dangerous effort to banish people from the financial system for expressing dissent from neoliberal orthodoxies. They partnered with @adl - a standard DNC/liberal group - to identify "extremists" who deserve to be banned.
Post by EPIC Sir Tinley on Oct 25, 2022 6:37:53 GMT -8
The US government is considering a national security review of Elon Musk's $44 billion Twitter acquisition, report says. If it happens, Biden could ultimately kill the deal.
The US government is considering national security reviews of some of Elon Musk's ventures, including his Twitter takeover deal, Bloomberg reported Thursday, citing people with knowledge of the matter.
Musk's plans to purchase Twitter for $44 billion with the help of foreign investors, including Saudi Arabia's Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, Qatar's sovereign wealth fund, and Binance Holdings — which was founded by a Chinese businessman — have concerned Biden administration officials, the people told Bloomberg.
Officials are considering which tools they could use to review Musk's ventures, including action by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US (CFIUS), which reviews foreign takeovers of American businesses, per Bloomberg.
CFIUS carries out security reviews if a "transaction threatens to impair the national security of the United States," according to federal regulations. When reviewing a transaction, the CFIUS can recommend to the president that a deal be suspended or prohibited, per the regulations.
Post by EPIC Sir Tinley on Oct 31, 2022 10:35:07 GMT -8
The draft copy of DHS’s 2022 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review reviewed by The Intercept also confirms that DHS views the issue of tackling disinformation and misinformation as a growing portion of its core duties. While “counterterrorism remains the first and most important mission of the Department,” it notes, the agency’s “work on these missions is evolving and dynamic” and must now adapt to terror threats “exacerbated by misinformation and disinformation spread online” including by “domestic violent extremists.”
To accomplish this, the draft quadrennial review calls for DHS to “leverage advanced data analytics technology and hire and train skilled specialists to better understand how threat actors use online platforms to introduce and spread toxic narratives intended to inspire or incite violence, as well as work with NGOs and other parts of civil society to build resilience to the impacts of false information.”
The broad definition of “threat actors” posing risks to vaguely defined critical infrastructure — an area as broad as trust in government, public health, elections, and financial markets — has concerned civil libertarians. “No matter your political allegiances, all of us have good reason to be concerned about government efforts to pressure private social media platforms into reaching the government’s preferred decisions about what content we can see online,” said Adam Goldstein, the vice president of research at FIRE.