Mediaboss Marketing

House intelligence committee chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) J. Scott Applewhite/AP

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the lawmaker overseeing one of the main investigations of the Trump-Russia scandal, went rogue on Wednesday when he told reporters that a source had provided him information that indicates that the US intelligence community collected intelligence on Trump associatespossibly Donald Trump himselfin the course of authorized surveillance aimed at other targets. Nunes, who chairs the House intelligence committee, said this happened during the transition period and was unrelated Russia's meddling in the 2016 campaign or to Trump associates' connections to Russia. Without revealing any real evidence of wrongdoing, Nunes suggested that something amiss had occurred when the identity of these Trump-related people were noted in reports disseminated in intelligence channels.

Nunes' theatrical press conferencesnot one but two!indicated he was perhaps more concerned about politics than national security and the protection of civil liberties. At his first presser, held in the Capitol, Nunes described the materials he had been given as "normal incidental collection" and "all legally collected foreign intelligence." Nonetheless, he said, he was "alarmed" by the fact that some of the Trump associates had been "unmasked" in the reports. ("Incidental collection" refers to Americans whose communications are monitored not because they are the target of the surveillance, but because the person they are communicating with is the target. The identities of these non-targeted Americans generally are supposed to remain hidden in intelligence reports, but there are rules that allow their identities to be unmasked in such reports when that provides needed context.)

"The job of the committee is to do oversight of the executive branch, not to bring them into their investigation or tip them off to things they may be looking at. I've got to believe that other members of the committee are horrified at what they just witnessed."

Still, Nunes said he was rushing to the White Housewithout even having spoken to the Democratic members of his committee about thisto brief Trump immediately. "They need to see it," Nunes told reporters before he dashed off to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

But when asked whether Trump was specifically and intentionally targeteda sensational claim that would bolster Trump's widely debunked March 4 tweets accusing former President Barack Obama of "wire tapping"Nunes said he wasn't sure. In fact, nothing Nunes said would back up Trump's tweets. He was referring to legally authorized surveillance conducted under a court order that targeted a foreign intelligence source but that happened to also pick up Americansnot an uncommon occurrence.

At his White House press conferencefollowing his meeting with Trumpa reporter asked, "But just to clarify, this is not intentional spying on Donald Trump?"

"I have no idea," Nunes replied. "We won't know that until we get to the bottom of: Did people ask for the unmasking of additional names within the president-elect's transition team?"

This was a disingenuous response. Nunes had earlier acknowledged he was only referring to officially authorized surveillance, which could not be ordered by a president. (There's a whole process through which the FBI and other intelligence agencies go to a special court to receive permission to conduct surveillance.) Yet here was Nunes slyly hinting that well, just maybe, this would back up Trump's fact-free charge. This was the tell. If he were only concerned with the unmasking of Americans caught up in incidental collection, Nunes could have instructed his committee staff to examine the matter and worked with Democrats on the committee on how best to handle the matter. Instead, he ran to the White House to share his information with the fellow who is the subject of an investigation Nunes is overseeing. Nunes was pulling a political stunt to provide Trump some cover.

And Trump took the cover. After Nunes' briefing, the president told reporters that he felt "somewhat" vindicated by what Nunes reported to the public on Wednesday. "I very much appreciated the fact that they found what they found." The revelations, though, don't vindicate Trump at all; he accused President Obama of directing the phones in Trump Tower to be tapped in October. Nunes' new information refers to incidental collection after the election. Trump compared the situation to "Nixon/Watergate," and called Obama a "Bad (or sick) guy!" Nunes made clear the surveillance was legal. Trump suggested Obama had somehow broken the law.

Adding to the political nature of what Nunes did is the fact that he didn't consult with Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House committee, before he briefed Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan, reporters (twice), and the White House.

"I'm going to be meeting with Mr. Schiff at some point to talk about where we go with this investigation," Nunes told reporters when the issue came up after he briefed the president. "I had to brief the speaker first, then I had to talk to the CIA director, the NSA director, and I'm waiting to talk to the FBI directorThen I went and talked to all of youand then I voted, and then I said I was coming here to brief the president, and then I'll be glad to talk to others later."

Schiff issued a statement Wednesday afternoon slamming Nunes' actions.

"This information should have been shared with members of the committee, but it has not been," Schiff said. "Indeed it appears that committee members only learned about this when [Nunes] discussed the matter this afternoon with the press. [Nunes] also shared this information with the White House before providing it to the committee, another profound irregularity, given that the matter is currently under investigation. I have expressed my grave concerns with [Nunes] that a credible investigation cannot be conducted this way."

Schiff added that Nunes told him that most of the names within the intelligence reports were, in fact, masked, "but that he could still figure out the probable identity of the parties." This means that the intelligence agencies followed the law, Schiff said, and "moreover, the unmasking of a US Person's name is fully appropriate when it is necessary to understand the context of collected foreign intelligence information."

Sen. Ron Wyden, (D-Ore.), accused Nunes of leaking classified information.

Jeremy Bash, who formerly served as chief counsel for the Democrats on the committee, said Wednesday that what Nunes did was unprecedented and very concerning.

"I don't think in the 40 years of the committee's existence, since the post-Watergate-era reforms, with the Church and Pike committees that emerged from those scandals, I have never heard of a chairman of an oversight committee going to brief the president of the United States about concerns he has about things he's read in intelligence reports," Bash told MSNBC Wednesday afternoon. "The job of the committee is to do oversight of the executive branch, not to bring them into their investigation or tip them off to things they may be looking at. I've got to believe that other members of the committee are horrified at what they just witnessed."

Read the original post:
The Republican in Charge of the Trump-Russia Probe Just Pulled a Crazy Political Stunt - Mother Jones

Seeking and winning the presidency has been a magical voyage of discovery for Donald Trump.

Tuesday night, he divulged a most remarkable finding: Abraham Lincoln was are you sitting down for this? a Republican.

Most people dont even know he was a Republican, Trump told a group of Republicans. Right? Does anyone know? A lot of people dont know that.

Its possible that somebody doesnt know that Lincoln, the first Republican president, was a member of the Republican Party, also known as the Party of Lincoln. But it has not been for lack of effort on Trumps part. He has repeatedly tried to educate the populace on this little-known fact.

August 2016: Most people dont know this. The Republican Party is ... the party of Abraham Lincoln.

September 2016: A lot of people dont realize that Abraham Lincoln, the great Abraham Lincoln, was a Republican.

October 2016: A lot of people dont know that its the party of Abraham Lincoln.

Beyond this Lincoln revelation, Trump has happened upon many other things that people didnt know. Such as the complexity of health care: Nobody knew health care could be so complicated, he said recently. And the existence of abolitionist Frederick Douglass, who died in 1895: Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody whos done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more, I notice.

Later, touring the new African American history museum in Washington, Trump discovered that slavery was bad. Spying a stone auction block, Trump said, according to Alveda King, a part of his entourage: Boy, that is just not good. That is not good. King also told the Atlanta Journal Constitution that upon seeing shackles for children, Trump remarked: That is really bad. That is really bad.

Who knew?

Trumps discoveries of seemingly obvious things raise two possibilities: 1) He thinks people are awfully stupid, or 2) he is discovering for himself things the rest of us already knew. Which is true? Nobody knows. But we do know that there are many other things Trump thinks people dont know about.

Sunday school: I talk about Sunday school and people dont even know what Im talking about anymore. Its true.

That Bill Clinton signed NAFTA: A lot of people dont know that.

What a value-added tax is: A lot of people dont know what that means.

That we have a trade deficit with Mexico: People dont know that.

That Iraq has large oil reserves: People dont know this about Iraq.

That war is expensive: People dont realize it is a very, very expensive process.

That the country is divided: People dont realize we are an unbelievably divided country.

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

Trump, in his bid to educate the public about things he has learned, takes on a professorial tone. Talking about the Johnson Amendment on church-state separation, Professor Trump told an audience that its something people dont know in the kind of detail and depth that I have explained it to you today. Trump had just explained to them the Johnson Amendments provenance: This was Lyndon Johnson in the 1970s.

The Johnson Amendment was passed in 1954. Johnson retired in 1969 and died in 1973.

Trump claims that a lot of people dont know that U.S. taxes are the worlds highest and that nobody knows the U.S. murder rate is the highest in 45 years. For good reason: Those things arent true. Conversely, just about everybody knows that Russia was behind the election hacking, but Trump long asserted that nobody knows if its Russia.

While Trump has said nobody knows everything, he claims to come pretty close. In his own words:

Nobody knows health care better than Donald Trump.

Nobody knows the tax code better than I do.

Nobody knows politics better than I do.

Nobody knows the politicians better than me.

Nobody knows the system better than me.

Nobody knows more about debt. Im like the king.

By contrast, Trumps list of things other people dont know about is extensive: the heroin problem in New Hampshire, Ben Carsons performance in the primaries, President Obamas record on deportations, the number injured in the Paris terrorist attacks, the hikes in Obamacare premiums, eminent domain, the existence of two Air Force One planes, Afghanistans mineral deposits, Hillary Clinton flunking a bar exam and the authenticity of Trumps hair.

Trump may be correct when he says most people dont know how much hes worth and dont know that hes a nice person. But hes surely wrong when he says people dont know how bad things are.

A lot of people dont know it, but our countrys in trouble, he has said.

If we didnt know it before, we do now.

Twitter: @Milbank

Read more from Dana Milbanks archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.

Visit link:
Lincoln was a Republican, slavery is bad and more discoveries ... - Washington Post

This article originally appeared on AlterNet.

Theres no question this is ahard-power budget, budget director Mick Mulvaney said of President Trumps proposal to slash spending on diplomacy while increasing military spending. It is not a soft-power budget. . . The president very clearly wants to send a message to our allies and our potential adversaries that this is a strong-power administration. So youve seen money move from soft-power programs, such as foreign aid, into hard-power programs.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson defended the proposed 29 percent cut in his budget with the argument that as time goes by, there will be fewermilitary conflictsthat the U.S. will be directly engaged in.

The idea seems to be that U.S. hard poweras articulated by Trump and bolstered by a $54 billion increase in military spendingwill deter Americas enemies and result in fewer wars. So the United States will need less international involvement and fewer diplomats.

Its a far-fetched argument, if not entirely bogus.

After all, Trump and Tillerson are not talking about withdrawing or winding down U.S. involvement in any of our five ongoing military conflicts (Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia). In fact, early reports indicate that Defense Secretary James Mattis wants to put U.S. troops on the ground in Syria, which President Obama refused to do.

Nor is Trump talking about cutting back on the U.S Special Operations Command, which in 2015 was operating in arecord 135 countriesaround the world, according to military analyst Nick Turse.

The deeper agenda

Trumps budget cuts are not a harbinger of pacification, but an attack on the profession of diplomacy and the practice of international cooperation. They reflect White House adviser Steve Bannons agenda ofdismantling Americas alliancesbuilt since the end of the Cold War.

The goal is to replace the United Nations, the European Union, NATO and other multinational organizations with a more transactional diplomacy. Trump and Bannon prefer bilateral deals with partners that are willing to take on the civilizational struggle against radical Islamic terrorism. The template is gendered: abandon the soft, feminized European Union and embrace the hard, manly Putin.

But before Trump and Bannon can wage that war they need to disarm the forces that might impede them. BannonsStrategic Initiatives Grouphas targeted European governments that support the European Union. The State Department and United Nations are targeted for the same reason.

The U.N. will bear the brunt of the cuts, reports Colum Lynch inForeign Policy:

State Department staffers have been instructed to seek cuts in excess of 50 percent in U.S. funding for U.N. programs, signaling an unprecedented retreat by President Donald Trumps administration from international operations that keep the peace, provide vaccines for children, monitor rogue nuclear weapons programs, and promote peace talks from Syria to Yemen, according to three sources.

U.N. officials expect the United States to seek to eliminate funding for the U.N. Population Fund, which receives about $35 million a year from the U.S. for family planning programs, and the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, according to Lynch.

Sub-Saharan Africa is also likely to suffer.

We have U.N. warnings of famine in four countries, said Bathsheba Crocker, who served in the State Department as assistant secretary of state for International Organization Affairs, referring to food crises in Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, and Yemen. It is only the U.N. agencies that have the scale and ability to get in and address these challenges.

Enemies of expertise

Another target:well-informed U.S. diplomats.

The Secretary of State typically has two deputies; Tillerson hasnt filled either position. There are six open undersecretary slots and 22 unfilled assistant secretary positions. These jobs are typically filled by Foreign Service officers with regional experience, language skills and foreign connections.

These posts will probably remain unfilled. So when theres an Ebola outbreak in Africa, or a tsunami in South Asia, or a climate change crisis in the Arctic, or a Zika epidemic in Latin America, or famine in Sudan, the U.S. government will be less able to provide medical expertise, disaster relief, scientific insight, medical supplies, or food. Thats the point: to prevent the exercise of so-called soft-power.

Thomas Countryman, a former senior State Department official who played a leading role in the Iran nuclear deal, toldPublic Radio International, Theres a deliberate policy on the part of the White House to let the State Department and other agencies atrophy to ensure that there remains a vacuum in the analytical and leadership capabilities of State and other agencies.

Those jobs are held by reality-based diplomats. Whatever their politics, they might insist that U.S. policymakers consider whether another land war in the Middle East is a good idea; whether demonizing Muslims makes Americans safer; whether hostility to Cuba makes sense; and whether climate change is real.

Trump and Bannon know the best waythe only waythey can win such debates is not to have them. They want a vacuum in which Trump will be free to escalate the struggle against radical Islamic terrorism. The State Department budget cuts are not intended as a prelude to peace as Tillerson suggested, but as preparation for the clash of civilizationsBannon yearns for.

The rest is here:
Donald Trump's biggest war is on democracy itself - Salon

Thomas Maresca, Special for USA TODAY Published 2:59 p.m. ET March 22, 2017 | Updated 12 hours ago

Joshua Wong, who became the face of Hong Kong's pro-democracy protests in 2014, discusses the city's upcoming election.(Photo: Thomas Maresca)

HONG KONG Days before a controversial election, a student who becamethe face of thecity's pro-democracy protests in 2014 said Chinese communist leaders are squelchingpolitical freedom in this former British colony.

Autonomy is at a low point in Hong Kong, said Joshua Wong, 20, who led the "umbrella" movement against Beijing's crackdown on the drive for open elections to choose Hong Kong's chief executive. The protest got its name from the umbrellas students used to repel tear gas fired by police.

China, however, didnt give in to the student demands. Instead of a popular vote, Sunday's election ofchief executive is a three-person race of candidates approved by Beijing. The winner will be chosen by a 1,200-member election committee.

From the archive:Meet the 17-year-old face of Hong Kong's protests

Former chief secretary Carrie Lam, the No. 2 under unpopular outgoing Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying, is favored by Beijing and expected to win. The other candidates are John Tsang, who leads public polls, and retired judge Woo Kwok-hing.

It is a selection rather than an election, Wong said in an interview near the Central Government Offices, where the protests kicked off three years ago. Who becomes chief executive is still under control of the Beijing government.

China's growing control of Hong Kong affairs alarms Wong and other activists.

They see Beijings influence in an upcoming trial of four democratically elected members of the Hong Kong Legislative Council. The four legislators, including Nathan Law, Wongs fellow student leader, face removal by Hong Kong's Justice Department over charges that their swearing-in oaths were invalid because they did not repeat word-for-word astrictpledgeof allegiance to mainland China.

When Britain handed Hong Kong to China in 1997 after more than a century of rule, China agreed to a policyof one country, two systems: The communist regime would regain sovereignty, but the bustling Asian financial hub would maintain its openeconomic and political systems.

What we worry about is one country, two systems turning into one country, 1.5 systems, or finally one country, one system, Wong said. China has its own definition of democracy, but in fact it's totally against rule of law and judicial independence. So that will be a nightmare for us.

Chinas increasing economic, political and military influence is being felt around the region.

This file photo taken Aug. 26, 2015, shows student protesters Joshua Wong, left, and Nathan Law, right, standing outside the Wanchai police station in Hong Kong.(Photo: Philippe Lopez, AFP/Getty Images)

In October, Wong was denied entry into Thailand to speak at a student activist event. He was held in solitary confinement for 12 hours in Bangkoks Suvarnabhumi Airport before being sent back to Hong Kong and blacklisted from Thailand. In January, on a visit to Taiwan, Wong and his traveling group were accosted by hundreds of pro-China demonstrators at the airport in the capital Taipai.

Taiwan, which China considers to be a breakaway province, is governed autonomously.

On returning from Taiwan, fellow activist leader Law was assaulted by pro-China protesters at Hong Kong international airport, sending him to the hospital with minor injuries.

I think my experience can prove the threat of China in Asia, Wong said. Allowing a total anti-democracy (country), with no human rights and rule of law, to be a leader of Asia is a threat, and it should not be ignored by the international community.

Wong hopes to enlist the support of democratic countries to restore freedom to Hong Kong.

Images from 2014 protest

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

It's time to renew the foreign policy of different countries towardHong Kong, said Wong, who traveled to the United Kingdom this month to press his case with members of Parliament.

Wong also plans to visit the United States to lobby for passage of the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, which proposes measures against officials in Hong Kong or mainland China responsible for suppressing freedoms in the city.

The billwas reintroduced in February by Sens. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and Ben Cardin, D-Md.

"Joshua is an impressive and thoughtful young man who, along with his fellow activists, represents the future of Hong Kong a future that must not go the way of Beijings failed authoritarianism and one-party rule, Rubio said in a statement.

Wongs democracy crusade will be featured in a Netflix documentary later this year calledJoshua: Teenager vs. Superpower,which premiered at the Sundance Film Festival.

Cheung Chor-yung, assistant head of the department of public policy at City University of Hong Kong, said that most people in Hong Kong want greater democracy, but Wong's movement has become splintered and ineffective in the face of Beijing's overwhelming might.

We don't have any leaders or any effective political organizations that can really consolidate the opposition. It's very fragmented after the "umbrella" movement.

Wong countered that he and other activists aren't giving up.We know it will be a hard time for us, and that's the reason we hope to seek the international community's support," he said.On Election Day, it will be the time for civil disobedience on the street.

We are facing the largest authoritarian regime in the world, Wong added. So the fight for democracy is not a short-term thing.

Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2nD0nob

Excerpt from:
Joshua Wong, 20-year-old 'Umbrella' rebellion leader, decries rigged Hong Kong election - USA TODAY

Mark Rowley of the Metropolitan police makes a statement outside of New Scotland Yard on 22 March. The terrorist is helpless without the assistance of the media and those who feed it with words and deeds. Photograph: Jack Taylor/Getty Images

The current bout of global terrorism came to the heart of London today in a fatal attack outside the Palace of Westminster. The symbolism is impossible to escape. An assault on the home of democracy induces a peculiar sense of outrage. That people, including a policeman, should die in such an assault is tragic.

As yet, nothing is known of the motive. All that can be said is that the attacker failed to enter parliament itself. Bystanders were killed and injured, but the massive security inevitable for such an institution was effective in protecting its occupants. In a busy modern city there is no way absolute security can be assured, but the police can say that the system was tested and worked. Short of holding parliament in a bunker, there are limits to what more can or should sensibly be done.

Parliament will have been subjected to this test because of its high profile. The initial purpose of such incidents is to kill and wreak havoc. But the culprit cannot have sought simply to damage a wall or cause death and injury. We can assume he anticipated massive publicity for his deed and thus for his message. His purpose may well have been to spread fear, to test the robustness of democracy and, if possible, make it change its behaviour.

Our response to these incidents must not be to overreact. This week is the anniversary of the Islamic State outrage at Brussels airport, when 32 people lost their lives in a coordinated assault on Belgiums transport system. It followed earlier attacks in Paris.

The reaction then was extraordinary. Europes media and politicians were close to hysterical. For days, BBC reporters on the spot repeated the words panic, threat and menace by the hour. Frances President Franois Hollande declared that all of Europe has been attacked. Prime minister David Cameron announced that the UK faces a very real terror threat. Donald Trump declared to cheering supporters that Belgium and France are literally disintegrating. Isis could not have asked for a greater megaphone.

The terrorist is helpless without the assistance of the media and those who feed it with words and deeds. In his thoughtful manual, Terrorism: How to Respond, academic Richard English points out that the so-called threat to democracy, about which politicians like to talk at such times, lies not in any bloodshed and damage. It is the more real danger of provoking ill-judged, extravagant and counterproductive state responses. But this puts those who choose to be provoked in a peculiar and compromising position. Only if the media respond in a certain way can the terrorists achieve whatever spurious ends they may have.

The paucity of incidents in countries that censor news shows the crucial role of publicity to terrors methodology

We should recall that Theresa May as home secretary used the Paris and Belgium attacks to champion her snoopers charter, the most severe intrusion on personal privacy anywhere in the western world and described as such by Bill Binney, formerly of Americas National Security Agency. May added that the terrorist threat was why we should stay in the EU, as otherwise they would roam free. She warned that it took 143 days to process terrorist DNA outside the EU, against 15 minutes inside. Does she still say that? We have to respect those who defend us, but terrorism induces a strange madness.

At the time, the British government also rushed ahead with its Prevent strategy, commanding every educational institution to show it had programmes in place to counter nonviolent extremism, which can create an atmosphere conducive to terrorism. The attendant bureaucracy is now massive. Hardly a week passes without the Metropolitan police demanding vigilance inducing fear, caution and nervousness towards strangers. A recent BBC drama documentary titled Attack was ill-concealed publicity for more money for the police.

In struggling to put these incidents into proportion, we need to remember that there are now huge amounts of money in counterterrorism. Now is not the time to say this money is disproportionate, but it is open to the charge of serving terrors purposes. Everyone involved has, in truth, a sort of interest in it, from journalists and politicians to police and security lobbyists. The paucity of terror incidents in totalitarian countries that censor news shows the crucial role of publicity to terrors methodology. That said, suppressing such news cannot be justified in a free society. There is even a reluctance to admit self-censorship. When last year the French newspaper Le Monde decided not to publish the names of those responsible for terrorist killings as it clearly aided their martyrdom, it was criticised for denying coverage.

But every decision to publish an item of news involves a choice, a judgment. That is not censorship. For those seeking publicity for their misdeeds, there is a world of difference between the top spot on the news and the bottom. If the intention is not just to kill a few but thereby to terrify a multitude, the media is an essential accomplice. It is not the act that spreads terror, it is the report, the broadcast, the edited presentation, the decision on prominence.

All analysts of terrorism reiterate that it is not an ideology. Guns and bombs pose no existential threat to a country or society. Politicians who exploit it to engender fear are cynics with vested interests. Terrorism is a methodology of conflict. There is no real defence against madmen who kill, though its worth restating that Londons streets have probably never been safer places.

The use of vehicles to convey death is as old as the motor car or at least since Mario Buda exploded his car bomb in Wall Street in 1920. Recent advances in electronics have clearly taken this a step further, hence the new horror of laptops on board aeroplanes. But planes are safer vehicles than ever.

That is why the response of British governments to IRA incidents in the 1970s and 80s to regard them as random crimes not quasi-political gestures was surely correct. IRA terrorism was a much worse threat than anything experienced at present. Some freedoms were curtailed, as in detention without trial and the censoring of IRA spokespeople. They were minor victories for terror. But for the most part, British freedoms were not infringed, life went on and the threat eventually passed. Let us hope the same applies today.

Read more:
The Westminster attack is a tragedy, but it's not a threat to democracy - The Guardian