Posts

Is the Trump/Russia “Dossier” the Fake News of the Decade?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Fake news or conspiracy theory? Or the most epic troll since Dan Rather was conned into accepting forged documents about George Bush? Or a hilarious amalgam of all three?

All elements of this story are as yet unknown, but what is unfolding has the makings of historical high comedy. Here’s a rundown.

Buzzfeed, a website whose specialty is celebrity tittle-tattle, asinine quizzes such as “Which ‘Pixie Hollow Fairy Are You?“, and get-skinny-quick-by-petting-cats articles, published a document, which they gave the graduated title of dossier, which purported to show how Russia, under the devious and genius scheming of Vladimir Putin, had been grooming and bribing Donald Trump for many years, and blackmailing him by threatening to reveal perverted sexual practices, so that Trump would be induced to enter the US Presidential election, win it by secret dirt supplied by Russian intelligence agents, and so place the once United States of America under the control of a foreign government.

Yes, really.

Even Hollywood would never believe a story like that. But many others did. Like, some allege, virulent Never-Trumper, and legacy Republican political strategist, Rick Wilson, the man who accused Trump supporters (this is, unfortunately, relevant) of being childless single men who masturbate to anime.

That disgusting comment is relevant because after Wilson made it, he became a target of ridicule across the Internet, including at the Wild West site 4Chan, a place were folks delight in trolling, which might be defined as pranking-with-intent. After Buzzfeed revealed their conspiracy theory, and probably because of the conspiracy theory’s reliance on certain perverted sexual acts and because of Wilson’s tie-in with sexual commentary, members on 4chan claimed that they were the authors of the dossier. The claim is that the dossier was fan fiction, and that it was leaked to Wilson who believed it and who then turned it over to the CIA. Wilson denies this. And it isn’t plausible 4chan hoaxed the entire USA intelligence community, but the fracas adds a delightful twist to the story.

A better angle involves Republican Senator John McCain, personal enemy of Trump. McCain was first given a copy of the conspiracy document, which he later handed over to the FBI because, he said, he didn’t “know if it is credible or not.”

How did McCain come into possession of the document in the first place? It is being reported he got it from Christopher Steele, an Ex-British Intelligence Officer, and member of Orbis Intelligence Limited, a company that performs “oppo research,” or opposition research, also known as the art of digging up dirt. Yet if it is true Steele is the author of the conspiracy theory, who paid Steele to create it?

The Wall Street Journal tried tracking down Steele, but they only discovered a colleague who told the paper Steele “would be away for a few days.” The colleague didn’t know where. Perhaps they should search in Phoenix, where Senator McCain has his official residence? Or maybe in a dim bar in Moscow? One wonders if Steele has a 4chan account. Never mind.

Enter CNN. That network presented the conspiracy theory as if it were true, and hinted with all possible strength that the US intelligence community also believed it was true, and that Trump had been briefed by “Intel chiefs” about the damning information Russia had on him.

Only it turns out that Trump was never briefed. Intelligence agencies had the document, which is now known to have been “originally generated as part of opposition research by anti-Trump Republicans and then shopped by Democrats,” but they “planned to show it as an example of disinformation campaigns.”

The tale grows stranger still, because Trump himself claims to have conducted his own “sting operation” to detect leaks from American intelligence agencies, an operation he says was a success, proving somebody was leaking details about his intelligence briefings. This has led to all kinds of rumors about bad feelings between Trump and the intelligence community.

Reacting to CNN and Buzzfeed, Trump said at a news conference Wednesday, “It’s all fake news. It’s all phony stuff. It didn’t happen.” The kicker is that when a CNN reporter tried to ask a question, Trump shot him and CNN down, saying “You are fake news.”

It will be recalled that during the election, CNN had given up any pretence of impartiality, openly touting Clinton and denigrating Trump. The network’s bias soon became so blatant that when a CNN crew was spotted, Trump supporters taunted them with cries of “Clinton News Network,” or worse.

Now that Hillary has faded from the scene, CNN has not given up its visceral hatred of Trump, and has proved willing to broadcast any information that might be damaging to Trump, even when that information has less veracity than an out-of-focus photograph which purports to show Bigfoot riding the Loch Ness Monster.

The story isn’t over. The news on why Steele wrote the document, if he wrote it, and why, including who paid him for it, is bound to generate even more fun. (For more from the author of “Is the Trump/Russia “Dossier” the Fake News of the Decade?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Pentagon Nominee James Mattis Warns of Russian Attempts to ‘Break NATO’

/0 Comments/in , /by

Russia is the principal threat facing the United States, and the new administration should increase support to allies in the face of the Kremlin’s attempts to “break the North Atlantic alliance,” Donald Trump’s choice for defense secretary testified Thursday.

Retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, speaking at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the U.S. and its NATO partners must strengthen the mutual defense alliance.

“NATO from my perspective is the most successful military alliance in modern world history—maybe ever,” Mattis, 66, testified. “My view is nations with allies thrive and nations without allies don’t. If we did not have NATO today, we would need to create it. It is vital to the security of the United States and vital to the protection of the democracies we are allied with.”

Trump said during the campaign that under his administration, American military support for NATO could be conditional on whether member states have met their financial obligations to the alliance.

Mattis tried to assuage concerns that the U.S. would not commit to the alliance, telling senators he is “confident the president-elect expects us to live up to our word with Article 5” of the NATO treaty, which enshrines the principle that an attack against one member is an attack against all.

To underline that point, Mattis said he supports a permanent U.S. military presence in the Baltic nations to deter Russian aggression.

In a moment where Russia is under fire for interfering in the U.S. election, and the Kremlin’s fingerprints are all over some of the world’s dominant conflicts, including the war in Syria, Mattis urged caution on working with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“I am all for engagement, but we also have to recognize reality and what Russia is up to,” Mattis said. “He [Putin] has chosen to be both a strategic competitor and adversary in key areas. I have very modest expectations about areas of cooperation with Mr. Putin.”

Mattis is known and admired as “Mad Dog” in the military, though it is a nickname he says he loathes because it doesn’t fit the sober-mindedness with which he views the use of military force.

His forecasting of world challenges, and his proposed approach to them, seemed to impress members of both parties on the Armed Services Committee.

After the hearing, the Senate quickly voted 81-to-17 to grant Mattis a waiver to run the Pentagon, an action required because he retired from the military only four years ago.

Under federal law, defense secretaries must have been retired from military service for seven years, unless Congress grants a waiver.

The House must still vote on the waiver before the Senate votes on formally confirming Mattis.

Senators who questioned Mattis said they hoped he would take seriously the doctrine of civilian control of the military. Mattis was careful in describing how he would use America’s military might, saying he views force to be a “last resort” that the U.S. can avoid by deterring adversaries with strong alliances and diplomatic leadership:

America has two fundamental powers. One is the power of intimidation. America will defend itself and this experiment in democracy. And the other power that perhaps we have used less in recent years is the power of inspiration. That has to be deployed at times just as strongly.

Central to that power, Mattis said, is adequately funding the military so that it has the best equipment and weaponry.

Mattis warned that because of spending cuts mandated by a budget device known as sequestration, the U.S. may lack the military strength to easily confront Russia and other adversaries, and to manage conflicts such as the war in Afghanistan and the military campaign against the Islamic State terrorist group, or ISIS, in Syria and Iraq.

The Budget Control Act of 2011, which set spending caps, cut a projected $487 billion from defense spending over a decade.

Yet at the same time, Mattis concurred with Sen. David Perdue, R-Ga., who asked whether Mattis agrees the national debt is the greatest threat to national security.

“I understand the need for solvency and security. No nation has maintained its military power if it did not maintain its fiscal house,” Mattis said, adding:

At the same time, this country needs to be prepared to defend itself. I believe we can afford survival. I don’t believe in a mathematical calculus that makes Congress spectators as salami-slice cuts come in and you [Congress] don’t have control of it.

Here are other highlights from Mattis’ confirmation hearing, in which the retired four-star Marine general described his policy vision on issues he would encounter as defense secretary:

Iran Nuclear Deal

Mattis reportedly left his last job as leader of U.S. Central Command, which oversees military operations in the Middle East and Southwest Asia, because he disagreed with the Obama administration on how hawkishly to approach Iran.

In the past, Mattis has said Iran is a greater threat than terrorist groups such as ISIS or al-Qaeda.

But in the confirmation hearing, Mattis did not advocate canceling the nuclear deal the Obama administration and other foreign powers negotiated with Iran.

“I think it is imperfect arms control agreement—it’s not a friendship treaty,” Mattis said. “But when America gives its word, we have to live up to it and work with our allies.”

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Bolstering relations with Israel, Mattis said, could help settle a turbulent Middle East.

“We have to restore a better relationship with Israel and Arab allies,” Mattis said. “There is a sense on their part we are indifferent to the security situation they face.”

Mattis said he favors a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and he did not commit to Trump’s campaign pledge to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Women in the Military

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., pressed Mattis on whether he supports Obama administration decisions to open combat positions to women and to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans.

While stressing that having the most “lethal” fighting force would be his priority, Mattis said he would not try to roll back Defense Department policies in those areas.

“I have never come into any job with an agenda of changing anything,” Mattis said. “I come in assuming the people before me deserve respect for the job they did and decisions they made. I believe military service is a touchstone for people of every stripe.”

Defeating ISIS

Mattis said he is confident in ongoing U.S.-assisted military operations to take back from ISIS the major cities of Mosul, Iraq, and Raqqa, Syria.

But he said he would undertake a more “accelerated campaign” to defeat ISIS, understanding that the military effort is only part of the battle.

“There has to be a military defeat, but it has to be a broader approach,” Mattis said. “You need to go after recruiting and fundraising as well. The most important thing to know when you get into a shooting war is how you want it to end.” (For more from the author of “Pentagon Nominee James Mattis Warns of Russian Attempts to ‘Break NATO'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Report: Russia Obtained Compromising Personal, Financial Information on Trump

/0 Comments/in , /by

Donald Trump was presented classified documents last week containing allegations that Russian operatives obtained compromising personal and financial information on the president-elect, according to a new report by CNN.

Included in the documents were allegations that there was communication between Trump surrogates and Russian government intermediaries during the campaign.

The allegations were presented in a two-page appendix to the report on the alleged Russian campaign aimed at influencing the U.S. presidential election.

The four most senior U.S. intelligence officials — Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan and National Security Agency Director Adm. Mike Rogers — briefed both Trump and President Obama on the findings.

Top congressional leaders and ranking members of the House and Senate intelligence committees were also briefed on the allegations.

The allegations presented to the president and president-elect did not originate from the American intelligence community — rather, they came from a former British intelligence agent, CNN reported.

According to the report, the former MI6 agent was originally commissioned by anti-Trump Republicans to perform opposition research during the primaries, and was later funded by Democrats.

CNN reported that soon after the former British intelligence agent began researching Trump’s business ties, he came across questionable information about Trump’s businesses in Russia. He then took the findings to an FBI colleague, and they eventually made their way to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

McCain personally delivered the findings to FBI Director James Comey after becoming “sufficiently disturbed” by the allegations, the report said.

The former MI6 agent has a reputation within the intelligence community and is considered to be a reliable source, according to CNN. That said, the FBI is still reviewing the findings to establish their veracity.

The rather unprecedented decision to present the unconfirmed findings to the president-elect was to make Trump aware that intelligence agencies and senior congressional officials are circulating allegations involving him personally.

The senior intelligence officials also wanted to demonstrate to Trump that Russia had compiled harmful information about both parties, but only released damaging information about Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party. (For more from the author of “Report: Russia Obtained Compromising Personal, Financial Information on Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Russia Derangement Syndrome. Let’s Focus on REAL Threats to American Security

/0 Comments/in , /by

The current Russia “debate” is counter-productive. Yes, Russia meddled in our elections, but Russia did not determine the result. Hillary Clinton’s loss is on her, not Putin. This level of concern from the world’s sole superpower only inflates Putin’s power, and — as the citizens of Aleppo can attest — that power will not be a force for good.

Let’s get a few things straight about Russia. First, it is a mafia basket case in precipitous decline economically, culturally, and demographically. Most of it resembles the Third World. After the Cold War, American military personnel returning from Russia were typically incredulous that such a backward place had caused such fear in the West. It has only gone downhill since.

In 1985, the Soviet Union had 275 million people, a $2.2 trillion economy, and 13 treaty allies. Today, the Russian Federation has 144 million citizens. Even though it is one of the world’s largest producers of oil, it’s economy has shrunk to just $1.3 trillion, putting it on par with Spain (a country with 46 million people and no oil). Last year, Russian poverty reached 15.7 percent. And most of its former allies are now part of NATO, and Russia makes its bed with powerhouses Belarus and Armenia.

But Putin wants you to imagine Russia in the big, bad boy of 1980s Cold War USSR. Think “Red Dawn” or “The Hunt for Red October.” In reality, putting today’s Russia in those movies would be like Jack Ryan hunting rogue Uruguayan submarines — Russia’s nearest rival on the U.N.’s Human Development Index.

Sure, Russia is an existential threat to Estonia, Georgia, and Ukraine, not us. But Russia has nuclear weapons, you say? Two words: North Korea.

Second, put into perspective the meme that Trump is pro-Russian. I am sure Russians cheered his election, not because they succeeded in installing a Manchurian Candidate in the White House, but because they think they have Trump’s number. That’s on Trump to disprove.

Clinton would have had difficulty making that case after cashing all those Clinton Foundation checks from Russia.

President Obama proudly conjured the “reset button.” And who can forget President Bush peering into Putin’s soul? Both look like fools because of it.

As an aside, Vice President-elect Pence might want to take notes if he wants to succeed Trump. Putin always prefers the party out of power. Always. He offers the illusion of good relations after the White House changes parties. If the Trump administration foolishly makes the same Faustian Bargain as Obama and Bush, Putin’s shenanigans will target him. Ask Clinton.

Third, be honest about what Russia did. Yes, Russia hacked the DNC and the personal emails of Clinton, Inc. cronies. Russia released it through their agent Julian Assange. But the idea that John Podesta’s leaked emails trumped the will of 300+ million people is ludicrous.

The irony of the situation is that Putin was reacting to polls just like everyone else. He likely saw Clinton as inevitable. As such, the leaks were about damaging her before she entered office, not electing Trump. They were to ensure U.S. policy toward Russia remained feather-pillow soft in the event Russia investments in the Clinton Foundation did not pan out.

In the near term, the most practical thing is to be honest about Russia. Putin spent hundreds of millions of dollars to discredit a losing presidential candidate — all while Russian babushkas must save pennies to buy food.

Insufficient though Putin’s effort may have been, he still messed with America. That comes with a price, but determining that price should not distract us from the important stuff.

Virtually the entire Democratic Party seems obsessed with Russia, forgetting its pride in Obama’s Seinfeldian snark to Mitt Romney about Russia in 2012. “The 1980s are calling to ask for their foreign policy back.” Indeed.

The medium-term solution is to support regional allies like Estonia, Georgia, and Ukraine, so they can handle Russia for us. They’re more than capable if we back them properly. Look at alliances through the prism of leverage. You will find them quite useful, especially if we want to clear our docket of nettlesome bullies like Putin and deal with the threats that matter.

The long-term solution is to atomize and reorganize our dysfunctional national security structure, but that is another discussion.

The new administration needs to focus on advancing a conservative foreign policy agenda that tackles the threats facing this country, chief among them radical Islam. An administration consumed with Russia will not have the time.

By all means, point out that Russia meddled. Punish them. Better yet, help our allies do it. But be honest about it, and quit obsessing about Russia. It just encourages Putin’s sad grasp for unearned relevance. We have more important things to be doing. (For more from the author of “Russia Derangement Syndrome. Let’s Focus on REAL Threats to American Security” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

America’s CIA, FBI and NSA Continue to Lose Credibility, Issue Politicized Second Russian Hacking Report

/0 Comments/in , /by

The report “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections” released on January 6th by the Director of National Intelligence could be classified as “spam,” an irrelevant message sent over the Internet to large numbers of users for the purposes of advertising.

Out of the twenty-five pages, there is what some may describe as “news”, if you believe in assessments rather than evidence, of which none is provided:

(1) The heads of Obama’s three intelligence-gathering agencies, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA) assess that, “Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump” (disclaimer – I had a clear preference for Trump too);

(2) the three agencies “did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election,” but none of the Russian activities were “involved in vote tallying”;

(3) Obama’s political appointees “assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks,” although any link between Russian intelligence and Wikileaks was not identified;

(4) “Disclosures [from the Democratic National Committee and senior Democrat officials] through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries,” that is, the Democrats really said/did those things.

The bulk of the report, however, simply provides information about US intelligence analysis techniques, scope and sourcing, previously published material and describes:

“longstanding Russian messaging strategy that blends covert intelligence operations-such as cyber activity-with overt efforts by Russian Government agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social media users or ‘trolls,'” especially the role of RT (formerly Russia Today), the “Kremlin’s principal international propaganda outlet.”

None of that is exactly “news” as the report itself admits:

“During the Cold War, the Soviet Union used intelligence officers, influence agents, forgeries, and press placements to disparage candidates perceived as hostile to the Kremlin, according to a former KGB archivist.”

What is interesting is an article by another “Russia’s state-run propaganda” outlet, Sputnik News, which said that Annex A of the US intelligence report claims that “Kremlin’s TV Seeks To Influence Politics, Fuel Discontent in US,” but buried at the bottom of that page is a note stating, “This annex was originally published on 11 December 2012 by the Open Source Center, now the Open Source Enterprise.”

That is, the information cited in the US intelligence report “to provide evidence of RT influencing the American public [in 2016] was compiled in December 2012.”

According to Sputnik News, “The report focuses on television shows and interviews that took place four years before Trump was elected, and well before he was even a politician” and that two RT shows, Breaking the Set and Truthseeker, mentioned in the US intelligence report, were off air before the 2016 election season began.

I would not be terribly shocked to learn that Russian intelligence hacked Democratic Nation Committee computers and John Podesta’s personal email account on Putin’s orders and provided information from those activities to WikiLeaks and DCLeaks.

Neither the first nor the second intelligence report, however, provide direct evidence to support that accusation, but the report authors rely on Americans’ natural inclination to believe it.

The lack of evidence, the timing of the revelations as well as the delayed punitive measures taken against Russia, generate skepticism.

Public reports of alleged Russian hacking surfaced in October 2016 and it was probably known to the US intelligence community much earlier, as their report implies.

Why weren’t Russians expelled, sanctions applied and reports produced prior to the election?

One wonders if any of what has occurred after the election, would have, if Hillary Clinton had won on November 8th.

So, what is the point of the ex post facto intelligence revelations and the diplomatic punishment of Russia other than a result of Obama’s failed Russian foreign policy, his personal animosity towards Putin, a ruse to discredit the election of Donald Trump and a means to hamper the incoming administration?

Perhaps, the Obama Administration can issue a report on that. (For more from the author of “America’s CIA, FBI and NSA Continue to Lose Credibility, Issue Politicized Second Russian Hacking Report” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama’s Actions Against Russia Are ‘Too Little, Too Late’

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Barack Obama on Thursday took steps to retaliate against Russia for what he called “aggressive harassment of U.S. officials and cyber operations aimed at our election.”

Obama’s actions include sanctioning Russian intelligence agencies and individuals as well as expelling 35 Russian government officials from the United States.

“These actions follow repeated private and public warnings that we have issued to the Russian government,” Obama said in a statement, “and are a necessary and appropriate response to efforts to harm U.S. interests in violation of established international norms of behavior.”

The Daily Signal asked Luke Coffey, director of The Heritage Foundation’s Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign and National Security Policy, about Obama’s actions. Here are his answers to our questions.

Some in the media are saying Russian hacking helped Donald Trump win the election against Hillary Clinton. Is there any truth to that?

Hillary Clinton lost the presidential election because the American people rejected her progressive vision of America and the idea of another four years of Obama’s failed policies. She alone is responsible for her defeat.

Russia’s actions are indeed alarming, and they must be taken seriously. Russia has a proven track record of taking an interest in the internal events and election processes of NATO member countries.

In this case, the forensic evidence released by the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI is detailed and persuasive in showing Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee. So Russian denials are not credible.

However, it should be noted that there is no evidence of any interference in the voting and ballot counting processes.

Obama took new measures Thursday to retaliate. What will those measures achieve?

Obama’s announcement of sanctions against sections of Russia’s intelligence community and expelling 35 Russian diplomats from the U.S. is welcome but long overdue. This is too little, too late.

[Russian President Vladimir] Putin respects two things: strength and consistency. Over the past eight years, Obama has shown neither of these traits. This is why Russia felt confident enough to take the actions that it did.

What steps should Congress and the White House take to investigate the extent of Russia’s actions?

Any investigation into this matter needs to be independent, bipartisan, and given enough time to do a comprehensive job. Obama’s rushed internal review lacks creditability.

The U.S. has military superiority over Russia, but technology has become more important than ever to our national security. Just how serious is the cyberthreat from Russia?

As The Heritage Foundation’s 2017 Index of U.S. Military Strength states, “Russia seeks to maximize its strategic position in the world at the expense of the United States,” maintains “incredibly advanced” cyberwarfare capabilities, and assesses “the overall threat from Russia as ‘aggressive’ and ‘formidable.’”

The U.S. intelligence community has continued to serve us skillfully and often gallantly to keep all Americans safe 24/7. That needs to be a priority now and in the future. (For more from the author of “Obama’s Actions Against Russia Are ‘Too Little, Too Late'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Says He Will Meet With Intelligence Leaders About Russia

/0 Comments/in , /by

President-elect Donald Trump will meet with the Intelligence Community next week to discuss Russian interference in the election, he said in a vaguely worded statement issued Thursday evening that did not mention sanctions announced by President Obama earlier that day.

“It’s time for our country to move on to bigger and better things,” Trump wrote in the brief statement. “Nevertheless, in the interest of our country and its great people, I will meet with leaders of the intelligence community next week in order to be updated on the facts of this situation.”

The statement did not define “this situation,” but the transition team earlier in the day had promised a response to the announced sanctions would be forthcoming.

Trump has repeatedly denied any Russian involvement in the hacks of the Democratic party that intelligence officials have said were an attempt to “interfere” in the U.S. election.

He has characterized any reports to that effect as an attempt by Democrats to delegitimize his election. (Read more from “Trump Says He Will Meet With Intelligence Leaders About Russia” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Could Murder of Russian Ambassador Lead to a Reassessment of Turkey’s Role in NATO?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Imagine if the U.S. Ambassador to Mexico were publicly executed in Mexico City by a Mexican government security guard who shouted slogans about “justice” for illegal immigrants. And if then we found out that the guard had a track record of involvement in radical nationalism. How would the U.S. government respond to that? What would ordinary Americans demand that we do?

Expect the Russian government to be similarly aggressive in responding to the blatant, vicious murder of Andrei Karlov, its Ambassador to Turkey — who was gunned down on camera while visiting an art gallery by Turkish riot policeman Mevlut Mert Altintas. Russian president Vladimir Putin has called for Russian security services to be involved in Turkey’s investigation of the murder, which was caught on camera (WARNING: graphic footage):

Revenge for Those “Moderate Rebels” in Syria

The murderer claimed that his attack was revenge against Russia, which has helped Syria’s dictatorial government defeat al Qaeda-allied Islamist rebels in Aleppo, preserving that country’s secular regime and the safety of religious minorities in Syria, including a million Christians. Turkey has been one of the prime sponsors of the Islamist militias in Syria, which have executed Christians, ISIS-style, in regions which they seized. Those jihadists also benefited from U.S. aid, advocated by the likes of John McCain and Lindsey Graham for “moderate rebels” who turned out not quite to exist.

If a confrontation were to develop between the governments, whose side will America take? The media-vilified Russian government or the Islamist regime in Turkey? By treaty, we are actually committed to defend Turkey, because it is still a member of NATO. No doubt Erdogan’s rogue regime feels empowered by that legacy of the Cold War. It will also count on the reflexive hostility to Russia by those who see that country as our inveterate enemy, whatever its regime. But it’s time to reconsider those impulses, and a Trump administration seems likely to ponder long and hard whether Russia is our enemy or Turkey our friend.

Who is Invading Europe: Russia or Turkey?

Before Russia shook off its Communist regime, Turkey was a solid U.S. ally, with a secular government that did a reasonable job of protecting the rights of Christian and other minorities — the tragic remnants of Byzantine Christianity after centuries of ethnic cleansing and grinding Islamic rule under the Ottomans. That Muslim empire lorded it over the citizens of Hungary, Romania, Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia for centuries. Features of Ottoman rule included the regular kidnapping of thousands of Christian infants, to be raised as Muslim soldiers.

Secular Turkey could protect its minorities, serve as a U.S. ally, and advance toward modernization as long as it was a military regime, which enforced its non-Islamic constitution by refusing to hold elections. Once Turkey, under misguided American pressure to democratize, began its transition to mass elections during the late 1990s, the voice of Islamist radicals began to drown out all the others.

Springtime for Islamists

Now the country is ruled by the increasingly autocratic Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has jailed hundreds of journalists in the wake of a dubious coup attempt in July. Erdogan has made it clear that he is nostalgic for Turkey’s old imperial, Islamist past: He is dressing his palace guards in old Ottoman uniforms, revising history books to glorify the country’s Islamist past, and cracking down on the religious rights of Christians.

Turkey aided and abetted the mass colonization of Europe by Syrian “refugees,” who under international law should have remained there, as the “first safe country” they could reach. Instead, Turkey helped them to enter Greece and other countries, from which they could travel to Germany, Sweden, and other lands with generous welfare systems. The resulting wave of immigrant crimes and terrorist attacks is disrupting politics all across the European Union.

Instead of mitigating the flow, Turkish president Erdogan is using the fear of more refugees as a stick in negotiations with the EU, demanding that it continue moves to admit Turkey to the EU, and grant visa-free travel for the whole population of Turkey throughout the whole European Union — or else face a new influx of 1-2 million more colonists, who he threatens to ship into a supine Europe unwilling to defend its southern borders.

NATO was created to deter a Russian invasion. It succeeded. What a hideous irony it would be if NATO were used to protect a regime that is invading Europe with a far more intractable enemy: Muslims who oppressed and terrorized large parts of Europe for 400 years. (For more from the author of “Could Murder of Russian Ambassador Lead to a Reassessment of Turkey’s Role in NATO?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What a Special Committee Investigating Russia’s Cyberattacks Could Do

/0 Comments/in , /by

A bipartisan group of senators is pressing for the creation of a special panel—known as a select committee—to investigate and provide the definitive account of Russian cyberattacks on the U.S. political system.

Sens. John McCain. R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., along with incoming Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York and Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., called for a select committee on cybersecurity in a bipartisan letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

McConnell, so far, has resisted the idea of appointing a unique investigative body, preferring to go through the normal process where already existing committees with jurisdiction over cybersecurity issues, like the Intelligence Committee and Armed Services Committee, conduct their own probes.

“We don’t need to set up a special committee to do what we [can do] through regular order,” McConnell said Monday night on Kentucky Educational Television.

Supporters of the select committee say Russia’s actions are extraordinary enough to warrant an all-encompassing investigation.

“Recent reports of Russian interference in our election should alarm every American,” the bipartisan group of senators wrote on Sunday to McConnell. “Cybersecurity is the ultimate cross-jurisdictional challenge, and we must take a comprehensive approach to meet this challenge effectively.”

McConnell would need to allow the vote on a select committee to go forward, although senators could force a vote on the floor.

According to media reports, the intelligence community, including the CIA and FBI, have concluded that hackers associated with Russia broke into the computer systems of the Democratic National Committee and other political organizations, and leaked emails during the presidential campaign.

The CIA recently told Congress that Russia tried to help President-elect Donald Trump win. A new leaked memo shows the FBI director backs that assessment. Russia hackers also tried to hack the Republican National Committee, The Wall Street Journal reports.

The procedural debate is important because forming a select committee would raise the public profile of Russia’s actions at a time when Trump continues to reject the conclusions of intelligence reports.

The Daily Signal below explains the many questions surrounding a potential select committee.

What Is a Select Committee and How Is One Formed?

Congress usually forms a select committee to examine a specific issue for a limited time, but they are rarely created. When they are, these special panels tackle issues that span the different coverage areas of the normal committee structure.

“You can imagine if lots of committees looked into this, you would get different answers and interpretations of evidence, so there is a lot of value in having a select committee that produces the definitive account,” Susan Hennessey, a fellow in national security in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, said in an interview with The Daily Signal.

Members and senators in either chamber of Congress could introduce a resolution creating a select committee. The House and Senate could also authorize a select committee together, but it’s more likely to be handled by one chamber individually.

On Monday, Politico reported that Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., plans to introduce a bill that, if passed, would mandate a new select Senate committee on cybersecurity.

A stand-alone proposal in the Senate creating a select committee would require 60 votes to overcome a filibuster attempt. The president cannot veto the imposition of a select committee.

Select committees are made up of lawmakers from both parties chosen by leadership.

What Would a Select Committee on Cybersecurity Do?

Lawmakers spell out the specific duties of a select committee in the resolution mandating its creation.

“The role could be framed as a committee just investigating Russian cyberattacks or it could be framed more broadly and be about foreign cyberattacks conducted on the U.S. since a specified date,” said Jordan Tama of American University, who specializes in foreign and national security policymaking.

Schumer, McCain, Graham, and Reed, indicated to McConnell that the panel they propose would focus not only on Russian cyber behavior but also potential threats from other countries, including China and Iran.

The senators recommended that such a committee also develop “comprehensive recommendations and, as necessary, new legislation to modernize our nation’s laws, governmental organization, and related practices to meet this challenge.”

Typically, however, select committees do not have direct legislative authority, meaning they cannot issue legislation. They usually devise a report with recommendations for action, and lawmakers could use the findings to separately introduce legislation outside the committee structure.

A select committee does have the power to issue subpoenas, and they would likely hold high-profile news conferences and hearings, bringing more attention to the Russian hacking issue.

Supporters of a major investigation say that would be the biggest role of a select committee—credibly telling the story of what happened to a still skeptical public.

A new Politico/Morning Consult poll revealed that just one-third of Americans say they believe Russia influenced the 2016 presidential election.

“Many Americans still don’t believe that the Russians influenced our elections, and vast majorities for Russians don’t believe it,” Michael McFaul, a former U.S. ambassador to Russia in the Obama administration, wrote in an email to The Daily Signal. “You need firm attribution before taking steps against Russian individuals or agencies.”

What Other Select Committees Has Congress Authorized?

The most prominent recent example is the House select committee investigating the 2012 attacks on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. Democrats have dismissed that committee as partisan.

Select committees have a longer history in the Senate where dozens have been formed, according to CNN, including ones probing the Iran-Contra scandal, Watergate, and the Ku Klux Klan.

The 9/11 Commission, set up to provide the “complete account” of the Sept. 11 attacks, is perhaps the most recognized congressionally-authorized investigation. However, an independent commission is different than a select committee in significant ways.

The 9/11 Commission included bipartisan members who were not in elected office at the time, but they had previous legislative and executive experience.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has led a chorus in her caucus calling for an independent commission into Russia’s actions this election. Republicans so far are not supporting that effort.

Does the Trump Administration Have to Follow the Committee’s Findings?

Trump has downplayed the Russian hacks so far, and if he maintains that stance, he could clash with Republicans in Congress if they participate in a select committee that proposes actions against the Kremlin.

“The president is not bound by the findings, nor does he have to agree with it,” Hennessey said. “To the extent the committee’s report includes classified information, he does have some control over what can be made public.”

Tama said Trump could also limit the degree to which the executive branch cooperates with a select committee investigation.

“With an investigation, the bigger, more direct conflict is whether Trump will allow or encourage executive branch officials to cooperate with the investigation,” Tama said. “Any congressional investigation can be made more complicated if the president is not cooperating either directly or implicitly by saying he doesn’t want the executive branch to cooperate.”

Reince Priebus, White House chief of staff, suggested Sunday that Trump will accept Russia’s role in the hacking if the intelligence agencies draft a report with consensus agreement.

“I think he would accept the conclusion if they would get together, put out a report, and show the American people they are on the same page,” Priebus said on “Fox News Sunday.” (For more from the author of “What a Special Committee Investigating Russia’s Cyberattacks Could Do” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Russian Ambassador to Turkey Gunned down ‘for Aleppo.’ What’s next for Turkish-Russian Relations?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Russia and Turkey have come a long way over the past year.

In November 2015, the Turkish Air Force blew a Russian fighter jet out of the sky. And the countries were (and continue to be) at great odds over the civil war in Syria. Over the past year, however, relations between the two countries have rapidly improved. Their successful detente was illustrated by the Russian ambassador’s speaking engagement at a photo exhibit’s opening ceremony in the Turkish capital of Ankara.

Today, however, Russian Ambassador to Turkey, Andrey Karlov, was delivering remarks, when he was assassinated by a lone assailant who has since been identified as 22-year-old Turkish police officer Mevlut Mert Altintas. The off-duty officer reportedly shouted, “Allahu akbar! Do not forget Aleppo! Do not forget Syria! Do not forget Aleppo! Do not forget Syria!”

“After shooting the ambassador, the gunman climbed to the second floor of the same building and a 15-minute shootout with police ensued before he was killed, Turkey’s Anadolu news agency reported,” the AP reports.

Now, where do we go from here?

Take him at his word?

The gunman’s actions and rhetoric suggest he was motivated by the Russian government’s role and action in Syria’s civil war. It should be noted that he did not attack the stunned innocent bystanders at the exhibit after striking down the Russian ambassador.

Was this a mere act of revenge, or something much more?

Was the shooter a jihadist?

Pro-government sources in Turkey are alleging that shooter could have been tied to Al Nusra, an ally of al-Qaeda that is operating in Syria. But there appears to be no proof of any substantial ties thus far.

What is the state media saying?

Observers may want to check in with the state-run media outlets in both Moscow and Ankara, as the media censors often reflect the official government stance on important issues.

Blame Gulen?

The Turkish government, often without proof, frequently takes to blaming Gulenists — followers of Fethullah Gulen, a popular cleric who now lives in exile in America — for terrorist attacks or any other negative event that happens inside the country.

Most notably, after a failed July coup attempt, Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan blamed Gulen for inciting the attempted overthrow. Yet, he never provided any evidence that Gulen was involved.

And right on cue, the mayor of Ankara has alleged Gulen is to blame for Andrey Karlov’s assassination.

Blame America/the West?

Nothing unites two adversaries like some good old-fashioned anti-American conspiracies, which are known to be rife in both Turkey and Russia.

Katehon, a Russian think tank that promotes extreme anti-American views, has called the assassination a “typical CIA operation” meant to sow discord between Russia and Turkey.

Additionally, a Kremlin representative has blamed the attack on the “secret services” of a “NATO country.”

Syria

Will this incident worsen the ever-increasing sectarian chaos in Syria? Just before the assassination, Russia had finally agreed to pause its military campaigns in Aleppo and let select civilians evacuate from the area. Does this latest incident mean the deal is off? (For more from the author of “Russian Ambassador to Turkey Gunned down ‘for Aleppo.’ What’s next for Turkish-Russian Relations?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.