The Left's Political Intimidation of the Electoral College Fails

A must-read editorial, at WSJ, "Hamilton’s Electors Vote Trump":

While Monday’s final tally wasn’t known when we went to press, the count was headed toward 304 for Mr. Trump, with two dissenting GOP electors from Texas.

It is nonetheless worth noting the extraordinary lengths that Democrats and the progressive media have gone to attempt to lobby electors to vote for Hillary Clinton or a Republican alternative. “Electors under siege,” said a headline in Politico, reporting that many “have been inundated by harassing phone calls and hate mail,” even “death threats.”

So much for the calm deliberation that progressives claim to want as they lobbied electors under the rubric of Hamilton’s Electors. The spectacle of the last month has been an exercise in political intimidation, precisely the kind of pressure politics that Alexander Hamilton wanted an Electoral College to protect the country from. There’s a case for independent judgment by electors, but only in extraordinary circumstances—such as learning something new and disqualifying about a candidate....

The larger cynicism at work is the continuing attempt to undermine Mr. Trump’s democratic legitimacy. First Democrats tried a recount, which failed when the Republican gained votes in Wisconsin. Then they turned to the Electoral College, whose vote won’t technically be official until the new Congress certifies the result in January. Look for Democrats to make speeches before the vote questioning Mr. Trump’s authority to be President.

Then there are the charges that Vladimir Putin elected Mr. Trump. Mr. Podesta—perhaps still trying to purge his conscience for not campaigning in Wisconsin—even suggested on Sunday that “Trump Inc.” advisers colluded with the Russians to hack Democratic emails. That would be some story, though we’ll wait for evidence. Meanwhile, Mr. Trump will be President, but he shouldn’t anticipate a honeymoon.

It's not Donald Trump who's raising the specter of fascism in America, it's the Democrats and the radical left. We've been witnessing it since the voters repudiated Hillary Clinton on election day.

Obama, Now You Want to Be a Cowboy?!!

Watch, a righteous Tomi Lahren, "7 years later, Obama wants to be a cowboy . Convenient. I have some Final Thoughts."

If More Journalists Would Just Listen to Middle America...

Another great piece from Salena Zito, at the Washington Examiner, "Two things Democrats, and the media, should do to understand Trump":

Two things Democrats, and the media, should do to understand Trump https://t.co/S0Py1BGmTa by @SalenaZito pic.twitter.com/ewYlv5XGjd

— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) December 18, 2016

NEW YORK — The glass revolving doors of Trump Tower were doing what they have done every day since Donald Trump became the president-elect of the United States: briskly allowing a steady stream of mostly tourists from the interior of the country get a glimpse, sometimes longer, of the comings and goings of the man and his Cabinet members who will soon govern this country.

"The energy of the people who come just to stand behind the ropes is sort of unbelievable," said one of two New York City fireman charged with keeping an eye on things in the lobby of the building where the president-elect has been going about the business of putting his government together for his January inauguration.

"If you see Mr. Trump can you please tell him that the Murphys' from Minnesota wish him good luck and that we pray for him?" a gentleman told one of the police officers as he and his wife strolled past the elevators where Trump, his children, future Cabinet members, U.S. senators, members of Congress, business leaders, a former vice president and a rapper have all taken the golden elevators to the 26th floor.

Carlos, from Florida, a third-generation Hispanic American also wanted to pass on good wishes to the Trump family, as he lingered with his family in the lobby, "We saved up to come to New York for Christmas for the first time, I wanted my family to see the best city in America, first place we stop is here to maybe see the next president," he told an officer standing off to the left of the gold elevators.


"It's like that all day long," the fire chief said, adding, "To be honest I didn't know what to expect during the transition process, but honestly the well-wishers come from all over and really just want him to know they are behind him," he said.

It's not exactly the same reception that Trump is getting from those who opposed him, loathed him, still have not accepted that he has won the election and worse yet still have not understood why he won.

They have blamed Russian interference and James Comey's letter for Hillary Clinton's loss; yes the Russians have appeared to interfere and yes Comey's letter was damning to Clinton, but if we all had the ability to be honest with ourselves the DNC emails and the Comey hesitation only reinforced people's view of Clinton's character whether for or against her.

In short, if more journalists had spent time in Middle America, they would have understood that this election wasn't decided at the last moment...

Keep reading.

Never Heard of Sam Kriss, But His Takedown of the Left's 'Russia Hacked the Election and Gave Us Donald Trump' Meme is the Best

I really don't get where the "game theory" part is coming in here, which is apparently what this dude Eric Garland, who went on a Twitter rant about Russian meddling in the election, argued.

But the response from this Sam Kriss dude is the best ever:

It’s possible that the Democratic National Committee leaks were caused by Russian hackers—but given that the hack took place thanks to John Podesta clicking on a link in a phishing email, displaying all the technological savvy of someone’s aunt extremely excited by the new iPhone she thinks she’s won, it could have been anyone. The “leaked” CIA concerns over Russian meddling were quite clearly leaked deliberately by the CIA itself, an organization not exactly famed for its commitment to the truth; they’re the conclusions of an investigation that hasn’t even happened yet and on which there’s no consensus even among the gang of petty Caligulas that calls itself the intelligence community. Still, it’s possible. Countries sometimes try to exert influence in each other’s internal affairs; it’s part of great-power politics, and it’s been happening for a very long time. When Americans meddled in Russia’s elections, it was by securing victory for Boris Yeltsin, Russia’s very own Donald Trump, a man who had sent in tanks to shell his own parliament. Leaked cables suggest that Hillary Clinton’s own State Department interfered with the political process in Haiti by suppressing a rise in the minimum wage. And American involvement in the politics of Chile, Guatemala, Indonesia, and Iran was mostly through military coups, sponsored by none other than the CIA. There was no question of these countries repeating their elections; anyone the generals didn’t like was tortured to death. Next to the mountain of corpses produced by America’s history of fixing foreign elections, a few hacked emails are entirely insignificant.

Whatever Russia did or didn’t do, the idea that its interference is what cost Hillary Clinton the election is utterly ludicrous and absolutely false. What cost Hillary Clinton the election can be summed up by a single line from Sen. Chuck Schumer, soon to be the country’s highest-ranking Democrat: “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.” As it turned out, he was fatally wrong. It wasn’t the Russians who told the Democratic Party to abandon the working-class people of all races who used to form its electoral base. It wasn’t the Russians who decided to run a presidential campaign that offered people nothing but blackmail—“vote for us or Dangerous Donald wins.” The Russians didn’t come up with awful tin-eared catchphrases like “I’m with her” or “America is already great.” The Russians never ordered the DNC to run one of the most widely despised people in the country, simply because she thought it was her turn. The Democrats did that all by themselves.

What the Russia obsession represents is a massive ethical failure on the part of American liberals. People really will suffer under President Trump—women, queer people, Muslims, poor people of every stripe. But so many in the centrist establishment don’t seem to care. They’re far too busy weaving themselves into intricate geopolitical power plays that don’t really exist, searching for a narrative that exonerates them from having let this happen, to do anything like real political work. They won’t accept that Trumpism is America, in all its blood-splattered horror—that the dry civics lesson of a democracy they love so much is capable of creating a monster. Decades of neoliberal policy disenfranchised people to the extent that Donald Trump could look like a savior; far better to just hide your bad conscience somewhere far away in Eastern Europe. It wasn’t us, it wasn’t our country, we were all duped by Putin. And if this means falling into reactionary paranoia, screaming red-faced about traitors and spies, slobbering embarrassingly over the incoherent rants of any two-bit con artist whose name isn’t Donald Trump—so be it. None of this will help anyone or achieve anything, but that’s not the point. And then, at the end, with nothing solved, they shrug at us like Eric Garland’s imagined game-theory version of Hillary Clinton. Jesus, what can you do?

Jeez, that wasn't hard, now was it?

Obama Implicates Russia's Vladimir Putin in Cyberattacks Against the Democrats (VIDEO)

He's leaving office totally disgraced, reduced to spreading unverified, rank partisan allegations against his democratically-elected successor.

This is how far we've fallen the past eight years. We really need to make America great again, man.

At WSJ, tomorrow's front page, "Obama Suggests Russia’s Putin Had Role in Election Hacking":

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama on Friday implicated Russian President Vladimir Putin in cyberattacks designed to hurt Democrats in last month’s election, and he promised a “methodical” retaliation.

Mr. Obama said the U.S. intelligence he has seen “gives me great confidence” that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee and the email account of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta. Asked if he believes the Russian leader authorized the cyberattacks, he said, “not much happens in Russia without Vladimir Putin.”

“This happened at the highest levels of the Russian government,” Mr. Obama said at a news conference. “I will let you make that determination as to whether there are high-level Russian officials who go off rogue and decide to tamper with the U.S. election process without Vladimir Putin knowing about it.”

The president’s naming of Mr. Putin and his promised response escalates the public debate over cyberespionage’s effect on the campaign. Lawmakers of both parties are also vowing investigations. The confrontation could fuel growing tension between the White House and President-elect Donald Trump, who has raised skepticism about Russia’s role in the hacks and who Democrats argue benefited from the stolen, leaked emails.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov on Friday said of the Obama administration’s accusation that the U.S. “should either stop talking about it or finally produce some evidence; otherwise it looks highly unseemly,” according to Russian state news agencies.

Mrs. Clinton, speaking to campaign supporters Thursday, directly accused Mr. Putin of directing the attacks, saying he was motivated by her criticism of Russian elections in 2011 as “illegitimate,” according to an audiotape posted online by the New York Times.
Mr. Obama used Friday’s wide-ranging year-end news conference to trumpet his legacy, rattling off statistics showing improvements in health-care coverage and employment on his watch.

But the roughly 90-minute session was dominated from the outset by the Russia question. The president was vague about what form the U.S. response may take. With just five weeks left in office to order any retaliation, the president said some of it may be public while other aspects could be covert or only known by Moscow. Among the president’s options are declassifying more information or leveling charges at any people it believes carried out the attacks or assisted in them.

“Our goal continues to be to send a clear message to Russia or others not to do this to us because we can do stuff to you,” Mr. Obama said.

Mr. Obama, who has ordered the completion of a review of cyberattacks allegedly aimed at U.S. elections before he leaves office on Jan. 20, defended his administration’s response so far to the hacks.

Some critics have said Mr. Obama should have acted sooner and more aggressively. U.S. intelligence agencies issued a statement a month before the election saying they were “confident” the Russian government directed cyberintrusions into U.S. political organizations. But Mr. Obama said Friday that in September, when he encountered Mr. Putin at a meeting of world leaders in China, he addressed the issue of tampering with the voting process.

“I felt that the most effective way to ensure that that didn’t happen was to talk to him directly and tell him to cut it out, and there were going to be some serious consequences if he didn’t,” Mr. Obama said.

U.S. officials say Russian hackers were able to steal emails from Democratic political organizations and Mr. Podesta, but made a less aggressive effort to hack the computer networks of the Republican National Committee. Russia has denied the hacks.

Mr. Trump has called the U.S. intelligence assessment “ridiculous” and questioned its accuracy, reminding the public that the government’s claim before the Iraq war in 2003 that the country possessed weapons of mass destruction proved inaccurate. On Friday, Mr. Trump’s only comment on the subject came in a tweet, in which he mentioned that the cyberattack revealed intraparty Democratic tension during the primary campaign...

Keep reading.

Previously, "No Proof Russia's Behind the Alleged Election Hacks."

No Proof Russia's Behind the Alleged Election Hacks

Look, I've been saying all along the allegations are hearsay. I personally haven't seen a shred of evidence to implicate Russia --- or the Russian government --- in the 2016 election hacks.

It's too bad the media's gone all in on this scam, especially the New York Times (of which I'll have more later).

At any rate, here's Sam Biddle, at the Intercept, "HERE’S THE PUBLIC EVIDENCE RUSSIA HACKED THE DNC – IT’S NOT ENOUGH."

It's good.

No one has actually proven Russia's behind the hacks: https://t.co/P6XPDJ0KWc

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) December 14, 2016

Freddie deBoer Slams the Condescending, Certain, and Incoherent Left

He's a great writer.

He's far left, but usually honest about his ideological tendencies. At least as far as I can remember. The main strike against him is he used to blog with E.D. Kain at the League of Ordinary Gentlemen, a stupid blog that's still in operation, it turns out.

In any case, here's Freddie, "condescending, certain, and incoherent":

I’ve been asking my friends on the academic left what rights conservative students have, in an era of a university culture obsessed with trauma. Two things are broadly true: one, they think that it’s ridiculous to suggest that there’s any reason to worry about what conservative students can and can’t say – there’s no questions here, no conflicts, nothing even to discuss. Two, despite the mutuality of this dismissal, no two of them have the same idea about what answers are stunningly obvious, only that they are. I am told that of course students can support Trump and say so, but that “Make America Great Again” is hate speech, despite simply being the slogan of the campaign that they just said students have the right to support. They say that it’s not permissible for students to identify with the alt-right, which is a hate group, but it’s fine for them to be plain-vanilla conservatives, despite the fact that the latter group has indisputably done vastly more to harm marginalized people than the former.

What are the rules? I don’t know, and I’m ensconced firmly in these debates. I harp on civil liberties and free speech a lot because, yes, I think they’re worth defending and that the traditional association between leftist politics and support for them was substantively correct on political theory grounds. But also because they’re a perfect example of the holes in current left theory. When does someone’s trauma outweigh the right of another to speak? Who can say what, in which contexts, when? I have no idea what people think the answers are. I just know that they think the question is so obvious as to not be worth asking. It’s an inverse argument from incredulity, not “I can’t believe you could possibly think that” but “I can’t believe you don’t already.”

As they say, RTWT.

ICYMI: Katherine Cramer, The Politics of Resentment

I posted the interview with Professor Cramer this morning, here.

And ICYMI, check out her book, The Politics of Resentment: Rural Consciousness in Wisconsin and the Rise of Scott Walker.

Katherine Cramer, The Politics of Resentment

Following-up from Sunday, "Democrats Search for a Path Back Into Rural America's Good Graces."

I'm glad I've found Katherine Kramer, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and her timely new book, The Politics of Resentment: Rural Consciousness in Wisconsin and the Rise of Scott Walker.

And listen to her at this interview, posted November 6th, but taped in August:

Democrats Search for a Path Back Into Rural America's Good Graces

Via Instapundit, "MAYBE NOT TELLING THEM THEY’RE IGNORANT, RACIST BIGOTS WHO DESERVE TO DIE OUT WOULD BE A GOOD START."

Democrats search for a path back into rural America’s good graceshttps://t.co/mwsCnQuYMG

— slone (@slone) December 12, 2016

Russian Hackers and American Hacks

At WSJ, "The CIA that misjudged Putin for years is now sure of his motives":

Finally, a MSM outlet reports facts not speculation... Russian Hackers and American Hacks https://t.co/fan2SJVXbl via @WSJ

— Diane Piette (@DianePiette1) December 12, 2016

Somewhere in the Kremlin Vladimir Putin must be laughing. The Russian strongman almost certainly sought to undermine public confidence in American democracy this year, and as the Obama Administration leaves town it is playing into his hands.

That’s the real story behind the weekend reports that U.S. intelligence services have concluded that Russia intervened to assist Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. The stories are attributed to “senior administration” officials who won’t go on the record but assert murky details that are impossible to verify without seeing the evidence.

Mr. Trump is denouncing the claims with his usual subtlety, but he has a point about their timing and nature. “I don’t want anyone hacking us,” Mr. Trump said on Fox News Sunday, while blaming the leaks on Democrats. “I think it’s ridiculous” and “I don’t believe it.”

Democrats are still in shock from their defeat, and many want to add the Kremlin to FBI Director James Comey, fake news and the Electoral College as excuses that cast doubt on the legitimacy of Mr. Trump’s victory.

The new information in these latest stories is less about new intelligence than it is a judgment about Russian motives. Other sources who have seen the intelligence say there’s strong evidence that actors linked to high-level Russian officials hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) website. The Russians then posted them on sites they set up or handed them to WikiLeaks, though even the WikiLeaks transfer isn’t known for sure. The Administration made public the conclusion about the DNC hack months ago.

The difference now is that the intelligence community is said to have concluded with “high confidence” that the Russians did the hacking to help elect Mr. Trump. But we’re told the evidence for this conclusion is far from definitive, and multiple intelligence services offered no such judgments when briefing the House Intelligence Committee on the election-related hacks last week.

The New York Times cites claims from its sources that the Russians hacked the Republican National Committee website but then didn’t leak any documents. But other sources say that while it’s clear the Russians were probing the RNC website, it isn’t clear they penetrated it enough to grab emails. This is in contrast to the months the Russians spent roaming through the DNC site. We’re also told that there’s no definitive intelligence about who hacked Hillary Clinton campaign chief John Podesta. His emails posted on WikiLeaks were arguably more politically damaging than those from the DNC.

Still more.

Donald Trump's Favorability Surge (VIDEO)

At Zero Hedge, "Trump Favorability Surges Post-Election."

Frank Luntz: Trump's Favorability Surge Is Largest Since Ronald Reagan https://t.co/rmHC5Oj2T4

— Michael Means #ORPUW (@michaelmeans49) December 9, 2016

Stephen Budiansky, Code Warriors

Well, here's a good and timely book selection, considering all the allegations of Russian interference in the election.

At Amazon, Stephen Budiansky, Code Warriors: NSA's Codebreakers and the Secret Intelligence War Against the Soviet Union.

Donald Trump on Russian Interference: 'I Don't Believe It...'

I love this guy.

At the New York Times (via Memeorandum).

Donald Trump Ties C.I.A. Reports on Russian Meddling to Democrats’ Shame https://t.co/J63rrViqhH, see more https://t.co/9kqEZCu26G

— Tø©hukwü Däviðãnthøn (@Okehdom) December 11, 2016

Secret CIA Assessment Claims Russia Worked to Elect Donald Trump

The truth is, no one knows.

I haven't seen a shred of evidence to prove Russia was behind the hacking scandals, but that hasn't stopped the leftist establishment from attempting to delegitimize Trump's election.

Here's the salacious headline at WaPo, "Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House."

But like I said, there's no hard evidence. It's more "fake news," and Donald Trump denouncing it, rightly so.

The CIA outright says they “do not have specific intelligence” tying Russia to email leaks. Fake News on Steroids.https://t.co/gG6yn9kPHi

— Stefan Molyneux (@StefanMolyneux) December 10, 2016

#DonaldTrump bashes CIA, dismisses Russian hacking report. https://t.co/UDW7vcAlmH

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) December 10, 2016

More at Memeorandum.

Barrett Brown Released

Heh.

At the Other McCain, "Notoriously Crazy Felon Barrett Brown Has Been Released From Federal Prison."

I tweeted earlier:

@PatriarchTree Barrett's out: https://t.co/3AkD6TCvT1

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) November 29, 2016

Back on the outside for the first time in 4 years, Barrett enjoys an Egg McMuffin. #FreeBB pic.twitter.com/bLbX21ZcTJ

— Free Barrett Brown (@FreeBarrett_) November 29, 2016

East Coast Hacking Vendetta

I blogged this morning and logged onto Twitter no problem, but then not too long later no dice.

I couldn't access the site, and I saw the news of the massive DDoS attack.

And now, at Bloomnberg, "The Possible Vendetta Behind the East Coast Web Slowdown" (via Memeorandum):

Millions of internet users lost access to some of the world’s most popular websites Friday, as hackers hammered servers along the U.S. East Coast with phony traffic until they crashed, then moved westward.
A global attack on one provider of Domain Name System services, Dyn Inc., took down sites including Twitter, Spotify, Reddit, CNN, Etsy and The New York Times for long stretches of time -- from New York to Los Angeles.

Kyle York, chief strategy officer of Dyn, said the hackers launched a so-called distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack using “tens of millions” of malware-infected devices connected to the internet. Speaking during a conference call Friday afternoon, York said Dyn was “actively” dealing with a “third wave” of the attack.

By Friday evening, Dyn said it had stopped the hacks. "As you can imagine it has been a crazy day," Dyn spokesman Adam Coughlin wrote in an e-mail. "At this moment (knock on wood) service has been restored."

Security professionals have been anticipating a rise in attacks coming from malware that targets the "Internet of Things," a new breed of small gadgets that are connected to the internet. That was after a hacker released software code that powers such malware, called Mirai, several weeks ago.

Gillian M. Christensen, a spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, said the agency and the FBI are aware of the incidents and “investigating all potential causes.”

Keep reading.

Pamela Anderson Visited Exiled WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange at Ecuadorian Embassy in London (PHOTOS)

Well, this is interesting.

At London's Daily Mail, "Pamela Anderson visits WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London ... laden down with snacks and a copy of Vivienne Westwood's new book."

RELATED: At the Independent U.K., "Vivienne Westwood blasts Hillary Clinton as 'evil': I wouldn't vote for Trump or Clinton - they are all the same."

Oh, I can see why Pamela Anderson's carrying along her book.

Hillary Clinton Considered Drone Strike on Julian Assange?

Well, how's Hillary gonna take the guy out with a drone?

He doesn't go anywhere. She'd have to take out the entire Ecuadoran embassy in London.

But hey, it's what folks are talking about.

At the Toronto Sun, "Hillary Clinton suggested taking out Wikileaks founder Julian Assange with drone: Report."

Actually, this was back when she was secretary of state. That's when she'd have been in a position to act on such rants, and that's also why you can understand Assange's assassination fears. Governments kill people for reasons of state, and the Obama administration's been more Machiavellian than most.

Go right to True Pundit, "Under Intense Pressure to Silence WikiLeaks, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Proposed Drone Strike on Julian Assange."

I'm no expert but wanting to "drone" Assange isn't exactly #LoveTrumpsHate @HillaryClinton Evil dictator much?💣 #MeanGirls pic.twitter.com/z7sKx7RQ6i

— Black Women 4 Trump (@TallahForTrump) October 3, 2016

Edward Majerczyk Pleads Guilty in Celebrity Hacking Scandal

I wondered why search results were pulling up my old Jennifer Lawrence posts.

At LAT, "Man convicted of hacking Gmail and iCloud accounts of at least 30 celebrities in L.A."