A quick jaunt through apocalyptic times: Calexit and Obama's perfidy
This Maddow segment is one of the most important she has ever broadcast.
For a while now, I've been convinced that the CalExit virus spreading throughout my home state -- a virus that has affected people I know -- is another Putin ploy. Just look at the background of Louis J. Marinelli, the head of the Yes, California movement: He is a Republican Trump supporter who lives in Yekaterinburg, Russia. (At this point, I wouldn't mind a "Yekaterinburg" solution to the world's Putin problem.)
In 2009, Marinelli relocated to Saint Petersburg, Russia where he began working for another private language school as an English teacher and became a student himself at Saint Petersburg State University, the alma mater of Russian presidents Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev. Although he initially considered giving up his U.S. citizenship to remain in Russia permanently, citing disillusionment with the United States government and political system, Marinelli came back to live in California in the summer of 2011.
I think you get the picture.
There is an alternative to the Yes, California movement which, I am sorry to say, has received positive exposure from a number of left-wing sites, including Brad Friedman's. It's called the California National Party. They claim to have nothing, nothing, nothing to do with Marinelli, the guy who reeks of vodka and treason.
On January 6, 2016, the California Secretary of State's office sent a memorandum to all 58 county Registrar of Voters acknowledging the establishment of the California National Party and asked that each county "track all registrations and inform this office of the number of voters registered with the California National Party for all future reports of registration." Marinelli was subsequently listed on the California Secretary of State's website as the interim chairman of this party.
Again: I think you get the picture.
CNP spokespersons may tell you that they have no current link to Marinelli. So what? That whole line of argument should be immaterial to any thinking person.
The existence of Marinelli's movement proves that Putin wants to dismember the United States while re-assembling the USSR. Thus, we need no further proof that the CNP -- or any other secessionist movement -- is doing Putin's will. Maybe the people running the CNP are witting agents in Putin's employ; maybe they are innocents, acting for reasons of their own. Either way, the end result is the same: They are doing Putin's will. They are giving him what he wants.
And now Nigel Farage is getting into the act. That guy might as well be wearing a Putin t-shirt.
Farage and fellow Brexiteer Arron Banks (together they’re known as “the bad boys of ‘Brexit’”) just returned from a trip to California during which they reportedly raised $1 million for a campaign to set up a “Calexit” style referendum in the state for 2018, according to The Times of London.
Their “Calexit” plan isn’t like the one that’s been in the news since President Donald Trump took over the White House. Farage doesn’t want to see the state break off from the United States entirely as San Diego-based Yes California advocates (with little hope of actually accomplishing it.)
Instead, the Farage plan is to split the state into two new regions, with one being more eastern and rural and one being full of the more liberal, coastal cities.
Here’s a map of what the split could look like.
“It would be portrayed as the Hollywood elites versus the people, breaking up the bad government,” Banks said. “It's the world's sixth largest economy and it's very badly run.”
The Daily Mail reports that it’s actually polling expert Gerry Gunster and Republican Scott Baugh, a former member of the California state assembly, who are behind the concept.
If Farage gets his way, not only will California secede from the union, it will be split in twain, thereby reducing further any potential threat to a resurgent -- and fascist -- Russia.
Always keep in mind that Putin, the king of the kleptocrats, has nearly unlimited wealth.
Did Obama screw over Hillary Clinton? Looks like he did, and not for the first time.
My interpretation of this important story owes much to my unhappy memories of the 2008 campaign (a bloody shirt I will never tire of waving).
FBI Director James Comey attempted to go public as early as the summer of 2016 with information on Russia’s campaign to influence the U.S. presidential election, but Obama administration officials blocked him from doing so, two sources with knowledge of the matter tell Newsweek.
Well before the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence accused the Russian government of tampering with the U.S. election in an October 7 statement, Comey pitched the idea of writing an op-ed about the Russian campaign during a meeting in the White House’s situation room in June or July.
“He had a draft of it or an outline. He held up a piece of paper in a meeting and said, ‘I want to go forward, what do people think of this?’” says a source with knowledge of the meeting, which included Secretary of State John Kerry, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Department of Homeland Security secretary Jeh Johnson and the national security adviser Susan Rice.
The other national security officials didn’t like the idea, and White House officials thought the announcement should be a coordinated message backed by multiple agencies, the source says. “An op-ed doesn’t have the same stature, it comes from one person.”
The op-ed would not have mentioned whether the FBI was investigating Donald Trump’s campaign workers or others close to him for links to the Russians’ interference in the election, a second source with knowledge of the request tells Newsweek. Comey would likely have tried to publish the op-ed in The New York Times, and it would have included much of the same information as the bombshell declassified intelligence report released January 6, which said Russian President Vladimir Putin tried to influence the presidential election, the source said.
From this, we may fairly posit that Comey must have had a similar meeting in the White House before he announced the existence of those duplicate emails on the Weiner/Abedin laptop. That pseudoscandal handed the election to Trump.
Team Trump told the nation that a vote for Hillary was unthinkable because she was under FBI investigation. We now know that Trump himself was under FBI investigation for something much, much more disturbing. The Trump/Putin link is an infinitely more serious matter than was a Clinton aide's improper handling of a "classified" but inconsequential email about the new president of Malawi.
Obama made sure that the FBI's investigation of Trump was kept secret while the FBI's investigation of Hillary was out in the open. Liberals are refusing to acknowledge the implications of this Newsweek story. Lefties will quickly toss mud at Comey, at Kerry, at Rice -- at anyone other than St. Barack Obama.
Yet if this new report is accurate, Obama was the one who made the call to keep Comey muzzled on Trump and un-muzzled on Hillary. The former president's actions can only be described as perfidious.
Yeah. All of sudden, I can recall very vividly why I felt such passion during the 2008 campaign.
Newsweek doesn't tell you the full story: As Paul Wood points out, Comey was -- at this same time -- taking the Orbis dossier (often called the Steele dossier) very seriously. He must have been discussing the Steele allegations with Obama, Kerry and Rice.
The roadmap for the investigation, publicly acknowledged now for the first time, comes from Christopher Steele, once of Britain's secret intelligence service MI6.
He wrote a series of reports for political opponents of Donald Trump about Trump and Russia.
Steele's "dossier", as the material came to be known, contains a number of highly contested claims.
At one point he wrote: "A leading Russian diplomat, Mikhail KULAGIN, had been withdrawn from Washington at short notice because Moscow feared his heavy involvement in the US presidential election operation… would be exposed in the media there."
There was no diplomat called Kulagin in the Russian embassy; there was a Kalugin.
Yes, yes, yes: There are a couple of misspellings in the dossier. So what? It was not intended for public consumption. By contrast, Trump's "tapp" tweet was meant for public eyes. Misspelling Kalugin is a lot more understandable than misspelling the word tap.
But sources I know and trust have told me the US government identified Kalugin as a spy while he was still at the embassy.
It is not clear if the American intelligence agencies already believed this when they got Steele's report on the "diplomat", as early as May 2016.
But it is a judgment they made using their own methods, outside the dossier.
A retired member of a US intelligence agency told me that Kalugin was being kept under surveillance before he left the US.
Once more, the Steele report is verified.
But last June, Steele began sending pages of what would later be called his dossier.
In light of his earlier work, the US intelligence community saw him as "credible" (their highest praise).
The FBI thought the same; they had worked with Steele going back to his days in MI6.
He flew to Rome in August to talk to the FBI.
Then in early October, he came to the US and was extensively debriefed by them, over a week.
He gave the FBI the names of some of his informants, the so-called "key" to the dossier.
If we conflate the Newsweek story with Paul Wood's piece, what do we get? A scenario in which Barack Obama deliberately prevented Comey from publicizing what the Bureau had on Trump -- including the claims made in the dossier.
Steele himself expected his report to sway the election. He became angry at the FBI when they did nothing with his work. He should have directed his anger at the man running the show.
Obama really is a bad or sick guy. He elected Trump.
What would be his motive? I attribute his reluctance to his knowing how media would handle it. Even with multiple sources the fact that he had anything to do with releasing that story would have created a firestorm and would have done more harm to Hillary in the end. Remember, anything Obama or Clinton did was bad. Anything Sanders or Rethuglicans did was great because they bashed Obama and Clinton. I think Obama handled a bad situation correctly considering the media dynamics and Hillary hate.
um, whoa. [and, an aside: will the public at large PLEASE spell this word correctly?? there is no such word as woah!!! thank u]
where was i? oh yeah. whoa. but first, thx for all the exit stuff; could not agree more. just curious; given how mensch effused over brexit during maher's show, how's your crush doing with that?
now, to your final matters here, your assessment of the comey offer to write an op-ed on the russian dossier stuff being obama's fault and proof he tanked hillary. again. first of all, comey presented this offer to a broad group of folks, nsa and justice and state and the whole shebang weighing in. the decision on all that was that an op-ed was not appropriate because it was just one guy with an opinion, on a topic that was not large in the public mind. that response makes sense to me; you have to consider what will happen to your actions and statements before you take/make them. in contrast, comey's statements on clinton's emails were following up on ongoing investigations since before the campaign.
now mind you, i found the timing of his clinton statements scary and questionable, but given the apparent rampant infighting and trump faction pressures within the agency, i can see where he wanted to ward off any leaks by loose cannons. he was damned if he said anything, and damned if he remained silent. (plus, marcy wheeler shared a compelling analysis of the timing of that second statement re: weiner's laptop, and found the drop in support for hillary started at the point the news of skyrocketing obamacare premiums came out. which, interestingly, had been cleverly timed to kick in at that moment by the risk-corridor provision rubio snuck in a spending bill at the end of 2015.)
not that comey's decision to go public with clinton stuff was a-ok; evidently lynch objected, which i assume suggests obama did too. comey's agenda appears to me to be more elliott ness than anything else, which is of course grandiose, but if that's his hero and model, more power to him. from all accounts, he's so hell-bent on being squeaky clean he's not likely to last much longer due to his trump/russia investigation. we'll see.
but your perspective that obama had some agenda to tank hillary's campaign? there's frankly too much evidence to the contrary. and why would he do that?? and you think that this meeting's outcome is proof positive that obama alone pulled that plug? sorry; that's just a leap too far, good buddy. maybe time to launder that bloody shirt? just a thought.
posted by Anonymous : 9:34 AM
I too won't forget '08, and I wrote in Hillary, but what would be his motivation for something like that? I can't see it.
Can't disagree with you. It looks like there was a fair amount of intelligence that had been gathered on Herr Drumpf of which Obama was aware and did nothing. That's taking Hillary hatred to the next level
I always suspected that. He wasn't convincing even when he was campaigning for her. Screw me once shame on ........you know the rest.
posted by Anonymous : 1:24 PM
He also did not push through a Supreme Court choice. We all knew he's an ass. Well, I mean, those of us who knew. High road? Please.
posted by prowlerzee : 1:31 PM
Anon 9:34 -- I apologize for misspelling "whoa" for many years, but when one is surrounded by error, one becomes suffused by it. I feel that the Democrats were surrounded and suffused by error in 2008, when Obama-mania supplanted reason. The wounds inflicted then were deep; the blood stains cannot be washed out.
When all is said and done, if Obama wanted Comey to write his piece on Trump, it would have been written. The stop sign was in Obama's hand. We can argue about the role played by the Weiner computer revelation -- I go back and forth in my own mind on that point -- but I believe that Comey would have said nothing unless Obama had held up a "GO" sign.
"and why would he do that??"
I'm not entirely sure, but I know that the intelligence community did not like Bill Clinton. The same community must have feared a Hillary presidency: The smear campaign against her over the years went far beyond the confines of the right-wing media. You should read about the CIA smear campaign against Allende in Chile. Same thing happened to Hillary.
Yes, I still think that Obama and his mother were CIA. I confess that can't prove it. But back in 2008 I amassed enough evidence, over a series of posts, to lift that seemingly-absurd theory out of the realm of Alex Jonesian absurdity. Or so I like to think.
Today, my operative mega-theory is that many within the intelligence community detested Hillary so thoroughly (for whatever reason) that they preferred a Trump win followed by a quick Trump impeachment. Again: I cannot offer proof, and I freely admit that I could be wrong. All I can do is sit back, observe, gather evidence, and hope to see my "mega-theory" either borne out or disproven.
The "spooks against Trump" movement on Twitter fits in with my mega-theory. Smitten as I am with Ms. Mensch, she does not disconfirm my narrative.
I'm dubious of any Obama conspiracy. If he wanted to sabotage Hillary, he wouldn't have asked leaders of Congress to join him in telling the public about Russian interference to give it bipartisan support. He wouldn't have authorized the IC to release their statement on October 7th saying there was Russian interference. He would've told Loretta Lynch not to warn Comey about releasing his letter.
And if Comey is the good guy stifled by Obama, how do you explain the below story? When the IC released its statement on Russian interference, Comey decided not to include the FBI because he thought it was too close to the election. It makes no sense for Obama to authorize everyone except the FBI to release this if he was trying to sabotage Clinton.
The Newsweek story looks like Comey trying repair his damaged reputation by creating a narrative that says he was trying to do the right thing but was stopped by everyone around him. But the currently available public facts do not back that story up.
posted by nemdam : 3:02 PM
joe, anon 9:34 here. first off, honestly did not direct that whoa thang in your direction! that was just from the fact i was using the term, properly spelled, and i had to barf that out. and yeah, terms - like myths - and even pronunciations and spellings get shifted with use, decree, and, well, a combo of these two. think cotillion spanish.
as for the rest, i remain unconvinced. plenty of reservations about obama to go around, but none in my mind that dovetail with your spy story. don't think i read all your posts on the matter, but not one of the points i've seen was compelling enough to stitch them together. but, more largely than that, the reservations i have about obama are then inflated in HRC; in other words, he did the drones, where she wanted to no-fly zone syria. he resisted action in libya, and she pushed (with a bad outcome). he resisted netanyahu and she practically licked his toes at the aipac conference last spring. given all this, your position that the IC was against her is pretty hard to square. these very points about her positions as SOS i held strongly against her this time around.
i could go on, but please know, i ended up voting for her, and for obama before that, with all my reservations on both sides. that said, russia has been more afraid of her more bellicose stance, explaining not so much putin's agenda as his strategy; his agenda is pretty transparent. but i'm not so sure bellicose is our best attitude; on this count, i highly favor obama's tendency toward calm and careful in the face of conflict. and another c word in there describes him: caution. as a black man, he spent his entire presidency having to play uncle tom to the public, wooing for their approval at every turn. the uncle tom offered before negotiations started, virtually never asserting himself emotionally. he was actively campaigning for hillary, so any anti-trump position from the supposedly neutral IC would be taken out to the shed and summarily lynched. he knew that; he's been watching it all his life, but especially the past 9 years.
back to the points at hand here and now, that obama would nix this very risky and questionable (in terms of predictable outcome) offer of comey's to pen an op-ed is entirely consistent with his historical behavior and manner. the notion that this somehow supports the idea he wanted her to lose is, to my mind, stretching it, to put it mildly. if that was obama's agenda, he had plenty other ways to get to that goal, none of which he appears to have tried. and it's still not at all clear why he would want that goal. hillary when compared to trump? predictably watch all his legacy shot to hell? and with the history between those two guys? i mean, c'mon; this is where the logic just goes poof.
you might want to ponder mensch's response to squaring her love for brexit with her disdain for trump; just because they both might like dogs (trump doesn't, but let's say bread instead), does not make for a conspiratorial connection. the fbi hated king too, and jfk, and rfk. and, i've long suspected, obama. all those wonky dems who want some form of oversight.
as for your bloodied shirt, that it remains so is your choice. but the chinese have a saying for that kind of bitterness: dig two graves.
posted by Anonymous : 4:05 PM
If you favor a world where Clintons cannot destroy Serbia with neocons assistance and Bushes cannot destroy Iraq with Clintons neolibs assistance, you vote for Trump and hope his impulses against Russophobia and globalism lead to a multipolar world...or that his inconsistencies and lack of talent lead to chaos with the same result.
Those whose vote went to Clinton, assuming their best intentions and I don't, but for the sake of charity....they were taking the cowardly way out, Sarandon was right.
Barack Obama's role in the 2016 race is nebulous. The only truly evil thing he did, in my opinion, was somehow allowing Comey to publicly indict Hillary Clinton, TWICE, while making it look publicly like Donald Trump was not being investigated for anything. Yeah, that's kind of a big deal.
Obama actions as causa? perhaps the facts instead point to per accidens, or a correlative error, like thinking the consumption of ice cream in the urban environment is a contributing factor to increasing numbers of homicides. that would be my uneducated guess.
i give your work more consideration than i would the work of many, however. positing interest for my own entertainment, i am willing to describe my reasoning:
your posts serve as proof that you are capable of (and also serve as examples of) intelligent and thoughtful analysis. i am confident that you pursue and recognize the truth wherever it leads you. i am equally confident that you are less of a victim of confirmation bias than most, in other words, that as far as you are able to do so, you do not either screen out facts unfavorable to your hypothesis, or cherry pick them.
that being said, i look forward to being kept abreast of this story -- that is, of this hypothesis, and whether it ultimately holds true.