Today's Metaphor

The Kremlin Hoped To Paralyze Our Government

"I once said, ‘We will bury you,’ and I got into trouble with it. Of course, we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own working class will bury you."─Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev

We have an adversary that thrives on our division. The notion that Russian interference in 2016 was unprecedented reflects a willful ignorance of history.

Rob Goldman, Vice President of Ads at Facebook, went on Twitter roughly eight hours after Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein read the indictment from the office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller of 13 Russian operatives for interfering in the 2016 presidential election.

Very excited to see the Mueller indictment today. We shared Russian ads with Congress, Mueller and the American people to help the public understand how the Russians abused our system. Still, there are keys facts about the Russian actions that are still not well understood.

— Rob Goldman (@robjective) February 17, 2018

The main goal of the Russian propaganda and misinformation effort is to divide America by using our institutions, like free speech and social media, against us. It has stoked fear and hatred amongst Americans. It is working incredibly well. We are quite divided as a nation.

— Rob Goldman (@robjective) February 17, 2018

The majority of the Russian ad spend happened AFTER the election. We shared that fact, but very few outlets have covered it because it doesn’t align with the main media narrative of Tump and the election. https://t.co/2dL8Kh0hof

— Rob Goldman (@robjective) February 17, 2018

Most of the coverage of Russian meddling involves their attempt to effect the outcome of the 2016 US election. I have seen all of the Russian ads and I can say very definitively that swaying the election was *NOT* the main goal.

— Rob Goldman (@robjective) February 17, 2018

Over the course of eleven presidential elections between the end of World War II and the fall of the Soviet Union, there have been three well-documented secret attempts to influence an American election.

In a published report from Smithsonian Magazine we learn Adlai Stevenson II, the Democratic nominee for president in 1952 and 1956, had advocated a ban on the testing hydrogen bombs.  Stevenson lost both bids for the presidency to Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Stevenson publicly stated he would not seek the nomination again in 1960, but Soviet Ambassador Mikhail A. Menshikov hoped he would reconsider. On January 16, 1960 Menshikov invited Stevenson to the [Soviet] embassy in DC for caviar and drinks to thank him for helping negotiate Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev’s visit to the United States.  But there was an ulterior motive. At one point, Menshikov pulled notes from his pocket and began delivering Stevenson a message he said came directly from Khrushchev, encouraging him to seriously consider another run for president.

“…We are concerned with the future, and that America has the right president. All countries are concerned with the American election. It is impossible for us not to be concerned about our future and the American Presidency which is so important to everybody everywhere.”

[SKIP]

“In Russia we know well Mr. Stevenson and his views regarding disarmament, nuclear testing, peaceful coexistence, and the conditions of a peaceful world. He has said many sober and correct things during his visit to Moscow and in his writings and speeches. When we compare all the possible candidates in the United States we feel that Mr. Stevenson is best for mutual understanding and progress toward peace.”

[SKIP]

“We don’t know how we can help to make relations better and help those to succeed in political life who wish for better relations and more confidence. Could the Soviet press assist Mr. Stevenson’s personal success? How? Should the press praise him and, if so, for what? Should it criticize him and, if so, for what? We can always find many things to criticize Mr. Stevenson for because he has said many harsh and critical things about the Soviet Union and Communism! Mr. Stevenson will know best what would help him.”

The report ends by noting, “Stevenson did eventually face the Soviets again.  After becoming UN Ambassador under President Kennedy, the winner of the 1960 election. Stevenson was tasked with presenting evidence to the world the Soviets had placed nuclear weapons in Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. His showdown with Soviet Ambassador Zorin is one of the key moments of the Cold War. After asking the Ambassador point blank whether Russia had missiles in Cuba, he pressed the issue. When the Ambassador hesitated to answer, Stevenson said, ‘I am prepared to wait for an answer until Hell freezes over, if that is your decision.’”

In 1968, the Soviet Politburo strongly favored Democratic presidential candidate, Hubert H. Humphrey out of fear of Republican nominee Richard Nixon, a vehement anti-Communist. Soviet leaders ordered their ambassador in Washington, Anatoly Dobrynin, to approach Humphrey with an offer of clandestine funding for his campaign. Humphrey politely declined saying, “it was more than enough for him to have Moscow's good wishes."  Nixon won, but instead of confronting the Soviet Union, he embarked on an era of détente and signed the first strategic arms limitation treaty, much to Moscow’s relief.

NOTE:  If you read The Washington Post’s review of Dobrynin’s book “In Confidence” by Robert G. Kaiser, you will be left with the impression he “maintained a personal moral code while representing men in Moscow who did not.”  It is unquestionably an adroit attempt to whitewash his role in the Soviets' espionage programs.

In 1976, the Soviet Union again secretly adopted measures to influence a U.S. presidential election. Early that year, the KGB warned the Politburo that Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson (D-WA), known for his fierce opposition to the Soviet Union, stood a good chance of gaining the Democratic nomination. 

To “conquer world public opinion” the KGB set up a special department, Service A, to discredit the United States.

Service A, prepared a wide-ranging set of measures to discredit Jackson, sending forged FBI letters to prominent U.S. newspapers and journalists claiming that Jackson was a closeted homosexual. Even after Jackson’s campaign faltered and he dropped out of the 1976 race, Service A kept up its homophobic war of disinformation against him, hoping to prevent him from ever again becoming a viable presidential candidate.

The drama series, “The Americans”, was created by former CIA agent-turned-author Joe Weisberg for the FX network; a story about a pair of deep-cover Soviet spies masquerading as a stereotypical Washington couple whose children, neighbors, co-workers and friends are completely unaware of their activities. They pose as travel agents; but at night, they weave a web of confidants, lovers, dupes, and historical figures from the Reagan-era Cold War. The startlingly realistic plot twists force the viewer to consider the real cost of an undeclared war.

The series is, of course, fictional but there’s an interesting “briefing” at the website Spy Museum which details the story of The Cambridge Five.  In 1934, before the Great Purge of the Communist Party, the repression of peasants and Red Army leaders, Soviet intelligence officer Arnold Deutsch met with five Cambridge University graduates.

All were dedicated Communists and demanded no financial compensation for their espionage services. In time, the Soviet strategy of recruiting young, disaffected members of the British elite would yield rich rewards.  Each quickly obtained key positions in the British government and intelligence apparatus.  They did immense damage to Western security when they learned of American efforts to build an atomic bomb, provided documents of “inestimable value” on the Allied strategy in the Korean War and disclosed Project Venona which broke encoded Soviet diplomatic messages.

I raise the issue of the Cambridge Five simply to illustrate the point that so many are willing to do harm to America.  It makes you wonder about dirty dossier author Christopher Steele, himself a Briton.

Many Americans have forgotten the lessons of the Cold War and the disasters witnessed in the crumbling economies and failed institutions of Communist and socialist countries in the 1990s. Communism was on its last leg, it appeared, and its little brother socialism was not far behind.

Little did we know that the fires of socialism were being stoked in corners all across America where it is held in higher regard than in nations that have suffered under it. It is obvious where such thinking abounds and continues to spread: in our colleges and universities. The ideologies of professors and educators have proven stronger than facts. The “benefits” of socialism and Communism are taught from the Ivy League to the local community college. A generation has been taught a lie and they now believe it.

Dirty Rats

Back in February The Washington Post unveiled its new slogan “Democracy dies in darkness” when the paper began being referred to as “the fake news media” by President Trump along with The New York Times and CNN.

Democracy dies in darkness all right; the media is trying to strangle it in an unlit alley.

These same media outlets which were quick to report on possible collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia are now slow to say how The World’s Most Dangerous Community Organizer’s administration may have legally but unethically spied on Trump’s campaign.

Like a juggler trying to keep three balls in the air, the “Russiagate” scandal has three scenarios the press is desperate to keep aloft:  the question of whether the Russians somehow “hacked our election”, whether any Trump people “colluded” with the Russians and whether anyone in Obama's administration used our intelligence apparatus to spy on political opponents.

The Drudge Report™ headlined its webpage with “Rice Ordered Spy Docs On Trump” with a link to The Daily Caller which published a report at 10:08 PM Monday night exposing Obama’s national security advisor, Susan Rice, for “ordering US spy agencies to produce detailed spreadsheets of legal phone calls” involving candidate Trump and his aides according to former US Attorney Joseph diGenova.  diGenova further notes, “The overheard conversations involved no illegal activity by any of Trump’s associates, or anyone they were speaking with.  In short, the only apparent illegal activity was the unmasking of the people on the calls.”

diGenova tweeted in February, “What’s happening here is a coup d’état…This is designed to create the atmospherics for an impeachment.”

This exploding scandal constitutes a serious abuse of privacy and raises troubling questions about the use of intelligence operations for political purposes.  And for Rice to pull a “Sgt. Schultz” saying, “I know nothing about this” is nothing short of farcical. 

Things come apart so easily when they have been held together with lies.

The ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff, has vigorously searched for proof to support the Dem narrative on Russiagate.  At one point, Schiff was convinced he had Trump and the Republicans on the ropes.  Now, not so much.  Why?

On Thursday, March 31, White House counsel Don McGahn invited ol’ Schiffty to see the documents House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes had been shown. 

Viewed docs today at White House invitation. Here are my thoughts: pic.twitter.com/EZ5COuoVVU

— Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) March 31, 2017

Kurt Schlicter published a rant at Townhall describing the Democrat Party as “less a political organization than a disorganized crime ring…They’re dumb, but they're not so stupid as not to realize that this Putin nonsense, manufactured as a pathetic excuse for their utter humiliation in November, is falling apart. With the help of their media minions, they hope if they keep shouting “Look, Russians!” we’ll grow so bored we’ll just tune out. It’s their only hope for keeping Obama’s buddies off the chopping block.”

MITCHELL: Did you leak the name of Mike Flynn?

SUSAN RICE: "I leaked nothing to nobody. And never would." —via @MSNBC pic.twitter.com/WTJYwHUs7S

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) April 4, 2017

will the media take the same position when Obama's people are "incidentally" surveilled and Trump unmasks and disseminates, I wonder...?

— Baby Goat Alliance (@AceofSpadesHQ) April 4, 2017

Silence Is Golden. Duct Tape Is Silver.

Do Democrats think the House and Senate Intelligence Committees can turn Trump’s election into an O.J. Simpson trial rerun?

Juan Williams, an inept and easily flummoxed pundit for Fox News penned a piece today for The Hill entitled “Trump’s Risk of Impeachment Rises”.  In the screed Williams exclaimed, “Liberal Democrats could yet see their dreams come true.”

“It is no fantasy to say the drip-drip-drip of the Trump-Russia investigations is draining this presidency of political capital. The president’s historically high disapproval rating— 51 percent in the latest McClatchy poll—tells the same story.”

Williams purports to know unequivocally “astute Republicans are starting to look out for themselves. The first Republican to begin to run for cover was Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who decided to recuse himself from any role in the investigation. Last week Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser, sought immunity in exchange for his testimony to congressional investigators.”

Williams and his league of whiny comrades continue to cling to the notion the “Trump White House continues to pursue a failing strategy of distraction” with “an unsupported claim that President Obama was wiretapping him.  That is now a claim that all but his most stalwart allies have abandoned.”

What Williams failed to take into account was the growing body of evidence revealing that Susan Rice and others as yet unnamed within the Obama Administration did, in fact, spy on individuals connected to the Donald Trump transition and campaign according to US officials familiar with the matter.  Reports said Rice’s requests contained valuable political information such as who the Trump team was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters and plans for the incoming administration.

"That Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice is alleged to have been responsible for this unmasking is troubling given her history of deceit and her close relationship with then-President Obama," Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) said. "We need to know whether the material gleaned from the Rice unmasking is the material fed to the media in an attempt to do political damage to the Trump administration and, if so, who was responsible for leaking it."

DeSantis is Chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security.

Williams has joined Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) in fantasizing about a Trump resignation or impeachment before 2020.  Kicking over sand castles and handling the Left’s dirty dealing is Trump’s strong suit.