Jeff Carter

They don't have enough test kits available to test anyone who wants it, let alone those already showing minor symptoms. That is why the emphasis is on "social distancing" (i.e. staying at home), and the temporary shuttering of restaurants/clubs/bars etc. The NHL has told its players and staffs that the suspension of the season will continue for at least 60 days, so that could be taken as an indicator that this social distancing is the new normal for at least a couple of months. Possibly longer.

Gibson’s “Battling Wall Street” helped me perceive the differing worldviews that could be generally described as a Kennedy/development model versus a Dulles/ resource extraction model. The power elite preference for the latter in the U.S. was emphatically expressed in the 1960s. As has become more obvious since the Cold War’s end removed the ideological rationale, the western capitalist democracies generally continue to pursue a resource extraction model foreign policy, based on coddling local elites and repressing restive populations. This has been most clear these past two decades in Latin America, with the expressed hostility to Venezuela’s Bolivarian movement’s development model policies, and the continuing rollback of such which started in Haiti followed by Honduras. The recent bipartisan Congressional standing ovation for Venezuela’s ridiculous “interim president” Guaido was an expression of the primacy of the resource extraction viewpoint, also made clear by the open talk of exploiting Bolivia’s minerals now that the development model government was removed. It seems Kennedy and his advisors had the wisdom to question whether an “I win/you lose” foreign policy was the best choice against an “I win/you win” development model - for business as well as moral/ethical reasons. China’s Belt and Road Initiative is based on a development model, and our elites are determined to stop it by all means.

Paddy Chayevsky - Sidney Lumet's "Network" heads into that territory. The actual grinding momentum and application of power is not inherently dramatic. A movie set in, say, Davos would not necessarily be interesting.

Here’s numbers from two states regarding the exit polls on Super Tuesday - Biden’s totals consistently overperform while Sanders’ underperform: https://tdmsresearch.com/2020/03/04/massachusetts-2020-democratic-party-primary/ https://tdmsresearch.com/2020/03/07/texas-2020-democratic-party-primary/ There are explanations for this within the DNC rulebook, so it’s not that the Dems rigged the polls, it’s that the Party establishment intervened decisively just ahead of this vote to prevent one candidate from having a successful day. A little more of “we know best”, and a lot less of “we the people”. But events have moved on to more serious immediate matters. If Trump hasn’t been tested it would constitute a brazen dereliction, so David Andrews is probably correct. In the movies, John Wayne or Gary Cooper do not save the day by self-isolating for two weeks, but leadership in this situation requires it. Again, unfortunately, the decision-makers in this administration are distinguished by poor decisions. Domestically, the market is crashing in conjunction with a widespread pandemic. Internationally, the US has bullied and insulted friend and foe alike, working from Trump’s theories of comparative advantage, and may now face an empire-has-no-clothes moment. The attacks on US bases in Iraq will likely gather steam now - continuing blowback from the murder of the Iranian general - as the response so far has been to conduct air strikes against the Iraq military (described in press as “Iran-backed militias”) I.e. the actual hosts of those bases. The sense that now is the time to push the Americans out will see many more casualty-events. That’s three major crises all at once. Here’s an informed perspective on disaster-relief efforts in America - “Coping with a Megadisaster: Katrina and Coronavirus” https://www.patreon.com/posts/coping-with-and-34462044

Last Tuesday, Biden’s vote totals were consistently trending about 8% higher than the exit polls predicted. This can be explained by the fact DNC rules had any Buttgieg/Klobuchar votes simply handed over to Biden. The extraordinary intervention last Monday, by which both those candidates dropped out and endorsed Biden, was coordinated by the highest levels of the Democratic Party leadership. In my opinion, this was a response to internal polling which showed Sanders not only poised to win California but also Texas and several of the northeastern states. Surely at the beginning of last week all the momentum was with Sanders, and now it looks like he is a spent force. Remarkable turnaround, particularly as Biden had done virtually nothing (other than win one inconsequential state) to rise almost overnight from distant fourth place to frontrunner with wind in the sails. Lesson to be learned: the US establishment (aka the 1%) is wholly opposed to large-scale programs designed to assist the population at large - single-payer health care, reduced college tuition, infrastructure projects, etc, and the Dems will not endorse such policy initiatives even as they must know that these are winning platforms. I think Robert Wheeler is correct - Biden will not in fact be the candidate in the Fall. The coronavirus is containable, as demonstrated by the measures taken in South Korea. Unfortunately, the U.S. medical system is entirely unsuited to the task, and the presence of top pharmaceutical executives during Pence’s Congressional briefing does little to suggest decisions will be made in the interests of the public-at-large.

It looks, though, that the Democratic Party establishment had to play all their cards this week. Both Buttigieg and Klobuchar woke up Monday morning still candidates, and that changed by noon that day. Plenty of time yet for a Biden meltdown. Deja vu, prepared to lose with Biden rather than win with Sanders? Appears so. A fair number of observers see the Russiagate/election interference narrative continuing in place of any real policy initiatives. A false time-wasting narrative which diluted the energy necessary to overcome resistance to progressive change. Transcript of excellent speech by Libertarian Scott Horton, a comprehensive history of the past three decades: "The New Cold War With Russia Is All America’s Fault" https://original.antiwar.com/scott/2020/03/02/the-new-cold-war-with-russia-is-all-americas-fault/

Apocalyptic fear-mongering is entirely irresponsible. A rational systematic approach such as currently practiced by South Korea can successfully contain the outbreak and provide proper medical attention for those unfortunately afflicted. Has the "expert commentary" discussed successful containment strategies? The issue for the U.S. is how to provide testing to identify those who will need to be quarantined and treated without infecting others. Recognizing there will be economic factors inhibiting persons from seeking out the test - such as being unable to afford the test in the first place (a $3200 bill handed to a man in Florida), unable to withstand a quarantine period without facing ruin, or undocumented persons who will avoid testing in fear of being deported - needs to be addressed immediately. Offering, at the least, subsidized testing, assistance to those facing quarantine, and promises not to deport the undocumented is in the best interests of everyone as a contained outbreak will consume far less resources than a situation out of control. Are the "expert commentators" addressing that?

The Assange extradition hearing has adjourned until May. Reports of this week’s events can be found on the Consortium News website. All persons of conscience should have a look. Craig Murray’s daily reports are highly recommended. The defence team has applied very strong arguments against the substance of the charges against Assange, but face a legal situation by which the prosecutors argue, and the judge maintains, that neither the letter of the law, the factual basis of the charges, or precedents will apply. It’s a combination of Alice in Wonderland, Kafka, and Orwell. On Monday, the first day of the hearing, Assange was strip searched twice, handcuffed eleven times, and moved between five different holding cells. In the courtroom, he is confined to a glass-walled cage at the back of the courtroom and prevented from contact with his legal team during the proceedings. This is a publisher, with no history of violence. https://consortiumnews.com

Economist Michael Hudson has a useful essay on the Democrat’s “quandry”, with less on personalities and more on big-picture economics and historical resonance. He believes if the DNC broker Sanders out, then Trump’s second term is assured. https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/02/25/the-democrats-quandary-in-a-struggle-between-oligarchy-and-democracy-something-must-give/

That will never happen, not least because Trump does not control US foreign policy. His lone maverick initiative - warmer relations with Russia - was ruthlessly vetoed by a full-court press utilizing the Intelligence agencies, the Congressional opposition, and most of the mainstream media. While the now-abandoned policy has been routinely described as reflecting some sort of personal bond or acquiescence between Putin/Trump, it more accurately represented business interests who felt they could profit via the Russian Federation coalescing with a minority faction of foreign policy wonks who advocated a strategic relationship with Russia in the interest of containing China. The true bipartisan face of US foreign policy, representing the rather opaque power centre which calls the shots, was on display a couple of weeks ago in Germany at the Global Security Forum, where Nancy Pelosi presented a united front with Pompeo and Defence Secretary Esper. The US delegation was remarkably bellicose and aggressive, with Esper going so far as to cite the inevitability of a “high-intensity” military conflict with China sooner rather than later. Another vetoed Trump initiative was the domestic infrastructure program he made a deal of on the election night. This was scotched in a far quieter manner than the Russia policy, and all the money which might have been earmarked for it has instead been diverted to the military, as Trump noted during his recent State Of the Union speech. This suggests that even should Sanders emerge as the Democratic candidate against a brokered convention and attain the presidency, his domestic initiatives will likely be cancelled by the higher authority. That said, Sanders has a tough scrappy side to him which is admirable, and the establishment is clearly nervous that his policies are part of the public debate at all.

I think whatever they were doing has been greatly exaggerated in terms of its overall influence. The IRA's activity is entirely consistent with being a run-of-the-mill commercial clickbait operation, and considering it as a fully weaponized chaos-sowing influence campaign by an international adversary seems to me an extraordinary claim which has yet to be supported by the requisite evidence. It has been established that much of the activity in question was disseminated in already highly partisan circles, and so in effect was only amplifying memes to persons who have been already convinced/decided. The total activity, in relation to the social media activity in toto, is statistical insignificant.

But 61,500 Facebook posts, 116,000 Instagram posts, and 10.4 million tweets are themselves the smallest of fractions of total activity - bordering on statistically irrelevant. A minuscule drop in a large pond. The Syrian campaign had a much larger social media presence and regular access to the worldwide mainstream media, and yet it wasn’t all that effective. Researchers are now questioning the efficacy of these campaigns. Statistical analysis published in November: “A major Russian disinformation effort may not have been very effective, according to a new study that is one of the first to investigate whether these campaigns actually changed people’s minds. The study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, is limited—and it’s definitely not saying that the US shouldn’t be worried about foreign election interference—but is still an important reminder of how little we know about the widespread results of disinformation… The researchers compared the two sets of data over a one-month period in late 2017 and found no evidence that interacting with the IRA accounts on Twitter changed these people’s minds or their behaviors. Plus, the IRA accounts were most likely to interact with people who were already politically polarized, making it even less likely they had a big effect… the results challenge some assumptions about the power of these Russian bot accounts. They suggest that the IRA, at least, may not have been especially effective, and that voters may not be as susceptible as many people fear. Similarly, other experts have suggested that disinformation may not be as powerful as suspected. Some scientists have suggested that Cambridge Analytica’s microtargeting probably didn’t have much effect, while other research suggests that most forms of tech-mediated political persuasion, legitimate or not, aren’t very influential. https://www.technologyreview.com/f/614756/russia-disinformation-twitter-internet-research-agency-social-media-politics/

The IRA budget number sources to the Mueller Report and the Senate Intelligence Subcommittee Report. If you have a superseding figure then please cite the source. Also note that the budget figure is for all digital activity, not just the specific Facebook/Twitter programs of concern. Either the figure is completely wrong, or the supplementary organic activity is much less than you presume.

Bob - dismissing William Binney as merely a “former NSA employee” makes me wonder the extent by which you view these issues objectively. I don’t share the opinion that 15-20 IC agencies have actually bought into the “Russians hacked the election” premise. It seems to be an exaggerated partisan talking point. The Assessment which started all of this, from January 2017, was widely touted as a community-wide product but after a few months it was downgraded to the work of a very few hand-picked agents representing two or three agencies at most. And hand-picked by arch Russophobic Trump foes Brennan and Clapper, both of whom have track records of deceit and lying to the the public. The Report itself states clearly that its findings are in no way established fact, and concedes that it might all be wrong. The Senate Intelligence Committee Report which you have touted as definitive concedes that its conclusions are based on what it describes as “aspirational” intentions I.e. the bad guys by definition intend to do bad things so therefore they must have, in fact, done the bad things.It is an extremely poor product, and makes the Warren Report appear as a model of investigation. The one Russian program which has been established - the Internet Research Agency’s clickbait scheme - was so ridiculously underfunded and small scale as to have been virtually invisible. A million dollar budget over two or three years and yet the entire Republic almost fell? That’s ridiculous. Over the past week it was revealed that British intelligence basically funded and ran the media outreach service for the so-called “rebels” in Syria. That effort had a budget of over half a million dollars every month, and was supported in turn by White Helmets ($80 million over five years) and probably other expensive initiatives. Now that’s a true covert disinformation effort and the disparity is obvious. There was a delay of some weeks between the time the DNC began to realize they had a security breach and when their tech security team Crowdstrike leapt into action. Using Salandria’s scepticism model - what would be the expected reaction of persons and institutions? - that delay is inexplicable. In my opinion, everything which occurred is entirely consistent with an improvised cover story (the Russians did it) which spun completely out of control after Trump unexpectedly won the election. With a large portion of the population reacting “emotionally” to this event (as Joe has put it), the improvised cover story has exploded into something akin to a psychosis which has been fuelled by irresponsible politicians and media concerns.

The Wikileaks persecution is a world historic situation, Cliff, and you've chosen to take the reactionary position. Maybe time for a rethink?

This is the Reuters parsing of whatever was said in court. The direct quote has an ellipsis right in the middle of the pertinent portion. Saying that a pardon has a “condition that Assange say the Russians were not involved” is entirely different than basing a condition on his sharing the proof he says he can provide, the same refused by the Mueller investigation. For the sake of the extradition process, Assange’s lawyers are demonstrating, in the interests of establishing the political character of Assange’s plight, that an elected US official met with him and spoke of a conditional pardon. British law prevents extradition based on politicized charges. For instance, if the information in the NY Times article you shared is on the level, then Assange should be set free next week since what it describes is clearly a politicized process. It should not be forgotten that Wikileaks has never published information that was untrue, and that Assange's current difficulties result from exposing rather serious crimes which have not been denied and whose perpetrators have never been held accountable. Wikileaks released a statement a few days ago, referring to the Rohrabacher meeting: “Chronology matters: The meeting and the offer were made ten months after Julian Assange had already independently stated Russia was not the source of the DNC publication.” Your inference that Assange has used weasel words to make non-denial denials is not consistent with the track record of integrity and truth-telling established by Assange, Wikileaks, and its associates. I am entirely satisfied with the statements of Assange and his supporters, and the burden of proof rests with you. So far you have offered rather hollow and unfounded accusations. Actually, understanding the fictitious nature of the Russiagate story requires none of your convoluted notions. All one has to do is choose to believe a source with a proven track record of truth-telling and integrity over the say-so of compromised sources with track records of corruption and mendacity. Wikileaks policy maintains confidentiality for the whistle-blowers who utilize their service. Assange could have compromised that policy in a bid to save his skin, but he has so far not done so - to his credit. He has not “let Russia off the hook” because Russia wasn’t on a hook in the first place (as Wikileaks has consistently maintained). It surely has amounted to a bit more than that since, in assistance, both Sweden and Britain have damaged the integrity of their own justice systems, displayed a middle finger to international law and the United Nations, and rejected long-standing norms over political asylum. Assange’s bail-jumping charge in Britain was also normally considered rather minor, yet the British government kept a round-the-clock police presence at the Ecuadorian embassy for seven years at the cost of tens of millions of pounds, and have since incarcerated Assange for almost a year in maximum security isolation during which he has been daily drugged, all the while refusing him proper access to legal council. There is nothing at all minor about this situation.

The link you introduced to this thread was from The Daily Beast reiterating a Reuters article, and it clearly misrepresented a statement by Assange’s lawyer. The headline of the article, if you can’t remember, was: “Trump Offered Assange Pardon If He Covered Up Russian Hack, Wikileaks Founder’s Lawyer Claims”. (see page 100 of this thread). Several fellow posters then repeated this phoney premise (based on the phoney headline initially introduced by yourself. leak vs hack. Wikileaks says it was a leak. Wikileaks’ position, when it is finally established, obliterates the entire Russiagate fiction. The Rohrabacher meeting is an extremely minor footnote to all of this. The only reason persons are suddenly fixating on this is because it was deliberately misreported as something potentially sinister. Rohrabacher’s visit was noted in the press at the time, and he spoke to The Intercept about it in 2018. Wikileaks contacted the Mueller people several times offering to clarify the nature of the leaks but were rebuffed. The only attribution of the Greenwald quote you provided dated to 2013. Correcting that is hardly the “gotcha” moment you think it is, as you used the quote to imply Assange was not in any serious jeopardy from US authorities until the charges were unsealed last year after he came into British custody. It appears now that you relied on a NYTimes article for such assertion. The article suggests the expedited pressure was initiated by Pompeo, not Trump. The article’s assertion that the Obama administration was “hands off” is belied by the determined incarceration of Assange in Britain, including the refusal to respect the asylum granted by Ecuador. The Swedish “sex” charges, justifying British actions, were entirely bogus, as recently confirmed by a senior UN official,. The intent to render Assange into US custody dates back at least to Obama’s second term with the initiation of the Swedish charges.

Media Literacy 101: If multiple independent outlets, utilizing distinct individual writers. all use the exact same phrase - “widely debunked conspiracy theory” - then one’s BS detector should be alerted. Similarly, if multiple ostensibly independent media sources all run alarmist stories warning of “acts if war” relying entirely on unnamed sources and unable to cite any actual “act”, then one’s BS detector should be alerted. This should be obvious.

That’s not exactly what was reported and what you brought to this thread. They/you claimed the meeting was based on “covering up” a Russian hacking plot. That is a deliberate misrepresentation of what was said by Assange's lawyer, which doesn’t prevent a number of you from internalizing the fake news as settled fact. Reading comprehension: fail. Glenn Greenwald, as anyone else, was analyzing the Wikileaks / Assange case utilizing fairly limited information in October 2013, when the quote you cite was written. If you knew anything of this story, you would understand the information has been greatly expanded in the six plus years since, and the role of all US institutions involved in this ongoing persecution have been revealed as operating with vindictive mendacity, bad faith, and abuse of process, and have done so in entirely bipartisan spirit.

yes, see the wsws.org link in my reply to Doug Caddy’s MSNBC post (previous page). We should expect something from Consortium News as well. And Craig Murray, on his eponymous blog, has numerous powerful explications on Assange, and he will be writing on next week’s hearing as well.

Cliff and Joe are entirely misinformed on the topic of Rohrabacher/ Assange. This appears to be the result of relying on biased second hand information. Cliff further believes that Wikileaks is engaged in deceptive wordplay, and although he does not “know” this, he presents opinions based on his assumptions. Wikileaks has never previously lied or used deceptive language. Wikileaks maintains credibility, its accusers do not. Rohrabacher was not acting as a Trump liaison when he met Assange. There was no existing “deal”. Trump did not personally add “seventeen charges”. This was the work of the DOJ, and they were revealed at a specific time because Assange had come into the custody of the British government. Previous to that the official position was that there were no pending charges and Assange’s political asylum was the result of his personal paranoias. The Wikileaks press conference yesterday was an extremely important newsworthy event which has been largely blacked out by the US media - in part by focusing on a “fake news” version of the Rohrabacher meeting.

There's a great deal of distance between the notion that Assange would agree to "cover-up" Russian hacking and the notion that Assange had proof that "Russia didn't hack". So the Daily Beast/Reuters piece is revealed as consistent with an entirely different understanding of "hack". MSNBC insists that any concept other than the Russian hack is a debunked conspiracy theory because a Yahoo News podcast said so. Real outstanding investigative journalism there too. Wikileaks has no history of lying, or even using weasely language to deceive. The accusers of Wikileaks have such track record. Expect more information as the first extradition hearing begins next week. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/02/19/assa-f19.html

Considering that neither The Daily Beast, or Reuters who originally presented this story, have reliable track records as objective professional news sources, a healthy scepticism regarding the headline’s claim appears warranted. That the main body of the story features partisan mud-slinging and/or factually challenged assertions supports such stance. Sure enough, upon locating the money quote “Mr Rohrabacher going to see Mr Assange and saying, on instructions from the president, he was offering a pardon or some other way out, if Mr Assange... said Russia had nothing to do with the DNC leaks.” - one discovers an ellipsis large enough to drive a truck through. I would suggest allowing the truck to return and the full context of Ms Robinson’s statement discerned before jumping to conclusions.

Bologna prosecutors confirm Licio Gelli and co-conspirators orchestrated the 1980 Bologna train station bombing: http://www.ansa.it/english/news/2020/02/11/gelli-commissioned-bologna-bombing-from-bellini_b8c6bc51-f4e8-4f2f-93a5-38d861ced994.html

Jeff Morley on Soleiman’s career: https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/01/07/the-three-victories-that-sealed-soleimanis-fate/