The hunt for the red advisers

A political operative, financed by Russia, who recently represented Russian interests in Ukraine before they were invaded by Russia, came within months of running the US government under Trump.

3000

Image from here

I will get back to science at some point, I promise, but there is just so much troubling news about Trump’s cabinet nominations and shady implications about his ties to Russia and Russia’s influence in the election…the list goes on and on.

I have a feeling that many people are, like me, scrambling to put the Russian-Trump pieces together before Trump’s inauguration because we just can’t wait for the CIA/Obama report to come out.  They waited until last week to start…In looking for a connection (decidedly not a scientific way to go about this, but Russia DID influence our election in Trump’s favor and he and Republicans denied it) I came across an old story from Politico about Carter Page, a one time mention by Trump as a potential adviser on Russia and foreign policy.  There is plenty that is shady and mysterious about this story.  However, it looks like Page is a wanna-be who was never really involved with Trump, and though he met with high level Russian government/businessmen against US sanctions, he only had the opportunity because of a Trump gaff during an interview in which he named Page as a possible adviser.

Then, there is Trump’s earlier Campaign Chief from a few months ago, Paul Manafort.  This guy is dripping with evil.  Here is a list of his clients before Trump:

  • In the 80’s, Manafort worked to keep Philippine dictator, Ferdinand Marcos, in power.
  • A Lebanese arms merchant who in the mid-90’s paid Manafort with funds from selling French submarines to Pakistan in order to influence the French prime minister, a.k.a., the Karachi affair.
  • Viktor F. Yanukovych is the former president of Ukraine who fled to Russia after a civil upraising aimed at routing out pro-Russian influence as well as ending corruption in the Ukrainian government.  Yanukovych embezzled large sums of money, and used some of it to build lavish homes for himself, one of which had its own zoo as well as tennis courts yada yada.  Other sums made its way to his allies in Russia.  Yanukovych was basically a Russian puppet, and Russia invaded Ukraine as soon as Yanukovych was forced out of office.  As reported in August by the Times (http://nyti.ms/2aMGWUe), Paul Manafort played a role in helping Yanukovych stay in power, laundering money embezzeled from the Ukrainian government, and funneling that money to Russia via a business partner, the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska.  This information came from the new Ukrainian government’s investigations.

 

In the absence of solid facts about Trump’s business dealings – why has he still not divulged his tax return? – and any other possible ties to Russia through other political agents, I’m left with the CIA’s conclusion that Russia tried to get Trump elected, that Trump has been in contact with the Kremlin over the last 5 years, and that he chose Paul Manafort to lead is campaign (and potentially become his Chief of Staff) until Manafort’s ill-gotten-gains and involvement with Russian political intrigue was uncovered.  As the Young Turks video above attests, Manafort ensured that the Republican National Convention was pro-Russia this past summer.  What effect could he have had on out country – and who else has Trump let sneak into the White House in Manafort’s stead?  This is all deeply troubling, and I hope we uncover the whole story before January 20, 2017.

Can you tell me how to get, how to get to Trumpland

“How the $&^# did we get here?” – John Oliver

Re-watching this episode, with all of it’s shocked contempt for the results of the election, helps me cope with the normalization that has quickly taken place since Trump has become president-elect Trump.

So how did Trump win?  First, Trump’s campaign spoke directly to White, conservative Americans who (A) lamented the changing job market technology has caused and (B) were willing to ignore if not agree with the bigoted, sexist, and otherwise offensive comments he made.  In fact, these voters seemed to find that this offensive behavior was evidence of Trump’s willingness to be different in Washington and change (or drain) the political establishment.  Otherwise, I see the below as deciding factors in the last election:

  • Republican controlled congress’s inaction caused people to want change, but they instead elected another Republican because he spoke differently.
  • The very successful negative campaign by right wing and “alt-right” media (not just Trump’s campaign) to sway public opinion regarding Hillary Clinton’s personality and unfounded claims of wrongdoing.
  • And similarly, the media gave Trump billions of dollars worth of free publicity by following his every tweet/stunt like a pet.
  • Russia and Wikileaks staging and the media’s willing participation in a campaign to undermine the Clinton campaign using illegally hacked and disclosed private emails.
  • FBI director James Comey’s pointless publicity stunt raising and then dropping the threat of charges against Clinton (for a misdemeanor…) (seemingly the climax from the second bullet point).

On that last point, the misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified information that Hilary is not guilty of but was threaten with very publicly is lesser than the charges for which General Patraeus was convicted.  And after all of the “lock her up” chanting by Trump and his rally’ers, Trump is currently considering Patraeus for a cabinet position.  Outrageous!

I will be following Trump’s transition to the White House (as well as the voting recounts and the Electoral College) very closely and blogging about this as well as their science implications.  For now, the slow, painful wait for the Jan. 20th inauguration of Trump feels kind of like being this guard from the first Austin Powers:

In pursuit of a persistent revolution

https://twitter.com/BillMoyersHQ/status/799084901693698048

During the Presidential debates, I was struck with how surreal the scene appeared.  The shallow and irrelevant dialogue coupled with the completely unqualified Trump simply being on the same stage as Hillary Clinton after months of reporting on his racist, misogynist, and otherwise bigoted comments not to mention the sexual assault allegations against him left me wondering what a true political intellectual would have to say to us as a nation for letting this happen.

To paraphrase Professor Kaye: Trump’s “Make America Great Again” campaign and similar rhetoric from previous Republicans like Ronald Reagan effectively white-wash our past with a nostalgia that leaves out important albeit painful memories of our nation that are best remembered lest we repeat ourselves.  This national nostalgia also does disservice to the great examples of successful political activism  in our past, including: the separation of church and state, the end of slavery, the institution of an American standard of living, the regulation of banks, and the right of women to vote.

Kaye also decried the Democrats for their lack of recognition of the fervent desire for radical change amongst the people, e.g., Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, Bernie Sanders’ surprisingly successful campaign, as well as Trump’s own radically successful one.  In FDR’s words, he describes “America as a persistent revolution” that requires political activism that is inspired by our past great achievements.

The making of a president

How did Donald Trump draw billions of dollars in free publicity from the press?  I would guess it wasn’t from his intelligent discussion of important policy plans.  The obsession with Trump took a slow turn that should have sickened anyone with a memory of greater than a month.  That obsession went from ridicule and tongue-in-check reporting while Trump was on the primary debate stage to reluctant awe/fear when Trump won the nomination to pandering and normalcy now that Trump has won the election.  This topic seems perfect for a sociological study.

Unedited and long-winded clips of Trump on-air “may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS, that’s all I got to say.” – CBS CEO Les Moonves

Given Trump’s control over the media as a candidate, can Americans expect journalists to ask Trump the important questions any President deserves?