How Comey helped Donald Trump win

Best Buddies – The Mueller/Comey Connection

Greg Sargent explains.

As Jonathan Chait explains, Comey’s willingness to let such concerns influence these episodes reflects the success of a decades-long campaign by Republicans and GOP-aligned media to skew the political dialog by hyping fake scandals, which in this case led Comey to act to “avoid charges of favoritism,” thus willingly handing bad-faith actors leverage over law enforcement. It’s hard to read Comey’s NPR interview as anything other than confirmation of this. Worse, Comey also revealed that not allowing this to happen would have been a perfectly appropriate outcome.

All of this implicates the media’s conduct as well — both before and after the fact. Though Comey’s last-minute email revelation admittedly created a complicated editorial conundrum, it was widely hyped by the media in a manner that was surely disproportionate, given that at the time, no one knew whether the emails amounted to anything at all (which, it turned out, they didn’t). As Nate Silver has shown, the episode may have helped tip the election to Trump.

When supporters of Clinton made these points after the election, they were widely derided for being in denial about the real reasons Clinton lost. The notion that Comey and related over-the-top press coverage might have played an important role was greeted — including by some neutral reporters — as self-evidently, uproariously, knee-slappingly absurd, as if it constituted nothing more than hopeless partisan brainwashing.

It is true that Clinton lost for all kinds of other reasons, including her own role in emailgate, her flaws as a candidate, multiple strategic failures by the campaign and various unhealthy tendencies in the Democratic Party. But as Comey himself has now confirmed, the conduct for which he was responsible didn’t have to happen. Comey won’t allow himself to take this extra step, but his own retrospective testimony also confirms that it should not have happened. It likely helped Trump win, and to the degree that it did, it produced genuine institutional and systemic failure on multiple fronts. Comey’s media tour should lead us to forthrightly grapple with this — and to acknowledge that Clinton supporters are absolutely right to be bitterly angry over it to this day.

Killing dissent softly at the DNC

I like to run the streets to calm the demons in my head before bedtime. It’s like meditation or prayer, except you need good shoes and plenty of water, especially during heat waves like the one we endured while the Democratic National Convention was in Philly.

As I mentioned last time, the DNC took place near Broad Street, at the Wells Fargo Center, not far from the swamp where I live. It was capped Thursday night by Hillary Clinton’s acceptance speech, which had an intro from her daughter Chelsea, who raised the event to a new level of kitsch while reminiscing about Mom and Dad and even Grandma, who would have been “so, so proud” of Hillary last night.

After a few minutes of her dreck, I left the house and ran to Broad Street. I was serenaded by droning police helicopters to the south, circling the convention site, where protesters had gathered for the fourth straight day to show contempt for the Democratic nominee and the nomination process.

I knew the humidity was high because I could feel the sweat dripping off my fingers, and that protesters were active because cop cars were racing down Broad, followed by a big white police bus used to haul large groups of prisoners to jail.

And I knew from being at the site on previous nights that the protesters — there may have been a few thousand at times — wouldn’t get anywhere near the convention center because the “protest zone” created by the feds was hundreds of yards away from the center and fenced off like a cattle pen.

So I ran a few miles and went home just in time to see the end of Hillary’s dreadfully well-rehearsed speech. Then she and hubby Bill and other luminaries, flashing ultra-bright grins, pushed and poked at red, white and blue balloons, which had been released by the thousands after the speech.

The point is, convention planners made sure nothing inside or outside the convention venue was spontaneous or real — at least not for long. Even the balloon-poking seemed rehearsed.

Kudos to the cops for not engaging in the heavy-handed tactics that made Philly look bad during the 2000 RNC convention. This time around, in the name of keeping the peace, and with lots of help from the Democratic National Committee and federal agents, they smothered dissent almost before it could rear its feeble head.

So America can breathe easy now. The homeland is safe from those bomb-throwing Bernie bros. Everything is under control. We’re all in the same cattle pen.

Transparency Expert: Hillary Clinton Was Trying To Do Her Job

■■■■Hillary Clinton Is Criticized for Private Emails in State Dept. Review http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/us/politics/state-department-hillary-clinton-emails.html?smid=fb-share&referer=http://lm.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F20

I wrote this last year, but it’s as relevant as ever:

Clay Johnson was not just the former director of Sunlight Labs at the Sunlight Foundation, he also had a White House fellowship to help improve how the federal government acquires and uses technology. This is what he wrote about the Hillary Clinton email story. Please note the last paragraph: But more importantly, let’s talk about records.… Continue reading “Transparency Expert: Hillary Clinton Was Trying To Do Her Job”

Don’t believe Hillary’s Iran hype

Don’t believe Hillary Clinton or the New York Times, not when it comes to nuclear threats in the Middle East. Even Hillary doesn’t believe Hillary’s hype about Iran, as Juan Cole points out:

The announcement of the Iranian government that it will activate its Fordow nuclear enrichment site has predictably drawn forth a new round of war propaganda from the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In contrast, the Chinese media accurately report Iran’s affirmation that the new site will be subject to UN inspections and so is perfectly legal.

Ironically, what Clinton says is diametrically opposite from the repeated assurances given by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, that Iran is not trying to construct a nuclear warhead. True, he put it in a misleading way, saying that Iran “is not yet building a bomb,” as though it is only a matter of time. But in order to build a bomb, Iran would have to deny access to UN inspectors and, well, initiate a program to build a bomb. That it has not done so is covered up in mainstream US political and journalistic discourse, to the point where the NYT had to apologize for stating (contrary to Panetta) that Iran has a nuclear weapons program (it does not, as far as anyone can tell).

And now, it turns out, the Obama administration is even willing to admit the truth. The sanctions regime on Iran is not even primarily about the civilian nuclear enrichment program (to which Iran has a right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), but about causing the regime to collapse. (Apparently the appearance in print with its admission of illegal motives provoked a sharp set of phone calls and a revision of the statement to merely a collapse of the nuclear program. I believe WaPo got it right the first time.)

I think blockading a civilian population for the purpose of instituting regime change in a state toward which no authorization of force has been issued by the UN Security Council may well be a war crime. Even advocating a war crime can under some circumstances be punishable, as happened at the Nuremberg trials.