According To Jeff Sessions Beliefs: All Of His Possessions Must Now Be Seized By The Government

 

ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS IS A FRAUD/HYPOCRITE AND HERE IS WHY

 

“In a directive issued last week, Sessions said he wants to increase asset forfeiture, which allows the government to seize money and property from people suspected of a crime without ever formally charging them with one, let alone convicting them.” (Quote from Time.com)

 

This wish list of the U.S. Attorney General is straight out of the Communist playbook and that of a country which is ruled by a Dictator. When this type of government sponsored criminal activity is in place no one in the country safely owns anything. Not only would such ‘laws’ be an open ticket for the Federal government to take all of the money and possessions of anyone any Federal ‘police’ agency chose, even the state, county and local agencies could and would do the same. Only a fool or an idiot would believe that the different politicians and police agencies would not use this type of Un-Constitutional laws to punish people that they don’t like or to use to help their personal or departmental budget short falls. There are many examples already where police agencies stop out-of-state motorists because the officers like and want their vehicle and also confiscate any cash the people have on them using the excuse that it is possible drug money. If the people argue, to often after the officers search their vehicle some small baggy of drugs miraculously appear. It is sickening, but it is reality. I am not saying that all police personnel, D.A.’s and Judges are criminals because they are not, but way to many are and way to many innocent people have ended up in prison because of them.

 

So now, I would like to comment on a dirty politician who is now the top Cop here in America, his name is Jeff Sessions. For those of you who are paying any attention to this fraud/criminal and his actions I have an issue that has made this crook/hypocrite hundreds of thousands of dollars since he was nominated to be our Nations Attorney General. The man is using his position to crack down on anything he considers to be a crime and he has directed all of the nations D.A.’s to always go for maximum sentences on every case thus lengthening the sentences for everyone in the nation’s prison system. He is also pushing for more ‘Prisons for Profit’ instead of having the government running them. This has already been shown to be a system that tramples on the rights of the people and politicians have been know to have their hands in the till. So, why is Jeff Sessions pushing for more criminal activity in this ‘Prison for Profit’ sham? The answer is simple, he has thousands of shares in the two largest prison for profit companies in America. When Sessions was nominated for his current position the stock value of these two companies soared thus making Sessions hundreds of thousands of dollars. Isn’t this the same as insider trading on Wall Street? It is certainly enough to consider that he is a criminal thus all of his possessions should be seized by the Federal Government.

 

Come to think of it there are lots of issues that several members of the Trump Clan could also have all of their possessions seized for ‘possible’ criminal activity and you could easily add the Bush and Clinton families to this ‘possible’ criminal list. Just think of it, the Federal, State, County and City budget deficits could be wiped out simply by using this Sessions idea. But of course there is one issue, this type of program is mostly only used on the poor and middle class. If you think that I am just talking smoke and mirrors here just think about how the IRS has acted for many decades as well as other policing agencies. The IRS says you have broken the law so they step in and take all of your assets including taking all of your access to any money you have thus making it to where you can’t even hire a lawyer to defend yourself. What Jeff Sessions wants to do to the working class poor people is Un-Constitutional thus illegal in and by itself. To me it looks like the very first person to be punished by this law is Jeff Sessions himself. Shouldn’t the top Cop in America be forced to set the example?

 

 

 

 

Face Down In The Gutter

 

Down in the gutter a human falls on their face

Face down in the sewer, is this where we end life’s race

So many years of struggle to keep up another’s set space

With a world full of Jones’ a person is taught we must race

Not knowing or seeing we were created in God’s given grace

From the womb were taught that he who dies with the most toys

Gains themselves some veiled vision of some mystical first place

 

Like a rat in a maze the Devil has put the humans in their place

Face down in the sewage on our back we must roll and clean off our face

Look upward toward Heaven can you see the stars all aglow

Angels are praying for us so get up on our feet with God’s grace we shall find

Face down in the gutter one whom is in the likeness of God should not ever be

Yes dear friend In the likeness of God every one of us are made, even you and I

In the gutters of this world not even a Bush, a Trump or a Clinton should be

Bloodline’s like they, so tainted with their ego’s and greed still matter to God

My friend, I hope you can now see that you matter to God, and you matter to me

Nearing 100 days, Trump’s approval at record lows but his base is holding

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF THE WASHINGTON POST)

Nearing 100 days, Trump’s approval at record lows but his base is holding

April 23 at 12:01 AM
President Trump nears the 100-day mark of his administration as the least popular chief executive in modern times, a president whose voters remain largely satisfied with his performance, but one whose base of support has not expanded since he took the oath of office, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.Trump’s first months in office have produced some tangible successes. Beyond the continued enthusiasm of his most loyal supporters, a small majority of Americans see him as a strong leader. A bigger majority approves of his efforts to pressure U.S. companies to keep jobs in this country. Those who say the economy is getting better outnumber those who say it’s getting worse by the biggest margin in 15 years in Post-ABC polling.

But the president’s balance sheet overall tilts toward the negative. Majorities of Americans say Trump has not accomplished much during his first months as president. Meanwhile, he shows little improvement on his temperament and honesty, and while he’s gained ground on empathy, over 6 in 10 still say he does not understand the problems of people like them.

[Read full poll results | How the poll was conducted]

With a week remaining before his 100th day in office, Trump has yet to achieve a major legislative accomplishment, having been dealt a major setback when Republicans in Congress decided not to proceed with a vote on a health-care bill supported by the White House. His clearest achievement is the successful nomination of Neil M. Gorsuch to the Supreme Court seat previously held by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.

Executive actions on trade, immigration, climate and government organization have pointed the direction he wants to take the country, though his controversial proposed travel ban that affects a number of Muslim-majority nations remains blocked by the courts. Trump and others in his administration have attacked the courts, accusing them of overreach, but nearly 6 in 10 people see their actions as a legitimate role for the judicial branch.

Overseas, he has demonstrated his willingness to use military force, with targeted strikes in Syria and the use of one of the biggest non-nuclear devices in the U.S. arsenal in Afghanistan. But tensions with North Korea remain high and the administration’s policy in the Middle East remains cloudy.

The 100-day marker is in part an artificial measuring post for any president, but by comparison, Trump has reached this point in his presidency faring worse to much worse than other recent presidents. An electorate that was deeply divided throughout the 2016 campaign remains so today, with opposition seemingly hardened and unyielding on most questions regarding his presidency.

The president’s approval rating stands at 42 percent, the lowest recorded at this stage of a presidency dating to Dwight Eisenhower. Trump’s 53 percent disapproval rating is 14 percentage points higher than Bill Clinton’s 39 percent disapproval in April 1993, the worst before Trump. Eight years ago, then-president Barack Obama’s approval was 69 percent, his disapproval 26 percent.

The Post-ABC poll finds 43 percent of Americans said they strongly disapprove of Trump’s performance. That’s also the worst by far of any president since George H.W. Bush by more than double. In the spring of 1993, 21 percent said they strongly disapproved of Clinton’s performance.

Americans split at 35 percent apiece on whether Trump is doing a better or worse job than expected, with the rest saying he’s neither above nor below their expectations.

There are no signs of major slippage in support among those who voted for Trump. His approval rating among those who cast ballots for him stands at 94 percent. Among Republicans, it is 84 percent. Asked of those who voted for him whether they regret doing so, 2 percent say they do, while 96 percent say supporting Trump was the right thing to do.When asked if they would vote for him again, 96 percent say they would, which is higher than the 85 percent of Hillary Clinton voters who say they would support her again.

Trump is also satisfying the substantial share of the electorate that voted for him with some reservation. Among Trump voters who say they were “somewhat enthusiastic” or less excited about supporting him, 88 percent approve of his current performance and 79 percent say he understands the problems of people like them.

Bill Clinton also had a rocky start to his presidency, which colored public judgments of his presidency by the 100-day mark. Although just 42 percent say Trump has accomplished either a great deal or a good amount so far, that is slightly higher than the 37 percent who said the same about Clinton in 1993.

Similarly, judgments on whether campaign promises have been kept put Trump on about equal footing with Bill Clinton — 44 percent and 42 percent respectively. Also, Trump’s 53 percent positive rating on strong leadership is almost identical to that of George W. Bush’s at this point in his presidency, but much lower than Obama’s 77 percent rating.

Of those who say Trump has not accomplished much, 47 percent pin the blame on him while about a quarter blame congressional Republicans. Only 7 percent say Democrats are to blame.

One of Trump’s biggest deficiencies compared with other presidents is whether he is honest and trustworthy. Fewer than 4 in 10 (38 percent) say he is. At this point in their presidencies, 74 percent said Obama was honest, 62 percent said George W. Bush was honest and a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll showed 61 percent said Clinton was honest.

Another gap is on the question of whether Trump can be trusted in a crisis. The poll finds that 43 percent — about the same as Trump’s approval rating — say he can be trusted; 73 percent said so for Obama and 65 percent for George W. Bush at this point in their presidencies.

On the specific question of how Trump has dealt with North Korea, 46 percent say he has been about right in his posture, 37 percent say he is too aggressive and just 7 percent say he is too cautious.

On most questions about his performance or characteristics, Trump receives more negative than positive ratings. The most notable exception is his effort to pressure U.S. companies on the issues of keeping jobs at home, where 73 percent of Americans approve, including 54 percent of Democrats.

Another issue where the public sides with Trump rather than his critics is whether it is a conflict of interest for Trump to spend time at his own properties. A 54 percent majority say he has the right to travel where he wants to go. But on another question, about 6 in 10 Americans say they disapprove of the major White House roles Trump has given to his daughter, Ivanka, and her husband Jared Kushner.

Trump has net negative ratings on such questions as temperament — just as he did during the campaign — as well as on judgment to serve as president, and on whether he operates from a consistent set of principles. He has said he likes to be unpredictable.

Half disapprove of the major changes he has proposed for government spending, while nearly 6 in 10 say he is out of touch with the concerns of most people. But on this question, the public is even harsher in judging the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.

Democrats have lost considerable ground on this front. The 28 percent who say the party is in touch with concerns of most Americans is down from 48 percent in 2014 and the biggest drop is among self-identified Democrats, from 83 percent saying they are in touch to just 52 percent today. That is a reminder that whatever challenges Trump is having, Democrats, for all the energy apparent at the grass roots, have their own problems.

The Post-ABC survey reveals a persistent gender gap, with women generally more negative toward the president than men, including double-digit gaps on Trump’s attributes such as honesty and temperament. Just over one-third of women (35 percent) approve of the way he is handling the job of president compared with 48 percent of men. Even fewer women, 29 percent,say they approve of the changes he is proposing for government spending compared with 45 percent of men.

Despite the public’s skepticism of Trump’s first 100 days, the survey finds little evidence voters would render a different verdict from last November, when Trump won key states needed to secure victory in the electoral college despite Clinton winning more votes nationwide.

The new survey finds 46 percent saying they voted for Clinton and 43 percent for Trump, similar to her two-point national vote margin. Asked how they would vote if the election were held today, 43 say they would support Trump and 40 percent say Clinton.

The Post-ABC poll was conducted April 17-20 among a random national sample of 1,004 adults interviewed on cellular and landline phones. Overall results have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

Emily Guskin contributed to this report.

Exclusive: Putin-linked think tank drew up plan to sway 2016 U.S. election – documents

 

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF REUTERS NEWS AGENCY)

Exclusive: Putin-linked think tank drew up plan to sway 2016 U.S. election – documents

By Ned Parker, Jonathan Landay and John Walcott | WASHINGTON

A Russian government think tank controlled by Vladimir Putin developed a plan to swing the 2016 U.S. presidential election to Donald Trump and undermine voters’ faith in the American electoral system, three current and four former U.S. officials told Reuters.

They described two confidential documents from the think tank as providing the framework and rationale for what U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded was an intensive effort by Russia to interfere with the Nov. 8 election. U.S. intelligence officials acquired the documents, which were prepared by the Moscow-based Russian Institute for Strategic Studies [en.riss.ru/], after the election.

The institute is run by retired senior Russian foreign intelligence officials appointed by Putin’s office.

The first Russian institute document was a strategy paper written last June that circulated at the highest levels of the Russian government but was not addressed to any specific individuals.

It recommended the Kremlin launch a propaganda campaign on social media and Russian state-backed global news outlets to encourage U.S. voters to elect a president who would take a softer line toward Russia than the administration of then-President Barack Obama, the seven officials said.

A second institute document, drafted in October and distributed in the same way, warned that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was likely to win the election. For that reason, it argued, it was better for Russia to end its pro-Trump propaganda and instead intensify its messaging about voter fraud to undermine the U.S. electoral system’s legitimacy and damage Clinton’s reputation in an effort to undermine her presidency, the seven officials said.

The current and former U.S. officials spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the Russian documents’ classified status. They declined to discuss how the United States obtained them. U.S. intelligence agencies also declined to comment on them.

Putin has denied interfering in the U.S. election. Putin’s spokesman and the Russian institute did not respond to requests for comment.

The documents were central to the Obama administration’s conclusion that Russia mounted a “fake news” campaign and launched cyber attacks against Democratic Party groups and Clinton’s campaign, the current and former officials said.

“Putin had the objective in mind all along, and he asked the institute to draw him a road map,” said one of the sources, a former senior U.S. intelligence official.

Trump has said Russia’s activities had no impact on the outcome of the race. Ongoing congressional and FBI investigations into Russian interference have so far produced no public evidence that Trump associates colluded with the Russian effort to change the outcome of the election.

Four of the officials said the approach outlined in the June strategy paper was a broadening of an effort the Putin administration launched in March 2016. That month the Kremlin instructed state-backed media outlets, including international platforms Russia Today and Sputnik news agency, to start producing positive reports on Trump’s quest for the U.S. presidency, the officials said.

Russia Today did not respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson for Sputnik dismissed the assertions by the U.S. officials that it participated in a Kremlin campaign as an “absolute pack of lies.” “And by the way, it’s not the first pack of lies we’re hearing from ‘sources in U.S. official circles’,” the spokesperson said in an email.

PRO-KREMLIN BLOGGERS

Russia Today and Sputnik published anti-Clinton stories while pro-Kremlin bloggers prepared a Twitter campaign calling into question the fairness of an anticipated Clinton victory, according to a report by U.S. intelligence agencies on Russian interference in the election made public in January. [bit.ly/2kMiKSA]

Russia Today’s most popular Clinton video – “How 100% of the 2015 Clintons’ ‘charity’ went to … themselves” – accumulated 9 millions views on social media, according to the January report. [bit.ly/2os8wIt]

The report said Russia Today and Sputnik “consistently cast president elect-Trump as the target of unfair coverage from traditional media outlets.”

The report said the agencies did not assess whether Moscow’s effort had swung the outcome of the race in Trump’s favor, because American intelligence agencies do not “analyze U.S. political processes or U.S. public opinion.” [bit.ly/2kMiKSA]

CYBER ATTACKS

Neither of the Russian institute documents mentioned the release of hacked Democratic Party emails to interfere with the U.S. election, according to four of the officials. The officials said the hacking was a covert intelligence operation run separately out of the Kremlin.

The overt propaganda and covert hacking efforts reinforced each other, according to the officials. Both Russia Today and Sputnik heavily promoted the release of the hacked Democratic Party emails, which often contained embarrassing details.

Five of the U.S. officials described the institute as the Kremlin’s in-house foreign policy think tank.

The institute’s director when the documents were written, Leonid Reshetnikov, rose to the rank of lieutenant general during a 33-year-career in Russia’s foreign intelligence service, according to the institute’s website [bit.ly/2oVhiCF]. After Reshetnikov retired from the institute in January, Putin named as his replacement Mikhail Fradkov. The institute says he served as the director of Russia’s foreign intelligence service from 2007 to 2016. [bit.ly/2os4tvz]

Reuters was unable to determine if either man was directly involved in the drafting of the documents. Reshetnikov’s office referred questions to the Russian institute.

On its website, the Russian institute describes itself as providing “expert appraisals,” “recommendations,” and “analytical materials” to the Russian president’s office, cabinet, National Security Council, ministries and parliament. [bit.ly/2pCBGpR]

On Jan. 31, the websites of Putin’s office [bit.ly/2os9wMr] and the institute [bit.ly/2oLn9Kd] posted a picture and transcript of Reshetnikov and his successor Fradkov meeting with Putin in the Kremlin. Putin thanked Reshetnikov for his service and told Fradkov he wanted the institute to provide objective information and analysis.

“We did our best for nearly eight years to implement your foreign policy concept,” Reshetnikov told Putin. “The policy of Russia and the policy of the President of Russia have been the cornerstone of our operation.”

(Reporting by Ned Parker and Jonathan Landay, additional reporting by Warren Strobel and Arshad Mohammed; Editing by David Rohde and Ross Colvin)

President Trump Fires 46 Federal Prosecutors At The ‘Justice’ Department

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF THE NEW YORK TIMES)

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration moved on Friday to sweep away most of the remaining vestiges of Obama administration prosecutors at the Justice Department, ordering 46 holdover United States attorneys to tender their resignations immediately — including Preet Bharara, the United States attorney in Manhattan.

The firings were a surprise — especially for Mr. Bharara, who has a reputation for prosecuting public corruption cases and for investigating insider trading. In November, Mr. Bharara met with then President-elect Donald J. Trump at Trump Tower in Manhattan and told reporters afterward that both Mr. Trump and Jeff Sessions, who is now the attorney general, had asked him about staying on, which the prosecutor said he expected to do.

But on Friday, Mr. Bharara was among federal prosecutors who received a call from Dana Boente, the acting deputy attorney general, instructing him to resign, according to a person familiar with the matter. As of Friday evening, though some of the prosecutors had publicly announced their resignations, Mr. Bharara had not. A spokesman for Mr. Bharara declined to comment.

Sarah Isgur Flores, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said in an email that all remaining holdover United States attorneys had been asked to resign, leaving their deputy United States attorneys, who are career officials, in place in an acting capacity.

Continue reading the main story

The abrupt order came after two weeks of increasing calls from Mr. Trump’s allies outside the government to oust appointees from President Barack Obama’s administration. Mr. Trump has been angered by a series of reports based on leaked information from a sprawling bureaucracy, as well as from his own West Wing.

Several officials said the firings had been planned before Friday.

But the calls from the acting deputy attorney general arose a day after Sean Hannity, the Fox News commentator who is a strong supporter of President Trump, said on his evening show that Mr. Trump needed to “purge” Obama holdovers from the federal government. Mr. Hannity portrayed them as “saboteurs” from the “deep state” who were leaking secrets to hurt Mr. Trump. It also came the same week that government watchdogs wrote to Mr. Bharara and urged him to investigate whether Mr. Trump had violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution, which bars federal officials from taking payments from foreign governments.

In Mr. Hannity’s monologue, he highlighted the fact that the Clinton administration had told all 93 United States attorneys to resign soon after he took office in 1993, and that “nobody blinked an eye,” but he said it became a scandal when the George W. Bush administration fired several top prosecutors midway through his second term.

Several Democratic members of Congress said they only heard that the United States attorneys from their states were being immediately let go shortly before the Friday afternoon statement from the Justice Department. One senator, speaking on the condition of anonymity to protect the identity of the United States attorney in that state, said that an Obama-appointed prosecutor had been instructed to vacate the office by the end of the day.

Although it was not clear whether all were given the same instructions, that United States attorney was not the only one told to clear out by the close of business. The abrupt nature of the dismissals distinguished Mr. Trump’s mass firing from Mr. Clinton’s, because the prosecutors in 1993 were not summarily told to clear out their offices.

Michael D. McKay, who was the United States attorney in Seattle under the George Bush administration, recalled that even though he had already made plans to leave, he nevertheless stayed on for about three weeks beyond a request by then-Attorney General Janet Reno for all of the holdover prosecutors to resign. He also recalled at least one colleague who was in the midst of a major investigation and was kept on to finish it.

“I’m confident it wasn’t on the same day,” he said, adding: “While there was a wholesale ‘Good to see you, thanks for your service, and now please leave,’ people were kept on on a case-by-case basis depending on the situation.”

Two United States attorneys survived the firings: Mr. Boente, the top prosecutor for the Eastern District of Virginia, who is serving as acting deputy attorney general, and Rod Rosenstein, the top prosecutor in Baltimore, whom Mr. Trump has nominated to be deputy attorney general.

“The president called Dana Boente and Rod Rosenstein tonight to inform them that he has declined to accept their resignation, and they will remain in their current positions,” said Peter Carr, a Justice Department spokesman.

It remains possible that Mr. Trump and Mr. Sessions could put others on that list later.

It is not unusual for a new president to replace United States attorneys appointed by a predecessor, especially when there has been a change in which party controls the White House.

Still, other presidents have done it gradually in order to minimize disruption, giving those asked to resign more time to make the transition while keeping some inherited prosecutors in place, as it had appeared Mr. Trump would do with Mr. Bharara. Mr. Obama, for example, kept Mr. Rosenstein, who had been appointed by George W. Bush.

The abrupt mass firing appeared to be a change in plans for the administration, according to a statement by Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“In January, I met with Vice President Pence and White House Counsel Donald McGahn and asked specifically whether all U.S. attorneys would be fired at once,” she said. “Mr. McGahn told me that the transition would be done in an orderly fashion to preserve continuity. Clearly this is not the case. I’m very concerned about the effect of this sudden and unexpected decision on federal law enforcement.”

Still, the cases the various federal prosecutors were overseeing will continue, with their career deputies becoming acting United States attorneys in their place for the time being.

Mr. Bharara has been among the highest-profile United States attorneys, with a purview that includes Wall Street and public corruption prosecutions, including of both Democratic and Republican officials and other influential figures.

His office, for example, has prosecuted top police officials in New York and the powerful leader of the city correction officers’ union; they have pleaded not guilty. It is preparing to try a major public corruption case involving former aides and associates of Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and is looking into allegations of pay-for-play around Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York.

But Mr. Bharara is also closely associated with the Senate minority leader, Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York. Mr. Bharara was formerly a counsel to Mr. Schumer, who pushed Mr. Obama to nominate Mr. Bharara to be the top federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York.

At the time of the November meeting at Trump Tower, Mr. Schumer was saying publicly that Democrats should try to find common ground and work with the president-elect. But relations between Mr. Trump and Mr. Schumer have since soured.

Mr. Trump has called Mr. Schumer the Democrats’ “head clown” and accused him of shedding “fake tears” over the president’s efforts to bar refugees from entering the United States.

For his part, Mr. Schumer has called for an independent investigation into contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and demanded that Mr. Sessions resign for having testified that he had no contacts with Russians even though he had met with the Russian ambassador.

The White House officials ascribed the reversal over Mr. Bharara as emblematic of a chaotic transition process. One official said it was tied to Mr. Trump’s belief in November that he and Mr. Schumer would be able to work together.

Continue reading the main story

Monday The 19th: 538 ‘Electors’ Decide Who America’s Next President Is

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF THE WASHINGTON POST)

In last-shot bid, thousands urge electoral college to block Trump at Monday vote

December 17 at 6:38 PM
Pressure on members of the country’s electoral college to select someone other than Donald Trump has grown dramatically — and noisily — in recent weeks, causing some to waver, but yielding little evidence Trump will fall short when electors convene in most state capitals Monday to cast their votes.Carole Joyce of Arizona expected her role as a GOP elector to be pretty simple: She would meet the others in Phoenix and carry out a vote for Trump, who won the most votes in her state and whom she personally supported.

But then came the mail and the emails and the phone calls — first hundreds, then thousands of voters worrying Trump’s impulsive nature would lead the country into another war.

“Honestly, it had an impact,” said Joyce, a 72-year-old Republican state committeewoman. “I’ve seen enough funerals. I’m tired of hearing bagpipes. . . . But I signed a loyalty pledge. And that matters.”

Such is the life these days for many of the 538 men and women who are scheduled to meet Monday across the country to carry out what has traditionally been a perfunctory vote after most every presidential election.

The role of elector has intensified this year, in the wake of a bitter election in which Trump lost the popular vote by a margin of nearly 3  million and a secret CIA assessment revealed that Russia interfered to help Trump get elected.

Amid the uncertainty caused by Russian influence, 10 electors — nine Democrats and one Republican — asked for an intelligence briefing to get more information about Moscow’s role. Their request was endorsed by John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager.

“The administration should brief members of the electoral college on the extent and manner of Russia’s interference in our election before they vote on Dec. 19,” Podesta wrote Thursday in a Washington Post op-ed.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence said Friday evening that it would not brief the electors, because it is engaged in a presidentially ordered review of the Russian interference. “Once the review is complete in the coming weeks, the intelligence community stands ready to brief Congress” and may release findings, the ODNI said in a statement posted to its website.

Meanwhile, Joyce and the other 305 Republican electors who are supposed to cast their votes for Trump have been subject to intense campaigns orchestrated by anti-Trump forces to convince them that they alone can block the reality television star from the White House.

Others have targeted Democratic electors, who are supposed to cast votes for Hillary Clinton, to persuade them to switch to a more conventional Republican who could also draw enough support from GOP electors to swoop into office.

While there is little sign the efforts will prove successful, the push has unleashed intense pressure on individual electors, who have now been thrust into a sometimes uncomfortable spotlight.

Joyce has received emails from “Benjamin Franklin” and “John Jay” — and a Christmas card that read: “Please, in the name of God, don’t vote for Trump.”

The rancor about the role of electors started early in the campaign. In August, Baoky Vu, a GOP activist in Atlanta, said he planned to resign from the job because he was so morally opposed to Trump. He planned to defer his voting responsibility to someone more willing — an alternate who would be put in place Monday.

After the election, Vu started getting phone calls and emails asking him not to resign. He was asked instead to consider joining a coalition of electors hoping to vote against Trump. He declined.

“I don’t think we should drag this election out any longer,” Vu said. “And can you imagine if the electors overturned the results? If we attempt to change them in anyway, you’ve got these far-right elements that are just going to go haywire.”

Mark Hersch, a 60-year-old Chicago-based marketing strategist, joined a group known as the Hamilton Electors, who have been organizing efforts to contact electors and change their minds. Before the election, Hersch said, the most political activism he had ever undertaken was planting a yard sign.

He said he believes the goal to deny Trump seems reachable if not probable. Rather than persuade an entire country, he and his allies must find 37 Republicans willing to vote for someone else, a tipping point at which the responsibility of picking the president would shift to the U.S. House of Representatives. No one knows for sure how many are considering alternate votes; estimates vary from one to 25.

The GOP-controlled House could vote for Trump anyway, but those trying to flip voters say there is still value in taking a stand. Hersch said he was inspired to continue to flip electors by the movie “300,” which depicts ancient Sparta’s war against a Persian army that outnumbered them 1,000 to one.

“I would like to think we would be successful, but if not, we need to do all we could to prevent this man from being president,” he said. Then he modified a line from the movie: “Prepare your breakfast, and eat hearty, for tonight, we will go to battle. This isn’t 300, but 538.”

That “battle” has intensified as electors draw closer to their convening Monday. Joyce was getting 15 letters a day and 300 emails in the days after Nov. 8, but those numbers quickly increased to 50 and 3,000. Some of them have been form letters, others handwritten.

The letters came from Washington state and from China, stuffed with copies of the U.S. Constitution or Alexander Hamilton’s writing in Federalist Paper No. 68, which states that the meeting of the electoral college “affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”

On Thursday, Joyce received so many letters that the letter carrier just gave her a U.S. Postal Service bucket filled to the brim.

“I’m sorry this is happening to you,” Joyce recalled the letter carrier saying in a phone interview. While some electors have complained of harassment, Joyce shrugged off the mail and placed it all on a sofa decorated with American flag pillows.

“This is America,” she said, adding that most of the messages were thoughtful. “People have a right to say what they want.”

On Friday, she said, her emails became more positive. The messages were from Republicans, thanking her for taking Trump to the finish line of an arduous process.

“How refreshing!” she said.

Although some Democrats (who have in the past five elections lost two in which they won the popular vote) and even Trump himself have questioned the necessity of the electoral college, many opposing Trump have said this election proves just how important it is.

Norman Eisen, a former ambassador to the Czech Republic who served as legal counsel to both the Bush and Obama administrations, began telephoning electors to explain that their job is not necessarily to certify the results, but to have a reasonable discussion over whether the public made the right decision.

For instance, Eisen, who focused on government ethics in Obama’s White House, noted that Trump could be violating a clause in the Constitution that prevents presidents from receiving gifts and funds from foreign governments; it is unclear whether his businesses do because he has not publicly disclosed his tax returns.

In Massachusetts, Republican operative and attorney R.J. Lyman said he didn’t want to harass anyone, so he used his connections to find electors who were willing to chat about the lessons he learned in American history class and at the dinner table. He became one of the few people in America more willing to talk about Hamilton the man than about “Hamilton: An American Musical.”

The electoral college, he said he tells them, was “not intended to be a rubber stamp.” Otherwise, he said, the Founding Fathers would have tasked the responsibility to a clerk or simply used the popular vote as a way of choosing a president.

“I’m reminding them of their duty to think about their choice in a way that’s consistent with their conscience and the Constitution,” Lyman said.

So far, Lyman said, he has identified 20 electors who might be willing to vote “other than their party pledge.” He couldn’t name more than one publicly but insisted that more were out there.

Earlier this month, Chris Suprun of Texas became the first Republican elector in a red state that voted for Trump to declare, in a Dec. 5 New York Times column, that he would not cast his electoral vote for Trump. Suprun voted for Cruz in the primary and said he left behind his wallet on Election Day and thus did not vote in the general.

Nonetheless, Suprun said, he was willing to vote for Trump in the electoral college until the candidate claimed with no evidence that millions of Clinton supporters voted illegally. Suprun’s public stance has elicited death threats and hate mail, he said.

“As of yesterday, people are calling to say, ‘Get your ass together, or we’re coming for you,’ ” said Suprun, who was the sole Republican elector to ask for an intelligence briefing on Russia. “They are doing it with their own phone number, not even blocking the number. That’s not been surprising — look at what Trump says himself.”

Vinz Koller, a Democratic elector from Monterey County, Calif., said he read Suprun’s column and started thinking about his own role in the college. It inspired him to support a new theory: If he could persuade other Democrats to abandon their Clinton votes, perhaps he and Republicans could agree on a more conventional choice — a la Ohio governor and failed candidate John Kasich — to vote for over Trump.

The plan seemed unlikely, he said, but Trump’s candidacy unsettled him so much that he felt he needed to try anything. California is one of 29 states that mandate electors vote for the candidate who won the state, so Koller sued them to continue his plan.

“Frankly, this is hard and not something I do lightly,” he said. “I’ve been working in partisan politics a long time, and I don’t like voting against my candidate, but I never thought that the country might be unstable until now.”

On Thursday evening, he found himself in the Library of Congress. Strolling through its stacks, Koller sought a librarian with one request: Can I see the original Federalist Papers?

He looked to see Federalist No. 68, written by Hamilton to describe the need for the electoral college.

“We have been getting a civic lesson we weren’t prepared to get,” Koller said. “They gave us the fail-safe emergency brake, in case the people got it wrong. And here we are, 200 years later. It’s the last shot we have.”

Ellen Nakashima contributed to this report.

The Perfect Weapon: How Russian Cyberpower Invaded the U.S.

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF THE NEW YORK TIMES)

WASHINGTON — When Special Agent Adrian Hawkins of the Federal Bureau of Investigation called the Democratic National Committee in September 2015 to pass along some troubling news about its computer network, he was transferred, naturally, to the help desk.

His message was brief, if alarming. At least one computer system belonging to the D.N.C. had been compromised by hackers federal investigators had named “the Dukes,” a cyberespionage team linked to the Russian government.

The F.B.I. knew it well: The bureau had spent the last few years trying to kick the Dukes out of the unclassified email systems of the White House, the State Department and even the Joint Chiefs of Staff, one of the government’s best-protected networks.

Yared Tamene, the tech-support contractor at the D.N.C. who fielded the call, was no expert in cyberattacks. His first moves were to check Google for “the Dukes” and conduct a cursory search of the D.N.C. computer system logs to look for hints of such a cyberintrusion. By his own account, he did not look too hard even after Special Agent Hawkins called back repeatedly over the next several weeks — in part because he wasn’t certain the caller was a real F.B.I. agent and not an impostor.

Continue reading the main story

“I had no way of differentiating the call I just received from a prank call,” Mr. Tamene wrote in an internal memo, obtained by The New York Times, that detailed his contact with the F.B.I.

It was the cryptic first sign of a cyberespionage and information-warfare campaign devised to disrupt the 2016 presidential election, the first such attempt by a foreign power in American history. What started as an information-gathering operation, intelligence officials believe, ultimately morphed into an effort to harm one candidate, Hillary Clinton, and tip the election to her opponent, Donald J. Trump.

Like another famous American election scandal, it started with a break-in at the D.N.C. The first time, 44 years ago at the committee’s old offices in the Watergate complex, the burglars planted listening devices and jimmied a filing cabinet. This time, the burglary was conducted from afar, directed by the Kremlin, with spear-phishing emails and zeros and ones.

What is phishing?

Phishing uses an innocent-looking email to entice unwary recipients to click on a deceptive link, giving hackers access to their information or a network. In “spear-phishing,” the email is tailored to fool a specific person.

An examination by The Times of the Russian operation — based on interviews with dozens of players targeted in the attack, intelligence officials who investigated it and Obama administration officials who deliberated over the best response — reveals a series of missed signals, slow responses and a continuing underestimation of the seriousness of the cyberattack.

The D.N.C.’s fumbling encounter with the F.B.I. meant the best chance to halt the Russian intrusion was lost. The failure to grasp the scope of the attacks undercut efforts to minimize their impact. And the White House’s reluctance to respond forcefully meant the Russians have not paid a heavy price for their actions, a decision that could prove critical in deterring future cyberattacks.

The low-key approach of the F.B.I. meant that Russian hackers could roam freely through the committee’s network for nearly seven months before top D.N.C. officials were alerted to the attack and hired cyberexperts to protect their systems. In the meantime, the hackers moved on to targets outside the D.N.C., including Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, John D. Podesta, whose private email account was hacked months later.

Even Mr. Podesta, a savvy Washington insider who had written a 2014 report on cyberprivacy for President Obama, did not truly understand the gravity of the hacking.

Photo

Charles Delavan, a Clinton campaign aide, incorrectly legitimized a phishing email sent to the personal account of John D. Podesta, the campaign chairman.

By last summer, Democrats watched in helpless fury as their private emails and confidential documents appeared online day after day — procured by Russian intelligence agents, posted on WikiLeaks and other websites, then eagerly reported on by the American media, including The Times. Mr. Trump gleefully cited many of the purloined emails on the campaign trail.

The fallout included the resignations of Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, the chairwoman of the D.N.C., and most of her top party aides. Leading Democrats were sidelined at the height of the campaign, silenced by revelations of embarrassing emails or consumed by the scramble to deal with the hacking. Though little-noticed by the public, confidential documents taken by the Russian hackers from the D.N.C.’s sister organization, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, turned up in congressional races in a dozen states, tainting some of them with accusations of scandal.

In recent days, a skeptical president-elect, the nation’s intelligence agencies and the two major parties have become embroiled in an extraordinary public dispute over what evidence exists that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia moved beyond mere espionage to deliberately try to subvert American democracy and pick the winner of the presidential election.

Many of Mrs. Clinton’s closest aides believe that the Russian assault had a profound impact on the election, while conceding that other factors — Mrs. Clinton’s weaknesses as a candidate; her private email server; the public statements of the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, about her handling of classified information — were also important.

While there’s no way to be certain of the ultimate impact of the hack, this much is clear: A low-cost, high-impact weapon that Russia had test-fired in elections from Ukraine to Europe was trained on the United States, with devastating effectiveness. For Russia, with an enfeebled economy and a nuclear arsenal it cannot use short of all-out war, cyberpower proved the perfect weapon: cheap, hard to see coming, hard to trace.

GRAPHIC

Following the Links From Russian Hackers to the U.S. Election

The Central Intelligence Agency concluded that the Russian government deployed computer hackers to help elect Donald J. Trump.

OPEN GRAPHIC

“There shouldn’t be any doubt in anybody’s mind,” Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency and commander of United States Cyber Command, said at a postelection conference. “This was not something that was done casually, this was not something that was done by chance, this was not a target that was selected purely arbitrarily,” he said. “This was a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect.”

For the people whose emails were stolen, this new form of political sabotage has left a trail of shock and professional damage. Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress and a key Clinton supporter, recalls walking into the busy Clinton transition offices, humiliated to see her face on television screens as pundits discussed a leaked email in which she had called Mrs. Clinton’s instincts “suboptimal.”

“It was just a sucker punch to the gut every day,” Ms. Tanden said. “It was the worst professional experience of my life.”

The United States, too, has carried out cyberattacks, and in decades past the C.I.A. tried to subvert foreign elections. But the Russian attack is increasingly understood across the political spectrum as an ominous historic landmark — with one notable exception: Mr. Trump has rejected the findings of the intelligence agencies he will soon oversee as “ridiculous,” insisting that the hacker may be American, or Chinese, but that “they have no idea.”

Mr. Trump cited the reported disagreements between the agencies about whether Mr. Putin intended to help elect him. On Tuesday, a Russian government spokesman echoed Mr. Trump’s scorn.

“This tale of ‘hacks’ resembles a banal brawl between American security officials over spheres of influence,” Maria Zakharova, the spokeswoman for the Russian Foreign Ministry, wrote on Facebook.

Democratic House Candidates Were Also Targets of Russian Hacking

Over the weekend, four prominent senators — two Republicans and two Democrats — joined forces to pledge an investigation while pointedly ignoring Mr. Trump’s skeptical claims.

“Democrats and Republicans must work together, and across the jurisdictional lines of the Congress, to examine these recent incidents thoroughly and devise comprehensive solutions to deter and defend against further cyberattacks,” said Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Chuck Schumer and Jack Reed.

“This cannot become a partisan issue,” they said. “The stakes are too high for our country.”

A Target for Break-Ins

Sitting in the basement of the Democratic National Committee headquarters, below a wall-size 2012 portrait of a smiling Barack Obama, is a 1960s-era filing cabinet missing the handle on the bottom drawer. Only a framed newspaper story hanging on the wall hints at the importance of this aged piece of office furniture.

“GOP Security Aide Among 5 Arrested in Bugging Affair,” reads the headline from the front page of The Washington Post on June 19, 1972, with the bylines of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.

Andrew Brown, 37, the technology director at the D.N.C., was born after that famous break-in. But as he began to plan for this year’s election cycle, he was well aware that the D.N.C. could become a break-in target again.

There were aspirations to ensure that the D.N.C. was well protected against cyberintruders — and then there was the reality, Mr. Brown and his bosses at the organization acknowledged: The D.N.C. was a nonprofit group, dependent on donations, with a fraction of the security budget that a corporation its size would have.

“There was never enough money to do everything we needed to do,” Mr. Brown said.

The D.N.C. had a standard email spam-filtering service, intended to block phishing attacks and malware created to resemble legitimate email. But when Russian hackers started in on the D.N.C., the committee did not have the most advanced systems in place to track suspicious traffic, internal D.N.C. memos show.

Mr. Tamene, who reports to Mr. Brown and fielded the call from the F.B.I. agent, was not a full-time D.N.C. employee; he works for a Chicago-based contracting firm called The MIS Department. He was left to figure out, largely on his own, how to respond — and even whether the man who had called in to the D.N.C. switchboard was really an F.B.I. agent.

“The F.B.I. thinks the D.N.C. has at least one compromised computer on its network and the F.B.I. wanted to know if the D.N.C. is aware, and if so, what the D.N.C. is doing about it,” Mr. Tamene wrote in an internal memo about his contacts with the F.B.I. He added that “the Special Agent told me to look for a specific type of malware dubbed ‘Dukes’ by the U.S. intelligence community and in cybersecurity circles.”

Part of the problem was that Special Agent Hawkins did not show up in person at the D.N.C. Nor could he email anyone there, as that risked alerting the hackers that the F.B.I. knew they were in the system.

Photo

An internal memo by Yared Tamene, a tech-support contractor at the D.N.C., expressed uncertainty about the identity of Special Agent Adrian Hawkins of the F.B.I., who called to inform him of the breach.

Mr. Tamene’s initial scan of the D.N.C. system — using his less-than-optimal tools and incomplete targeting information from the F.B.I. — found nothing. So when Special Agent Hawkins called repeatedly in October, leaving voice mail messages for Mr. Tamene, urging him to call back, “I did not return his calls, as I had nothing to report,” Mr. Tamene explained in his memo.

In November, Special Agent Hawkins called with more ominous news. A D.N.C. computer was “calling home, where home meant Russia,” Mr. Tamene’s memo says, referring to software sending information to Moscow. “SA Hawkins added that the F.B.I. thinks that this calling home behavior could be the result of a state-sponsored attack.”

Mr. Brown knew that Mr. Tamene, who declined to comment, was fielding calls from the F.B.I. But he was tied up on a different problem: evidence suggesting that the campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Mrs. Clinton’s main Democratic opponent, had improperly gained access to her campaign data.

Ms. Wasserman Schultz, then the D.N.C.’s chairwoman, and Amy Dacey, then its chief executive, said in interviews that neither of them was notified about the early reports that the committee’s system had likely been compromised.

Shawn Henry, who once led the F.B.I.’s cyber division and is now president of CrowdStrike Services, the cybersecurity firm retained by the D.N.C. in April, said he was baffled that the F.B.I. did not call a more senior official at the D.N.C. or send an agent in person to the party headquarters to try to force a more vigorous response.

“We are not talking about an office that is in the middle of the woods of Montana,” Mr. Henry said. “We are talking about an office that is half a mile from the F.B.I. office that is getting the notification.”

“This is not a mom-and-pop delicatessen or a local library. This is a critical piece of the U.S. infrastructure because it relates to our electoral process, our elected officials, our legislative process, our executive process,” he added. “To me it is a high-level, serious issue, and if after a couple of months you don’t see any results, somebody ought to raise that to a higher level.”

The F.B.I. declined to comment on the agency’s handling of the hack. “The F.B.I. takes very seriously any compromise of public and private sector systems,” it said in a statement, adding that agents “will continue to share information” to help targets “safeguard their systems against the actions of persistent cybercriminals.”

By March, Mr. Tamene and his team had met at least twice in person with the F.B.I. and concluded that Agent Hawkins was really a federal employee. But then the situation took a dire turn.

A second team of Russian-affiliated hackers began to target the D.N.C. and other players in the political world, particularly Democrats. Billy Rinehart, a former D.N.C. regional field director who was then working for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, got an odd email warning from Google.

“Someone just used your password to try to sign into your Google account,” the March 22 email said, adding that the sign-in attempt had occurred in Ukraine. “Google stopped this sign-in attempt. You should change your password immediately.”

Mr. Rinehart was in Hawaii at the time. He remembers checking his email at 4 a.m. for messages from East Coast associates. Without thinking much about the notification, he clicked on the “change password” button and half asleep, as best he can remember, he typed in a new password.

Clinton’s loss exposed the impotent elitism of liberalism

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF SALON NEWS AGENCY AND REUTERS)

Neoliberalism’s epic fail: The reaction to Hillary Clinton’s loss exposed the impotent elitism of liberalism

Faced with a Donald Trump presidency, the privileged elite vowed to flee the utter Democratic collapse they caused

Neoliberalism's epic fail: The reaction to Hillary Clinton's loss exposed the impotent elitism of liberalism(Credit: Reuters/Joshua Roberts)

By the time last week’s presidential election was finally called for Donald Trump during the wee hours of Wednesday morning, the initial disbelief felt by the millions of Americans who had been assured of a Clinton victory by the media had turned into shock and panic — if not yet full-blown despair. As pollsters collectively changed their predictions and news pundits started to resemble confused and dejected children, the fight-or-flight response kicked in for countless viewers. Hearts pounded, stomachs turned and some of the more privileged liberals started seriously considering whether to flee the country in the face of a national nightmare that had just become a reality (privileged, because the average American doesn’t have the resources to just pack up and run at will).

The surreal night concluded with Canada’s immigration website crashing from too much traffic, as if every alt-right Twitter troll’s fantasy had come true.

Although the instinct to flee from a Trump presidency is understandable, it reveals a great deal about the impotence of modern liberalism and its monumental failure to stop an unhinged and thoroughly unqualified demagogue like Trump.

Elite liberals who vowed to leave America if Trump was elected, which includes a slew of celebrities, are those who would be most insulated from the impact of a Trump presidency — unlike working people and seniors who stand to lose their healthcare, children of immigrants who may soon see their families torn apart, or poor people of color who could face heightened persecution under the already racist criminal justice system. Sadly, fleeing is not an option for the most vulnerable Americans. Their only option is to keep fighting; yet the first impulse that many of their professed allies felt was to do the exact opposite: to escape.

Of course, most of the “limousine liberals” who promised to leave America before the election didn’t actually believe that Trump could win. It was an impossibility. Not in their wildest dreams could the racist, sexist, misogynistic and xenophobic buffoon defeat the most qualified and deserving presidential candidate in history — no less the first women candidate. He had denigrated women, scapegoated minorities and immigrants, offended veterans and mocked the disabled. Not only that, but it was her turn! “It was supposed to be her job. She worked her whole life for the job. It’s her job,” wrote Clinton surrogate Lena Dunham (who had said she would move to Canada if Trump won) in a recent article recounting her grief-stricken reaction to the election, in which she admitted she “never truly believed” that Trump could win.

Besides all this, Clinton had received all the coveted endorsements — the editorial pages of every major newspaper, the biggest celebrities, the neoconservative intellectuals, the former presidents and statespersons. The Washington establishment was clearly with her. And then there was the Democratic Party’s supposed secret weapon: demographics. How could a candidate running on white-identity politics possibly win in an increasingly diverse country that had elected Barack Obama just four years before?

These liberals were borderline delusional — a delusion evinced by Chuck Schumer, the establishment senator from New York who was hoping to become majority leader, but has had to settle for minority leadership. “We’re going to have a Democratic generation. [President Obama] helped create it. But it’s just where America’s moving demographically, ideologically and in every way,” said the senator in an interview with Politico Magazine during the Democratic National Convention last summer. In July, Schumer made another rosy prediction at a forum hosted by the Washington Post: “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”

Turns out it was blue-collar voters who made all the difference. Trump won white voters without a college degree by a whopping 39 points, compared to Mitt Romney’s 26-point win in 2012. And in the industrial North (Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa), where the blue-collar vote went to Obama in 2012, Trump made huge gains and won decisively.

Demographic optimism proved to be the Democratic Party’s undoing. And it wasn’t just because of the white working class; according to exit polls, Clinton received six points less of the Hispanic vote than President Obama did in 2012, while the black and 18- to 29-year-old votes both both dropped by 5 percent.

Trump’s victory was a rude awakening for Democrats who have become all too complacent within the Washington power structure, and who mistakenly assumed that changing demographics, identity politics and sheer celebrity would be enough to stop the right-wing populism of Trump. Trump didn’t win the election because of a Republican insurgency; he won because of a Democratic collapse. He won because neoliberalism failed.

And now, as we enter a terrifying and uncertain new period in American history, the last thing liberals should do is double down on the failed politics that allowed this tragedy to occur. The Clinton campaign tried to make this election all about Trump’s hatefulness (“Love Trumps Hate”) and his “basket of deplorables,” while offering no real vision of progressive and populist change. And when those on the left raised legitimate concerns about Clinton’s uninspiring message or her political baggage during and after the primaries, they were ridiculously labeled sexist or racist “bros” by establishment figures (even though some of Clinton’s harshest progressive critics were in fact women and people of color). In a February essay, former Salon writer Daniel Denvir described this cynical political strategy in Salon as “peak neoliberalism, where a distorted version of identity politics is used to defend an oligarchy and a national security state, celebrating diversity in the management of exploitation and warfare.”

Of course, there is no doubt that the Trump campaign has rejuvenated racism and sexism in America, and no one can call themselves progressive without tirelessly combating any and all bigotry. But there is a difference between a Trump “supporter” and someone who reluctantly voted for the Republican because of their distrust or dislike of Clinton, or because he or she truly believed the billionaire could bring change to Washington (according to exit polls, “can bring needed change” turned out to be the most important candidate quality for four in 10 voters, and 83 percent of them voted Trump).

If Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” comment accomplished anything, it was to push away irritated or bitter voters who are tired of being called Islamophobic when they criticize radical Islam or racist when they contemplate voting Republican. Consider a reader over at the Atlantic, who started in the “NeverTrump” camp and claims to still “deplore” the president-elect, yet ended up voting for him anyway. His reason? What he views as left-wing identity politics run amok. “Accusations of racism are being thrown about as political weapons (mostly by white liberals) in a way that belittles the seriousness of bigotry,” writes the reader, who is white but married to a Mexican-American. “When everything is about identity politics, is the left really surprised that on Tuesday millions of white Americans, for the first time ever, voted as ‘white’? If you want identity politics, identity politics is what you will get.”

The repugnant white identity politics and faux populism of Donald Trump must be repudiated and defeated; but it is now clear that only a Democratic Party that advances a strong populist vision of universal economic and social justice stands a chance at accomplishing this. Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich has called on the party to return to its roots and become the party of the people, rather than the party of the professional elite and donor class.

“The Democratic Party as it is now constituted has become a giant fundraising machine, too often reflecting the goals and values of the moneyed interests. This must change,” observes Reich. “The election of 2016 has repudiated it. We need a people’s party — a party capable of organizing and mobilizing Americans in opposition to Donald Trump’s Republican Party… What happened in America Tuesday should not be seen as a victory for hatefulness over decency. It is more accurately understood as a repudiation of the American power structure.”

Of course, the American power structure will not change under Donald Trump — in fact, the corruption and divisiveness will only intensify and the plutocratic class will only grow fatter. The millions of working-class Americans who voted for Trump over Clinton hoping that he would clean up Washington, bring back jobs and unite the country will be sorely disappointed. In two months, Trump and his GOP will officially become America’s governing party — the establishment, that is — and every single problem this country faces will become their responsibility. And make no mistake, Trump and the Republican majority will be an utter disaster (the real uncertainty is just how painful this disaster will be for working people, minorities, immigrants, etc.).

By the time Trump is up for reelection, the supposed populist outsider will have become the establishment insider, and the broken and divided state of the nation will be his responsibility (though he will no doubt find a way to blame Obama for everything). This will present a golden opportunity for Democrats to come back strong as the anti-establishment ticket and do what should have been done in 2016: stomp out Trumpism once and for all. But the party’s ability to do this will hinge on what it does over the next several years, and whether liberalism can return to its fighting roots.

 

 

Conor Lynch is a writer and journalist living in New York City. His work has appeared on Salon, AlterNet, Counterpunch and openDemocracy. Follow him on Twitter: @dilgentbureauct.

COMMENTS

992 comments
583 people listening

 

+ Follow
Post comment as…
PDav22 minutes ago

As long as you want to discuss reality, how about a dose or two.

There is no possible way Sanders could have been elected to office.   The GOP would have eaten him alive.   Sanders has WAY too much history, chanting “Down with America” with Ortega, shaking hands with Castro – those alone would have doomed him.   Which all us “old” (and from your article I guess we’re supposed to be stupid as rocks)  liberals knew perfectly well.   The party failed by making it a choice between Clinton and Sanders – both with TONS of baggage and decades of oppo research on them.

The party has failed miserably by moving so far to the right.   This is a Clinton fault, the notion that democrats who govern like moderate Republicans can always win.   This pushed the repubs into the weird place they currently inhabit, and they dragged about 46% (by current count) of the country with them.   If we got nothing else from this mess, we got this, the Clinton philosophy of “go to the middle right on everything but civil rights” is gone.   Thank God.

As for the party MEMBERS, they also failed.   They failed by simply not voting.   Muslims who get on the registry, Blacks who find themselves unable to get into anything but a Black college, Asiatics who suddenly find there’s prejudice against them on college applications – tough cookies.   You decided it wasn’t important.   Whose fault is that?

As for Trump, he’s got a problem.   Blaming failure on a party that has managed to put itself totally out of power is not going to work very well.   And his program as currently stated (seems to change hourly) will not work, apart from billions for billionaires.   That seems to be firmly in place.

Currently (see above caveat) the proposal is for a trillion dollars for infrastructure – based on tax forgiveness of several kinds.   While this puts dollars into the pockets of those with PROFITABLE bits of infrastructure to build, such as hyperloop, it does not one damn thing for such items as public highways, dams, bridges, municipal water supplies, sewer systems and so forth.

Moreover, these profitable bits of infrastructure are all on the coasts.   Every single one.   Flyover country is going to be passed over.  Again.

Coal?   There’s a magic wand in the presidents desk that can make worked out mines fill up with anthracite again?   Really?

The fact is that O&M costs (and if you don’t know what that means, go look it up) for natural gas, solar, wind and hydro have all gone under the costs of coal since 2012.  China has passed extreme pollution restrictions that are going into effect right now.   Same as above, look it up.   The market for dirty coal is going away rapidly, because it costs too much.   Tilting at that windmill may be REALLY satisfying, but you won’t get anything out of it.

Bring back the factories – they’ll come in with jobs for 100 software engineers, 100 mechanical engineers, and 10,000 robots.   Plus one guy hired as night watchman who also sweeps the floor.  He’s the blue collar job.

Wonder if those people in Wisconsin are going to feel really bubbly about Trump in four years?   I kind of doubt it.

edc12322 minutes ago

All people do is repeat what they are told and sold. You will not find any person who reflects on life and their place in it, voting for this regardless of what the Clintons did or did not do.  Stop fooling yourselves it is really getting tiring to listen anymore.  God the world is so bad, my life is so bad I think I will try the Devil and see if he can fix it.

Hicksville Kid23 minutes ago

More BS from the unhinged left living in their bubble. They should get out it and visit the Deplorables and get the real story. And stop using the term “fly-over country.” As was just proven, the left knows nothing about this country.

PDavjust now

@Hicksville Kid Aww, and here I was born in Ohio County Ky, and worked in coal mines for 17 years before seeing the handwriting on the wall and going to a new trade.    Gee, if I can’t use “flyover country”, who can?    ROFLMAO – don’t make stupid assumptions.

gardener27 minutes ago

Much like the failed  pollsters you are making predictions of the future based on liberal name calling. Do not write like you are are free thinking when indeed you are not. You are not a journalist. You are a writer doing the bidding od the DNC. You will never justify a “Bad Candidate.”

Oscar27 minutes ago

  Who the fúck decided to put AUTO-PLAYING, NOISE-MAKING SHÍT ON THIS PAGE?

Are you STUPID? You decided to disturb coworkers, wake up companions, and basically invade your readers’ space with OBNOXIOUS BULLSHÍT?

What a bunch of ássholes.

funboy31 minutes ago

So how many hollywood celebs have actually left?  Why are they still here?  I’m sure the Canadian immigration website is back up by now.  Please do what you said you would do and leave!

fieldsjj42 minutes ago

seriously.  what sort of opiate is the choice of this author.

and how in the wide wide world of sports does the author think they are qualified to make the judgements and pontifications that fall from the tongue like waste from a rectum.  IMHO you need therapy

mickeymat1 hour ago

As Mr.Lynch described Trump’s lack of qualifications, it did not make me think of him. Who do you suppose it DID make me think of?

MainelyDoc1 hour ago

@mickeymat The current President.

Oscar25 minutes ago

@MainelyDoc @mickeymat

Ah yes, the current president, who has a law degree and served as a senator. Unlike the upcoming president, who just had to shell out $25 million in settlements for ripping off students, and who doesn’t understand the basic principles of government.

But keep your head buried firmly in the sand (or your āss) for the continued descent of our country into the toilet, traitors.

danny700001 hour ago

Too cerebral and convoluted by far. Clinton lost because she couldn’t excite the Democratic base, which is young, diverse and craves charisma: Too old, too white and too boring. They stayed home and she lost.

mickeymat1 hour ago

@danny70000 Deciding to vote for a candidate based on the color of their skin is racist. But you must have known that since even Democrats used to say that themselves in a world of long ago.

MainelyDoc1 hour ago

There is no mention of the open corruption of the Clinton Family with Bill acting as bag man for Secretary of State and President-to-be Hillary and Chelsea indulging herself to the profits of the Clinton “Foundation”.   There is no mention of Hillary’s incessant lying. There is no mention the disastrous campaign strategy of the Clinton campaign… they didn’t even try to win 270 electoral votes… simple.

giacomo0071 hour ago

@MainelyDoc

Clinton tried to lose? That’s a new one.

MainelyDoc1 hour ago

@giacomo007 @MainelyDoc She didn’t try to win.  All she needed was 270 electoral votes….  You know, of course, that she never personally campaigned in Wisconsin after her PRIMARY victory there.   Yet she went to Nebraska… NEBRASKA..  repeatedly and she went to Arizona.. repeatedly.  It made NO sense to ignore populous states that were much easier to win.  That was simply stupid!  KelleyAnne Conway can count unlike, apparently, Podesta, Mook and Company.  But, ultimately, the decision of where to campaign falls to the candidate herself.  She ran a stupid campaign.

Hicksville Kid16 minutes ago

Winnng an election in a constitutional republic is a difficult chess game. Trump and Kelly-Ann played it like grand masters of the game. PAIPS, Podesta and Mookie were playing checkers and going for the landslide win. It showed but the author of this piece still doesn’t know it.

Velocitorjust now

@Hicksville Kid Arrogance explains this. They were so self-assured that Hillary couldn’t lose, they set a ridiculously lax campaign schedule, whereby Hillary was often not visible for days at a time, when Trump was doing several large rallies each day, in diverse areas. The mainstream print and broadcast media no doubt bolstered Hillary’s delusion of inevitability, with their overweighted polls, and their smug underestimating reporting of Trump’s chances.

Clinton ran a campaign premised on the idea that it was “her turn”, and expected the general population to go along with that. They didn’t.

danny700001 hour ago

@MainelyDoc  All true, but irrelevant, because the Democratic base doesn’t follow the news or reality. They think SNL and Colbert are news shows.

MainelyDoc1 hour ago

@danny70000 @MainelyDoc Frankly, all the Ted Knights on the “mainstream” media shows (including Fox) continue to think that they’re serious “journalists”. I think they’re funnier to watch than SNL and Colbert.  (Well, at least as funny!)

Oscar21 minutes ago

@MainelyDoc

“There is no mention of the open corruption of the Clinton Family”

Right, because day after day, comment after stupid comment, there IS NO “corruption.” That’s the hallmark of Trumptards: empty accusations with NO citations, NO facts, NO evidence. And yet Trump is a proven liar almost DAILY. He rips off contractors who work for him, rips off students (and just had to pay $25 million to them), and embarrasses our nation with infantile tweets and a total ignorance of world affairs and government.

So… what’s your problem again? What is all this confirmed “corruption” you’re babbling about?

edc1233 minutes ago

@Oscar @MainelyDoc They will see what corruption is in the next four years.  I mean do people really think that a wise guy can change.  They think hardworking people that pay their taxes are dupes and losers. The master is in charge now and he will show you how it is done.  Things may look better for a while to a lot of people but eventually reality will and has to be dealt with.  How will you know let us start with how many bullshit promises will not be kept as a start.

John Spray1 hour ago

Hey…up here in the ‘great white’ we can only laugh and point fingers. I for one feel like I’m watching a reprise of ‘How the Grinch Stole Christmas’. Trump’s promise of ye ol’ ‘big rock candy mountain’ will make he and his cronies richer, but the coming bigge recession caused by his goofy trade ideas will further gut the middle class. Trump will create a grand total of minus millions of jobs…unless bubba  and his ilk want to crawl out of their rusting Airstreams, put down their Budweisers and take the cucumber picking and dishwashing positions now open as the deportation cops sally forth.

Sufferd4 hours ago

From the other side of the pond: this will be fun to watch! To paraphrase Will Rogers: “A fool and his money are elected”.

jeffersons words4 hours ago

wow– another member of the “clown posse” heard from. how about the fact that she honestly told one of her core constituencies, they she planned to do away with their jobs and since they weren’t college educated, need not apply at the “Clinton foundation” for work unless they were willing to sweep floors or make a run to starbucks. now all the government jobs checking water and air and who’s wearing their bicycle helmet can apply at the foundation for the next Clinton circus.

Oscar16 minutes ago

@jeffersons words

Huh, what a shocker: No citations, no evidence, no proof. Standard for a Trumpling. And yet the world has been treated to almost daily proof of Trump’s lies.

I mean… he said the Electoral College is “a disaster for democracy.” Direct quote. And yet he LOST the popular vote, and only stands a chance to ruin our country because of the Electoral College. So I’m sure he won’t mind if the EC votes along with the rest of the nation and elects Clinton president.

I’m sure the “liberal media” made up Trump’s tweets, right: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/11/15/trumps-flip-flop-on-the-electoral-college-from-disaster-to-genius

RIGHT?

PMac55635 hours ago

Decades of lies about Hillary are what killed her chances.  And, unsurprisingly, the less educated were the ones who believed them.  I cringed at the outset of her candidacy knowing the extent of anti-Hillary sentiment that’s been brewing for decades, fueled constantly by the Right. The constant sloganeering of “crooked Hillary,” “emails” “Benghazi” had an effect when shouted every day, though most Trump supporters couldn’t explain what any of those issues are about.  I can’t tell you how many times people have explained their disdain for Hillary with a simple “I just don’t like her,” unable to elaborate in the slightest when pressed.

My own problem with Hillary is that she ignored the rather obvious hatred against her and decided it was her turn.  And the DNC ignored this, too, and put a thumb on the scale.  The writer blames neoliberalism, and Democratic “elites,” (a label which seems to fit himself) but I blame propaganda, plain and simple.  Bernie Sanders came with no such baggage, and was a better candidate certainly.  But his and Clinton’s platforms were nearly identical.

This is not meant to be a defense of Hillary Clinton.  I’ll hold a black spot in my mind for her, not for anything she’s done wrong, but for the hubris that led us all to this.

The article above is nonsense, I believe, as are so many of these “day after” told-you-so’s. If the writer felt this way he should have said it BEFORE THE ELECTION.  It just seems pathetic now.

kcwookie5 hours ago

@PMac5563 You are full of it. Hillary did this to herself and now her actions are going to really hurt a lot of people who don’t deserve to be hurt. This isn’t a game, real people are going to have their live trash, or further destroyed. Hillary has a long history of forgetting who was the base of the Democratic party, then again so have the DNC for most of the time.

Hillary helped gut the Aid to Dependent Families with Children so it could be replaced with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).  Hilary was heavily involved in creating that welfare reform bill. Why did she and America’s First Black President do that? They did it to pander to white voters so that Bill would be re-elected. Why did she have to be shamed into supporting Fight for $15, pandering for white votes. Why was she silent when DWS got in bed with the Godless Conservatives to kill regulation on Pay Day Loans?

Hillary was a garbage candidate who believed she was entitled to the office because it was her turn. Instead, she is going to destroy the Obama legacy and hurt a lot of people.

This is not a game…

PMac55635 hours ago

@kcwookie @PMac5563 Do you honestly believe that Clinton lost a single vote due to the reasons you state?  Ridiculous.  I assume you didn’t read my entire post, since you disagree with me by repeating my own points

I’m curious – did you vote for Trump?  Not vote?  Or did you vote for the candidate that you think is garbage?  We all had a crappy choice to make on November 8.  At least stand behind that decision.

KevJ12 hours ago

What seems pathetic, are your reasoning skills. Clinton’s LIES, not LIES about her, did her and her pathetic party in. Since 2009, under Barack Hussein Obama’s liberal ideology, the Democrats lost more than 1200 political seats across the country. Defeat after defeat, your party was so sure that their message was right, the messenger was right, but as Johnny Gruber pointed out so elequently, the people are just too stupid to know what’s good for them. The party became so good at lying, the minions bought into it.

President Elect Donald J Trump, like myself, was a Democrat. He played the. game and beat the two covetted political parties and the liberal media in just 18 months. I sorta feel sad for the liberal snowflakes, who were never taught the meaning of the word NO. Poor things. They are so unprepared for the real world. Yet the Idol’s they need now for guidance can’t teach them something that they themselves don’t know.

🇺🇸20 Deplorables Matter 16🇺🇸

Oscar8 minutes ago

@KevJ1

Once again, another know-nothing mewling about Clinton’s “lies,” with NOT A SINGLE EXAMPLE. It’s pathetic. Trump’s lies were documented and proven almost DAILY; and yet after months of hype and analysis of these world-threatening E-mails, they found… NOTHING. Nothing to harm our country. Nothing of consequence at all.

Hm, kind of like Iraq. Remember the last time we elected a dumb-shít president? Yeah, apparently the willfully ignorant traitors in “red” states have decided to forget, and to disrespect the thousands of American soldiers killed for nothing in a war based on LIES.

Yeah, so the “red” states (which from which a great many servicemen and servicewomen hail) have elected a grossly unqualified blowhard WHO MOCKED THE PARENTS OF A DEAD SOLDIER. Who MOCKED A DISABLED REPORTER. This scumbag would be a shame on an elementary-school playground, let alone as the president of a once-great nation.

Do you think about how far we’ve fallen, that this infantile turd now represents “American values?” If you’re cheering this, you are a traitor. You can wail and moan all you want, but you can’t avoid that truth: You are cheering the demise of the USA.

Hippolyte Vermeer6 hours ago

CLINTON YUPPIE TRAITORS AND THE MEDIA DID THIS TO AMERICA! HOLD A NEW US ELECTION NOW!

“Trump’s alleged popularity was based on the presidential primary results, in which the Republican candidate won a total of 785 votes.

785 voters were enough to paint McDowell County as the poster child of regressive right-wing populism.

Nowhere was it mentioned that Bernie Sanders won 1,488 votes in the same primaries – almost twice as many as Trump!”

Trump’s victory came from many segments of America, including some who embrace his proto-fascist rantings. But for millions of Americans who have been suffering due to the policies of both parties over the last few decades, many of their votes were a direct result of his promises, regardless of how bogus they are, to attack trade deals that hurt the working class, bring back jobs, and protect Social Security, along with his middle finger allegedly aimed at the elites and their establishment politics.

The Democratic leaders made his job easy for him by derailing Sanders’ bid for the nomination and doubling down on their anti-working-class neoliberal agenda, aided inexplicably and shamefully by most of the top leadership of the unions.

Well, the media got what it wanted. On November 8, McDowell County, in the absence of a left alternative, voted 75% to 23% for Trump.

https://lawcha.org/wordpress/2016/11/15/misrepresenting-white-working-slass-self-fulfilling-prophecies-mcdowell-county/

jeffersons words4 hours ago

@Hippolyte Vermeer she ran on her resume’ which was very thin on accomplishments. she felt it was “her turn” and spent most of her life running against a so-called “glass-ceiling” rather then discuss what she might do for millions of jobless Americans. as rick says at the end of “Casablanca”, she’ll always have little rock.

David of 34th6 hours ago

I have two points to proffer.   The second point, denominated the “Final but unfinished idea,” is more interesting.  The first point centers on economics; the second point on similarities between Trumpism  and Hitlerian Europe.

1)Toward the latter part of this essay, the author expects Trump to fail the working class.  Given Trump’s abominable traits, one would normally expect that to be true.  However, I think working class whites may see a surge in their weallth — Trump might exploit matters in a manner similar to the way Reagan exploited the situation when he took power.

When Reagan ran for president, he assailed Carter for allowing the federal deficit to increase (Republicans always ran against deficits).  However, economists knew that the country could use more, not less, fiscal stimulus — however most people, and the mainstream media, never heard of John Maynard Keynes and shun deficits.  When Reagan took power he did the thing which would boost the economy but which no one would let Carter do.  Reagan increased deficits enormously, and the economy boomed.  When Obama took power, everyone who really knew economics understood that a huge increase in the deficit was needed.  Obama increased the deficit, but he was prevented from giving us a deficit that was as big as we needed.

Although Obama wasn’t allowed to do what most economists knew was the proper thing, i.e., increase the deficit enormously, Trump, like Reagan, will be allowed to do this — many news reports relate that Trump plans to spend ONE TRILLION DOLLARS on infrastructure, roads, bridges, etc.

Although incomes for construction workers might soar, most consequences of Trump’s victory will be abysmal.  We are treading closer to fascism every day.

FINAL BUT UNFINISHED IDEA:

The author refers to the “impotent elitism of liberals.”  This eerily resembles something Hannah Arendt said in her epic analysis on Totalitarianism.  She said that there was an upsurge in anti Semitism  because people saw the Jews as being rich but essentially weak and impotent and that this incited a desire to destroy the Jews.  I was never sure exactly what Arendt was trying to say.   Given the fact that today the nativism and bigotry of Trumpism resembles Germany in the thirties in so many ways (And any one who doesn’t think so hasn’t read enough history), I think we should further examine Arendt’s claim that the weakness of wealthy Jews fueled anti Jewish bigotry and this author’s contention that liberal elites are impotent.   Is there something common to both situations. Does weakness generally incite rage or revulsion.

PMac55635 hours ago

@David of 34th As to your second idea:  I don’t think that perceived weakness played a part.  Any good fascist leader understands the value of a scapegoat, and Hitler was no exception.  When things are going bad for the masses it’s handy to have someone to blame their problems on. There was a false idea spread that the Jews hadn’t earned their wealth through honest labor, which helped to incite hatred against them.

Critical 13 hours ago

@David of 34th – right, Obama added more to the National debt than any president in history by a long shot. You want to add more?  Do you realise what happens when the fed prints money?  Do you have even a basic understanding of macro economics? You are exactly the reason why the Democratic party hasn’t been this irrelevant in a century. Schumer and Pelosi should grease the skids into extinction by the mid terms in 2 years.  Add more debt? Unbelievable.

No More Lies6 hours ago

Decent article but fails to mention Bernie Sanders and the massive fraud and suppression committed against his campaign and most importantly, against his supporters. We were demonized and lied about by not only Clinton’s campaign but her entire mainstream media propaganda machine (including Salon), vilified as the exact opposite of everything we stand for, and day after day cheated and bullied as we tried to voice our concerns and vote.

Even after the primaries, they tried to insult and extort us into voting for her even though her policies, record, entourage, lack of integrity, and incessant threats of war are our worst nightmare. Now after her loss, we’re blamed by the establishment for not coming out in droves for their monarch.

And they just don’t bloody learn. They’ve been too privileged for too long; they don’t know how to take responsibility for their own actions and failures, blaming everyone but themselves.

Sorry, neoliberals. Stop destroying the people and planet, and stop causing Trumpism in the first place, and then we’ll talk.

SlapOfTruth6 hours ago

@No More Lies

Not to mention crying wolf…they accused all us Bernie fans of being sexist…completely wrong and now Trumpsters are using that by saying all accusations of racism and sexism are wrong when a big part of his base clearly is racist and sexist. The Clintonistas failed by attacking the wrong people.

Hippolyte Vermeer5 hours ago

@No More Lies

CLINTON YUPPIE TRAITORS AND THE MEDIA DID THIS TO AMERICA!

HOLD A NEW US ELECTION NOW!

“Trump’s alleged popularity was based on the presidential primary results, in which the Republican candidate won a total of 785 votes.

785 voters were enough to paint McDowell County as the poster child of regressive right-wing populism.

Nowhere was it mentioned that Bernie Sanders won 1,488 votes in the same primaries – almost twice as many as Trump!”

Trump’s victory came from many segments of America, including some who embrace his proto-fascist rantings. But for millions of Americans who have been suffering due to the policies of both parties over the last few decades, many of their votes were a direct result of his promises, regardless of how bogus they are, to attack trade deals that hurt the working class, bring back jobs, and protect Social Security, along with his middle finger allegedly aimed at the elites and their establishment politics.

The Democratic leaders made his job easy for him by derailing Sanders’ bid for the nomination and doubling down on their anti-working-class neoliberal agenda, aided inexplicably and shamefully by most of the top leadership of the unions.

Well, the media got what it wanted. On November 8, McDowell County, in the absence of a left alternative, voted 75% to 23% for Trump.

https://lawcha.org/wordpress/2016/11/15/misrepresenting-white-working-slass-self-fulfilling-prophecies-mcdowell-county/

Zingen635 hours ago

Hold a new US election now! Seriously? Like….a Mulligan? I know that when I was in school they held civics classes. Apparently not in your school.

Show More Comments

The Only People Who Have Civil Rights Are Democrats And Minorities And No One Else?

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF TIME NEWS)

Day Two of Anti-Trump Protests Puts Spotlight on Civil Rights-(So They Riot Against Other People Having Any Civil Rights)

Demonstrators Protest Against Donald Trump Presidency In Washington, DC
Leigh Vogel—Wire Image Demonstrators protest against President-elect Donald Trump in front of the White House in Washington, D.C., on Nov. 10, 2016

Critics worry that remarks Trump has made about Muslims, women and minority groups could provoke intolerance

Protests continued for a second day on Thursday as thousands of people took to the streets in opposition to President-elect Donald Trump, voicing concern that his administration could do damage to hard-won progress on civil liberties.

Security was tight at two of the real estate mogul’s signature high-rise properties in Washington, D.C., and New York City, which became rallying points Wednesday night, in the wake of his surprise defeat of Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton. Protesters approached the site chanting slogans such as “Love trumps hate,” a phrase used by Clinton throughout her campaign.

About 100 mostly young protesters gathered at the White House, where Trump had just concluded his first meeting with outgoing President Barack Obama, and marched to the foot of his newly erected Trump International Hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue, Reuters reports. In New York City, where 15 protesters were arrested Wednesday night, CNN reported that about 5,000 protesters were joined by Lady Gaga at Trump Tower.

Trump took to Twitter on Thursday to address his critics in his first public comments on the unrest, tweeting: “Just had a very open and successful presidential election. Now professional protesters, incited by the media, are protesting. Very unfair!”

On Wednesday, tens of thousands took to the streets in more than a dozen major cities to rally against the President-elect, many chanting “Not my President” and denouncing what they say is racist and misogynistic rhetoric used by his campaign. Protests swelled in Seattle; Pittsburgh; Austin; Dallas; Philadelphia; Portland; Providence, R.I.; Atlanta; St. Paul, Minn., as well as several other cities around the nation and the in other countries.

Trump’s critics worry that remarks he has made about Muslims, women and minority groups could provoke intolerance. His campaign has drawn support from the Ku Klux Klan and other white-supremacist groups, though he has publicly denied any links to them. His campaign turned down an endorsement from a KKK newspaper earlier this month, stating that Trump “denounces hate in any form.”

In his acceptance speech on Wednesday, Trump vowed to be a President for all Americans, striking a more conciliatory tone than he had in the past. His surprising ascension to power exposed sensitive divisions among the U.S.’s diverse communities and a gulf between the media and the public.

“This generation deserves better than Donald Trump,” Lily Morton, a 17-year-old student at Georgetown Day School in Washington, D.C., told Reuters. “The queer people, colored people, women, girls, everyone that is going to be affected by this, we need to protest to help them.”

Wednesday’s demonstrations were largely peaceful, though violence was reported in Oakland, Calif., where some demonstrators reportedly smashed store windows, started fires and clashed with police in riot gear. NBC said that Molotov cocktails were thrown at some 40 fires started. Three police officers were injured and 30 people arrested.

In Los Angeles, hundreds marched to U.S. Route 101 in an attempt to block the freeway.

Trump stunned Americans at home and abroad on Tuesday when he beat opponent Clinton following what has been considered the most polarized and fraught U.S. election in living memory. Clinton was widely expected to clinch the victory and become the first female President in U.S. history.

Throughout the campaign period, Trump came under fierce criticism for his zero-tolerance stance on immigration and remarks he has made about both women and minorities.

Frauds And Racist Hillary Supporters Riot Against President Elect Trump

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF TIME NEWS)

Protesters target Trump buildings in massive street rallies

Story highlights

  • At least 13 arrested in Los Angeles for blocking highway traffic in protest of Trump
  • Anti-Trump protests have occurred in more than 25 cities

(CNN) The morning after Election Day smacked Democrats with a combination of shock and sadness.

Donald Trump would be the next US President. For thousands, disappointment turned to protest as Hillary Clinton supporters channeled their disbelief into a single defiant message.
“Not my President,” they chanted. “Not today.”
In response to Trump’s victory, a shocking win fueled by the rural roar of a dismayed white America, tens of thousands in at least 25 US cities — including New York and Nashville, Chicago and Cleveland, San Francisco and Seattle — shouted anti-Trump slogans, started fires, and held candlelight vigils to mourn the result.

Donald Trump's victory met with mixed reaction

Donald Trump’s victory met with mixed reaction 02:33
Many of those demonstrations continued early Thursday morning and led to dozens of arrests.
“People are furious, not just at the results of the election, but the rhetoric of Donald Trump,” Ahmed Kanna, an organizer for Social Alternative Berkeley, told CNN’s Don Lemon.

Demonstrations outside Trump’s properties

In New York, authorities estimated that as many as 5,000 people protested the real estate mogul’s victory outside Trump Tower. They included pop star Lady Gaga, a staunch Clinton supporter.

Lady Gaga protests against President-elect Donald Trump outside Trump Tower in New York.

Their concerns ranged from policies, such as his proposed plan to build a wall along the US-Mexican border, to the polarizing tenor of his campaign that stoked xenophobic fears.
“I came out here to let go of a lot of fear that was sparked as soon as I saw the results,” protester Nick Powers said. He said he feared Trump will support stronger stop-and-frisk policies that would put many people in prison. He also was worried that Trump’s victory would embolden sexist views.
Fifteen Trump Tower protesters were arrested Wednesday night for disorderly conduct, an NYPD spokesman said.
Protester: I wonder how much sexism was at play 02:16
In Chicago, activists marched down Lake Shore Drive — an eight-lane expressway along Lake Michigan — toward the Windy City’s Trump Tower with signs such as one that said, “I still can’t believe I have to protest for civil rights.”
CNN’s Ryan Young, who saw a few thousand people there, said many chanted vulgarities toward the President-elect.
“As a nation we thought we had come so far, but it seems like we’re taking many steps back,” one woman said. “We want to come together to change that.”
Emotional Clinton supporter: Hillary, sue the US 01:36
Meanwhile, protesters in Washington chanted “No Trump, no KKK, no fascist USA,” as they marched downtown to the Trump International Hotel. Elsewhere in the nation’s capital, an illuminated sign proclaimed that the US is “better than bigotry.”
Their cries turned profane after a solemn gathering of thousands who attended a candlelight vigil outside the White House to mourn the election loss.
“Everything that has been built up has been destroyed,” protester Brian Barto told CNN affiliate WJLA-TV. “America has failed (minorities).”
Headed into Thursday, more than a thousand protesters in Los Angeles, including young Latino protesters, rallied outside City Hall, according to CNN’s Paul Vercammen.
They chanted “I will not live in fear,” “Fight back, stand up” and “¡Si se puede!” (Spanish for “It can be done”).
Protesters also set on fire a piñata depicting the head of President-elect.
Several protesters said they feared that family or friends might be deported once Trump takes office. Brooklyn White, an 18-year-old protester who voted for Clinton, held a sign that said, “hate won’t win.”
“We can’t let it stop us,” she said. “If he’s the president then fine, but if Donald Trump is going to be it, then he has to listen.”
Early on Thursday morning, the protesters marched onto the 101 Freeway and blocked traffic. Authorities arrested at least 13 protesters, a Los Angeles Police Department spokesman said.

Donald Trump effigy burned by protesters.

Donald Trump effigy burned by protesters. 01:56
In Oakland, California, police said as many as 7,000 demonstrators took to the streets Wednesday night. By then, trash fires burned on a highway. Johnna Watson, public information officer with Oakland’s police department, said three officers were injured.
Thirty people were taken into custody and at least 11 citations were issued for vandalism, assaulting officers, unlawful assembly, failure to disperse and possession of a firearm. Police said some protesters threw Molotov cocktails, rocks, and fireworks at police officers.
A few miles away at Berkeley High School, about 1,500 students walked out of classes Wednesday morning. It was one of numerous high school walkouts that occurred nationwide following the election.

Supporters: Trump an ‘agent of change’

As anti-Trump protesters aired their grievances with the election’s outcome, supporters also came out in some places to express their enthusiasm for the President-elect.
In New York early Wednesday, groups of Trump supporters cheered his triumph outside Trump Tower. Others went to the White House late Tuesday and early Wednesday to show their support.
Nicholas Elliot, a Georgetown University student, said he was elated about Trump’s election as he compared it to the United Kingdom’s Brexit vote to leave the European Union.
“I feel pretty good, a year and a half process has ended and it ended my way,” the Texan told CNN affiliate WJLA.
JD Vance, author of the book “Hillbilly Elegy,” told CNN that Trump supporters in middle America voted for the President-elect because so few people — including the Clinton or her supporters — had paid attention to their plight.
“They see Trump as is an agent of change and agent of protest against folks who they feel have really failed in government,” Vance said.
CNN’s Marc Preston said the “Band-Aid” has been ripped off over the past 24 hours. Now comes the hard part: finding middle ground.
“All that anger that has been contained outside of Washington, D.C. and New York that we don’t see in middle America necessarily although these are urban cities, everyone’s starting to see it,” Preston said. “There is a lot of healing that has got to happen.”
Movies From The Silent Era

A repository for movies from the silent era

ssugarpill

a food blog for the loonies

Dark.Stories

For the nightcrawlers by a nightcrawler

Lavie des Elle

Life begins at the end of your comfort zone

A DEVOTED LIFE

Practical Daily Devotions for the Real World

Gracefully Undone

For there is an unlimited amount of grace given in every process.

Undefined

writings from heart,stories about souls

%d bloggers like this: