msnbc--2020-10-22--Obama should consider getting back into government. Really.

Barack Obama finally hit the campaign trail for his former vice president , Joe Biden , on Wednesday night , after four years of mostly shying away from the political spotlight .
But while his razor-sharp speech was a welcome reminder of how great a campaigner Obama is , maybe he does n't have to spend the rest of his post-presidency as a warmup act .
At the start of the Trump administration , Obama seemed to vanish overnight .
We 'd catch glimpses of him from time to time , memes of him having a great time on Richard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clashed with the horror show of everyday life for the rest of us .
He and Michelle got a Netflix production deal , and he would drop the occasional Spotify playlist or give an address to young people every now and then .
But it 's only in the last year that he 's finally made a fuller return to public life .
In his drive-in speech to Black voters in south Philadelphia on Wednesday night , Obama delivered his sharpest attack on the Trump administration since he turned over the keys to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being who he is , he ended on a hopeful note : `` We ca n't just imagine a better future .
We 've got to fight for it .
... What is best in us is still there , but we 've got to give it voice , and we 've got to do it now . ''
Hearing him back on the stump , I feel called to paraphrase Wes Anderson 's film `` The Royal Tenenbaums '' : Everyone knows Obama said `` this is my last campaign '' in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what if it was n't ?
What if it turns out that with the accomplishments of his presidency threatened , the best way to protect and strengthen them is n't just to get Biden elected ?
What if making good on promises unfulfilled and policies now broken means Obama 's returning to government service and fighting for that future himself ?
Obviously , the 22nd Amendment keeps Obama from running for a third term as president , which is as it should be , no matter how many times President Donald Trump hints @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Taking up a position in a future Cabinet could raise troubling questions about the line of succession , as well as create some awkward situations after he 'd held the top spot .
But that still leaves two whole branches of the government open for Obama to consider .
Obama spent only two years in the Senate before beginning his run for president .
Of his arguably brightest legacies in office — the Affordable Care Act and the Iran nuclear deal — one has been under constant attack since it passed and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The other has all but collapsed after his successor withdrew U.S. support .
There are still years , potentially decades , that Obama could serve his country and build an even more lasting legacy — one that he might have set aside in his desire to become president .
Should Obama re-enter the Senate , more than a decade after he left , he 'd have the chance to be the workhorse that his former rival-turned-colleague Hillary Clinton became after she crossed over from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama recently endorsed — would be a far different one from what he 'd left behind as president .
A Democratic majority in Congress could actually advance the legislation he was unable to push through during his two terms .
A returning Sen. Barack Obama would have a hand in crafting the immigration reform that the country requires , potentially moving beyond the package that nearly passed Congress early in his second term .
He could write and lobby for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program to become the law of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on shaky legal ground .
With his legal mind and view of racial justice , Obama could tackle recrafting the Voting Rights Act , which was gutted in his second term , which would be an even finer tribute to the late Rep. John Lewis than his incredible eulogy .
And he could finally make good on his promise after the Sandy Hook massacre to institute the kind of gun control legislation that died an ignoble death in the Senate in 2013 .
Plus , can you imagine Obama working in the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
The mind reels .
And there 's precedent .
John Quincy Adams lost his re-election bid in 1828 to Andrew Jackson , handing over the White House to a man who would become an idol of Trump 's more than a century later .
Adams , despite coming from a political family , determined that he would retire to private life , but it did n't take — two years later , he was running for Congress in southeastern Massachusetts .
Both his wife and his son thought it was bad form @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his district disagreed : He won with nearly three-quarters of the vote .
Charles Edel , in his 2014 biography of Adams , laid out Adams ' mindset ahead of taking up his seat in the 22nd Congress : It 's not hard to see Obama reaching a similar conclusion .
Adams was 64 when he joined the House of Representatives and continued to serve in Congress until he died 17 years later .
Obama is only 59 and has plenty of years left to serve .
But if the House is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could consider his old stomping grounds in the upper chamber , the Senate .
There 's precedent here , too , albeit a less savory one .
Sen. Andrew Johnson of Tennessee was chosen to be Abraham Lincoln 's second running mate to help balance the ticket in 1864 .
After he assumed office following Lincoln 's assassination , Johnson was impeached and was just barely acquitted in 1868 .
Having alienated the Republicans over the course of his term , Johnson was too toxic to be nominated for re-election .
But the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chose to overlook that and send him to back to the Senate in 1875 .
He died just months after he took up his seat — not exactly a model to live up to but a proof of concept , nonetheless .
The big question , then , is where Obama would want to relaunch a political career .
Since he left office , the Obamas have lived in the Kalorama neighborhood of Washington , D.C. , which does n't do him much good strategically .
If he wanted to return to Illinois @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up for re-election in 2022 , and she has been suggested as a potential secretary of veteran affairs should Biden win .
Sen. Kamala Harris ' seat in California will also be up for grabs at the time , but if she 's vice president in 2022 , Obama would have to fend off locals like Kevin DeLeon , who just barely missed out in his challenge for Sen. Diane Feinstein 's seat in the last midterm election , and potentially heavyweights like former Gov .
Jerry Brown , whom Gov .
Gavin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the meantime .
If running for office does n't appeal to Obama , though , there 's a third route : the Supreme Court .
Obama has the background , having taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago after graduating from Harvard Law .
And again , history is on his side .
The Senate confirmed William Howard Taft as chief justice of the United States in 1921 , eight years after he vacated the White House .
In his time on the bench , Taft led the dominant conservative wing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with businesses over labor unions , much as he had done when in office .
Overall , he was much happier as chief justice than he ever was as president .
And unlike what a Justice Obama would likely face , Taft 's policies as president rarely reached the court .
He recused himself from a case once , according to Smithsonian Magazine , `` when a murderer whose death sentence he commuted sued for freedom . ''
A spot on the Supreme Court would be more of a long shot than another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the current justices seem to be .
But with a lifetime appointment , Obama could write decisions in future cases involving privacy rights and international law — or , more likely , should the conservative majority hold , dissents that legal students would still be reading a century from now .
As one of the pre-eminent members of the Democratic Party still , Obama makes for an exceptional figurehead .
He 's become a symbol of a more normal time as the Trump administration has carried on with its steamrolling of previous laws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ iconography , though , to help salvage our government whenever Trump leaves office , be it next year or January 2025 .
None of this is to say that it would be smooth sailing for the former president .
Obama is still a prime target for Republican ire nationally .
Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi fills that niche now , but Obama brings the bonus of still being the same Black man he was when he was first elected and all the racist vitriol that came with it .
He 'd also be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policies to resurface during a campaign — the attack ads practically write themselves .
And , well , Michelle may literally kill him .
That 's just a fact we have to raise .
But it 's something that he should consider both for his own legacy and for another shot to `` pursue ends for the benefit of mankind . ''
While you let that sink in , here are some links for your morning : • NBC News : National Intelligence Director John Ratcliffe held a surprise news conference Wednesday night @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He announced that Russia and Iran had obtained U.S. voter files — and claimed that Iran was behind the emails intimidating to voters signed by the Proud Boys .
It ’ s a lot .
• The Washington Post : Meanwhile , Trump is reportedly considering firing FBI Director Christopher Wray because of course he is !
Wray and Attorney General William Barr are in trouble with the president for not prosecuting his political enemies like he wants .
Not exactly a comforting thing to have out there .
• Politico : Nahal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mike Pompeo , looking to shore up his pro-Israel credentials ahead of a potential presidential run , wants to label Amnesty International and other human rights groups as anti-Semitic : • BuzzFeed News : And finally , ICE has begun implementing a new policy to speed up deportations for undocumented immigrants taken into custody who have been in the U.S. for two years or less .
The administration would love to skirt overburdened immigration courts , and now it seems like they 're taking the chance .

Barack Obama finally hit the campaign trail for his former vice president, Joe Biden, on Wednesday night, after four years of mostly shying away from the political spotlight. But while his razor-sharp speech was a welcome reminder of how great a campaigner Obama is, maybe he doesn't have to spend the rest of his post-presidency as a warmup act.
At the start of the Trump administration, Obama seemed to vanish overnight. We'd catch glimpses of him from time to time, memes of him having a great time on Richard Branson's yacht, a scene that clashed with the horror show of everyday life for the rest of us. He and Michelle got a Netflix production deal, and he would drop the occasional Spotify playlist or give an address to young people every now and then. But it's only in the last year that he's finally made a fuller return to public life.
Obama delivered his sharpest attack on the Trump administration since he turned over the keys to the Oval Office in 2017.
In his drive-in speech to Black voters in south Philadelphia on Wednesday night, Obama delivered his sharpest attack on the Trump administration since he turned over the keys to the Oval Office in 2017. But being who he is, he ended on a hopeful note: "We can't just imagine a better future. We've got to fight for it. ... What is best in us is still there, but we've got to give it voice, and we've got to do it now."
Hearing him back on the stump, I feel called to paraphrase Wes Anderson's film "The Royal Tenenbaums": Everyone knows Obama said "this is my last campaign" in 2012. But this essay presupposes ... what if it wasn't? What if it turns out that with the accomplishments of his presidency threatened, the best way to protect and strengthen them isn't just to get Biden elected? What if making good on promises unfulfilled and policies now broken means Obama's returning to government service and fighting for that future himself?
Obviously, the 22nd Amendment keeps Obama from running for a third term as president, which is as it should be, no matter how many times President Donald Trump hints that he'd like to change it. Taking up a position in a future Cabinet could raise troubling questions about the line of succession, as well as create some awkward situations after he'd held the top spot. But that still leaves two whole branches of the government open for Obama to consider.
Obama spent only two years in the Senate before beginning his run for president. Of his arguably brightest legacies in office — the Affordable Care Act and the Iran nuclear deal — one has been under constant attack since it passed and may soon fall before the Supreme Court. The other has all but collapsed after his successor withdrew U.S. support. There are still years, potentially decades, that Obama could serve his country and build an even more lasting legacy — one that he might have set aside in his desire to become president.
Should Obama re-enter the Senate, more than a decade after he left, he'd have the chance to be the workhorse that his former rival-turned-colleague Hillary Clinton became after she crossed over from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. A legislative world without the filibuster — as Obama recently endorsed — would be a far different one from what he'd left behind as president. A Democratic majority in Congress could actually advance the legislation he was unable to push through during his two terms.
A returning Sen. Barack Obama would have a hand in crafting the immigration reform that the country requires, potentially moving beyond the package that nearly passed Congress early in his second term. He could write and lobby for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program to become the law of the land, rather than an executive order on shaky legal ground. With his legal mind and view of racial justice, Obama could tackle recrafting the Voting Rights Act, which was gutted in his second term, which would be an even finer tribute to the late Rep. John Lewis than his incredible eulogy. And he could finally make good on his promise after the Sandy Hook massacre to institute the kind of gun control legislation that died an ignoble death in the Senate in 2013. Plus, can you imagine Obama working in the Senate alongside his 2012 rival, Mitt Romney? The mind reels.
And there's precedent. John Quincy Adams lost his re-election bid in 1828 to Andrew Jackson, handing over the White House to a man who would become an idol of Trump's more than a century later. Adams, despite coming from a political family, determined that he would retire to private life, but it didn't take — two years later, he was running for Congress in southeastern Massachusetts. Both his wife and his son thought it was bad form on his part, but the people of his district disagreed: He won with nearly three-quarters of the vote.
Charles Edel, in his 2014 biography of Adams, laid out Adams' mindset ahead of taking up his seat in the 22nd Congress:
Just before he left Massachusetts for Washington in the winter of 1831, Adams wrote that to be both a good and a great man, one must use one’s abilities to pursue ends for the benefit of mankind. Looking back on his career, he conceded that his abilities had been, and still were, ‘very imperfect.'
It's not hard to see Obama reaching a similar conclusion. Adams was 64 when he joined the House of Representatives and continued to serve in Congress until he died 17 years later. Obama is only 59 and has plenty of years left to serve.
But if the House isn't prestigious enough for him, he could consider his old stomping grounds in the upper chamber, the Senate. There's precedent here, too, albeit a less savory one. Sen. Andrew Johnson of Tennessee was chosen to be Abraham Lincoln's second running mate to help balance the ticket in 1864. After he assumed office following Lincoln's assassination, Johnson was impeached and was just barely acquitted in 1868. Having alienated the Republicans over the course of his term, Johnson was too toxic to be nominated for re-election. But the fine members of Tennessee's Democratic-controlled Legislature chose to overlook that and send him to back to the Senate in 1875. He died just months after he took up his seat — not exactly a model to live up to but a proof of concept, nonetheless.
The big question, then, is where Obama would want to relaunch a political career. Since he left office, the Obamas have lived in the Kalorama neighborhood of Washington, D.C., which doesn't do him much good strategically. If he wanted to return to Illinois, though, Sen. Tammy Duckworth is up for re-election in 2022, and she has been suggested as a potential secretary of veteran affairs should Biden win. Sen. Kamala Harris' seat in California will also be up for grabs at the time, but if she's vice president in 2022, Obama would have to fend off locals like Kevin DeLeon, who just barely missed out in his challenge for Sen. Diane Feinstein's seat in the last midterm election, and potentially heavyweights like former Gov. Jerry Brown, whom Gov. Gavin Newsom could name to fill her seat in the meantime.
If running for office doesn't appeal to Obama, though, there's a third route: the Supreme Court. Obama has the background, having taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago after graduating from Harvard Law. And again, history is on his side. The Senate confirmed William Howard Taft as chief justice of the United States in 1921, eight years after he vacated the White House. In his time on the bench, Taft led the dominant conservative wing of the court, continuing to side with businesses over labor unions, much as he had done when in office. Overall, he was much happier as chief justice than he ever was as president. And unlike what a Justice Obama would likely face, Taft's policies as president rarely reached the court. He recused himself from a case once, according to Smithsonian Magazine, "when a murderer whose death sentence he commuted sued for freedom."
A spot on the Supreme Court would be more of a long shot than another run, especially considering how firmly entrenched the current justices seem to be. But with a lifetime appointment, Obama could write decisions in future cases involving privacy rights and international law — or, more likely, should the conservative majority hold, dissents that legal students would still be reading a century from now.
As one of the pre-eminent members of the Democratic Party still, Obama makes for an exceptional figurehead. He's become a symbol of a more normal time as the Trump administration has carried on with its steamrolling of previous laws and standards. We need more than iconography, though, to help salvage our government whenever Trump leaves office, be it next year or January 2025.
None of this is to say that it would be smooth sailing for the former president. Obama is still a prime target for Republican ire nationally. Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi fills that niche now, but Obama brings the bonus of still being the same Black man he was when he was first elected and all the racist vitriol that came with it. He'd also be running with a full eight years of policies to resurface during a campaign — the attack ads practically write themselves. And, well, Michelle may literally kill him. That's just a fact we have to raise. But it's something that he should consider both for his own legacy and for another shot to "pursue ends for the benefit of mankind."
While you let that sink in, here are some links for your morning:
NBC News: National Intelligence Director John Ratcliffe held a surprise news conference Wednesday night, soon after Obama finished speaking. He announced that Russia and Iran had obtained U.S. voter files — and claimed that Iran was behind the emails intimidating to voters signed by the Proud Boys. It’s a lot.
The Washington Post: Meanwhile, Trump is reportedly considering firing FBI Director Christopher Wray because of course he is! Wray and Attorney General William Barr are in trouble with the president for not prosecuting his political enemies like he wants. Not exactly a comforting thing to have out there.
Politico: Nahal Taloosi reports that the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, looking to shore up his pro-Israel credentials ahead of a potential presidential run, wants to label Amnesty International and other human rights groups as anti-Semitic:
The declaration is expected to take the form of a report from the office of Elan Carr, the U.S. special envoy to monitor and combat anti-Semitism. The report would mention organizations including Oxfam, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. It would declare that it is U.S. policy not to support such groups, including financially, and urge other governments to cease their support. The report would cite such groups’ alleged or perceived support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, which has targeted Israel over its construction of settlements on land Palestinians claim for a future state. It’s also expected to point to reports and press statements such groups have released about the impact of Israeli settlements, as well as their involvement or perceived support for a United Nations database of businesses that operate in disputed territories.


msnbc--2020-10-22--All Trump's Russia strategy does is reveal U.S. weakness

On Wednesday night , the FBI alleged that Iranian intelligence was trying intimidate Florida voters .
The agents noted that Russia was also working to influence the election .
While the full details of these new allegations remain unclear , what is clear is that the collective evidence of foreign meddling continues to mount .
But America 's response continues to underwhelm .
On Monday , the Justice Department announced indictments of six Russian intelligence officers for what it described as their roles in persistent and pervasive cyberhacking around the globe .
But instead of being a strong response to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exemplify the Trump administration 's failed strategy against the Russian threat .
According to the indictment , these military spies were modern-day marauders , hellbent on wreaking havoc on a wide spectrum of targets from presidents to power grids to the PyeongChang Winter Olympics .
One of the attacks they are alleged to have unleashed , NotPetya , has been described as the most devastating in history .
Some of the indicted officers were behind the 2016 U.S. election interference hacking , according to the Justice Department .
These charges represent a laudable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they join similar actions from the Trump administration as part of a pretense , one that permits our president to pretend he 's tough on Russia .
As widely reported last year , the U.S. government , as coordinated by U.S. Cyber Command , significantly stepped up its approach to the growing threat posed by Russia 's coordinated incursions into our private- and public-sector systems .
Using new legal authorities quietly authorized by Congress , the government has been carrying out `` clandestine military activity '' in cyberspace to `` deter , safeguard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cyber activities against the United States . ''
These same reports disclose that such activity includes boring deep into Russia 's utilities infrastructure for a two-fold purpose — letting it know we can enter its networks and planting `` seeds '' that might enable us to shut down power and other infrastructure if the need arises .
This kind of clandestine initiative sounds like strong and sensible strategy , particularly when paired with public-facing overt indictments like the ones this week .
But our digital digging is n't a secret , and our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 'll never get our hands on the indicted Russian officers .
They wo n't be foolish enough to travel to a country that would extradite them to the U.S .
Neither this law enforcement action nor our covert sorties in Moscow 's systems have prompted any soul-searching or remorse by Russian President Vladimir Putin .
To the contrary , the Russian government denies any involvement in the alleged hacks and dismisses all of this as just more anti-Russia sentiment In fact , when the FBI 's deputy director announced this week 's indictments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has changed : In case we need any further proof that the Trump approach to Russian cyberattacks is n't helpful , the Justice Department 's announcement of the indictments tells us that at least one defendant , Anatoliy Sergeyevich Kovalev , was also among the 12 Russian intelligence officers previously indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller two years ago .
America 's approach to the growing Russian cyberthreat is n't effective — but that can change .
First , any strategy to effectively curtail cyberattacks must bring pain to the enemy or those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have little chance of leading to arrests serve only to provide clues to how we might have attributed specific attacks to specific people .
Second , the kind of easily detected incursions into Russian systems that is embodied in our current approach exposes to the Russians what our malware looks like , allowing them to isolate and filter it out in the future .
The fact that this strategy has been corroborated by multiple U.S. government sources means that signaling our capability is actually part of our strategy .
The intended threat implied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we might someday activate our digitally embedded silent soldiers and take down a power grid or other infrastructure component — rings hollow , though , when this administration has never demonstrated any interest in bringing pain to Putin .
Under the law , these recently authorized operations can be approved by the secretary of defense without presidential approval .
Maybe that 's a good thing , since Trump seems not to want to hear anything negative about Russia .
Although Trump claims that `` no one 's been tougher than me on Russia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
One of Trump 's first acts upon becoming president was to try to undo President Barack Obama 's sanctions against Russia .
When Congress finally approved veto-proof sanctions , Trump made sure there would be lax enforcement .
Even more recently approved sanctions against Russian individuals seem designed to have little or no impact on their lives or finances .
In a well-known military concern , Trump has repeatedly discounted his own intelligence agencies ' reporting that Russia may have placed bounties on the heads of U.S. troops in Afghanistan , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked Putin about such reports .
More recently , reports are emerging from the CIA that Director Gina Haspel has suppressed the flow of Russia-related intelligence to the White House for fear that the president simply wo n't like it .
We also now hear claims from CIA employees that Haspel may have bought into the Trump mindset by refusing to acknowledge evidence that Russia is responsible for debilitating sonic attacks that have injured numerous CIA employees posted abroad .
An adversary is emboldened when it knows you have zero intention of following @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bark and no bite is not an effective strategy to counter cyberattacks .
We must demonstrate not just capacity but also intention .
The only way to be taken seriously is to actually do something .
Making it painful to be a friend of Putin 's would be a start .
His oligarch buddies should be so financially penalized in the global marketplace that they wish they had never met him .
Meaningful sanctions not only against individuals but also against Russia itself need to be implemented and enforced .
Bringing pain to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exposing and punishing him for what he is — a corrupt , stone-cold killer .
We have the kind of intelligence reporting that could personally devastate Putin and prompt his own people to question his legitimacy .
We should be publicly shaming him and pushing back against his misdeeds .
He needs to understand that we can and will use what we know .
Last , we ca n't just taunt with our cyber skills .
The next time Russia ( or Iran ) launches a digital attack against American or allied interests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response .
This kind of impactful strategy wo n't happen under our current president .
Yet his opponent seems to understand that the current plan is n't working .
At the very least , former Vice President Joe Biden has said he would exact a high price for interference in this year 's election .
In a July statement , Biden said he was `` putting the Kremlin and other foreign governments on notice . ''
If elected , he added , he would retaliate against any election meddling through `` sanctions , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the exposure of corruption . ''
That 's exactly the kind of action we need if we 're ever going to get Moscow to realize that we are n't the soft target it thinks we are .

On Wednesday night, the FBI alleged that Iranian intelligence was trying intimidate Florida voters. The agents noted that Russia was also working to influence the election. While the full details of these new allegations remain unclear, what is clear is that the collective evidence of foreign meddling continues to mount. But America's response continues to underwhelm.
On Monday, the Justice Department announced indictments of six Russian intelligence officers for what it described as their roles in persistent and pervasive cyberhacking around the globe. But instead of being a strong response to Russia's digital aggression, the indictments exemplify the Trump administration's failed strategy against the Russian threat.
The indictments exemplify the Trump administration’s failed strategy against the Russian threat.
According to the indictment, these military spies were modern-day marauders, hellbent on wreaking havoc on a wide spectrum of targets from presidents to power grids to the PyeongChang Winter Olympics. One of the attacks they are alleged to have unleashed, NotPetya, has been described as the most devastating in history. Some of the indicted officers were behind the 2016 U.S. election interference hacking, according to the Justice Department. These charges represent a laudable investigative and intelligence achievement. Unfortunately, they join similar actions from the Trump administration as part of a pretense, one that permits our president to pretend he's tough on Russia.
As widely reported last year, the U.S. government, as coordinated by U.S. Cyber Command, significantly stepped up its approach to the growing threat posed by Russia's coordinated incursions into our private- and public-sector systems. Using new legal authorities quietly authorized by Congress, the government has been carrying out "clandestine military activity" in cyberspace to "deter, safeguard, or defend against attacks or malicious cyber activities against the United States." These same reports disclose that such activity includes boring deep into Russia's utilities infrastructure for a two-fold purpose — letting it know we can enter its networks and planting "seeds" that might enable us to shut down power and other infrastructure if the need arises.
This kind of clandestine initiative sounds like strong and sensible strategy, particularly when paired with public-facing overt indictments like the ones this week. But our digital digging isn't a secret, and our indictments aren't a deterrent.
We'll never get our hands on the indicted Russian officers. They won't be foolish enough to travel to a country that would extradite them to the U.S. Neither this law enforcement action nor our covert sorties in Moscow's systems have prompted any soul-searching or remorse by Russian President Vladimir Putin. To the contrary, the Russian government denies any involvement in the alleged hacks and dismisses all of this as just more anti-Russia sentiment
In fact, when the FBI's deputy director announced this week's indictments, he all but conceded that nothing has changed:
Time and again, Russia has made it clear they will not abide by accepted norms, and instead, they intend to continue their destructive and destabilizing cyber behavior. Of course, this threat is not new. We’ve been fighting the cyber threat for years now, addressing hack after hack, as our adversaries continue to escalate their crimes and use their capabilities not just to gather intelligence, but also to disrupt, degrade, and destroy.
In case we need any further proof that the Trump approach to Russian cyberattacks isn't helpful, the Justice Department's announcement of the indictments tells us that at least one defendant, Anatoliy Sergeyevich Kovalev, was also among the 12 Russian intelligence officers previously indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller two years ago.
America's approach to the growing Russian cyberthreat isn't effective — but that can change. First, any strategy to effectively curtail cyberattacks must bring pain to the enemy or those who associate with it. Indictments that have little chance of leading to arrests serve only to provide clues to how we might have attributed specific attacks to specific people.
Second, the kind of easily detected incursions into Russian systems that is embodied in our current approach exposes to the Russians what our malware looks like, allowing them to isolate and filter it out in the future. The fact that this strategy has been corroborated by multiple U.S. government sources means that signaling our capability is actually part of our strategy. The intended threat implied by such an unstealthy approach — that we might someday activate our digitally embedded silent soldiers and take down a power grid or other infrastructure component — rings hollow, though, when this administration has never demonstrated any interest in bringing pain to Putin.
Under the law, these recently authorized operations can be approved by the secretary of defense without presidential approval. Maybe that's a good thing, since Trump seems not to want to hear anything negative about Russia. Although Trump claims that "no one's been tougher than me on Russia," it's simply not true. One of Trump's first acts upon becoming president was to try to undo President Barack Obama's sanctions against Russia. When Congress finally approved veto-proof sanctions, Trump made sure there would be lax enforcement. Even more recently approved sanctions against Russian individuals seem designed to have little or no impact on their lives or finances.
In a well-known military concern, Trump has repeatedly discounted his own intelligence agencies' reporting that Russia may have placed bounties on the heads of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and he admits that he hasn't even asked Putin about such reports. More recently, reports are emerging from the CIA that Director Gina Haspel has suppressed the flow of Russia-related intelligence to the White House for fear that the president simply won't like it. We also now hear claims from CIA employees that Haspel may have bought into the Trump mindset by refusing to acknowledge evidence that Russia is responsible for debilitating sonic attacks that have injured numerous CIA employees posted abroad. An adversary is emboldened when it knows you have zero intention of following through on your implied capabilities.
All bark and no bite is not an effective strategy to counter cyberattacks. We must demonstrate not just capacity but also intention. The only way to be taken seriously is to actually do something. Making it painful to be a friend of Putin's would be a start. His oligarch buddies should be so financially penalized in the global marketplace that they wish they had never met him. Meaningful sanctions not only against individuals but also against Russia itself need to be implemented and enforced.
Bringing pain to Putin also means being more assertive in exposing and punishing him for what he is — a corrupt, stone-cold killer. We have the kind of intelligence reporting that could personally devastate Putin and prompt his own people to question his legitimacy. We should be publicly shaming him and pushing back against his misdeeds. He needs to understand that we can and will use what we know.
Last, we can't just taunt with our cyber skills. The next time Russia (or Iran) launches a digital attack against American or allied interests, we must consider an in-kind commensurate response. This kind of impactful strategy won't happen under our current president. Yet his opponent seems to understand that the current plan isn't working. At the very least, former Vice President Joe Biden has said he would exact a high price for interference in this year's election. In a July statement, Biden said he was "putting the Kremlin and other foreign governments on notice." If elected, he added, he would retaliate against any election meddling through "sanctions, asset freezes, cyber responses, and the exposure of corruption." That's exactly the kind of action we need if we're ever going to get Moscow to realize that we aren't the soft target it thinks we are.


msnbc--2020-10-21--Pope Francis has said progressive things before only to backtrack. Civil unions could be the same.

Perhaps because the world has so little optimistic news , a new documentary about Pope Francis in which he says positive words about same-sex civil unions has made headlines .
The pope said of gay couples : `` They ’ re children of God and have a right to a family .
Nobody should be thrown out or be made miserable because of it.
” “ What we have to create is a civil union law , ” he added .
“ That way , they are legally covered.
” While it 's good that Francis is showing acceptance and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to change what happens in parishes and dioceses in the United States and elsewhere .
It does n't say to Roman Catholic schools : Let the children of gay couples attend .
It does n't say to Catholic social welfare agencies : Let same-sex couples adopt .
I can understand many LGBTQ Catholics taking both hope and comfort from the pope ’ s words .
And I do acknowledge that for a pope to be this welcoming is a positive gesture .
In a statement Wednesday after the pope ’ s quote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ director of DignityUSA , which represents gay Catholics said that “ if true , the pope ’ s comments could represent an international game-changer and a major step forward for LGBTQI equality.
” However , while the organization said it was “ cautiously optimistic ” about the pope ’ s words , it was necessary to see the entire interview.
, “ We are very early in the story , ” Duddy-Burke noted .
“ While pleased by the news reports , we wonder how the pope ’ s comments fit with existing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ intrinsically evil.
’ ” As a longtime Francis watcher , I agree with urging some caution .
Six years ago , in another media encounter , the pope indicated he might be able to accept civil unions without mentioning same-sex unions per se .
The Vatican later issued a clarification : “ The pope did not choose to enter into debates about the delicate matter of gay civil unions .
In his response to the interviewer , he emphasized the natural characteristic of marriage between one man and one woman , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spoke about the obligation of the state to fulfill its responsibilities towards its citizens.
” The statement concluded , “ We should not try to read more into the pope ’ s words than what has been stated in very general terms.
” It is possible that Francis will end up backtracking once more .
There will almost certainly be a big explosion of anger among conservative Catholics at his recent declaration , and Francis ’ MO is to try to smooth things out .
Remember , this was n't a papal pronouncement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was opining about many things , speaking off the cuff .
It ’ s telling that the Vatican has not officially responded .
This says to me that Francis never clued his PR machine in to the possibility that some of his comments might make some news .
It is true that while serving as archbishop of Buenos Aires , Francis endorsed civil unions for gay couples as an alternative to same-sex marriages .
However , he had never come out publicly in favor of civil unions while pope .
And he is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In a closed-door meeting in 2016 , Francis reportedly lamented the fact that schools were teaching children that they could choose their own gender .
It was a “ terrible ” state of affairs , the pope opined .
“ God created man and woman ; God created the world like this , and we are doing the exact opposite.
” Moreover , the pope says many things that don ’ t necessarily presage a departure in what the institutional church actually does .
In 2016 , there was hope the pope might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t say Mass , but can baptize , preside at weddings and preach .
Responding to a question from a nun , Francis said he was open to the idea and even agreed to form a commission to look into the matter .
A commission was duly formed , but it failed to come to a consensus on the issue .
A special meeting of bishops convened in 2019 to address the shortage of priests in the Amazon said positive things about women as deacons and their future role as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the membership excluded scholars who supported the change .
Now , two commissions later , we ’ re no closer to having women become deacons than we were four years ago .
I certainly do not want to discount the impact of the pope ’ s expression of tolerance on LGBTQ Catholics .
Catholic journalist Michael O ’ Loughlin praised the pope ’ s comments in a tweet Wednesday : “ Having just spent months researching the Vatican ’ s statements on LGBT issues in the 1980s for my book , I assure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perhaps the reason it seems so promising is that for far too long gay Catholics have been marginalized by the church , or worse , told their only route to being considered “ good ” Catholics was sexual abstinence .
Being recognized as part of the human family seems more a sign of how cruelly the church has acted in the past than a gesture of substantive change in the present .
Will the pope urge prelates in parts of the world where gay Catholics are persecuted — such as West Africa — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ silent or even joining in ?
Will he tell parishes to welcome gay families in their midst ?
Will he declare that no church institutions should fire staff because they are gay ?
That ’ s where the rubber meets the road .
The pope must show , not just tell .

Perhaps because the world has so little optimistic news, a new documentary about Pope Francis in which he says positive words about same-sex civil unions has made headlines. The pope said of gay couples: "They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out or be made miserable because of it.”
Being recognized as part of the human family seems more a sign of how cruelly the church has acted in the past than a gesture of substantive change in the present.
“What we have to create is a civil union law,” he added. “That way, they are legally covered.”
While it's good that Francis is showing acceptance and tolerance, these words alone are not going to change what happens in parishes and dioceses in the United States and elsewhere. It doesn't say to Roman Catholic schools: Let the children of gay couples attend. It doesn't say to Catholic social welfare agencies: Let same-sex couples adopt.
I can understand many LGBTQ Catholics taking both hope and comfort from the pope’s words. And I do acknowledge that for a pope to be this welcoming is a positive gesture. In a statement Wednesday after the pope’s quote became public, Marianne Duddy-Burke, executive director of DignityUSA, which represents gay Catholics said that “if true, the pope’s comments could represent an international game-changer and a major step forward for LGBTQI equality.”
However, while the organization said it was “cautiously optimistic” about the pope’s words, it was necessary to see the entire interview., “We are very early in the story,” Duddy-Burke noted. “While pleased by the news reports, we wonder how the pope’s comments fit with existing Catholic teachings that condemn same-sex relationships as ‘intrinsically evil.’”
As a longtime Francis watcher, I agree with urging some caution.
Six years ago, in another media encounter, the pope indicated he might be able to accept civil unions without mentioning same-sex unions per se. The Vatican later issued a clarification: “The pope did not choose to enter into debates about the delicate matter of gay civil unions. In his response to the interviewer, he emphasized the natural characteristic of marriage between one man and one woman, and on the other hand, he also spoke about the obligation of the state to fulfill its responsibilities towards its citizens.” The statement concluded, “We should not try to read more into the pope’s words than what has been stated in very general terms.”
It is possible that Francis will end up backtracking once more. There will almost certainly be a big explosion of anger among conservative Catholics at his recent declaration, and Francis’ MO is to try to smooth things out.
Remember, this wasn't a papal pronouncement, this was an interview. Francis was opining about many things, speaking off the cuff. It’s telling that the Vatican has not officially responded. This says to me that Francis never clued his PR machine in to the possibility that some of his comments might make some news.
It is true that while serving as archbishop of Buenos Aires, Francis endorsed civil unions for gay couples as an alternative to same-sex marriages. However, he had never come out publicly in favor of civil unions while pope.
And he is not exactly consistent in his thinking. In a closed-door meeting in 2016, Francis reportedly lamented the fact that schools were teaching children that they could choose their own gender. It was a “terrible” state of affairs, the pope opined. “God created man and woman; God created the world like this, and we are doing the exact opposite.”
Moreover, the pope says many things that don’t necessarily presage a departure in what the institutional church actually does. In 2016, there was hope the pope might approve female deacons — church ministers who can’t say Mass, but can baptize, preside at weddings and preach. Responding to a question from a nun, Francis said he was open to the idea and even agreed to form a commission to look into the matter.
A commission was duly formed, but it failed to come to a consensus on the issue. A special meeting of bishops convened in 2019 to address the shortage of priests in the Amazon said positive things about women as deacons and their future role as well. Another commission was formed, but the membership excluded scholars who supported the change. Now, two commissions later, we’re no closer to having women become deacons than we were four years ago.
I certainly do not want to discount the impact of the pope’s expression of tolerance on LGBTQ Catholics. Catholic journalist Michael O’Loughlin praised the pope’s comments in a tweet Wednesday: “Having just spent months researching the Vatican’s statements on LGBT issues in the 1980s for my book, I assure you this is big news.”
But perhaps the reason it seems so promising is that for far too long gay Catholics have been marginalized by the church, or worse, told their only route to being considered “good” Catholics was sexual abstinence.
Being recognized as part of the human family seems more a sign of how cruelly the church has acted in the past than a gesture of substantive change in the present.
Will the pope urge prelates in parts of the world where gay Catholics are persecuted — such as West Africa — to condemn that treatment instead of staying silent or even joining in? Will he tell parishes to welcome gay families in their midst? Will he declare that no church institutions should fire staff because they are gay?
That’s where the rubber meets the road. The pope must show, not just tell.


msnbc--2020-10-21--Reports of Trump's secret Chinese bank account spark controversy

About a month ago , the New York Times reported on two decades ' worth of Donald Trump 's tax materials , and the revelations were pretty brutal .
The public learned , for example , that the Republican paid only $ 750 in federal income taxes in each of his first two years in office , and did n't pay any income taxes in 10 of the past 15 years , largely as a result of his many private-sector losses .
But even as the report was published , the Times made clear that the records the newspaper obtained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president 's controversial finances would soon follow .
Evidently , the Times was n't kidding , as its latest reporting on Trump 's China ties makes clear .
There 's a lot to unpack in the new reporting , which is well worth your time , but it 's tough not to dwell on the American president 's previously undisclosed bank account in China .
As Rachel explained on last night 's show , the account belongs to a Trump business entity called Trump International Hotels Management , which was generating a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is , until Trump became president of the United States .
At that point , the company suddenly took in $ 17.5 million -- more revenue than had come into that company in the previous five years combined .
Where 'd all of this money come from ?
That 's still unclear , but we know where a lot of that money went : after the company suddenly received an influx , just as he took office , Trump withdrew $ 15.1 for himself .
And while there are other important revelations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appreciating the larger political context : much of Trump 's 2020 pitch to the electorate is predicated on the idea that Joe Biden is somehow tied to Beijing in nefarious ways .
There 's little to suggest those ties exist in reality , but there now appears to be quite a few meaningful -- and lucrative -- connections between China and the Republican incumbent himself .

About a month ago, the New York Times reported on two decades' worth of Donald Trump's tax materials, and the revelations were pretty brutal. The public learned, for example, that the Republican paid only $750 in federal income taxes in each of his first two years in office, and didn't pay any income taxes in 10 of the past 15 years, largely as a result of his many private-sector losses.
But even as the report was published, the Times made clear that the records the newspaper obtained were extensive, and additional reporting on the president's controversial finances would soon follow. Evidently, the Times wasn't kidding, as its latest reporting on Trump's China ties makes clear.
President Trump and his allies have tried to paint the Democratic nominee, Joseph R. Biden Jr., as soft on China, in part by pointing to his son's business dealings there.... But Mr. Trump's own business history is filled with overseas financial deals, and some have involved the Chinese state.
There's a lot to unpack in the new reporting, which is well worth your time, but it's tough not to dwell on the American president's previously undisclosed bank account in China.
As Rachel explained on last night's show, the account belongs to a Trump business entity called Trump International Hotels Management, which was generating a few million dollars in annual income -- that is, until Trump became president of the United States.
At that point, the company suddenly took in $17.5 million -- more revenue than had come into that company in the previous five years combined.
Where'd all of this money come from? That's still unclear, but we know where a lot of that money went: after the company suddenly received an influx, just as he took office, Trump withdrew $15.1 for himself.
And while there are other important revelations in the reporting, it's worth appreciating the larger political context: much of Trump's 2020 pitch to the electorate is predicated on the idea that Joe Biden is somehow tied to Beijing in nefarious ways.
There's little to suggest those ties exist in reality, but there now appears to be quite a few meaningful -- and lucrative -- connections between China and the Republican incumbent himself.


msnbc--2020-10-22--Trump wants to make the election about ‘corruption.’ Here’s why that could backfire.

James Carville : Biden has to win by more than five points

Trump wants to make the election about ‘corruption.’ Here’s why that could backfire.
Chris Hayes runs through the endless list of corrupt schemes involving Trump that show why he is “the most flagrantly corrupt president in recent memory, possibly ever.”Oct. 22, 2020


msnbc--2020-10-23--Trump on new wave of Covid cases: 'It will go away,' a vaccine is coming

Protesters in Minneapolis take knee , chant names of people who have died at hands of police

'We are on the road to success': Trump on what he would say to those who did not vote for him 01:13


msnbc--2020-10-23--Kornacki breaks down where things stand in battleground states heading into final debate

Biden 's lesson from first debate : Do n't be distracted by Trump antics .

IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.


msnbc--2020-10-23--Biden's lesson from first debate: Don't be distracted by Trump antics.

Symone Sanders, senior advisor to the Biden campaign, talks about Joe Biden's preparation for the second debate with Donald Trump and how he is girded for Trump to introduce chaos and personal family attacks into the event.Oct. 23, 2020


msnbc--2020-10-22--'Not what I’m asking’: Hallie Jackson ends interview with Trump campaign press secretary

'Not what I’m asking’: Hallie Jackson ends interview with Trump campaign press secretary
Trump campaign Press Secretary Hogan Gidley is grilled by NBC News’Hallie Jackson over spreading misinformation concerning voter fraud, in which there is almost no evidence.Oct. 22, 2020


msnbc--2020-10-22--Charlie Sykes: ‘One of the difficulties of this era is raising young men in the era of Trump’

Charlie Sykes: ‘One of the difficulties of this era is raising young men in the era of Trump’
Editor-at-large of The Bulwark Charlie Sykes and Democratic strategist Basil Smikle discuss Trump’s strategy to attack Biden’s son Hunter, in light of a new ad highlighting the bond between a father and sonOct. 22, 2020


msnbc--2020-10-22--White House releases footage of Trump abruptly ending '60 Minutes' interview

Meacham: Pence probably saved the republic, but I don't always want to count on one person to do it


msnbc--2020-10-22--Rick Gates: Trump’s ‘silent vote’ from 2016 ‘very much alive’ in 2020 race

'To the right of this government, is only a wall' Impact of new judicial law in Israel 05:32


msnbc--2020-10-22--Stacey Abrams says long lines to vote ‘not a sign of excitement, it's a sign of incompetence’

Stacey Abrams says long lines to vote ‘not a sign of excitement, it's a sign of incompetence’
Stacey Abrams says groups like the New Georgia Project have registered over 800,000 Georgians to vote since 2018. She also says that long lines ‘are not a sign of excitement, it's a sign of incompetence.’Oct. 22, 2020


msnbc--2020-10-22--Democrats boycott committee vote approving nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme Court

All 12 Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to advance the nomination, while all 10 Democrats boycotted the vote. MSNBC's Garrett Haake reports.Oct. 22, 2020


msnbc--2020-10-22--Obama needs to follow John Quincy Adams' lead back to Congress


msnbc--2020-10-22--How Trump's impulsive New START gambit makes everything worse

President Donald Trump 's rancorously chaotic foreign policy can be seen as successful in one crucial way : It has catalyzed the demolition of an artifice that Trump himself ran against , the idea that America was the indispensable country and that through relationship-building with other countries , it could advance the causes of democracy and freedom .
Trump has never believed this : He has always seen America as a corporation involved in high-stakes zero-sum negotiations with cunning adversaries .
And to hear him tell it , America always got the short end of the stick .
Trump 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying that his presidency was n't a shambolic failure here , and they wo n't engage at all with the calamitous results , as though what matters is the way a dish reads on the menu and not the way it tastes in the mouth .
Trump 's malignant narcissism , his conflation of the self with the state and his aggressive incuriosity ensured that nothing palatable will be left on the table .
With trade deals , climate change and , this week , frantic last-minute negotiations to secure an extension of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russia , Trump 's impulses have appreciably increased the chances of global catastrophe .
It 's hard to articulate a coherent narrative that ties together all of Trump 's mistakes , other than that Trump associates everything that Barack Obama touched with weakness and thus that it has to be dismantled .
This includes New START , a strategic arms limitation treaty that Obama signed in 2010 with Dmitry Medvedev , Russia 's president at the time .
It was to be the centerpiece of Obama 's foreign policy legacy : a step @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world free of nuclear weapons .
With less than two weeks before the election , it seems that Russia and the U.S. have agreed to extend New START for a year , with a new contrivance called a `` freeze '' on new weapons — the definition is unclear , and both countries interpreted it differently in their written statements this week .
This might allow Trump to say he was able to get something extra that Obama did n't .
It also means , though , that Trump actually got nothing he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a deal , and got robbed in the end .
Russia can claim that the freeze means whatever it wants , which will make it hard for the U.S. president to negotiate a new deal without an existing one , given that the president remains accountable to the Senate .
The treaty placed limits on deployed `` strategic '' weapons , basically high-yield warheads , to 1,550 for each country .
The platforms that are used to `` deliver '' them — missiles , fighter bombers , submarines — are limited to 700 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been a no-brainer for Trump : an easy win , a way for him to brag that he could get things done with Russian President Vladimir Putin in the way he envisioned that a better relationship might help him .
The theory of the case was that Russia wants to be seen as a global power ; it views arms control agreements with the U.S. as a crucial part of its esteem as a nation , a co-equal power to the U.S. Russia needs the treaty to give it more time to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ developed new weapons and hypersonic missiles , but Russia , which has far fewer resources to devote to its nuclear program than the U.S. does , ca n't field them quickly enough to make a difference in the near term .
The advantage should have gone to the U.S. , which could have used the extension debate to press Russia to be more transparent about its secret nuclear projects .
But that 's not what happened .
Trump 's strategy vitiated his own advantage .
First , he decided to withdraw from three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the testing and deployment of `` intermediate range '' missiles .
Russia had cheated , and where Obama was willing to overlook that , Trump was n't .
Getting out of this treaty was n't ideal , but it was rational .
It signaled to Russia that Trump was done with the old order , which had allowed Russia to get away with stuff the U.S. would n't even attempt .
The rest of his nuclear policies jumbled the message .
The treaty with Iran that Obama signed in 2015 ?
Gone , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to prevent Iran 's nuclear programs from proliferating , short of an actual pre-emptive attack .
Diplomacy with North Korea ?
Getting the two leaders to talk was a feat , but Kim Jong Un rolled Trump when , in exchange for an amorphous ban on testing new nuclear warheads , he obtained an official certificate of legitimacy as a nuclear power and continues to develop more weapons .
Trump pulled out of Open Skies , an agreement that allowed the U.S. to monitor Russian weapons development and vice versa , based on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had used the treaty to make sure that Russia was n't violating others — and to great effect .
Then Trump said the U.S. would no longer recognize the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty , which meaningfully reduced the literal amount of nuclear pollution in the atmosphere and which serves as the foundation for real-world nuclear deterrence around the globe .
More than any other treaty , it increases by orders of magnitude the time it takes for a country to move from building a bomb to deploying it in the field .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ treaty , but presidents have accepted it as an integral element of nuclear control . )
Trump 's justification was that Russia and China did n't bind themselves by the treaty , so why should the U.S. ?
This purely transactional view brooks no understanding of why certain imperfect treaties , even with holes and flaws , can be beneficial .
He did n't try to negotiate a successor treaty .
Now there 's START .
Russia wanted to start negotiating its extension a few years ago , anticipating that the back and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ultimately successful .
Had Trump focused his energy on New START , the only treaty that seems to matter to Putin , he would have had a stronger hand .
But before he would agree to renegotiate , Trump said , he wanted China to be part of any deal , on the grounds that China is upgrading its nuclear capacity and Trump views China as the bigger global power threat .
China said it was n't at all interested .
Russian negotiators wondered whether Trump was being played by hawks in his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the U.S. 's own nuclear arsenal and blow up the treaty .
The obsession with China took time off the clock .
This summer , Trump capitulated , probably because he was told that if he did n't , he would be blamed for the collapse of a nuclear weapons agreement .
But the compressed time frame and another U.S. demand — Trump 's chief arms control negotiator , Marshall Billingslea , insisted that Russia agree to put on the table its entire nuclear force , big warheads and little warheads ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capacity than the U.S. ) — stalled discussions over the type of wins Trump could legitimately hope to include , like better and more expedient access to weapons sites and possibly even Russian nuclear telemetry .
There is no good news here .
Trump has made it harder on himself if he wins re-election to get Russia to agree to any new arms deal , which is bad for the world .
He has made it harder for a President Biden to figure out how to deal with both Russia 's and China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taken steps to make it harder for the U.S. to know what Russia actually is doing — which means , simply , that our war plans will lean harder into nuclear weapons , that our assumptions about surprise attacks will move toward expecting the worse and that the U.S. and its allies are ultimately more vulnerable .

President Donald Trump's rancorously chaotic foreign policy can be seen as successful in one crucial way: It has catalyzed the demolition of an artifice that Trump himself ran against, the idea that America was the indispensable country and that through relationship-building with other countries, it could advance the causes of democracy and freedom. Trump has never believed this: He has always seen America as a corporation involved in high-stakes zero-sum negotiations with cunning adversaries. And to hear him tell it, America always got the short end of the stick.
There is no good news here.
Trump's defenders will point to his critique in saying that his presidency wasn't a shambolic failure here, and they won't engage at all with the calamitous results, as though what matters is the way a dish reads on the menu and not the way it tastes in the mouth. Trump's malignant narcissism, his conflation of the self with the state and his aggressive incuriosity ensured that nothing palatable will be left on the table.
With trade deals, climate change and, this week, frantic last-minute negotiations to secure an extension of a major nuclear arms control deal with Russia, Trump's impulses have appreciably increased the chances of global catastrophe.
It's hard to articulate a coherent narrative that ties together all of Trump's mistakes, other than that Trump associates everything that Barack Obama touched with weakness and thus that it has to be dismantled. This includes New START, a strategic arms limitation treaty that Obama signed in 2010 with Dmitry Medvedev, Russia's president at the time. It was to be the centerpiece of Obama's foreign policy legacy: a step toward "global zero" — a world free of nuclear weapons.
With less than two weeks before the election, it seems that Russia and the U.S. have agreed to extend New START for a year, with a new contrivance called a "freeze" on new weapons — the definition is unclear, and both countries interpreted it differently in their written statements this week. This might allow Trump to say he was able to get something extra that Obama didn't. It also means, though, that Trump actually got nothing he wanted, felt acute pressure to make a deal, and got robbed in the end. Russia can claim that the freeze means whatever it wants, which will make it hard for the U.S. president to negotiate a new deal without an existing one, given that the president remains accountable to the Senate.
Trump got nothing he wanted, felt acute pressure to make a deal, and got robbed in the end.
The treaty placed limits on deployed "strategic" weapons, basically high-yield warheads, to 1,550 for each country. The platforms that are used to "deliver" them — missiles, fighter bombers, submarines — are limited to 700. Enhancing and extending this treaty should have been a no-brainer for Trump: an easy win, a way for him to brag that he could get things done with Russian President Vladimir Putin in the way he envisioned that a better relationship might help him. The theory of the case was that Russia wants to be seen as a global power; it views arms control agreements with the U.S. as a crucial part of its esteem as a nation, a co-equal power to the U.S.
Russia needs the treaty to give it more time to modernize its arsenal. It has rapidly developed new weapons and hypersonic missiles, but Russia, which has far fewer resources to devote to its nuclear program than the U.S. does, can't field them quickly enough to make a difference in the near term. The advantage should have gone to the U.S., which could have used the extension debate to press Russia to be more transparent about its secret nuclear projects.
But that's not what happened. Trump's strategy vitiated his own advantage. First, he decided to withdraw from three other treaties. One of them limited the testing and deployment of "intermediate range" missiles. Russia had cheated, and where Obama was willing to overlook that, Trump wasn't. Getting out of this treaty wasn't ideal, but it was rational. It signaled to Russia that Trump was done with the old order, which had allowed Russia to get away with stuff the U.S. wouldn't even attempt.
The rest of his nuclear policies jumbled the message. The treaty with Iran that Obama signed in 2015? Gone, without renegotiation, with no workable way to prevent Iran's nuclear programs from proliferating, short of an actual pre-emptive attack. Diplomacy with North Korea? Getting the two leaders to talk was a feat, but Kim Jong Un rolled Trump when, in exchange for an amorphous ban on testing new nuclear warheads, he obtained an official certificate of legitimacy as a nuclear power and continues to develop more weapons.
Trump pulled out of Open Skies, an agreement that allowed the U.S. to monitor Russian weapons development and vice versa, based on a whim, even though the U.S. had used the treaty to make sure that Russia wasn't violating others — and to great effect.
Then Trump said the U.S. would no longer recognize the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which meaningfully reduced the literal amount of nuclear pollution in the atmosphere and which serves as the foundation for real-world nuclear deterrence around the globe. More than any other treaty, it increases by orders of magnitude the time it takes for a country to move from building a bomb to deploying it in the field. (The Senate hasn't ratified the treaty, but presidents have accepted it as an integral element of nuclear control.) Trump's justification was that Russia and China didn't bind themselves by the treaty, so why should the U.S.? This purely transactional view brooks no understanding of why certain imperfect treaties, even with holes and flaws, can be beneficial. He didn't try to negotiate a successor treaty.
Now there's START. Russia wanted to start negotiating its extension a few years ago, anticipating that the back and forth would be lengthy and laborious but ultimately successful. Had Trump focused his energy on New START, the only treaty that seems to matter to Putin, he would have had a stronger hand.
Trump has made it harder on himself if he wins re-election to get Russia to agree to any new arms deal, which is bad for the world.
But before he would agree to renegotiate, Trump said, he wanted China to be part of any deal, on the grounds that China is upgrading its nuclear capacity and Trump views China as the bigger global power threat. China said it wasn't at all interested. Russian negotiators wondered whether Trump was being played by hawks in his administration who wanted to expedite the modernization of the U.S.'s own nuclear arsenal and blow up the treaty. The obsession with China took time off the clock. This summer, Trump capitulated, probably because he was told that if he didn't, he would be blamed for the collapse of a nuclear weapons agreement. But the compressed time frame and another U.S. demand — Trump's chief arms control negotiator, Marshall Billingslea, insisted that Russia agree to put on the table its entire nuclear force, big warheads and little warheads (Russia has more "tactical" nuclear capacity than the U.S.) — stalled discussions over the type of wins Trump could legitimately hope to include, like better and more expedient access to weapons sites and possibly even Russian nuclear telemetry.
There is no good news here. Trump has made it harder on himself if he wins re-election to get Russia to agree to any new arms deal, which is bad for the world. He has made it harder for a President Biden to figure out how to deal with both Russia's and China's nuclear ambitions. And he has taken steps to make it harder for the U.S. to know what Russia actually is doing — which means, simply, that our war plans will lean harder into nuclear weapons, that our assumptions about surprise attacks will move toward expecting the worse and that the U.S. and its allies are ultimately more vulnerable.


msnbc--2020-10-22--Great, we have contact tracing apps. Without a national plan, they won't really help us fight Covid.

A 62-person wedding in Maine .
An off-campus college party in New Jersey .
A White House Rose Garden press event .
Superspreader events like these catch national and global attention , and it is easy to criticize people who irresponsibly flout Covid-19 safety protocols .
But irresponsible mass gatherings are not the biggest problem with America ’ s abominable coronavirus response .
The reason why we are performing so much worse than most of the rest of the world in our national coronavirus response right now is simple : We do not have the government leadership necessary for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slow the virus and save lives .
This is also why digital contact tracing apps , a relatively new public health development , won ’ t do as much as we need to vanquish the virus , no matter how sophisticated the applications are .
But if the government devises an effective national plan for digital contact tracing apps , they could be a key part of getting Covid-19 under control in the country .
Digital contact tracing apps face a two-fold challenge in the U.S. : First , not enough people are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to privacy concerns ( even though we now have applications that use tracing methods that don ’ t infringe as much on personal privacy ) .
An Oxford study estimated that 60 percent of a country ’ s population needs to download and use the apps for them to really be effective .
But in other surveys , only 29 percent of Americans said they ’ d be willing to do so .
And only 14 percent said they trusted the government with their data .
Second , unless we develop a comprehensive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incredibly limited in their potential to track and contain the virus .
Since the U.S. does not even have a national testing program or a manual contact tracing program ( unlike many of the nations that have successfully held the virus at bay , or that have recovered from early devastation ) , it falls on states , municipalities and independent organizations to run their own contact tracing operations .
Even for states that have launched contact tracing app programs , effectiveness is stunted as long as one state ’ s app isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state .
Currently , 14 states have launched their own contact tracing apps , mostly based on the leading digital contact tracing protocol developed by Google and Apple .
Although the U.S. has not demonstrated the political will to create a national contact tracing app , early initiatives by Apple and Google have resulted in some wins for digital contact tracing .
To start , instead of cornering the market and launching full contact tracing apps on their own , the two big tech companies released their exposure notification tool openly , allowing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to create their own contact tracing applications .
Additionally , these open design protocols allowed for and encouraged the creation of what experts call “ privacy-preserving ” apps .
This means that instead of collecting large quantities of easily identifiable location data tagged to a person ’ s phone — as , say Google Maps , Uber and many other location-tracking services do —a privacy-preserving protocol instead tracks and shares encrypted proximity data based on Bluetooth signals .
Of course , even contact tracing apps developed with privacy-preserving protocols are not perfect ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faulty and incomplete , too .
These flaws can be problematic for apps that use Bluetooth signals to track proximity ( meaning tracking whether a person ’ s phone is close to another person ’ s phone ) .
However , overall , proximity tracking poses far fewer risks for privacy than collecting location data does .
A location-tracking app can , for example , track where you work , where you worship , and where you spend time with your friends and family .
A location-tracking app can also track when you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ event .
A centralized database with the location history of all Americans would be vulnerable to cyberattack and create potential privacy risks for all , especially BIPOC people , LGBTQ people , and other people from marginalized populations .
The beauty of the Bluetooth proximity tracking system is that we avoid collecting location data and also avoid storing sensitive data on one central server .
Especially without a national contact tracing program , it is important that state contact tracing apps are interoperable — that is , that they can exchange information as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of the same network .
Some states have designed their contact tracing apps to interface with a national key server developed by the Association of Public Health Libraries , which allows apps from different states to exchange information with other another .
This would allow people using apps from different states to still get notifications about coronavirus exposure , even when in another state or when exposed to a person from another state , regardless of which app they were using .
This matters because people often travel across state lines , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ useful nationwide if different state apps are able to work together .
States should design apps to be as privacy-preserving as possible , not only to protect individual privacy but to encourage more people to download and use the apps .
Because there is no federal guidance on how to develop and deploy contact tracing apps , some states will create apps that are both ineffective and harmful for privacy .
For example , Utah has based its contact tracing app on the more privacy-invasive location tracking method .
Unfortunately , of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deploy interoperable and privacy-preserving digital contact tracing apps , we are far past the point where a mass testing and tracing regime can save America from the worst of the pandemic ’ s effects on our society and our economy .
More than 200,000 Americans have died from coronavirus .
Countless more have suffered and are still suffering from long-term health effects ( and , for many , the financial effects of staggeringly high hospital bills ) .
Even the best contact tracing app can not undo the damage this pandemic has caused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we don ’ t develop a national plan to use them , who knows what the future will look like .
That ’ s all to say that we can not stop trying .
We can ’ t afford to leave any stone unturned in the fight against the coronavirus pandemic .
We must do everything in our power to protect ourselves , our loved ones , and our communities .
So , if you live in a state that has rolled out a privacy-preserving contact tracing app , you should download it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proximity data .
Similarly , if you live in an area with convenient and affordable testing , you should take advantage of it .
Wherever we live , all of us should continue to wear masks , social distance and support one another in following healthy Covid-19 safety protocols .
We know by now that we can not trust our current federal government to stop the spread of this virus .
State and local governments must lead the way .
Businesses and community organizations must contribute where they can .
We must all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while fighting this pandemic , we must take care to not lose sight of fundamental rights like privacy .
Public health and privacy are both critical for our society , and we must protect both values , especially now .

A 62-person wedding in Maine. An off-campus college party in New Jersey. A White House Rose Garden press event. Superspreader events like these catch national and global attention, and it is easy to criticize people who irresponsibly flout Covid-19 safety protocols. But irresponsible mass gatherings are not the biggest problem with America’s abominable coronavirus response.
We do not have the government leadership necessary for the mass testing and contact tracing needed to slow the virus and save lives.
The reason why we are performing so much worse than most of the rest of the world in our national coronavirus response right now is simple: We do not have the government leadership necessary for the mass testing and contact tracing needed to slow the virus and save lives. This is also why digital contact tracing apps, a relatively new public health development, won’t do as much as we need to vanquish the virus, no matter how sophisticated the applications are. But if the government devises an effective national plan for digital contact tracing apps, they could be a key part of getting Covid-19 under control in the country.
Digital contact tracing apps face a two-fold challenge in the U.S.: First, not enough people are using contract tracing apps, likely due to privacy concerns (even though we now have applications that use tracing methods that don’t infringe as much on personal privacy). An Oxford study estimated that 60 percent of a country’s population needs to download and use the apps for them to really be effective. But in other surveys, only 29 percent of Americans said they’d be willing to do so. And only 14 percent said they trusted the government with their data.
Second, unless we develop a comprehensive national system, contact tracing apps are incredibly limited in their potential to track and contain the virus.
Since the U.S. does not even have a national testing program or a manual contact tracing program (unlike many of the nations that have successfully held the virus at bay, or that have recovered from early devastation), it falls on states, municipalities and independent organizations to run their own contact tracing operations. Even for states that have launched contact tracing app programs, effectiveness is stunted as long as one state’s app isn’t compatible with apps in another state. Currently, 14 states have launched their own contact tracing apps, mostly based on the leading digital contact tracing protocol developed by Google and Apple.
Although the U.S. has not demonstrated the political will to create a national contact tracing app, early initiatives by Apple and Google have resulted in some wins for digital contact tracing. To start, instead of cornering the market and launching full contact tracing apps on their own, the two big tech companies released their exposure notification tool openly, allowing other app developers to use the code to create their own contact tracing applications. Additionally, these open design protocols allowed for and encouraged the creation of what experts call “privacy-preserving” apps.
This means that instead of collecting large quantities of easily identifiable location data tagged to a person’s phone — as, say Google Maps, Uber and many other location-tracking services do —a privacy-preserving protocol instead tracks and shares encrypted proximity data based on Bluetooth signals.
Of course, even contact tracing apps developed with privacy-preserving protocols are not perfect; for example, Bluetooth signals can be faulty and incomplete, too. These flaws can be problematic for apps that use Bluetooth signals to track proximity (meaning tracking whether a person’s phone is close to another person’s phone).
An Oxford study estimated that 60 percent of a country’s population needs to download and use the apps for them to really be effective. Only 29 percent of Americans said they’d be willing to do so. And only 14 percent said they trusted the government with their data.
However, overall, proximity tracking poses far fewer risks for privacy than collecting location data does. A location-tracking app can, for example, track where you work, where you worship, and where you spend time with your friends and family. A location-tracking app can also track when you attend a political protest or a campaign event. A centralized database with the location history of all Americans would be vulnerable to cyberattack and create potential privacy risks for all, especially BIPOC people, LGBTQ people, and other people from marginalized populations. The beauty of the Bluetooth proximity tracking system is that we avoid collecting location data and also avoid storing sensitive data on one central server.
Especially without a national contact tracing program, it is important that state contact tracing apps are interoperable — that is, that they can exchange information as if each state’s app was part of the same network. Some states have designed their contact tracing apps to interface with a national key server developed by the Association of Public Health Libraries, which allows apps from different states to exchange information with other another. This would allow people using apps from different states to still get notifications about coronavirus exposure, even when in another state or when exposed to a person from another state, regardless of which app they were using. This matters because people often travel across state lines, so digital contact tracing is only truly useful nationwide if different state apps are able to work together.
States should design apps to be as privacy-preserving as possible, not only to protect individual privacy but to encourage more people to download and use the apps. Because there is no federal guidance on how to develop and deploy contact tracing apps, some states will create apps that are both ineffective and harmful for privacy. For example, Utah has based its contact tracing app on the more privacy-invasive location tracking method.
Unfortunately, of course, even if all 50 states successfully deploy interoperable and privacy-preserving digital contact tracing apps, we are far past the point where a mass testing and tracing regime can save America from the worst of the pandemic’s effects on our society and our economy. More than 200,000 Americans have died from coronavirus. Countless more have suffered and are still suffering from long-term health effects (and, for many, the financial effects of staggeringly high hospital bills). Even the best contact tracing app cannot undo the damage this pandemic has caused to all of us. But if we don’t develop a national plan to use them, who knows what the future will look like.
Even the best contact tracing app can’t undo the damage of Covid-19. But if we don’t develop a national plan to use them, who knows what the future will look like.
That’s all to say that we cannot stop trying. We can’t afford to leave any stone unturned in the fight against the coronavirus pandemic. We must do everything in our power to protect ourselves, our loved ones, and our communities. So, if you live in a state that has rolled out a privacy-preserving contact tracing app, you should download it, particularly if the app uses Bluetooth proximity data. Similarly, if you live in an area with convenient and affordable testing, you should take advantage of it. Wherever we live, all of us should continue to wear masks, social distance and support one another in following healthy Covid-19 safety protocols.
We know by now that we cannot trust our current federal government to stop the spread of this virus. State and local governments must lead the way. Businesses and community organizations must contribute where they can. We must all do our parts — but, even while fighting this pandemic, we must take care to not lose sight of fundamental rights like privacy. Public health and privacy are both critical for our society, and we must protect both values, especially now.


msnbc--2020-10-22--A handful of federal indictments can't hide Trump's Russia weakness


msnbc--2020-10-22--Lindsey Graham's hypocrisy takes a ridiculously brazen turn

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee ignored their own quorum rules -- and the deeply held principles they pretended to care about in 2016 -- and advanced Judge Amy Coney Barrett 's Supreme Court nomination this morning .
The conservative jurist is now slated for a final confirmation vote on Monday -- literally just eight days before Election Day 2020 .
But as part of this morning 's proceedings , Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham ( R-S.C. ) thought it 'd be a good idea to deliver a little speech about how convinced he is that Republicans `` did the right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and ongoing abuse .
The South Carolinian began his remarks by reflecting on the events of 2013 , when he and other GOP senators -- in the minority at the time -- refused to consider any nominees for the D.C .
Circuit Court of Appeals , regardless of merit or qualification , because the president was a Democrat .
Senate Democrats responded by restoring majority rule to the process , and Graham this morning insisted that Republicans were the victim of what transpired .
Reality makes clear he has this backwards .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for both of then-President Obama 's first two Supreme Court nominees , conveniently skipping past his treatment of Obama 's third .
All of which led to these comments : Graham then went back to patting himself on the back for a job well done .
To be sure , in a sea of political hypocrisy , Graham already stood out for his brazenness and nihilism .
It was , after all , four years ago when the South Carolinian participated in a 10-month blockade against a high-court nominee , insisting that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an election season .
`` I want you to use my words against me , '' Graham said at the time .
`` If there 's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term , you can say Lindsey Graham said let 's let the next president , whoever it might be , make that nomination . ''
Two years later , Graham further committed to doing the right thing .
`` I will tell you this : If an opening comes in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the primary process has started , we 'll wait to the next election , '' the GOP senator publicly declared .
For emphasis he added , `` Hold the tape . ''
We held the tape .
It 's why we know Graham broke his word and abandoned his public commitment .
But there he was this morning , atop his high horse , whining incessantly about those who 'd dare try to hold open vacant Supreme Court seats until after an election , despite the fact that he insisted on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ until after an election .
`` Now we find ourselves in a situation where qualifications no longer matter '' ?
Really ?
Perhaps the senator can remind the nation whether Judge Merrick Garland 's qualifications mattered .
`` We 've lost sight that the individuals being nominated matter '' ?
Oh ?
Are we to believe that Merrick Garland -- whom a leading Senate Republican encouraged Barack Obama to nominate before the GOP 's partisan blockade -- did not deserve to be judged as an individual , too ?
The rhetoric from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ predicated on a simple assumption : that the public is easily fooled and has a tragically short memory .
If Lindsey Graham is still capable of shame , now would be an excellent time for some .

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee ignored their own quorum rules -- and the deeply held principles they pretended to care about in 2016 -- and advanced Judge Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court nomination this morning. The conservative jurist is now slated for a final confirmation vote on Monday -- literally just eight days before Election Day 2020.
But as part of this morning's proceedings, Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) thought it'd be a good idea to deliver a little speech about how convinced he is that Republicans "did the right thing" by engaging in this obvious and ongoing abuse.
The South Carolinian began his remarks by reflecting on the events of 2013, when he and other GOP senators -- in the minority at the time -- refused to consider any nominees for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, regardless of merit or qualification, because the president was a Democrat.
Senate Democrats responded by restoring majority rule to the process, and Graham this morning insisted that Republicans were the victim of what transpired. Reality makes clear he has this backwards.
The committee chairman proceeded to brag about voting for both of then-President Obama's first two Supreme Court nominees, conveniently skipping past his treatment of Obama's third.
All of which led to these comments:
"Now we find ourselves in a situation where qualifications no longer matter. It's about holding open seats to have them filled after the next election, and we've lost sight that the individuals being nominated matter. I think they do matter."
Graham then went back to patting himself on the back for a job well done.
To be sure, in a sea of political hypocrisy, Graham already stood out for his brazenness and nihilism. It was, after all, four years ago when the South Carolinian participated in a 10-month blockade against a high-court nominee, insisting that he couldn't tolerate a confirmation process during an election season.
"I want you to use my words against me," Graham said at the time. "If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination."
Two years later, Graham further committed to doing the right thing. "I will tell you this: If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process has started, we'll wait to the next election," the GOP senator publicly declared. For emphasis he added, "Hold the tape."
We held the tape. It's why we know Graham broke his word and abandoned his public commitment.
But there he was this morning, atop his high horse, whining incessantly about those who'd dare try to hold open vacant Supreme Court seats until after an election, despite the fact that he insisted on holding open a vacant Supreme Court seat until after an election.
"Now we find ourselves in a situation where qualifications no longer matter"? Really? Perhaps the senator can remind the nation whether Judge Merrick Garland's qualifications mattered.
"We've lost sight that the individuals being nominated matter"? Oh? Are we to believe that Merrick Garland -- whom a leading Senate Republican encouraged Barack Obama to nominate before the GOP's partisan blockade -- did not deserve to be judged as an individual, too?
The rhetoric from the Judiciary Committee's chairman this morning seemed predicated on a simple assumption: that the public is easily fooled and has a tragically short memory.
If Lindsey Graham is still capable of shame, now would be an excellent time for some.


msnbc--2020-10-23--Trump and Biden clash in final presidential debate

Trump says virus spikes have gone away when they have n't

Meacham: Pence probably saved the republic, but I don't always want to count on one person to do it 08:18


msnbc--2020-10-23--Trump presents range of falsehoods and lies about Covid in second presidential debate

Trump presents range of falsehoods and lies about Covid in second presidential debate
Rachel Maddow rounds up some of the untruths, misstatements and lies Donald Trump said about the coronavirus in the second presidential debate.Oct. 23, 2020