Liberal Forum

Obama Administration Rushed To Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking

In the Obama administration’s last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government.

Former American officials say they had two aims: to ensure that such meddling isn’t duplicated in future American or European elections, and to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators.

American allies, including the British and the Dutch, had provided information describing meetings in European cities between Russian officials — and others close to Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — and associates of President-elect Trump, according to three former American officials who requested anonymity in discussing classified intelligence.

Separately, American intelligence agencies had intercepted communications of Russian officials, some of them within the Kremlin, discussing contacts with Trump associates.

#ShePersisted » 11 Mar 2017 1:24 pm » wrote: No, I don't understand it at all.

On one hand you seem to be arguing that Obama knew that there was a FISA warrant that would have allowed the surveillance of Trump's phone calls, but then you yourself refer to 'the alleged FISA requests and investigations.'

How can you argue that Obama knew about any warrants or investigations, when it hasn't even been confirmed that a warrant was issued to tap Trump's phone, and we don't know if Trump himself was being investigated?

Flynn was lobbying for Turkey, his lawyer informed the transition team's lawyer, it was reported by several media outlets, and a member of Congress wrote a letter informing Pence about it.

Those are facts, not allegations.

Like I said, it strains credulity to think that Pence just found out about Flynn's dealings with Turkey this week.

I may not be very bright, but even I can connect the dots.

You seem to want to believe that Obama knew something based on a whole lot fewer dots.

#ShePersisted » 11 Mar 2017 3:15 pm » wrote:
On November 30th, 2016, Preet Bharara was called to Trump Tower and asked by the incoming POTUS and his incoming AG if would stay on in his job as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of NY.

Yesterday he was asked to resign.
He refused to resign and was fired today....

So why did they first ask him to stay and then fire him?

There Is Never A 'Free Market' In Health Care

“Where it is impossible to create the conditions necessary to make competition effective, we should resort to other methods of guiding economic activity.” - Friedrich Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, p.37

Republicans still struggle to promote a credible ownership culture largely because they refuse to wrestle honestly with the hard cases; the situations in which market forces fail to allocate value effectively.

Medical care is probably the most frustrating example since it stubbornly resists market solutions and affects everyone deeply.

Health care is not a market.

It lacks any of the vital features of a market.

Treating health care like a market means living and dying without modern medicine.

To advance a culture based on opportunity rather than government dependence, we need an alternative to state-owned health care that keeps key decisions in personal hands, preserves market triggers where appropriate, and rids us of the strangling influence of the massive federal bureaucracy.

Republicans cannot do this without abandoning some cherished fantasies about the unquestionable, divinely-ordained righteousness of markets.

In a free market, goods and services are allocated through transactions based on mutual consent.

No one is forced to buy from a particular supplier.

No one is forced to engage in any transaction at all.

In a free market, no transactions occur if a price cannot be agreed.

The medical industry exists almost entirely to serve people who have been rendered incapable of representing their own interests in an adversarial transaction.

When I need health services I often need them in a way that is quite different from my desire for a good quality television or a fine automobile.

As I lie unconscious under a bus, I am in no position to shop for the best provider of ambulance services at the most reasonable price.

All personal volition is lost.

Whatever happens next, it will not be a market transaction.

Insurance is the obvious solution.

By agreeing to a transaction for insurance coverage at a time when I am healthy, I can in theory provide for my needs when I am ill.

But an insurance-funded medical system means abandoning an unregulated free market for health care.

The insurer-model creates a three-party managed market in which the patient has surrendered their buying power and much of their discretion to an entity whose interests are not aligned with their own.

Insurance companies don’t bleed.

Insurance companies don’t get pregnant.

Insurance companies don’t get cancer.

Insurance companies have certain needs and interests that will never line up squarely with their customers'.

I cannot represent my own needs in a conflict with my insurance company when I am seriously ill.

At the most critical moment I am at the mercy of an entity with interests at conflict with my own.

Despite the misaligned interests, an insurance-based health system can work quite well.

Private insurance coverage is the method most of the world uses to deliver universal health care.

But an insurance-driven system, even with private insurers and private health providers, cannot survive under unregulated, free market conditions.

We cannot maintain an insurance-based system of health care unless there is some force aligned with the consumer that has the superior authority and financial backing to hold the insurance providers to their end of the deal.

As I lie under that bus in the road, what if my insurance company refuses to pay for my care?

What if the insurer tried to intervene in my care to their own benefit instead of mine?

What if the company with which I contracted for insurance services collapses and cannot pay for my medical care when I need it?

Absent a competent regulatory scheme, patients, at the moment in which they make their insurance purchase, have no way to be certain which provider will actually deliver on their promise.

They will only discover the answer when their life, or the lives of their family members, depend on it.

Under an insurance system without effective, powerful regulation, the market forces that would exist in a face to face transaction between consumer (patient) and supplier (doctor) disappear, replaced with a grim gamble in which the insurance company has every incentive to cheat.

Modern health care with all its fancy instruments, amazing methods, and success in extending life and happiness only exists because we started abandoning the free market in medicine a century ago.

Go back to paying your doctor with chickens and your doctor will go back to being a part-timer who learned his craft from a book so he could augment his income from blacksmithing.

Does that mean we will eventually have to submit to a fully nationalized, single-payer health system controlled entirely by the federal government?

No, the developed world includes a kaleidoscope of different approaches to health care from single-payer to almost exclusively private.

They generally deliver better care at lower cost than ours.

Alternatives to our broken system are proven, established, and readily available.

So far, Republicans have refused to even look at them.

Less government does not necessarily mean more freedom.

Lower taxes do not necessarily produce faster growth.

It takes smart government to accomplish these goals.

Sometimes it takes a government program, a new tax, and an intelligent regulatory scheme to free up the next wave of innovation and individual initiative.

One of the most frustrating obstacles to the growth of a broader entrepreneurship culture in the US is the structure of our health care system.

It punishes innovators, chains employees to traditional work, and leaves millions of struggling Americans without access to care.

We count on Republicans to deliver pragmatic, sensible solutions that foster a culture of business growth, but when it comes to health care Republicans are off their meds.

Until the GOP is ready to move past their free market fundamentalist fantasies in health care and on other issues, our hopes of developing an ownership culture will remain stalled.

Chris Ladd, former GOP Precinct Committeeman, author of The Politics of Crazy and creator of PoliticalOrphans.com

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisladd/ ... d8ab571147

Termin8tor » 12 Mar 2017 9:48 am » wrote:Because he was a partisan political hack who persecuted Dinesh D 'Souza far beyond the crime D Souza committed.
It was an abuse of power.

#ShePersisted » 28 Mar 2012 2:14 pm » wrote:Romney Pisses Off The RussiansMemo to Mitt Romney from Russia: Didn't the cold war end more than two decades ago?That pretty much sums up the reaction from many Russians today (March 28), where Mr. Romney's "enemy No. 1" jab at Moscow has been played over and over by official media, amid mounting public outrage, since he uttered it in response to President Obama's inadvertently overheard blunt political chat with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on the sidelines of a security conference in Seoul.Mr. Obama was seen making nice with Mr. Medvedev and, apparently unaware that microphones were on, asking the Russians to dial back their objections to US missile defense plans until after he's reelected in November, when "I'll have more flexibility."Romney pounced, not merely at the appearance of secret diplomacy by Obama, but seemingly at Russia itself."This is, without question, our No. 1 geopolitical foe. They they fight every cause for the world's worst actors. The idea that he has some more flexibility in mind for Russia is very, very troubling indeed," Romney said in an interview with CNN. "The idea that our president is planning on doing something with them that he's not willing to tell the American people before the election is something I find very, very alarming."While the suggestion of electoral connivance between Obama and Medvedev has made little impression in Russia, which has just been through its own carefully orchestrated presidential campaign, Romney's comments hit like a bomb."It came as a shock. You just don't expect to hear that from someone who's running for US president," says Masha Lipman, editor of the Moscow Carnegie Center's Pro et Contra journal. "I thought an enemy was a country or force that seeks to kill Americans or destroy the US, not a country like Russia that has some civilized differences, which it expresses in forums like the [United Nations] Security Council."House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) took a slight dig at Mitt Romney for criticizing President Obama while the president was out of the country.Boehner suggested it was inappropriate for Romney, the front-running GOP presidential contender, to take aim at Obama's exchange with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev."Clearly while the president is overseas, he's at a conference and while the president is overseas I think it's appropriate that people not be critical of him or our country," Boehner said in response to a question from NBC News about whether he agreed with Romney's assessment that Russia is the "number one geopolitical foe" of the United States.http://firstread.msn...ma-while-abroad

#ShePersisted » 28 Mar 2012 3:10 pm » wrote:That may be the best reason yet to vote for him. If they are afraid of losing their patsy in the White House who rolls over every time Russia barks, than I think them not liking Romney is a good thing.So you agree with Romney that Russia is Americas No. 1 geopolitical foe?MistyBlue, on 28 March 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:Idaho state Sen. Chuck Winder [R] suggested that women seeking abortions may lie about rape. Some anti-abortion activists actually believe that rape cannot result in pregnancy.Buzzfeed dug up a series of bizarre statements Republicans have made about pregnancy, rape, juices not flowing and more.See, I have a problem when people lie to support their positions. I live in Idaho and heard this statement. he didn't say women lie about rape, he said that a woman who wants to abort her baby because she was raped, should make sure if she is in a relationship with a man, that the baby isn't his instead of the rapists. Of course, that's translated by the pro-abortion screamers that women may lie about rape.Sure sounds like what he wants is for women seeking an abortion due to rape to be interrogated by their doctors.The sponsor of an Idaho mandatory ultrasound bill, state Sen. Chuck Winder, made some highly controversial comments Monday during his closing arguments, suggesting women might falsely use rape as an excuse to obtain an abortion. Just before the Idaho's Senate passed the bill, which requires woman to have an ultrasound prior to obtaining an abortion, opponents of the bill pointed out that it makes no exception for rape victims, incest victims or women in medical emergencies. Winder, a Republican from Boise, responded to those concerns by raising the question of whether women understand when they have been raped. Rape and incest was used as a reason to oppose this," Winder said on the Senate floor. "I would hope that when a woman goes in to a physician with a rape issue, that physician will indeed ask her about perhaps her marriage, was this pregnancy caused by normal relations in a marriage or was it truly caused by a rape. I assume that's part of the counseling that goes on.LinkBTW, the procedures used for parentage determination during pregnancy (Chorionic villus sampling [taking a small piece of the placenta], or Amniocentesis [collection of a sample of fluid that bathes the baby] are invasive and pose a risk to the mother and the fetus.Chorionic villi sampling may be done from the 10th through 13th week of pregnancy. Amniocentesis can be done between the 14th through 24th week of pregnancy. You expect women to wait that long to have an abortion if they were raped?

#ShePersisted » 10 Oct 2012 5:24 pm » wrote:Mitt Romney Lies to the WorldMitt Romney gave a rousing speech about how his foreign policy would be much more muscular than President Obamas. But Romney displayed again his proclivity to lie on specifics and distort the broader reality, too, writes Robert Parry.By Robert ParryWhile its true that all politicians play games with the facts, it is actually rare for a politician to be an inveterate liar. But Mitt Romney is one of that rare breed on matters both big and small. And with some polls showing his surge toward victory on Nov. 6, his dishonesty may soon become an issue for the entire world. Romneys foreign policy speech on Monday was another example of his tendency to lie on minor stuff as well as weighty issues. For instance, he claimed that President Barack Obama has not signed one new free trade agreement in the past four years though Obama secured passage of agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama and signed them in October 2011.Romney apologists suggest that the Republican presidential nominee was hanging his truthiness on the word new since negotiations on the agreements began late in George W. Bushs presidency. But the work was completed by Obama and he pushed the deals through Congress despite resistance from some of his own supporters in labor unions. So, by any normal use of the English language, Obama had signed new trade agreements, but Romney simply stated the opposite. Romney also accused Obama of staying silent in the face of street protests in Iran over the reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2009. But Obama wasnt silent. He did speak out, with his comments becoming increasingly harsh as more images of violence emerged. The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, beatings and imprisonments of the last few days, the President said on June 23, 2009. He added that he strongly condemned these unjust actions. If Romney wished to criticize Obama for not condemning Iran in even stronger terms or for not using his harshest language immediately that might be one thing, but to say, the President was silent is just a lie. More broadly, Romneys depiction of U.S. foreign policy as weak and feckless under Obama is almost the inverse from the truth. For instance, Obama helped organize an international military force to wage war in Libya, enabling rebels to overthrow longtime dictator Muammar Gaddafi, but Romney acts as if that never happened. Instead, Romney lays every foreign policy problem at Obamas door and credits others with every accomplishment, including the killings of Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders. On that topic, Romney said: America can take pride in the blows that our military and intelligence professionals have inflicted on Al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, including the killing of Osama bin Laden. But Romney gives no credit to Obama for ordering these strikes and taking criticism from many on the liberal side for his aggressive use of drone attacks. The Palestine Flip-Flop Another jaw-dropping example of Romneys dishonesty was his sudden embrace of negotiations leading to a Palestinian state after he was recorded in his infamous 47 percent speech last May as deeming such talks hopeless. I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say theres just no way, Romney told a group of wealthy donors. The Palestinians have no interest whatsoever in establishing peace and that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish. As for what the U.S. policy would be in a Romney administration, he said, we kick the ball down the field. However, on Monday, Romney declared: I will recommit America to the goal of a democratic, prosperous Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with the Jewish state of Israel. And again, all the blame for the impasse is placed on Obama: On this vital issue, the President has failed, and what should be a negotiation process has devolved into a series of heated disputes at the United Nations. In this old conflict, as in every challenge we face in the Middle East, only a new President will bring the chance to begin anew. And then, theres the traditional hypocrisy that you get from both parties but most notably from the Republicans, preaching the value of liberty and democracy but advocating ever closer ties with the oppressive monarchies of the Persian Gulf. Romney declared about Obamas approach to the Arab Spring that the greater tragedy of it all is that we are missing an historic opportunity to win new friends who share our values in the Middle East friends who are fighting for their own futures against the very same violent extremists, and evil tyrants, and angry mobs who seek to harm us. However, Romney then added, I will deepen our critical cooperation with our partners in the Gulf. Neocon Revival Besides the lies and misrepresentations in the speech, there were some genuine policy differences expressed by the Republican presidential nominee. For instance, he vowed to expand the U.S. military and to deploy it more aggressively around the globe. Romney also repeated his pledge to yoke U.S. foreign policy to Israels desires. The world must never see any daylight between our two nations, he said. And Romney renewed his belligerence against Russia, which he had previously deemed without question, our No. 1 geopolitical foe. In his speech on Monday, Romney said, I will implement effective missile defenses to protect against threats. And on this, there will be no flexibility with [Russian President] Vladimir Putin. Despite the Depression-level economic crisis gripping Europe, Romney also announced that he will call on our NATO allies to keep the greatest military alliance in history strong by honoring their commitment to each devote 2 percent of their GDP to security spending. Today, only 3 of the 28 NATO nations meet this benchmark. One might regard Romneys neoconservative revival as delusional in a variety of ways further driving the United States toward bankruptcy even as U.S. interventionism in the Muslim world would surely make matters worse but it is Romneys reliance on systematic lying that perhaps should be more troubling to American voters. Romney has long been known as a serial flip-flopper who changes positions to fit the political season, but his pervasive mendacity has been a concern since the Republican primaries when his GOP rivals complained about him misrepresenting their positions and reinventing his own. [See Consortiumnews.coms Mitt Romney: Professional Liar.] That pattern has continued into the general election campaign, with Romney telling extraordinary whoppers on the campaign trail and even during last Wednesdays presidential debate, such as when he claimed his health-care plan covered people with pre-existing conditions when it doesnt. [See Consortiumnews.coms Mitt Romney as Eddie Haskell.] Strategic Lying One reason that I criticized Romneys debate performance though many other Americans, including many Democrats, disagreed with my assessment was that I felt his lying and his squirrely behavior were more important than Obamas sluggishness. Telling lies while waving your arms shouldnt trump telling the truth in a moderate tone. Indeed, as a journalist, I simply cannot abide politicians who lie systematically, who dont just trim the truth once in a while but make falsehoods a strategic part of their politics and policies. When I arrived in Washington in 1977 as a reporter for the Associated Press, the nation had just emerged from the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal. To reassure the country that the government could be honest, President Jimmy Carter promised never to lie to the American people. But then came the Reagan administration with its concept of perception management, i.e., the manipulation of the publics fears and prejudices for the purpose of lining up the people behind new foreign adventures. A chief public diplomacy goal of the administration was to cure the American people of the Vietnam Syndrome. Thus, minor threats, like peasant uprisings in Central America, were portrayed as part of a grand Soviet strategy to invade the United States through Texas. The strength of the Soviet Union was itself exaggerated to justify a massive U.S. military build-up. Todays neocons cut their teeth of such distortions and lies. Post 9/11, with George W. Bush in the White House, this neocon strategy of fear-mongering led the United States into the debacle of the Iraq War (in pursuit of imaginary weapons of mass destruction). Now, less than a year after U.S. military forces left Iraq and with a withdrawal from Afghanistan finally underway the latest polls suggest that the American voters are shifting toward the election of another neocon President who promises more soaring rhetoric about U.S. exceptionalism and more interventionism abroad. Its almost as if many Americans like being lied to.http://consortiumnew...s-to-the-world/

Huey » 12 Mar 2017 11:18 am » wrote:

#ShePersisted » 12 Mar 2017 11:30 am » wrote:

Kasich: Look, the bill needs [to be] fixed.

The current system doesn't work.

That's why it's possible to get Democrats involved … it's not like we love Obamacare.

It means don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Don't kill Medicaid expansion, and you've got to fix the exchange, but you have to have the ability to subsidize people at lower income levels.

If you are drug addicted, if you are mentally ill, you have to consistently see the doctor.

From what I see in this House bill, the resources are not there."

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-r ... er-n732376

Huey » 12 Mar 2017 11:15 am » wrote: Whatcha think of Russian now, Misty?

#ShePersisted » 12 Mar 2017 12:20 pm » wrote: My views on Russia have never changed.
I never believed that they were our friend.

Since Romney made those comments in 2012 Russia has annexed Crimea, made military incursions into Ukraine, and hacked the emails of one of our political parties in order to interfere in our presidential election.

But Republicans who agreed with Romney in 2012 are now cozying up with Russia.

Some of them are even promoting the conspiracy theory that it wasn't Russia who hacked the DNC, but our own intelligence community.

They are bashing our own government in defense of Russia.

So if you want to accuse people of hypocrisy that would be a good place to start.

Obama was not the first president who thought that maybe we could have better relations with Russia.

President George W. Bush who went fishing with Putin, said he looked Putin in the eye and peered into his soul.

But no other POTUS has ever given Putin regular tongue baths like the guy who presently inhabits the WH does.

Journalists outraged by Tillerson's plan to travel without press.

Veteran journalists who cover the State Department say they've never seen anything like it.

The new secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, has been all but silent in his first month on the job.

And he is planning on traveling to Asia next week without the traditional coterie of traveling press with him.

Journalists are strenuously objecting to the plan.

But there is no indication that Tillerson is going to reverse course.

The State Department may allow one hand-picked journalist to tag along, but the details are unknown.

On Friday, White House press secretary Sean Spicer claimed that Tillerson was looking to save money by taking a smaller plane without room for reporters.

However, news outlets normally pay for their reporters' seats, compensating the government for the expenses.

Past secretaries normally flew with the so-called press "pool" as a matter of course, but the Trump administration seemingly wants that to stop.

#ShePersisted » 12 Mar 2017 12:20 pm » wrote: My views on Russia have never changed.
I never believed that they were our friend.

Since Romney made those comments in 2012 Russia has annexed Crimea, made military incursions into Ukraine, and hacked the emails of one of our political parties in order to interfere in our presidential election.

But Republicans who agreed with Romney in 2012 are now cozying up with Russia.

Some of them are even promoting the conspiracy theory that it wasn't Russia who hacked the DNC, but our own intelligence community.

They are bashing our own government in defense of Russia.

So if you want to accuse people of hypocrisy that would be a good place to start.

Obama was not the first president who thought that maybe we could have better relations with Russia.

President George W. Bush who went fishing with Putin, said he looked Putin in the eye and peered into his soul.

But no other POTUS has ever given Putin regular tongue baths like the guy who presently inhabits the WH does.

#ShePersisted » 12 Mar 2017 11:13 am » wrote: You didn't answer the first part of my question.
Why did Trump call him to Trump Tower on November 30th and ask him to stay on?

A political partisan hack?
He was appointed by Obama but he went after mostly Democrats.

The government in New York State is full of corruption and he was cleaning it up.

D'Souza alleged that he was selectively prosecuted and that the indictment was politically motivated, but United States District Judge Richard M. Berman rejected that contention, stating, "The court concludes the defendant has respectfully submitted no evidence he was selectively prosecuted."

#ShePersisted » 12 Mar 2017 1:36 pm » wrote:There were more than 50 incidences of plagiarism in Monica Crowley's book, and numerous passages in her PhD dissertation.

#ShePersisted » 10 Mar 2017 12:11pm » wrote: LOL. he doesn't have proof of that.
But Hannity is happy to defend the Russians over his own country without any stinkin' proof.

After all, if Sputnik said it, it must be true.

About the CIA’s Spying Techniques

Documents don’t support contention that CIA impersonates other countries to mask provenance of its cyberattacks.

WASHINGTON—The “Vault 7” trove of documents released Tuesday by WikiLeaks has been cited by commentators to claim that the Central Intelligence Agency may have been masquerading as other foreign states while conducting its cyberhacks.

The documents being cited, however, offer no smoking gun.

The idea that the CIA posed as foreign actors has gained currency among people who are using the WikiLeaks disclosure to question the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman last year in order to help elect President Donald Trump.

These political commentators and outlets are implying the campaign hacks could have been a CIA operation.

“CIA uses techniques to make cyberattacks look like they originated from enemy state.

It turns DNC/Russia hack allegation by CIA into a JOKE,” internet entrepreneur Kim Dotcom​ wrote after the release in a tweet picked up by ZeroHedge, a financial blog known for its antiestablishment worldview.

Mr. Dotcom, who founded the file-sharing website Megaupload, is wanted in the U.S. on charges including criminal copyright infringement, money laundering and conspiracy to commit racketeering.

Conservative commentator Laura Ingraham promoted the same line of reasoning in an exchange with host Sean Hannity on Fox News, claiming the leaks show U.S. intelligence agencies using countries like Russia as a scapegoat for their own attacks.

“If [CIA agents] were using specific deceptive techniques to look like the Russians, then that opens up the question…in all of this Russian conspiracy... did [the CIA] do it internally?

The same people that were leaking on Trump?” Mr. Hannity replied.

WikiLeaks tweeted the Fox News segment to its millions of followers.Infowars, an online outlet associated with the far right, ran a story titled: “VAULT 7: CIA CAN STAGE FAKE RUSSIAN HACKING TO UNDERMINE TRUMP.”

One problem: The documents WikiLeaks released on Tuesday don’t show examples of CIA operatives masquerading as any foreign actors, let alone Russian military intelligence, while conducting cyberattacks.

What they do show: The CIA appears to have a group called Umbrage that maintains a library of malware samples and techniques from external sources for agency programmers to repurpose when developing their own hacking tools.

Some of the Umbrage library appears to include pieces of malware linked to Russian criminal hackers and Chinese state actors, as well as publicly available malware, such as a program a French coder released that can take over a web camera remotely.

WikiLeaks suggested in its news release accompanying the leak the CIA is collecting these samples to leave the fingerprints of foreign actors at the crime scene of attacks and to confuse investigators.

But the documents released so far say nothing about the CIA using the Umbrage malware library to cover the tracks of an attack.

The documents say the library there is for a different purpose: to save time and money in programming.

#ShePersisted » 12 Mar 2017 1:36 pm » wrote: Monica Crowley claimed that reports of her plagiarism were 'debunked' — but they weren't.

The Anti-Trump Media’s Attack on Monica Crowley

by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY

My friend Monica Crowley was the subject of a major hit job by CNN a few weeks back. She is a serious scholar,
but she was portrayed as a serial plagiarist who never had an original idea in her head.

The emotional toll of the uproar caused her to withdraw from her appointment by President Trump to be the senior director of communications at the National Security Council.

It is the country’s loss. Over the last two decades, Monica has been one of the most effective commentators on the national scene regarding the geopolitical challenges confronting the United States, and in particular the phenomenon of jihadist terror catalyzed by sharia-supremacist ideology — radical Islam. As much as anyone I’ve encountered, she has been invaluable: communicating the threats, debating them, and defending sensible national-security measures. All writers make mistakes.
But Monica’s have been blown wildly out of proportion, to the point of smear.....

As Ms. Chu concluded:


I found CNN’s splashy “plagiarism” accusation to be ill-supported — a heavily exaggerated, political hit job.

Instead, after reading texts side by side with footnotes, I came away impressed by the very high quality and care taken by Ms. Crowley in her writing, scholarship and research overall. Many parallels in fact read on the page as rather different even if certain content or phrases were the same, and they were largely short, fragmentary, and routine.
Historical research inevitably draws heavily on the work of other scholars. Dissertations exist to synthesize. The relatively few examples of unsourced copying found was in my opinion de minimus, should just be corrected, and not allowed to besmirch Ms. Crowley’s reputation.
Read more at:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/44 ... ca-crowley