What a nice job to be a columnist! You can pontificate, analyze in depth or pretend to, play with thoughts and words, and make your valuable pronouncements on any subject. And people will read and listen! Fame, money, respect. You become important and accumulate the self-esteem. Finally, in a while, the amazing thing happens: you start believing your own opinions since you become so important. It is not even necessary to have any opinions at all. Just say something, and if you said it well enough, it might pass for an opinion. Ain't it nice? The main thing is to keep them short, sweet and on a point. In this bidniz the bigger ain't better. Some opinions are like the cheap hot dogs: when you keep them too long at a certain boiling point, they absorb water and become big, swollen, ugly, monstrous, and tasteless, and no one wants to eat them. You have to keep them slightly undercooked and juicy. Another good thing here: there are no wrong or bad opinions, and you don't have to carry the opinion malpractice insurance. Imagine, what would happen, if the opinion makers were sued for their opinions: how someone would be able to prove anything? What is the harm done? So, you can say anything you want, and get away with it. No responsibility and no culpability. People are either interested in your opinions or not. Such thing as truth is elusive and does not really matter that much. But why do people buy the opinions of others? Is it because they don't have their own, don't care, or don't know how to express them? Why do they find solace in these products? It remains a mystery. How does the commercialization of opinion making affect its content and directions? "Hey, babe, take a walk on a wild side... American Express would do nicely, thank you, listeners." If the opinions are for sale... But the world second oldest profession is still a profession. How do the editors decide what opinions are fit to print, and what are not? Is there any editorial bias in this opinion making bidniz? Why do the opinions of "The New York Times" columnists carry a greater weight, gravitas, and value than other opinions, for example? Not necessarily because they are smarter: how would you measure, quantify and compare their quality? And not necessarily because they are better written: some of them feel like a dense forest or some existential abyss, in which you are thrown in, lost, abandoned, and left all by yourself to search for the meanings, points, and the way out. Opinions are more like fruits, than hot dogs. They should be healthy. Consume them. Savor them. Classify them into the common and gourmet varieties. They are selected by the opinion mongers and opinion peddlers who need to fill up their pushcarts with these goodies. Some of these fruits are exotic, with unusual aroma or taste, the others are quite conventional, but still delicious. They puzzle and tickle our mental processes and senses with thoughts, ideas, questions, emotions, doubts, and insights. We want these Tutty Frutty, they are the essential part of our mental diet, while the cheap hot dogs, big, inflated, artificial; all that phony baloney, covered up with smelly and colorful mustard and ketchup, we can do without. Sometimes we fall for them too. But we know the real stuff when we see it. And this is my opinion. Enjoy it. Get opinionated, bubble up like a glass of Champaign. Big bubbles, no troubles!
The opinion makers are the media leaders. "1c per opinion, 2c for one, 3c for 5, or 3c for 10". Everything has its price and its market value. The "politically correct" ones are valued at a slightly higher rate. Sell them while they are still fresh and in demand. The informal power of opinion is the "push" behind the pushcart. Do not upset it. Michael Novakhov 10.28.16 | Last Update: 11.6.16
11.9.16 It started to feel that I needed to put more irony and more iron into this article. They sound similar, but these are two different words with completely different etymologies, which have nothing in common with each other: "Irony": "early 16th century (also denoting Socratic irony): via Latin from Greek eirōneia ‘simulated ignorance,’ from eirōn ‘dissembler.’" "Iron": "Old English īren, īsen, īsern, of Germanic origin; related to Dutch ijzer and German Eisen, and probably ultimately from Celtic." But whatever it is, I don't want to add a word to it, it will still be incomplete, and it is already dated. The only thing I can say is that our capacity for self-deception is immense.
M.N.: I think it only speaks to Hillary's humanity: she is a mother and the archetypal figure of The Great Mother. I think that probably many people spoke up and expressed their opinions, but in the end, we have to trust and accept Hillary's judgment and decision, which is ultimately hers. I think that she is very well aware of the situation and its possible risks and intends to manage the situation the best she can, and as she sees fit. I am sure that the situation will be watched closely by all involved, and Hillary will receive the adequate and timely information if any problems start to arise. However, it is somewhat "sad", as Huma put it herself earlier.
FBI chief James Comey told leaders in Congress hours earlier that a review of 650,000 emails discovered on a laptop belonging to Anthony Weiner had reinforced his July 5 decision to let her off the hook.
'The investigations into her crimes will go on for a long, long time,' Trump said in the Detroit suburb of Sterling Heights.
'The rank-and-file special agents in the FBI won't let her get away with her terrible crimes – including the deletion of 33,000 emails after receiving a congressional subpoena.'
'Right now she's being protected by a rigged system!' he exclaimed.
'You can't review 650,000 new emails in eight days! You can't do it, folks!'"
Do we really need these elections? Let Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump fight each other behind the gym, as they want to, the good old fashioned way. Instead of spending hundreds of millions, we can make them, by selling tickets to the World TV audience. Instead of this long, arduous, stressful process, we'll have it quick and easy. Instead of this "long national nightmare", a mixture of political theater, circus, hysteria and confusion, we'll get right down to "bidniz". But no way we'll just hand the victory to Trump, as he demands. Mr. Biden, deliver that guy Trump a nice left hook. Knock him out, once and forever, from the political life of America! What is this nonsense with closing and reopening the emails investigation, despite the objections from the DOJ? Did the non-stopattacks on the FBI Director, the threat of the rebellion from within the ranks, and the comments from the former agents, exercisingtheirundue political power and influence, as were publicized consistently by the Trump's camp, play the role in this decision? Is this recent emails controversy just another, in the series, of Russia-Trump set-ups? It looks like almost everyone feels, thinks, and knows this, except the FBI.
"The girl first reached out to Weiner on the evening of January 23, 2016, when she noticed his Twitter page allowed non-followers to contact him through direct private messages.
She told DailyMail.com she was interested in politics and had heard about his sexting scandals, and was curious to see what he was like.
It was clear from the messages that she was encouraging Weiner to engage with her in a sexual manner. She told DailyMail.com she didn't consider Weiner her boyfriend but thought the relationship [namely, just "sexting" - M.N.] was a 'romantic' one. [What a "sicko"! Or the object of manipulation - by Trump and Russians? - M.N.]
She acknowledged during interviews that she had developed an obsession with Weiner, and sought him out on Twitter in January while trying to write a book about him. She said she continued to write the book as their relationship developed."
"But in a statement he gave to The Associated Press on Wednesday he [Weiner - M.N.] said he had "likely been the subject of a hoax," and he provided an email written by the girl in which she recants her story. He also apologized, noting he had "repeatedly demonstrated terrible judgment about the people I have communicated with online and the things I have sent."
The girl, whose identity the Daily Mail didn't reveal, said she told her father and a teacher about the relationship. She said she wrote the email because Weiner asked her to but never sent it."
It is well known and documented that "a group of self-described conservatives"was hunting Weiner and his sexting for a long time. Were the Russians behind them, including late A. Breitbart?! Or was it the FBI "sting" operation? Or both, mixed together in unknown and mysterious proportions?! FBI, please release all your files on Anthony Weiner, that fit to be released, and let the public try to understand, what really happened, and who really is behind all of this, and if there was some political agenda, and possibly, some espionage activity, or both, involved in this case. Jesus, save us from these horrible and hellish suspicions and thoughts! Although these suspicions are well worthy of deep exploration, given the FBI's afflictions, the past and the recent, the known and the unknown ("Titanic" should have known the iceberg when it did not see it), with the underground animals and other maladies. It is very unlikely that it was done just for "naming and shaming" purposes. Apparently, the long range plans for this fast rising "political star" with the important connections were in the works from the beginning. The careful, meticulous advance planning and working on their targets are the well-known features of the Russian intelligence, especially the GRU, steeped in its interactions and experience with, and the appropriation of the German pedanticism. There are some parallels with another case, of the former US intelligence officer, which are also worthwhile of noticing. The blatant disinformation attempt, implying some "quid pro quo", which is also a well-known Russian habit, deserves the attention. The whole pattern of this affair: the mixture of sexual aspects, appealing to the lowly and primitive instincts and hunger of unsophisticated crowds, the use of illegally, surreptitiously obtained materials, careful advanced planning, etc., point to the footprints of Putin's style, which descend to, and are well illustrated by the Skuratov affair, that propelled Putin to power. It looks that the most recent Weiner - Trump fight started on July 27 of this year when Weiner accused Trump of his connections and financial dependence (which is a common knowledge now) on Russian oligarchs, all of whom are just the highly placed mobsters and the serfs of the Putin's government: "The banks no longer loan (Donald Trump) money because he's a terrible risk. So he goes to these (Russian) oligarchs and borrows money." The "Politifact" "could not find any evidence" of this because the informal agreements and obligations are the common practice with Russians, their officials, oligarchs, and mobsters, which carries the most sinister implications for the Trump's candidacy. Is this the same reason for the "lack of evidence" in FBI investigations? "Law enforcement officials say that none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government." This "lack" is contradicted by some professional impressionistic, and not only, accounts:
Last: but certainly not least, David Corn at Mother Jones reports the existence of a memo shared with the FBI by a former western intelligence official who now does private security work. This memo alleges that the “Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years” and that Trump “and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his Democratic and other political rivals.” According to the memo, the goal “endorsed by PUTIN, has been to encourage splits and divisions in western alliance.” Corn reports that the FBI asked for followup information from the author of the memo (meaning they considered him credible), which has been provided, but that he does not know whether the Bureau has been able to confirm or debunk its contents." Curiously enough, "the reason the FBI did not join the Intelligence Community letter accusing Russian hackers of trying to intervene in the US election is that Comey felt it was inappropriate for the Bureau to comment on a politically salient matter so close to the election." It is also curious, how easy it is apparently, to use the foil and the counter-accusations of “the new McCarthyism”. Trump, a puppet of the Russian KGB, engages in the crude disinformation campaign, targeting the naïve morons, very much like himself (the only difference is that he has his own, clear ulterior motive: money), the example of which can be this piece, a reminiscence of the best efforts of the Russian Stalinist propaganda. The clear connection between Trump's campaign and the Russian intelligence, engaging in cyber-thefts, collections of "kompromat", blatant propaganda through Russian government's information channels, such as "Sputnik" and "RT', and possibly the wide range of other activities, that we might not be fully aware of, makes them practically a single information-intelligence entity, created under the guise of the free democratic elections. The failure, on the part of the FBI, to investigate and to address this issue of brazen interference into the American political process and elections fully and head-on might be viewed in itself as a dereliction of duty and the prosecutable criminal omission. And I certainly hope that this grave error of omission, probably much more significant than the clearly orchestrated Mrs. Clinton's "emails crisis", will be prosecuted fully and soon. "Trump and his campaign have also spread propaganda created as part of the Kremlin's effort, relying on bogus information generated through traditional Russian disinformation techniques. In one instance, a manipulated document was put out onto the internet anonymously by propagandists working with Russia; within hours, Trump was reciting that false information at a campaign rally. The Trump campaign has also spread claims from Sputnik, another news outlet identified by American intelligence as part of the Russian disinformation campaign. For example, almost immediately after the posting of an article by Sputnik attacking this Newsweek reporter, the Trump campaign emailed a link to the piece to American reporters, urging them to pursue the same story... Western intelligence and law enforcement say tens of thousands of people have been working with Russia on its hacking and disinformation campaign for many years. They include propagandists and cyber-operatives stationed in Moscow, St. Petersburg and Novosibirsk, located in the southwestern part of Siberia. Operations have also been conducted in the United States, primarily out of New York City, Washington D.C. and Miami. Those involved include a large number of Russian emigres, as well as Americans and other foreign nationals. Intelligence operations in Europe and the U.S. have determined that the money these emigres receive for their work is disguised as payments from a Russian pension system. One U.S. official says there is evidence many of these Americans and foreign nationals do not know they are part of Russia’s propaganda operation." The failure on the part of the FBI to investigate in-depth, fully and without any bias, the connection between the Russian intelligence (and/or in conjunction with other foreign services), despite the clearly present clues, with the terrorist activities on the US soil, apparently, in accordance with the Obama Administration's general ideological guidance, might also imply the potential elements of criminal culpability. "We do not operate on innuendo", unless these "innuendos" are fully investigated and turn out some credible and actionable evidential proves, at least circumstantial, which, in my view, in some cases, are almost easily seen. Otherwise these "innuendos" will continue to operate on us, with no end in sight. Mr. J.E. Hoover is spinning in his grave, many times over.
Returning to our muttons:
"I know Anthony Weiner well", Trump responded ominously to Weiner's allegations, and then the rest unraveled. Such is the story with the Weiner's sexting and the emails, which is, of course just a tip of an iceberg. To find the rest of it, look in the right direction: deep underwater, not up to the sky; and not to the political sideways, our most beloved FBI. Investigate Trump in the utmost depth, now and later, regardless of the elections. The public announcements regarding this investigation can be delayed until the less sensitive time, to avoid the accusations of interference, but its importance cannot be underestimated. Release his multivolume FBI file, along with this recent batch of the emails that are suitable for the release. As Mrs. Clinton said, "put it all on the table!"As you rightly did with the release of the previous batches. Let the American people judge and decide by themselves if the FBI is not capable or willing to do so. The "real bombshell" might turn out to be just an empty shell, except the noise, confusion and the smokescreen of the FBI politicization.
We know who won these elections, anyway: Putin did. Mr. Comey, charge him for meddling in the US elections, it is about time. Bring up some heavy charges, find the proves (yours is the Bureau of Investigation, not the Bureau of "we don't know yet"), extract him from Russia by a drone, and slap him with these charges, hard. There are no emails left that he did not steal, no doubts left that he did not sow, no lies and poison left that he did not inject into the American political process. There is another, and probably the most important aspect of this story: "the third side", which completes and closes the "Bermuda triangle" of this autumn of our political discontent. It is very unlikely that Mrs. Clinton's election chances will be significantly affected or hurt by these recent email revelations, and it is most likely that she will be elected our next President. However, the new information, enhanced by the publicity around it, raises the questions about the security risks, associated with Ms. Abedin and her extraordinary ("the second daughter") closeness to Mrs. Clinton. With these (and probably other, that we might not know much about) security risks exposed, isn't it advisable for our future President to review this relationship? This process might hurt on a personal level, but the risks involved have to be addressed and resolved, the consideration should be given to the appropriate options. It would not be surprising if many people felt that Ms. Abedin should consider tendering her resignation from the position of the closest aide to Mrs. Clinton.
He endured and still endures the wild storm of criticism in this "Bermuda triangle", without being able to articulate and to share his thinking and plan publicly. I think we all owe him an apology. "Decency often has to be its own reward". "Comey has proved to be the quintessential bureaucrat, always focused on protecting his own back. That seems to be Comey’s prime motivation and appears to be fueling his intense drive to appear completely “transparent.”" Wrong. This is the easiest and the most superficial assessment to make, although it probably is the most commonly held one. How do you know what his "prime motivation" is, are you able to read his mind? I say that his "prime motivation" is the security of the country, regardless of the criticism from either and any camp. I think that his "prime motivation" is to preventHuma Abedin from becoming another Valerie Jarrett or worse. We do not need the Rasputins, of any gender, persuasion, way, shape, or form anywhere near the Oval Office. Disprove it if you can.
"Those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it. Valerie Jarrett’s hold over President Obama is as mysterious as it has proven dangerous. We do not need another Jarrett in the person of Huma Abedin..." "If Hillary Clinton somehow wins on November 8, and absent any further legal troubles, Huma Abedin would presumably assume the same role as Valerie Jarrett does in the Obama administration. Valerie Jarrett undoubtedly had significant input into President Obama’s Munich-like deal with Iran..." "Just who is Huma Abedin?" She does remain a mystery. "Abedin’s public image is pure projection. “She wasn’t that interesting a person,” the source said. “She has been turned into a myth.” ...documentary, this year’s “Weiner,” was most shocking for its depiction of Huma Abedin as a political animal, bloodless in her ambition...
As her marriage collapses in sordid public fashion, as her boss’ lifelong, historic ambition is suddenly endangered by a mushroom cloud Abedin helped create, her very relationship with Hillary Clinton possibly, irrevocably over — her whole life, really, a conflagration — Huma continued to smile for the swarming press, hair and makeup perfect, her toddler son alongside her, still unknown to us all. And, perhaps, to herself."
The following are my personal, and not necessarily "professional" impressions, based on the watching of this videotape. She is cold, calculating, manipulative, does not always, maybe often, tell the truth, and does not even know what this truth, especially the emotional one, is: she does not understand her true feelings and the true feelings of others very well, she is not burdened with the excess of sometimes stressful insight. She is an actress, a performer, (and not a very good one at this either, emotional depth is a prerequisite of good acting), presenting her public image, which is her first and the most important for her concern. Her true self, which is not very deep or complex, is hidden from herself and others. Not very intelligent but studious and persistent. I doubt that she is really able to love others, with the very few, maybe just two exceptions: her mother and Mrs. Clinton. I think that she is fiercely competitive with men (which might have been her reaction to her parents expecting and preferring a male child, as it often is in the Muslim families), to the point of being "castrating": coldly, condescendingly emasculating. This was evident from her interactions, or rather just the body language, directed towards her husband: the repetitive shrug of the shoulders, the aside glance: "it is not really my fault, it is his". Sadness - maybe, but no true regret and no feelings of guilt about the end of the relationship, which was readily put on display, as if it were a part of her professional political duties, no true and deep emotions, no affective tensions or waves, expressed or restrained, just the ripples on the surface of water. He looked sincerely guilty and regretful and appeared to be in pain. She was not, just a flare of passing, as if inevitable, predestined, pre-known to her, disappointment. Her "emasculating", "putting down" behavior towards him probably was a factor in his (pathological otherwise) impulse to put his manhood and masculinity on display, as if in protest, as if in defense against her subtle but deadly psychosexual aggression and to reaffirm his value, not as a human being as much, but as the possessor of penis, his only and useless now emotional and psychosexual weapon, of which its external, seductive, helpless, protesting, defiant, almost desperate display was its only use left for him. In other words, she was the very likely facilitator, the provoker, and the enabler of his exhibitionistic impulses and behavior, clearly destructive, but irresistible to him as the ways and means of his emotional self-affirmation and survival. I do not think that their relationship, including the sexual aspects of it, was a very happy one from the beginning. Her sexual, and maybe related to it emotional coldness, might have been, among the other factors, the result of the female circumcision, which was possibly performed on her in this strictly religious Sharia family. It is very unlikely that he would engage in his exhibitionistic behavior as a psychological defense if their relationship was healthy in all its aspects. The need to substitute the "existential", real life essences with the "appropriate" political appearances probably is a universal and sometimes a tragic feature of many political marriages, especially the arranged ones, as it looks, to a certain degree, in this case. What probably is the most important and the "psycho-political" aspect, love for her is connected inextricably with power and approval, and first of all with the external vestiges of power: fame, status, money, etc. She works hard to win this "power as love substitute" and values its rewards. With all this, these impressions are just the subjective psychological impressions (not necessarily "professional" or even well enough informed, any person may have and share his or her impressions, if they so wish) and they should not be ascribed the deadening "scientific" certainty which they cannot have by their very nature. The accompanying issue of personal privacy is practically non-existent and not applicable in politics, it is a see through for all glass house, and for the good reasons of public benefits and rights to be adequately informed. Not that the politicians do not fight against and do not try to protect themselves fiercely from these rights, with all the means at their disposal, not the inconsiderable ones; but largely unsuccessfully, at least in the Western world. "Highest glass ceiling remains intact after Clinton's stunning loss" "We have still not chattered that highest and hardest glass ceiling", said Hillary Clinton in her concession speech on 11.9.16. The political scientists and operatives still have not shattered it either with their deep and incisive analysis of the inextricable connections between the politicians' personalities, their private lives, and their politics, beyond their false opinion polls, their own false opinions, and their own false prophesizing; although the glass houses of politicians privacy are relentlessly bombarded every day by the sensations hungry media, with the purposes no other than to entertain and to amuse the public and to earn their chattering keep. The opinion polls with 2-3% of difference in favorability ratings, and with 2-3% margin error are meaningless, but they are meaningless most and first of all because their samples are not representative of voters: the groups that are willing to be polled are not the same as the groups that are going to vote but are not willing to be polled. Besides this, these polled opinions are as fickle and changeable as a summer breeze. The questions are: are there political and security risks in this Clinton - Abedin relationship, and what are they? The risks are clearly present, they have already materialized, to a degree; regardless, if they were induced by the outside players, which is very likely, or not. But the risks are just the risks, their future impacts are unknown and might be related to a variety of factors. Any reasonable and/or "informed" predictions and prognostications are always risky by themselves, if possible at all. It would be much better if this particular set of risks was not in a picture, but it can and will be dealt with like any other set of risks if the need arises. The issue is the extent of the potential future damages, which became quite evident even at this stage. This "assessment" is vague, circuitous and unsatisfactory, but that's how it is. The Clinton - Abedin relationship appears to be a mirror image of Obama - Jarrett relationship: Barak is Valery's "baby", she possibly is his mother's emotional substitute, and Huma is Hillary's "baby", her "second daughter", whom she was induced to love, to help and to protect. The sexual aspects, despite the extreme closeness, are likely to be absent in both, there is no need for it, the emotional bonds are overwhelming and all-absorbing. The mirror-image parallels and the almost seamless continuity in these two relationships are so striking, as to induce thinking about some possible if mysterious, visible or "invisible hand" design, although it is more likely that it is just the "lucky" happenstance. Although it is hard to get rid of the nagging silent question: did our Big Sister Valery, apparently the most consummate myth-breaker and myth-maker, get so fascinated with the new material for her Pygmalionistic endeavors, that she decided to perpetuate her pattern and design in accordance with the old celestial example? Does she plan to copyright or patent it? It might not be that surprising. It also might not be surprising that "Barack Obama’s chief adviser, Valerie Jarrett, has urged the president to fire FBI Director James Comey, according to a source close to Jarrett... It’s no secret that Obama harbors contempt for the FBI director. As quoted in “Guilty as Sin,” Obama fumes to Jarrett that appointing Comey was his “worst mistake as president.” In what looked like a concerted effort to call for Comey’s head, Nancy Pelosi, the minority leader in the House of Representatives, suggested that Comey might be removed from his post, saying in an interview with CNN, “Maybe he’s not in the right job." It looks and feels that Mr. Comey knew this (the alleged connections of Abedin with "Moslem Brotherhood" and possibly about the other connections) and probably about many other aspects and circumstances of this episode, that we do not know about, and this might have been his thinking, considerations, and plans, which he in no way will share with the public. He probably looks already beyond the elections and intends not to repeat the Bureau's previous mistakes and omissions. Unless these are my fantasies and wishful thinking, with the reality being much simpler, if there is such a thing as a "simple reality" in the enormously complex American politics. Unless, and it remains a question, (I do not know him and about him sufficiently in the tiniest degree) he lacks J.E. Hoover's depth, cunning, and above all the dedication and the all-consuming loyalty to the country and his duties, and was chosen exactly for these qualities, namely the easy manageability, by his superiors. He might have employed the Obama's ultimate and omnipotent weapon, the skillful masking, too - (and this is the third explanation), to outdo his nominal boss. I hope that the first, the main explanation and "insight" are the correct ones. Machiavellianism has its inherent limitations as the explanatory and the interpretative paradigm.
If "we don’t operate" on the "innuendos", the "innuendos" will operate on us. If we allow them. Congratulations, Mr. Comey! You are the Very Special Agent In Charge, and the one smart little devil, that the FBI Director should be, but, of course, with the most loving, caring and fair angel deep at heart. The Nation should appreciate it. The situation is so "deliciously" complex and complicated that I am not sure myself, what is more in this statement: seriousness or irony. Jim, (if I may address you by your first name), if anything, you are too good, and you should be more of a devil, I think; probably much more. And this, I know, I feel absolutely seriously about. To stay somewhat ironical, however: the need for the utmost professionalism, in addition to the political impartiality, is greater than ever these days. There is a lot that is expected of the FBI, and they have to meet these expectations and to deliver to the country, no less efficiently than the postal service.
Let them resign!After this scandal that they have caused. Resign now! It is much better than to split and to destroy the organization (probably for nothing else but their own selfish career goals). The FBI will only be strengthened, cleansed and purified after these resignations. The FBI has nothing to do with ideology and politics, it has all to do with the honest service. If you have your irreconcilable "ideological or political" differences, then resign and go promote your ideology anywhere you want. The FBI is the paramilitary type of organization, and this "mutiny" is in fact, the insubordination and it is tantamount to blackmail. The question is, was this "mutiny" organized deliberately and on purpose? Who are its leaders? The former retired agents? Mr. Horowitz, the IG for the FBI, please look into this. This issue has to be investigated and resolved. It is too serious to leave it without the attention and without the follow-up. It looks like the FBI is due for a generational rotation. The "Leakers Should Shut Up", said Podesta. Or to be fired and to be prosecuted. Before taking care of others, the FBI should take care of its own. This behavior raises very poignant questions about the state of morale, discipline, and supervision in the FBI. If the agents allow themselves this type of behavior, how do they handle the other issues and investigations? Is it not one of the very important reasons for the dire state of the domestic security in the country? It looks that the FBI became a runaway train, where the discipline and moral values are not reinforced, and where the agents feel that they can do whatever the heck they want. It also looks that they exploit and misuse Comey's goodness and trust. If Mr. Comey is more of a loving and permissive father rather than a strict disciplinarian, he should hire the one as his deputy (ex-Commissioner Bratton comes to mind as one of the possible candidates, for example), who would not have any problems kicking his agents' nice cute little asses when they deserve it, and even when they do not. This will fix things very fast. The FBI agents should serve the country, not their selfish interests and their psychopathic needs, as they often do.
It is not James Comey who is the problem. He is just doing his job. He had to do what he did, in the very unfortunate, extremely difficult circumstances which were not under his control, and with the very limited range of choices. Do not displace and substitute the issues. Do not kill the messenger. Do not bite and kick the hands that guard you, in your childish anger. I do not believe at all, not in the slightest degree, that his letter to Congress was the intention to affect the outcome of the elections. I also do not believe that he was just trying to protect his back. His motivation has to be understood correctly. The President expressed confidence in him, as could be assumed from his press-secretary words, although later he did backtrack somewhat, in this interview. “I do think that there is a norm that when there are investigations we don’t operate on innuendo, and we don’t operate on incomplete information, and we don’t operate on leaks,” he said. The "innuendos" operate on us if we allow them. Later, the President expressed his confidence in Mr. Comey directly, and in less equivocal terms: "Obama calls Comey a 'good man,' says he does not believe he is trying to tip the election" There is no evidence of impropriety, the application of the Hatch Act might not be as clear-cut as it sounds. These are very difficult times for all involved, and for the FBI and its Director especially. They do need public support. Comey did the right thing. His letter to Congress should not be read as the act of betrayal or backstabbing, it is simply a notice, as promised, of the newly discovered circumstances and the renewal of investigative activities, which, in and by itself does not mean much yet. All this has to be put in a proper and correct perspective, without the unneeded hysteria, and it has to be explained to the public and to the voters, in clear, simple and accessible terms. Those who are capable and willing, will understand this, those who are not, will hold tenaciously to their biases anyway. The most important and salient question, which is lost in the emotional waves and the details of this discussion, is: how the 650,000 emails got into the Abedin-Weiner's computer? This is what, I think, the FBI should concentrate and work on. Before we prosecute, which should not be a goal in and by itself, we, first of all, should attempt to understand what really happened.
The crescendo of the furious criticismof the FBI and Mr. Comey personally, questions about the timing of his letter, and the calls for his resignation in the last few days, with the very fewvoices in his defense, reached the degree of intensity and rage which was unseen in the recent times. This episode raises again the old, unrelated to the elections issues and questions about what the FBI is and how it functions, and also, of course, the issue of the need for the deep structural and operational reform of the FBI, its institutional culture, functioning, and moda operandi. Welcome to Trumplandia, where feelings trump facts! "The currently serving FBI agent said Clinton is “the antichrist personified to a large swath of FBI personnel,” and that “the reason why they’re leaking is they’re pro-Trump." The new question, among the others, that is added by the recent events is: how well is Mr. Comey able to control the FBI and his agents, and also about the role and the informal power of the upper echelons of the former FBI agents, many of whom are the irrational and rabid Clintons-haters, most notably James Kallstrom, who is known for his somewhat unusual friendship with Trump, and it is not just Mr. Kallstrom alone. The roots of this disorder remain deep mystery to me, as the completely independent outsider (and intending to stay this way, with the invaluable benefits of the observations from the vantage point of the side of the road), and maybe, to a certain degree, as a critic and a "partial antagonist" (from "in part", otherwise - impartial). The undue power and influence of the former FBI agents, and their direct role in the war-like anti-Clinton activities are underscored by the fact that R. Giuliani received an advanced notice about the reopening of the emails investigation, which indicates, to a certain degree, that it might have been orchestrated by them, at least in part: “I did nothing to get it out; I had no role in it,” Giuliani said. “Did I hear about it? You’re darn right I heard about it, and I can’t even repeat the language that I heard from the former FBI agents.” Do they think that they are entitled to run the country from the shadows, from behind the scenes? Do they think that they can meddle with impunity into some of the most important decision makings? Do they think, in their usual, sly, underhanded and grandiose way, that they are uniquely qualified, professionally, intellectually and morally to be the judges and the arbiters, and also the malevolent actors, inserting themselves into the political processes? I very much doubt that they are. I think, humbly, that these questions should become the focus of the intent, deep, and objective Congressional inquiry, the only forum which would be able to answer them. Were there any cooperation and coordination between the Weiner's "sexting" investigation and the hypothetical Russian, direct, or through the intermediaries, dumping of 650000 emails into the Weiner-Abedin's computer? That's the question! This cooperation and coordination might have been not necessarily open, verbal and by "official agreement", but implied, through the non-verbal understanding of the situation and the potential significance of this dumping. Was this issue adequately addressed and investigated? If any, at least the circumstantial evidence of such cooperation and coordination is found, in addition to timing, which can be viewed as an evidence in and by itself (!), the implications are enormous. It would imply the nefarious and treacherous act of working together with the hostile foreign power. FBI's apparent lack of interest in investigating Trump and his ties to the Russian mob and intelligence services is met by the rightful skepticism by many people and in many quarters, and by the outright allegations of wrongful favoritism and practicing "the clear double standards" by such prominent politicians as Sen. Harry Reid. "Comey knew that the FBI is not only a leaky sieve but there were people within the FBI actively working—actively working—to try to help the Trump campaign," Kaine said in an interview with Fusion. "This just absolutely staggering, and it is a massive blow to the integrity of the FBI."
"We can only guess at the motives of the FBI agents behind this politicization of law enforcement, but their behavior is sickening." All this raises questions and concerns, including the far-reaching suspicions and implications. Is there the pro-Trump and the pro-Russian "conspiracy" within the FBI? As the mass, not the elite security organization, FBI would be the easiest to infiltrate, in comparison with the other intelligence services, as its past and more recent history suggests and illustrates. The rate of psychopathology among the FBI agents, because of nature, traditions, and specifics of its work and its workforce might be significantly higher than in the other services. I am not aware of any studies of this issue and any attempts to address it. This is a side issue, but the important one. "James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director, faced a dilemma on Thursday when deputies briefed him about the discovery of a trove of emails that might be linked to the inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s private email server that was closed months ago. Mr. Comey could immediately inform Congress about the emails, which were found in an investigation into former Representative Anthony D. Weiner. That unusual step, months after Mr. Comey had cleared Mrs. Clinton of any criminal wrongdoing in the email case, would risk accusations that he was unfairly harming her presidential campaign less than two weeks before the election. Or he could delay any announcement and examine the new emails more closely, risking criticism that he had suppressed important new information if it came out after the election, despite his pledges of “transparency” in the investigation." The questions are: How balanced and adequate were the briefing and advice that Mr. Comey received from his deputies whom apparently, he absolutely trusted and on whom he absolutely relied? Was there the excessive sense of urgency in their report? Was there any covert bias? Were his deputies influenced to a certain degree by Trump's criticism and exhortations? How objective were they? Trump's daughter-in-law claimed that Trump "forced the Comey's hand". Is there any truth in it? Was his hand forced in any way? Were the alternative opinions expressed? What is the degree of tolerance for the alternative opinions in general? How well was he served by their advice? After all, it is not them who became the targets of the present "sound and fury", it is him alone. These interesting questions might matter little: he gave his word to the Congress, and he felt that he had to keep it. Comey would not be Comey, if he did not feel this way. Nevertheless, it is difficult not to entertain these questions, sometimes the nuances and the half-tones do matter. "Mr. Comey, who must flourish or fail by the respect in which his agents hold him, revived the thrill of their chase when a federal case against the aforementioned ex-congressman developed, and now the F.B.I. was on the hunt again." "If we’ve learned anything from the last week, it’s that “the FBI” isn’t a single entity trying to do a single thing — it’s rife with internal disagreements and power struggles playing out through leaks to the press. The non-revelation of the Marc Rich documents shows that the FBI’s lack of control and self-discipline is total... It would have been so easy for the FBI to exercise a little more discipline to keep itself from becoming the story yet again." Mike Morell:"And I think he did it with the intent of protecting his organization and trying to keep his organization out of politics but the effect has been just the opposite. And now people are now questioning his integrity, they're questioning the integrity of the FBI, they're questioning whether this is an independent organization," he said. "I feel sorry for him but he made the wrong decisions here." All in all, the issues are the degree of cohesion within the organization, the strength of its truly apolitical stance, all-important institutional culture with the adequate intellectual component, common sense, wisdom, responsibility, and the true sense of loyalty to the leader. It is easy to make these comments post factum. However, in the organization like the FBI, the ability for the foresight and correct prognostication should matter. A lot.
"The word "humble" in this context looks especially ironic when used as an abbreviation at the outset of a rant. Even when it's used politely, though, a more accurate description of the meaning of IMHO might be "although that's just my own opinion."
My humble opinion: No, Mr. Comey should not resign, and he should not be fired, this might bring even greater instability, confusion, and dysfunction. I think that he should stay on and that he should make the maximum of efforts to clean up "the mess", and to put his house in order. "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't". “He’s got to get control of the ship again,” said Robert Anderson, a former senior official in the FBI who considers Comey a friend. “There’s a lot of tension in the organization, and there’s a lot of tension in Congress and the Senate right now, and all that counts toward how much people trust the FBI.” The public trust has to be restored: "...the institution I’m lucky enough to lead depends upon the American people believing that we are honest, competent and independent", said Comey. This crisis brought forward and to the surface not the mythical, sucked out of a finger, artificially created, formal, complying with the letter of the law rather than its spirit, and inflated problems with Mrs. Clinton's emails (blaming the owner, rather than the thief, who stole them), but the deep, long-standing, very dangerous, as a real threat to democracy, problems with the FBI itself, which were long ignored and neglected, and now demand the urgent and very serious attention.
Please, forgive me, Mrs. Clinton, if I sound too forceful in this opinion, and with all due and very sincere respect, I think (and probably many, many other people think the same way), that in the light of all these circumstances, Ms. Abedin should be cut off completely. And it looks like the time to do this is now, without waiting and regardless of the outcome of the investigation. If innocent of the suspicions brought on by the reopening of the investigation (not charges yet, and it might not even come to them), she can be happily on her way and could continue her life any way she chooses, but her intentions, plans, ambitions, and motivation, and also the ability to make her way to the highest circles and levers of power, are highly suspicious and questionable, at least to me , and probably to many other people. Not because she is a child of the emigre parents (I am an immigrant myself and can understand better than anyone else the love and appreciation of the country by the people of this background), and not because she is a Muslim, which is simply irrelevant, and not because of her origins, but due to some ultimate, final sum of all these and other factors, known and unknown, which is greater than its parts, whatever vague, ill-defined, imprecise and uncertain this reasoning is. Personally, I do absolutely trust you, but I absolutely do not trust her, and apparently, she does exercise a lot of influence and she might accumulate a lot of power, with the potential for misuse and/or untoward effects. The American people will protect, defend and help you in your work, they are much more important than any, even the most valuable, personal associate and assistant. This little article in this little blog with its very limited circulation, will not affect in any way your election chances, otherwise, I would not publish it. It simply is some kind of thinking out loud, mostly the "notes to myself". It appears that Ms. Abedin's influence is excessive, and potentially she might be almost just as much of a threat to the National Security as Trump is, although in a very different way. Even the appearance or the potential of such a threat, whatever hypothetical and unproven, has to be avoided, especially in today's conditions of acute polarization in society and the very real attempts to undermine and subvert it from abroad. The other side of this hellish coin is the scent of witch hunt and unfairness, or even slander, reminding people of the days of McCarthyism, deeply revolting to them, and as contrary to the American spirit as it could get. Trying to balance this very complex and difficult equation, it seems to me that the precious credit of undoubting public trust, the safety of the country and its people, America's standing in the world, and the assured freedom from all and any attempts at the interference, present and future, especially covert, skillful and hidden, etc., etc. do outweigh mightily all and any other considerations. The puzzling, almost tragic case of Gen. Petraeus, among the others, comes to mind. In the present conditions, when America is practically in a state of intelligence war with her adversaries (open and masked), it is difficult or even impossible to be overcautious. The obligations and demands of the High Office negate all the other concerns. To put it as simply and concisely as possible, in one word, it would feel safer. With all this, it is, of course, strictly your own decision and choice. I think people just worry about the possible future troubles or problems related to this personnel choice. It very well might be that you know about all this much more and better, and your own thinking, feelings, and reasoning are sounder than the one of the outsiders. I have just tried to express my own "humble opinion", whatever it is worth because I felt some type of an obligation to do it. Thinking and speaking about our immediate past, I feel that we do not need to be thrown from one nightmare right into another. I think people had enough of this nonsense. Yes, very dangerous, self-defeating, masochistic, treacherous, artificially constructed ideological nonsense! This is not the expression of the anti-Muslim sentiment, not at all; there is no bias here, this is exclusively the security consideration, along with the concerns about the cultural integrity of the country, which is just as important as its security. The immigrants probably have the greater propensity to worry about these issues, more than the native-born Americans, possibly because of their deeply ingrained memories and emotions, and the view of America as the ultimate asylum and the bastion of safety, fairness, and security.
The real problem, which is a general erosion of domestic security, is not going away, elections or not, and regardless of who is the FBI Director. The problem apparently, as it has surfaced recently, is the security vulnerability. Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner might have been used deliberately, unknowingly, "unwittingly" by the hostile foreign forces, possibly aligned with Trump, to tarnish the Clinton candidacy, in the same vein as the previous emails issues. Trump called for the emails to be released and dumped, sarcastically or not, and they obliged and did this, with the hateful, sadistic, condescending satisfaction and pleasure: "The man asked for it, so why shouldn't we..."
The emails might have been stolen by the Russians and simply dumped into the Abedin-Weiner's computer. The 650,000 of them is a huge (as Trump would say, "really hooooge") amount, and this quantity might have been a part of the taunting hint: "Yes, this is we, who did it!" Just like before, when they, most likely, made the large quantities of these emails available to the Wikileaks. And now as a substitute for them, after Assange was neutralized, they use the new (How "new"? That's the question.) actors, and witting and/or "unwitting" intermediaries, whose involvement would bring the maximum of damage to Clinton's campaign. It looks very unlikely that such a massive amount of emails could be copied by hand and by one or two persons. It was convincingly observed that if Weiner "sent or received 200 emails a day, 365 days a year–a considerable number!–it would take 3,250 days, or just about nine years, to accumulate 650,000 on the laptop’s hard drive. It is not clear–to me, anyway–what would cause such a large number of emails to reside on the laptop, absent some sort of bulk downloads." The nature of this "operation" is consistent with the previous pattern of the Russian involvement, as was strongly hypothesized by the US intelligence community.
The claims to the contrary, recently expressed, are suspicious by themselves as possible disinformation and the attempt to change and to influence the public perception and opinion: "The question isn’t whether Russia spied on the U.S. presidential election, it’s whether it released the election emails." What difference does it make, who released them, if they stole these emails? They could have given them to anyone for the inconspicuous or not so inconspicuous release. "On Monday, the Shadow Brokers released more information, including what they claimed is a list of hundreds of organizations that the NSA has targeted over more than a decade, complete with technical details. This offers further evidence that their information comes from a leaker inside the NSA rather than the Kremlin." I do not understand why this "list with technical details" is more indicative of the "NSA leaker". "The Kremlin" might have this list just as well, through the "NSA leaker" or from any other source. Too many words and too little sense in this article, it seems to me. To put it bluntly, do not try to f*** our brains, sir! "The views expressed in this article are not those of Reuters News"; but the question is how this variation, rather superficial, on the themes of the Russian propaganda, made its way into such a respectable news outlet as Reuters. The broader problem is that it is not only Reuters but many other publications that became the targets of the Russian information war and disinformation campaigns. I guess, these are the realities and the very real dangers of the predominantly commercial approach to the distribution of news and information, while our government sources, with their multi-million dollar funding, and though still acceptable overall quality, are reduced to inefficiency and toothless pseudo-objectivity. But let us return to our subject. It looks that the Weiner's "sexting" investigation and the hypothetical dumping of emails into his computer (we do not know when exactly it occurred), were carefully coordinated. His, and/or others' putative "unwittingness" does not reduce the extent of the potential security vulnerability, and if anything, emphasizes this concern: any "unwitting" person, chosen by the real perpetrators for their own reason, could become a target and the conduit of their activities. This is a real, almost nightmarish danger. The "witting" participation is, of course, a completely different story.
There is a lot of work for the FBI to look into all of this, when, hopefully, they will free themselves from the shackles of unnecessary, counterproductive, if only invisible, or not so invisible politicization and other problems which surfaced in this crisis. This autumn of our discontent should resolve into the glorious, cathartic (cleansing, purifying) summer of understanding and healing, made, among the others, wittingly or unwittingly, but in accordance with some higher will, working in its mysterious ways, "by this son of York". That's how it looks; seriously, ironically, and/or both.
Trump continued his incitement: "The investigation will go on, the rank-and-file special agents won't let her get away with her terrible crimes," he told supporters in Sterling Heights, Michigan, on Sunday night. Trump: "Mother Russia, where are you?!"
Mike Nova
