TygrBright
TygrBright's JournalWhen the dust settles in Ukraine
Zelenskiiy, the Ukrainian government, and the Ukrainian military have said from the day the Russian invasion began, that it will be over when every bit of Ukrainian territory is free of Russian control. Some, even knowledgeable political and military analysts, assumed that was a negotiating tactic, propaganda for domestic morale, etc., and that ultimately Ukraine and Russia would negotiate an end to hostilities that would leave Russia in control of some part of Ukraine.
It now seems more likely that a) It will be over when every bit of Ukrainian territory is free of Russian control; and b) that may happen a lot sooner than the knowledgeable military and global geopolitical analysts imagined it could be accomplished.
Slava Ukraini, indeed.
So the world better begin planning now, for the aftermath of this war.
The rebuilding of Ukraine is the most obvious challenge. They have been literally bombed back to the Stone Age in large parts of their Eastern territory. Population has been massively displaced, almost all resources will be depleted, agricultural production capacity substantially diminished, infrastructure destroyed and/or seriously degraded, and economic and social capabilities across all sectors significantly reduced.
The Ukraine government, to the extent it can spare capacity right now to think and plan ahead for the massive rebuilding that will be required, has signaled a desire to reconstruct as a "green state" - implementing environmental reconstruction and building stewardship and sustainability into everything from infrastructure to economic development. This is an important goal, but without support from the rest of the world its achievement could be delayed or even denied in some respects.
Those parts of the world that value principles of human progress, civilization, and cooperative/collaborative models of geopolitical interaction have promised help to Ukraine, and that's wonderful. However, as anyone who's ever run a disaster reconstruction effort knows, there's meaningful assistance with regard to the needs, situation and future well-being and sustainability of what's under reconstruction, and then there's truckloads of surplus and unwanted junk landing on top of you, messing up your logistics and requiring a lot of insincere thanks and appreciation for the donors' noble sacrifices.
If we want Ukraine to become an anchor for positive progress in a key region, we need to be prepared with the first kind of help, and very generously. And while it may look like an expensive and possibly risky investment, it will pay off much bigger in the long term. If Ukraine is able to develop and pilot new technologies that the rest of the world can build on as we all address climate change together, it'll be a win-all-around.
Then there's the other challenge: Post-Putin Russia
It's just a guess, but an additional agenda for Bill Richardson's recent very low-key diplomatic visit to Moscow was as much to scope out the potential players in a post-Putin Russia as to negotiate specific hostage resolutions. As a good many analysts have pointed out, the Putin-precipitated collapse of Russia into a mid-tier nation in global power and influence still leaves them with "spoiler" capability in the form of their enormous nuclear arsenal, U.N. veto, and positional value as a client state and resource pipeline for China.
And that's just how they'll end up, if whatever leadership remains in Russia continues to be oriented toward a kleptocratic oligarchy. It's an Awful Warning of what happens when a nation's leadership values kleptocracy, via strongman autocracy, direct oligarchy, or a weak autocrat fronting for an oligarchy. Russia should be making every kleptocracy-enabling nation with any remnant of a broader self-governance structure seriously rethink the risks and costs of their downhill slides, based on that vivid, technicolor Object Lesson.
Whether any kind of assistance could help Russia pull back from its own depths of kleptocratic degradation and reshape itself with a government focused on building a functional, broad-based economy with broadly-distributed benefits and a robust middle class, I don't know. They're pretty far gone. Stubbornness and resilience cut both ways, in pushing through or avoiding difficult change.
I think it's worth a try. In low-key ways. There may be cracks in the facade that honest, well-crafted offers of assistance might hammer some wedges into. If any leadership remains with the potential to work toward a vision of a genuinely strong Russia with a broadly-based, sustainable economy producing population-wide benefits and building increasingly-robust self-governance into their future, we should be finding them and providing them with some help.
None of this will be easy.
But it's essential, if we want to keep this planet habitable for our grandchildren.
presciently,
Bright
I'm hoping that QE II's last act of service to her people (and humankind) comes with her departure.
I'm not a huge fan of monarchy in any form, but the strange hybrid Britain has evolved is at least interesting to watch. It's value to Britain (and perhaps the world) is another discussion. The point now, is the impact of the Queen's death and how that might play out if we are lucky.
To be clear, I don't think there are any major geopolitical downsides to worry about - her passing was not unexpected and it's certainly been thoroughly planned for, with attention to minimizing any possible tangible negative effects. The intangibles may further fray the substance of a key ally's culture and exacerbate some existing tensions, but that could do little beyond intensifying an existing tendency.
But what about silver linings?
Britain as a whole, and particularly England, has long cultivated a national identity of 'fortitude in the face of challenge'. The Dunkirk spirit. Another part of that identity is the profession that they value the concepts of 'duty' and 'sacrifice' as emblematic of their national character, collectively and thus, hopefully, individually.
We can argue about the role of privilege and wealth in her life, but right now what is very much to the fore is the late Queen's exemplification of those values - a life of duty, and the sacrifices that entailed. (Sure, she never missed a meal, but how many meals did she have to attend and pretend to like, and act graciously to hosts she may well have preferred never to encounter?)
Day after day, year after year. It wasn't a job she could take time off from or look forward to retirement from. For all the good things she had to share her enjoyment with a whole nation, even a world, publicly and gracefully. All the bad things she similarly dealt with in the full glare of a scrutiny unimaginable to almost anyone else. Year in, year out... the state of her health, her decisions about child-rearing, her relationships and judgments from the most trivial to the most consequential always second-guessed, discussed endlessly, commented upon as though every member of a vast audience had a perfect right to critique.
In the coming days, thousands of anecdotes will be retailed, recalling her best qualities, and always touching on the highest of high notes: Duty. Loyalty. Sacrifice. Kindness. Attention to the humanity of others.
Perhaps these things will suddenly become fashionable again.
Wouldn't that be a good thing?
And isn't this just about the perfect time for humankind to be reminded of the admirability of those qualities?
We're facing existential challenges on a global scale that are not unlike the existential challenges Britain faced at the outset of WWII. From somewhere in the grab-bag of "national character", assisted most ably by their Royals, the Brits drew forth reserves of reverence for duty and self-sacrifice and a willingness to cherish the admirability of remaining kind and loyal and human in the face of terrible challenges.
Perhaps the Queen's passing will open that tap again, providing Britain and the world with a chance to reflect on the value of looking out for each other instead of looking out for 'number one'. Shining a spotlight on the importance of being willing to sacrifice for others rather than grab whatever you can, while you can. Offering a glimpse of the rewards that come with rising to the best of ourselves, rather than the relentless pursuit of our own advantage at the cost of empowering the worst of ourselves.
I'd like to hope so.
In any case, respect, Queen. You've earned your rest many times over. Hope the corgis who've gone before find you and make you welcome.
reflectively,
Bright
Judge Loose Cannon is trying to nail shut a barn door that is off its hinges...
...and the livestock are miles down the road already.
By this time there is virtually NO hope of preventing more information about [Redacted]'s crimes from hitting the front pages of news sites and the lead-offs of broadcasts pretty much on a daily basis.
Too many people have seen too much of the material.
This is, of course, dreadful and catastrophic for national security, as every part of the NatSec establishment scrambles to move people out of harm's way, re-route information flows, deploy new encryption protocols, assess the damage and come up with strategies to minimize and/or counter the effects.
However, in the "Inevitable Silver Lining" category, it is also catastrophic for [Redacted] as the information just keeps hitting the awareness of the voters and the remaining members of the power structures who are either a) genuinely patriotic or b) intelligent enough to assess the odds of their ability to main control of their own assets as the chaos level escalates.
Judge Loose Cannon isn't going to make the slightest dent in this. By now, it's the equivalent of trying to stop a freight train with a ball peen hammer.
confidently,
Bright
This is a LOT bigger than [Redacted].
What we are seeing is a form of warfare ordinary citizens rarely see.
This is the unraveling and exposure of a long-term offensive by a hostile power with multiple operational goals:
* Infiltrate, subvert, and degrade the operational capacity of the government of the United States.
* Destroy the capacity of America's intelligence community to effectively gather useful intelligence and carry out counterespionage operations.
* Provoke civil unrest, division, and disunion by the use of propaganda operations that also support the other goals of the offensive.
* Infiltrate, subvert, and degrade the mission orientation and action capability of institutions charged with armed security and safety of America, both military and civilian organizations.
* Create a substantial and heavily-armed cadre of American citizens prepared to engage in civil violence and attacks on the U.S. government.
At this point, it seems reasonable that anyone who claims otherwise should be investigated for active conspiracy in the offensive and/or unwitting action as a covert (unknowing) asset.
Most likely many of those claiming otherwise are merely dupes and ignorami. But the higher in the government they are, the more access they have to power and influence, the more likely it seems they are assets or conspirators.
DoJ and all of the government organizations involved in dealing with this offensive and mounting an effective counter-offensive are being exceptionally careful and deliberate for some very good reasons, including an awareness that their own organizations are already riddled with assets and agents who will be diligently attempting to subvert their efforts by "poisoning the tree", spreading disinformation and distraction, etc.
This has been a very long game indeed, and the turnaround, to be effective, will not be fast. There may be some swift actions here and there, but for the most part, it will take place very quietly, on a need to know basis in many decentralized but coordinated action groups, and we won't hear much about it.
In the long run, whether [Redacted] ends up in a Supermax or not is possibly one of the less consequential results of the counter-offensive. It may happen, or not. You can bet the calculations are being run very carefully with great attention to factors that most of us will never know. If "highly public accountability" becomes a very important thing, we may see a perp-walk. If that is subsumed in more concrete operational goals that would yield key gains overall, you can be they'll still find ways to make the remainder of [Redacted]'s life extremely unhappy.
He is ***ked either way.
It's enough for me-- IF we ultimately win this quiet, covert war. Thoroughly. Completely. And with lasting effect.
specifically,
Bright
I am NOT 'hoping' for riots when [Redacted] is perp-walked. But I do believe they'll be useful.
Riots are not peaceful protests. I could totally support peaceful protests, as they would generate many amusing misspelled signs and loony chants, etc. Everyone has a right to protest and I support the rights of [Redacted]'s cultists to do so as well.
Riots, on the other hand, are not good no matter what 'cause' they are in aid of. Riots are the worst impulses of human pack mentality acting out violence and destruction and they rarely end well for anyone. No one has a right to riot, the freedom to do so is not guaranteed in our Constitution in any way.
However.
If the GOPpies doomsaying "riots if [Redacted] faces the consequences of his criming and treason" are offering this up as a 'threat' I should remind them what happened the last time.
January 6th, 2021.
I've lost track of how many of those rioters have been identified, arrested, indicted, tried, and sentenced, and how many are awaiting trial. Hundreds, anyway.
And this is a good thing. Because the only risk greater than the riots that may or may not result from [Redacted] being held accountable are the consequences of IMPUNITY. Should [Redacted] NOT be held accountable, what will the next wannabe-authoritarian dictator manage to accomplish with the aid of their Oligarch enablers and funders?
Riots will at least allow law enforcement the opportunity to identify and hopefully get some of the worst of the would-be fascists rooting for the death of American representative democracy off the streets.
So, no... I'm not hoping we get those riots. I'm hoping we get ACCOUNTABILITY. And if that provokes riots, well, hopefully that will allow additional ACCOUNTABILITY. So we'll put them to good use, regardless of the painful cost.
You can't scare me with that B.S.
Just thought you should know, GOPpie traitors.
disgustedly,
Bright
"Kitchen Timing" - A Legacy From Joe Biden's Mom
Joe Biden grew up in a quintessential Irish Catholic family in the 1940s and 1950s. He was the oldest of four kids. You can bet he spent plenty of time helping his Mom - that's what a good son did, back then.
And every holiday, every big occasion, Joe got to watch the unique talent of an Experienced Mom: "Kitchen Timing"
This is a skill few of us appreciate until we're old enough to be responsible for preparing festive meals for our own family and friends.
Kitchen Timing is not easy, people. You need to know exactly when and how to do every step involved in preparing multiple dishes - some of them complicated and only rarely served - so that they all reach the table at peak edibility: Hot things hot. Cold things chilled. Crispy things crisp. Smooth things smooth. No lumps in the gravy, no melted edges on the Jello salad.
You need to know when to purchase your ingredients, so they'll be fresh and available. When to start prepping them. How long to marinate, chill, pre-heat, etc. How to coordinate one oven and four stove burners for maximum efficiency. When to add the final seasonings. How long to "rest" the roast.
Start too early - you have potatoes sitting there getting cold and crusty, rolls becoming chewy, salad greens going limp.
Start too late - you inevitably end up burning something, dealing with lumps in the gravy, underdone veggies, cream that won't whip because the beaters and the bowl aren't cold enough.
It's a mix of art, craft, and most of all - experience.
Joe learned it at his Mom's knee, and took those skills into politics with him.
What, after all, is an election, but a Major Feast for which a political party has to have every dish presented at peak readiness for the voters?
We are watching a master who studied at in the kitchen of a master, prepare our Midterm Election Feast, people. And everything is going to reach the table at its best, a veritable crescendo of political cuisine.
Thank you, Catherine "Jean" Finnegan Biden. You done good. I bet your Thanksgiving dinners were awesome.
appreciatively,
Bright
Document classification/declassification is not the equivalent of divorce in Islam.
A person, even a person with the highest level of power and security clearance, yes, even the Commander-in-Chief, the President of the United States, cannot just state before a witness or two "I declassify you" and make it so.
Declassification, like classification, is a process, part of the legally-mandated information management protocols of the U.S. Government.
While a single official (such as the President) can initiate that process, they cannot complete it. Depending on the type of document and the topic matter and the level of classification, the declassification process may require a review and sign off by various agencies/officials. If they are unwilling to do that sign off, there is an appeal process that requires additional review and sign-off.
Once any/all required declassification sign-offs are complete, the process is still not finished. The declassification process must be logged and the item's classification status changed in all records, catalogs, and histories pertaining to that item. All copies of the item itself must be retrieved, re-covered (provided with an up-to-date on-item indicator of its new status), and its new storage location(s) and access protocols logged and noted.
Then, and only then, is a document fully declassified.
For [Redacted] to say "I declassified that" without a process log showing that all of those steps were completed is as ridiculous as him claiming that up is down because he made it so.
Oh, wait... he does that all the time.
::sigh::
dismissively,
Bright
Lawyers Who Take Toxic Clients
I have a friend who's married to one of these. He's a decent human being and a topnotch lawyer and not all his clients are toxic, but he's definitely known as the go-to guy when a perp is likely guilty of some particularly heinous crime. He gets them off sometimes, and sometimes not.
Of course he's always being asked WHY he takes on these scumsuckers?
We had that conversation with him and this is what I took away from it:
FIRST, and most important reason (to him): He truly believes in our system of law and justice and that everyone must be a) presumed innocent until proven guilty; and b) provided with competent legal representation when they are under criminal prosecution. According to Stan (not his real name, I live in a smallish town), the scuzzier perps and those accused of the greasier crimes, often have to rely on crappy, slapdash legal representation even if they can afford to pay. He thinks that's wrong.
SECOND, and this reason I think kind of embarrasses him, but is understandable to a point: Those are often the "fun" cases, for a born courtroom lion like him. The deck is stacked heavily against his client, there's a whole Perry Mason vibe going on that sometimes overrides the shadow of the crime in questions. They're a challenge he can't resist.
Even so, we asked... some of those people are really awful human beings, seriously so... how CAN he?
After a lot of high-minded flapdoodle about even assholes being entitled to equal treatment under the law, yada yada yada, he allowed as how he doesn't actually accept EVERY scum-sucking sleazebag who asks him for representation. He always examines what's known about the case, how good the evidence is, etc., and forms an opinion on what he can do for the potential client.
Then he lays out the possible outcomes for the potential client. This is "The Talk". In every case, of course, he'll work insanely hard to get a 'not guilty' verdict. But he also tells the potential client what the OTHER possible outcome could be, and what he, Stan, would be able to do for the client in that case. And he gives a few carefully-worded hints about which outcome he thinks is most likely to prevail.
"A smart potential client," he allows, "will read between the lines and hear what I'm telling him, which is that if I can't get that not guilty verdict - and I think there's a realistic chance that I can't - what I CAN do is negotiate for him, get the best possible deal from the DA, or the best possible sentencing option from the judge. That client will promise their cooperation and I'll take their case and do my best for them. If the prosecution is the least bit careless or slipshod, I might get that not guilty verdict, but if I don't, I can generally get them a better sentence than they might have gotten with a less experienced counsel."
"And sometimes," he told us, "when I give the potential client 'The Talk', and let them know that there's no guarantee I can get the not guilty verdict, they don't want anything to do with me. And I'm always happy to send them elsewhere."
What I wonder is: How many times has [Redacted] gotten a similar "Talk" from an attorney he's thinking of hiring, and what did he do about it? Decide to keep looking? Or lie to the attorney about his willingness to cooperate and get the best possible deal if things don't go they way he wants?
speculatively,
Bright
Lookit the dots! Let's connect them!
Dot: How classified and Top Secret documents are handled in the Executive Branch
Which is very carefully and methodically. All White House documents as soon as they are created (by a computer, saving or printing them) or collected (handwritten notes, drafts, etc.) are LOGGED with a taxonomy that describes the source and the subject matter. The "Classified" and "Top Secret" documents are supposed to be handled according to strict protocols about where and by whom they can be viewed, how and where they can be stored, and how they can be disseminated and handled during the dissemination. [Redacted] ignored these as he ignores any and all rules that inconvenience him, of course, but there were plenty of staffers doing their jobs, and those documents were logged and their existence known.
Dot: Documents "going home" with [Redacted]
The majority of White House documents are not classified and/or Top Secret - they are logged and tracked, rules apply to their storage and retention, but they are not strictly controlled like classified/Top Secret material. And there are vast amounts of them - everything from phone messages to visitor logs to meeting notes to briefing papers to clippings-with-comments to doodles with ideas jotted in the margins to letters from citizens to correspondence from bureau employees and congresscritters... That is a huge volume of documents that are identified and logged but not necessarily controlled. And while they are not supposed to be disseminated without following procedures, there isn't as much to stop that happening as there is with classified/Top Secret material. They can get photographed by phone cameras, sent as email attachments and printed out, carried outside the White House document ecosphere and copied there, etc. LOTS of documents. So yes, easy for [Redacted] and co-conspirators to accumulate many, many boxes of documents that they later appropriated.
Dot: The National Archives document review
The sheer quantity of documents makes it a big task. The amount of hugger-muggering about with documents, ignoring document handling protocols, etc., by the [Redacted] Administration must have made it a MONUMENTAL task to sort out what existed, what went missing, what showed evidence of illicit dissemination, etc. And given the consequential nature of the investigations, they wanted to be very certain indeed. Those ducks didn't just need to be in a row, they had to be drilled like the Rockettes. And that went double and triple for every document in the classified/Top Secret categories. Those had to be logged, tracked, and you can bet that even if the tracking logs are incomplete, there is a trail attached to each one, a little story of who viewed it, when and how, how it was handled, any information about how opportunities for dissemination, etc. But that shit takes a lot of time.
Dot: Retrieval of 15 boxes
See above. Once those boxes are inventoried, the inventories need to be compared, item by item, with the investigation's lists of what was missing and/or might have been illicitly disseminated, and information compiled about potential harm, etc.
Dot: The implications of classified/Top Secret material misappropriation
There are degrees of classification with "Top Secret" being, well, at the top of the list as far as how much potential damage the illicit dissemination and/or transmission of a document could do. Everyone, even [Redacted] very certainly got briefed about the consequentiality of such material, the handling protocols required, the tracking procedures in place and the penalties for messing them about. It's almost certain that such material, if it existed amongst the larger body of appropriated documents, was "hidden" by various means - illicitly copied, removed from tracking logs, reported as destroyed (but not destroyed), etc. The amount of time required to identify a) a reasonable suspicion that such material existed among the documents appropriated; and b) tangible and/or circumstantial evidence of hiding sufficient to verify those suspicions; would be substantial. (See: ducks, Rockettes, above)
Dot: Request for search warrant
If, upon completion of the review of materials returned subsequent to the initial subpoena, credible suspicions still existed that classified/Top Secret material remained missing, a more stringent review and risk analysis was probably undertaken. The risk analysis would be the biggie. A list of 'potentially illicitly disseminated' classified/Top Secret material would be combed by experts - what might that particular document reveal? Who would it be of value to, and how? What damage could it do if it fell into these hands? Or these other hands? How likely would that be to happen? (It's not always easy to pass such hot material along without leaving tracks.) What might the mechanisms be for such transmission? Every detail of actual or circumstantial evidence relating to the illicit dissemination would be checked and re-checked.
Dot: "A tip"
Someone at MAL saw something. Whether they were looking, not at the impressive-looking (but probably NOT classified/Top Secret) document [Redacted] was waving around, but at the pile it was taken from, and recognized some indicator of what else was there, or whether [Redacted] was stupid enough to actually wave around something that would be recognized, by someone who had good reason for NOT wanting that particular item transmitted somewhere (maybe to a business competitor, etc.) as classified/Top Secret, the tipster provided confirmatory evidence that such material remained at MAL. That may have been the tipping point for preparing the affidavit and putting the warrant request in play. Or, it may not... it may have been:
Dot: Opportunities for Transmission
You can bet that everyone [Redacted] and his flunkies has been in contact with, in any way, has been noted. In [Redacted]'s place the "protection" of a former President was undoubtedly subsumed in a larger "surveillance" mission, because they knew perfectly well what a grifting shitheel loose cannon he is. And the instant any suspicion of classified/Top Secret material being off the reservation surfaced, that surveillance would take on a very specific focus: WHO would such material be transmitted to, HOW, and WHEN. Keep in mind that such espionage deals are not organized overnight. Especially when a grifting seller wants to maximize their revenue from the process. They would have to negotiate a price, and set up the transmission in a manner that hopefully could not be traced back to them. It takes time. But as soon as those running the surveillance, and those tracking the potentially-available illicit material, get whiff of a possible payoff-and-subsequent-transmission going down, they would HAVE to act, and act fast.
Dot: Potential Negotiation Opportunities
Since his retirement, [Redacted] has largely remained in his regular orbit of Marm-a-lardo, Bedford, New York, and the Jugend Rally circuit. Those are not places where a high-level potential purchaser would go unnoticed. He hasn't traveled abroad or attended many events where such folks might have legitimate reasons for being there. Until recently. And what happened recently? Wasn't there some golf tournament with a heavy international attendance and sponsorship?
The lines between all those dots make a very interesting final picture.
Just speculatin' here.
pixellatedly,
Bright
Here's the deal about "the Feds" and DOJ/FBI/various law enforcement agencies:
Us old people remember back 50 years ago, when we were hitting the streets for civil rights, stopping the bombing and defoliating in Vietnam, and ending military conscription...
We all remember "Don't trust those mofos." And we didn't. We knew they'd bend the rules until they squeaked, even break 'em if they thought they could get away with it to lock our young asses up.
And some of us listened, and some of us didn't, to the older and more experienced heads on the bus, who gave us this chat (I'm paraphrasing, here):
"We want civil disobedience, you bet. But unless you've seen, up close and personal, real, actual civil disorder, don't say that would be a solution. The people who get hurt by it the most are the same people who are getting screwed by the Establishment already.
We want change. We want to keep the pressure up. We want to expose the cruelty, the hypocrisy, the stupidity, the injustice and the corruption. But we don't want the Feds to go away. It's a long slow road to shame them into getting better. But if things tip over into anarchy and civil disorder, we don't win, we LOSE.
Because the overwhelming majority of people in this country understand just how scary that really is and how much they'd be likely to suffer if it happened. And when push comes to shove they'll back corrupt Federal law enforcement that will keep it from happening, over what they'd see as the forces of revolution."
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
The MAGAts and Qnatics and mouth-breathing shills for Putin never learned that. Now they're gonna learn.
"The Feds" may or may not be corrupt assholes, individually and situationally. But when push comes to shove, Americans will line up behind the forces with the mission and the means to keep the gutters from running red.
As it happens, I think by and large the FBI has made considerable improvements in integrity and professionalism from back in Jedgar's day. Again, locally, individually, and situationally, there are still plenty of assholes on their payroll. But by and large they've learned the value of maintaining a reputation.
All bets are off with ICE, of course, but they're not part of the current kerfuffle.
So let the MAGAts scream to "defund the FBI!" as loud as they want and as often. It'll lose them more than they imagine it could ever accomplish.
cynically,
Bright
Profile Information
Member since: 2001Number of posts: 20,755
