I was an FBI agent. Trump’s lack of concern about Russian hacking shocks me.
Is the president breaking his oath to protect and defend the country from foreign attacks?

by. Asha Rangappa is an associate dean at Yale Law School.

SNIP/
But as a former FBI counterintelligence agent, what I saw as the most explosive aspect of the testimony didn’t involve any legal violation of the U.S. code or questions about whether Comey had broken established Department of Justice protocols. Instead, it was the prima facie evidence that Comey presented that Trump appears unwilling to uphold his oath “to preserve, protect, and defend” the country — which puts the security of our nation and its democracy at stake. In the nine times Trump met with or called Comey, it was always to discuss how the investigation into Russia’s election interference was affecting him personally, rather than the security of the country. He apparently cared little about understanding either the magnitude of the Russian intelligence threat, or how the FBI might be able to prevent another attack in future elections.

When Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) asked Comey whether Trump had ever appeared concerned about Russian interference or how to stop it in the future, Comey’s answer was blunt: “No.” After a moment of reflection, he added, without prompting, that he had “attended a fair number of meetings on that with President Obama.” This contrast alone underscores Trump’s disregard for his fundamental duty, which is to ensure the security of the nation, its government and its citizens from foreign enemies.


It’s worth noting that there is unanimity among senior intelligence officials that the Russian interference in our election not only happened, but that it was extraordinary and unprecedented. In previous testimony, Comey described Russia as the “greatest threat of any country on earth,” and he warned Thursday that Russia is “coming after America,” regardless of party, “to undermine our credibility in the rest of the world.”

Former CIA director John Brennan testified to Congress in May that he was shocked that Russia had “brazenly interfered” in the election, so much so that he took the extraordinary step of directly confronting his Russian counterpart. He added that he believes that even in the election’s aftermath, “Russian intelligence services are trying to exploit what is going on in Washington now to their benefit and to our detriment.”

It does not require an FBI investigation to see that a president of the United States who finds no reason for concern in any of these assertions — and indeed considers them a “hoax” — cannot have the best interest of the country at heart.


The FBI takes its counterintelligence mission extremely seriously, although it’s usually less visible to the public than its law enforcement duties, which lead to arrests and criminal trials. Most of these activities, like the foreign agents they target, are by design covert, and they rarely see the inside of a courtroom. Many of the cases I worked as a counterintelligence agent involved foreign intelligence officers who used First Amendment and political freedoms in the United States to their advantage. This might involve disseminating propaganda by recruiting journalists (who did not realize they were spies) to write articles favorable to their government, or getting agents working on their behalf to lobby politicians for favorable policies toward their countries. (A rare glimpse into such a case that became public is the 2011 arrest of Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai, a lobbyist who pleaded guilty to conspiracy charges after the government accused him of being an agent for Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence Directorate.)

END SNIP/



more...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/06/10/i-was-an-fbi-agent-trumps-lack-of-concern-about-russian-hacking-shocks-me/?utm_term=.f9a9afe984ca

Obamacare appears to save a Millennial’s life every day

By David Trilling

One provision of the Affordable Care Act – the health legislation popularly known as Obamacare – allows young people, aged 19 to 25, to be covered by their parents’ health-insurance plans. The provision is called dependent-care coverage and prior to September 2010, when it came into effect, this age group had one of the highest uninsured rates in the United States. Around 30 percent of these young men and women were uninsured, compared to 16 percent of all Americans, on average.

A new study looks at how this single provision may save hundreds of lives a year.

An academic study worth reading: “The Affordable Care Act’s Dependent-Care Coverage and Mortality,” in Medical Care, 2017.

Study summary: When the ACA dependent-care provision came into effect, coverage rates for this age group rose significantly; 6.6 million individuals gained insurance, according to Census Bureau data.

Chandler McClellan, a health economist at the U.S. government agency that works on substance abuse and mental health, wanted to know if this policy change saved lives — in part, as a way of assessing the value of health insurance coverage for policymakers.

He used government data on causes of death from 2008 to 2013, a period that included the adoption of the ACA, and chose individuals aged 19-30. This allowed McClellan to compare the affected group (those aged 19-25) with a natural control unaffected by the coverage expansion: those aged 26-30.

McClellan focused on disease-related mortality, since these conditions are often treatable, yet he also considered other causes of death “to fully examine the potential effects of the dependent coverage provision.”

His findings suggest that, with insurance, young people are going to the doctor more and getting treatment for conditions before they become fatal.

Key takeaways:

The dependent-care provision was associated with a 6.1 percent decline in disease-related deaths after the provision went into effect – about 30 fewer deaths per month or 357 per year – among Americans aged 19-25.
“Most of the lives saved are due to reductions in deaths related to cardiovascular, cancer, and other disease-related causes.”

The dependent-care provision did not significantly impact deaths from other causes, such as accidents, which remain a more frequent cause of death for this age group. Federal law requires emergency rooms to treat emergencies regardless of one’s insurance. McClellan found no change in death rates from trauma, suggesting “that it is the health insurance expansion that is driving the reduction in disease-related deaths.”

In both age groups, men, white people and non-Hispanics make up a larger share of deaths.

“Men experienced the largest reductions in overall disease-related and cancer-related mortality, with 8.1 percent and 12.2 percent reductions, respectively, while cardiovascular deaths [such as heart attacks] among women fell by 11.7 percent.”

White people, overall, experienced a 14.6 percent decline in cardiovascular mortality.
McClellan expects “larger declines in mortality later” because medical care has a cumulative effect; “chronic diseases become better managed” when people have health insurance.

Though the author cautions that he cannot prove causality, he says he cannot identify other factors that explain these results.


more... https://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/health-care/obamacare-millennials-save-lives-death

She did some actions and has some history that needs to be discussed.

In Sharing Memos, Comey Did Nothing Wrong as a Former Official and Everything Right as a Whistleblower



Snip/

The notion that Comey confessed to something untoward yesterday by acknowledging that he shared memos with a confidant and directed their disclosure to press sources is getting quite a bit of traction, particularly in conservative media. Trump’s personal lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, accused Comey of “leaks of [] privileged information” and went so far as to suggest that “the appropriate authorities” might determine there was criminal conduct worthy of investigation. Kasowitz has now indicated that he plans to file a complaint with the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General on Comey’s disclosure of the memo. (It’s not clear what the result of such an investigation would be given that Comey is no longer a government official.)


There’s just one problem with this line of critique: Comey didn’t actually do anything wrong. In fact, there is nothing to suggest his actions were illegal, unethical, immoral, or otherwise inappropriate.

Let’s start with a bit of background. On February 14—the day after National Security Advisor Michael Flynn had been forced to resign—President Trump had a disturbing, and possibly criminal, conversation with the FBI Director. After pointedly dismissing other advisors and senior officials from the Oval Office, Trump told Comey, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” Comey told the committee that he “took [this comment] as a direction” to drop the investigation into Flynn and memorialized his alarming conversation with Trump in an unclassified memo, sharing the details with FBI senior leadership. The group was “shocked” and “troubled” but, without any way to corroborate the one-on-one conversation, they struggled with what to do about it.


Article continues: https://lawfareblog.com/sharing-memos-comey-did-nothing-wrong-former-official-and-everything-right-whistleblower

https://twitter.com/benwikler/status/872923148357947392

https://twitter.com/benwikler/status/872918918419165185


https://twitter.com/WordKitchenDC/status/872985347029860352

When a basically responsible person converses with a criminal, their frames of reference are completely different, and therefore it is as though they are conversing in different languages. Because criminals have a view of life that is radically different from people who are basically responsible, they use words differently from most people. Professionals working in corrections and law enforcement discover that words commonly encountered in daily conversation have a very different meaning when spoken by criminals.

When a criminal says he “trusts” someone, that is not a compliment. He means that he has a person under his control; the individual will go along with him or, at the very least, not interfere with one of his enterprises. Or he may mean that he counts on a person not to “snitch” or inform on him. This is very different from what most people mean when they speak of relying on someone with the integrity and ability to provide help, support, or comfort.

When a criminal says he has a “problem,” he usually means that he is in a jam created by his own irresponsibility and demands that someone remove that difficulty as quickly as possible. He may claim he needs “help” referring to having another person assist him in a criminal venture or avoid the unpalatable consequences of his own misconduct.

Having no concept of “loyalty,” criminals seldom use the word. When they do, it is referring to a person who will be an accomplice or someone who will do precisely what they want.

Criminals have no concept of “love.” When criminals speak of love, they are often referring to sex. They also use the word in a sentimental manner, perhaps with respect to their mother or their child. But they abuse the very individuals whom they claim to love. One man stole coins from his son’s piggy bank and spent it on drugs. Another promised to take his wife out for a romantic evening. He left her waiting at the door while he had a fling with a prostitute.

A person in a relationship with a criminal is likely to be angrily told, “You don’t understand.” That precipitates the individual engaging in a bit of reflection, if not soul searching, to figure out what he failed to comprehend. Whereas, of course, misunderstandings do occur, the criminal pounces on, “You don’t understand” and employs it as a weapon to put others on the defense. This is a tactical maneuver that takes the focus off the offender.

“I can’t” is another phrase often uttered by criminals. What this usually translates to is, “I won’t.” If one thinks about the phrase, it denotes incapacity. This is not usually the case for the boastful criminal who regards himself as omnipotent. “I can’t” constitutes a rejection of what is obligatory or necessary because it doesn’t fit in with his plans.

Boredom is experienced by most people as a kind of weariness due to tedium. A six hour drive on an interstate highway may become boring. Attending to a menial and routine task may be boring. When a criminal complains of boredom, this is an angry restless state in which he is deterred from doing what he finds exciting or forbidden. Excitement to a responsible person comes from a new experience, an extraordinary performance, or something dramatically out of the routine. For a criminal, excitement comes from the pursuit of a conquest, the exercise of power and control over other people.

“I got real paranoid” is another assertion one may hear. A criminal may appear paranoid in that he seems unduly suspicious and distrustful. Paranoia actually is a feature of a serious mental illness in which a person is suspicious irrationally, i.e. with no basis in reality. A criminal has good reason for being extremely suspicious because he has betrayed others and engaged in conduct that is irresponsible, if not illegal. People likely are looking to hold him accountable. There is no mental illness involved.

Even the word “police” has its idiosyncratic meaning. Most people use the term to refer to law enforcement officers. A criminal uses the word to refer to any person who checks up on him and holds him accountable. It could be a parent or a teacher.

The above provide examples of commonly used words to which the criminal imparts an idiosyncratic meaning. It is a meaning very different from what a responsible person intends to convey using the exact same words. In their interactions with criminals, responsible people need to be aware of these semantic issues.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/inside-the-criminal-mind/201706/the-criminals-use-everyday-words

as if these were negative points during yesterday's debate.


She said he seemed moderate but he was not. She thought all of this was great for GA6 to know before voting and for her to use against him.

Just FYI.

WATCH HERE: http://www.wsbtv.com/live-breaking2




Ossoff, Handel set for first debate in tight Georgia congressional race
by David M. Drucker | Jun 6, 2017, 6:21 PM


ATLANTA — Republican Karen Handel and Democrat Jon Ossoff were set to debate Tuesday evening as the record-setting dog fight for a vacant Georgia congressional seat enters its final two weeks.

Handel was locked in a too close for comfort race with Ossoff, in suburban Atlanta's conservative-leaning sixth congressional district.

Republicans would like Handel to use the first of her debates with Ossoff to prove him ill prepared for national office by highlighting his questionable national security credentials. Democrats counter that Ossoff can win the evening by exposing Handel as a vapid candidate whose whole strategy is to stay out of sight until Election Day.

Public and private polling shows a very close contest, with Ossoff leading in some surveys, despite the seat's history of voting for Republicans, consistently, since 1978. Ossoff led Handel by 2 percentage points in the latest polling averages.

more...

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ossoff-handel-set-for-first-debate-in-tight-georgia-congressional-race/article/2625144

Last month, President Trump visited Saudi Arabia and his administration announced that he had concluded a $110 billion arms deal with the kingdom. Only problem is that there is no deal. It’s fake news.

I’ve spoken to contacts in the defense business and on the Hill, and all of them say the same thing: There is no $110 billion deal. Instead, there are a bunch of letters of interest or intent, but not contracts. Many are offers that the defense industry thinks the Saudis will be interested in someday. So far nothing has been notified to the Senate for review. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency, the arms sales wing of the Pentagon, calls them “intended sales.” None of the deals identified so far are new, all began in the Obama administration.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2017/06/05/the-110-billion-arms-deal-to-saudi-arabia-is-fake-news/

Author Bruce Riedel Senior Fellow - Foreign Policy, Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence, Center for Middle East PolicyDirector - The Intelligence Project




https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/871944418760306688