Even if that is representative of "the average American", how is it anything other than having to work for a living? — Metaphysician Undercover

Nobody was talking about working for a living. Ssu was saying America is rich because of its global influence. I was saying the average American isn't rich.

Nobody was talking about working for a living. Ssu was saying America is rich because of its global influence. I was saying the average American isn't rich. — frank

Now you're contradicting yourself. You said:

"The average American struggles to make ends meet. They worry about how they're going to afford to retire."

That is intentional misinformation, unless by "struggles to make ends meet" you really mean "has to work to make a living". The average American has to work to make a living. And, the average American manages a comfortable lifestyle on the average American income which is around $65,000 annually.
https://www.sofi.com/learn/content/average-salary-in-us/

Furthermore, if they pay their taxes they automatically pay into social security so "worry about how they're going to afford to retire", is completely unfounded. Unless the acting president has indicated that he may sign an executive order ending the social security program, such worry is irrational.

Cringe comedy.

Seven-hundred and eighty-seven pages on Trump. It's amazing, really. But after his display with Vance mugging Zelenskyy in the oval office, and in consideration of a whole lot of other actions, one word is enough to classify him: enemy. He is an enemy. Of what you may ask. And the answer is of everything generally understood as western values. And what sort of enemy? The verminous kind, appropriate only for extermination. It is that simple; he has made it that simple.

As such, he is a problem, and as a problem, best approached clinically. The obvious question being how such a problem is solved, but that not-so-easy to answer.

And, the average American manages a comfortable lifestyle on the average American income which is around $65,000 annually.
https://www.sofi.com/learn/content/average-salary-in-us/ — Metaphysician Undercover

Only 15.7% of Americans make that much. 57% of Americans make that or less. here

Since you think $65,000 is enough to make ends meet without struggle for an average family, I'm guessing you're like a 100 years old?

Because she's lying lol. It's incredibly common for people to make up politically biased lies about police. Just like police "invited Occupy Wall Street" to march across the Brooklyn Bridge before arresting them midway through (never happened, they just decided to cede ground to angry demonstrators and arrest them when reinforcements arrived, granted some of those arrested who were further back might have simply followed the crowd on), and just as very many people claimed to see Michael Brown gunned down in Ferguson who were later proved by surveillance tapes to be blocks away, or "police just began spontaneously clubbing people at the 2012 NATO summit" (also not what happened). Politicos lied about all those events, or else suffered serious amnesia about events they claim to have been feet away from.

The New York Times had an entire article on "misremembering" after numerous people took to social media to claim they had seen an unarmed black man gunned down in Times Square while running from police. But video released later that day showed a man swinging a hammer at police before being shot at close range. Did they hallucinate? This was the excuse. Yet I highly doubt people hallucinated seeing Mike Brown killed from half a mile away, they just lied about it because it suited their politics.

There is ample video of what happened on the 6th and ample evidence that at least some of those charged and pardoned had made plans explicitly to breech the building and disrupt the election certification.

Yes, people lie about events they are at in person all the time, and they edit video to support their lies. It's hardly shocking, activists are found doing this constantly. People who get arrested and charged with crimes (as is the case here) also lie about it, all the time, it shouldn't be strain credulity.

But clearly a jury forced to sit through all the evidence and video thought some of the pardoned were guilty unanimously.

BTW, 147 rioters when to trial and two (2) were found not guilty by juries. That's an insanely high success rate for "actually, no crimes happened."

Because she's lying lol. — Count Timothy von Icarus

What is she lying about? Quote her lie.

Yes, people lie about events they are at in person all the time, and they edit video to support their lies. — Count Timothy von Icarus

So the surveillance video that was shown was just edited? That's your solution?

What is missing in this discussion is the basic skill of identifying the assertions of others. You and Wayfarer want to say that someone is lying, but you won't quote that person or put any effort into demonstrating what was asserted. Wayfarer explicitly refuses to even watch the video, despite maintaining his claim of lying. It's pretty important to be able to identify and present the claims of others on a philosophy forum, so the fact that we've resorting to accusations of lying without any effort in identifying claims is a remarkably big problem.

As such, he is a problem, and as a problem, best approached clinically. The obvious question being how such a problem is solved, but that not-so-easy to answer. — tim wood

He should have been impeached when the opportunity arose, obviously, and would have been, but for Mitch McConnell's gutlessness. The Republican Party is utterly culpable in this matter. They put a criminal in the oval office, one who is hellbent on destroying constitutional democracy, and he then let the world's richest man loose with a chainsaw.



NY Times comment on yesterday's spectacle: 'It was a sickening spectacle: the man who tried to upend democracy bullying the man who is fighting for democracy.'

The Republican Party is utterly culpable in this matter. — Wayfarer

The old republicans need to realize that there's no republican party anymore. It's just MAGA and Trump loyalists. The sooner they realize this, the sooner they could organize into a new republican party. Maybe even brand it as such, "new republicans" to win on sounding "edgy new".

Key point is that people need to realize that republicans are gone. The ones in power in that party are these MAGA fanatics and Trump loyalists.

Everyone needs to wake the fuck up to this.

It's just MAGA and Trump loyalists. — Christoffer

Yes. Trouble is, who's driving them, giving them their marching orders, because none visible seem able to man their own ships. And even on their respective first days they've all had sheaves of orders to issue immediately. From that alone I infer a "deep state," but not the one usually invoked.

We can quote Lincoln from his "House Divided" speech, 1858:

"Let any one who doubts, carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination -- piece of machinery so to speak -- compounded of the Nebraska doctrine, and the Dred Scott decision. Let him consider not only what work the machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted; but also, let him study the history of its construction, and trace, if he can, or rather fail, if he can, to trace the evidence of design and concert of action, among its chief architects, from the beginning....

"We can not absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the result of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places and by different workmen -- Stephen, Franklin, Roger, and James, for instance -- and when we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortices exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few -- not omitting even scaffolding -- or, if a single piece be lacking, we can see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared to yet bring such piece in -- in such a case, we find it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first lick was struck."
https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/house.htm

Change only a few words and Lincoln speaks to us, for us. Nor need we conjecture; it is all a matter of fact.

Everyone needs to wake the fuck up to this. — Christoffer

And act! And in our democracy, such as it is, start sending emails, letters, making telephone calls, and calling out the lie wherever found. This isn't about speculation or mere passive or off-handed preparation, laying in a few extra cans of soup or the like. It is instead time for doing, for execution. I think there is still time for civil action - civilized action, that is. There had better be because all of the alternatives are awful.

Only 15.7% of Americans make that much. 57% of Americans make that or less. — frank

And now there seems to be a lot more without a job, thanks to you-know-who.

I suppose some might be replaced with AI systems, too.

Then there are tariff wars, raising prices further, thanks to you-know-who.

EDIT: that rhymed :D

He’s still done more than any of the Euro bureaucrats, and he’s only been in office a month. — NOS4A2

Done much for Putin! Otherwise, he has done shit about any peace, made actual peace talks worse as he is just giving everything on a platter to Putin. Enough of this silly Trump "wants peace" bullshit.

Russian stocks going up anticipating the normalization of ties. Trump doing his best for Russia!

The Russian stock market is up 11.1% since the start of the year.
"In focus are the phone talks between the presidents of Russia and the United States, as investors increasingly hope for geopolitical de-escalation," Sberbank analysts said in a note.
Russia's sanctioned corporations such as gas giant Gazprom, whose shares were hit by the loss of the European gas market, as well as dominant lender Sberbank and liquefied natural gas producer Novatek led the market rally.

Well, first, I just realized this is a different anti-vaccine female doctor who was convicted. The one I recalled from earlier is literally on bodycam footage punching police officers in the face, hence my incredulity.

Is it possible that some people wandered into the scene of the riot? Certainly. Just as I am sure some people arrested on the Brooklyn Bridge really did think they were being allowed to march across it (I was there that day, it seems one could easily have just followed the crowd on). And just as some people who were at George Floyd protests that descended into rioting might not have seen any rioting.

Does the fact that some George Floyd protestors didn't come face to face with any rioting or police brutality mean it didn't happen, or that all rioters should be given pardons?

Or more relevant, if someone with obvious political motivations and a vested personal interest in downplaying a riot was present at an extremely well-documented riot, and claims they saw no rioting, should we really presume they are credible until decisively proven otherwise? This is someone who was arrested at the scene of a riot and who pled guilty, but their claims that nothing untold was happening should be taken at face value?

I think it's entirely possible that some people were overcharged, or perhaps should not even have been charged in the first place. This is very common during violent protests and riots, the wrong people get punished, or punished too severely. In fact, I would even judge this likely. This isn't a conspiracy so much as a function of how the justice system works and the chaos inherent in such events.

However, the original discussion here was the charge that all the prosecutions were unjust and thus that the wholesale pardons were just.

What's the idea here, that no crimes were committed that day? That all those pardoned were innocent? That the police somehow tricked people into bringing weapons and writing emails about disrupting the certification, then baited protestors into attacking them on video?

This seems to me every bit as outrageous as "no crimes were committed during the Minneapolis, Ferguson, or LA riots, and all involved should be pardoned." Some of those pardoned were in for felony assault they are on tape clearly committing and have prior convictions for other violent crimes, rape, etc. It seems ridiculous to me that the blanket pardon could be considered anything but a gross violation of the rule of law.

Well, first, I just realized this is a different anti-vaccine female doctor who was convicted. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Okay.

Does the fact that some George Floyd protestors didn't come face to face with any rioting or police brutality mean it didn't happen, or that all rioters should be given pardons? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Is that what is being claimed? The question here is, "Why was Gold charged with a 20-year evidence-tampering sentence?"

However, the original discussion here was the charge that all the prosecutions were unjust and thus that the wholesale pardons were just. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That looks like a straightforward strawman.

What's the idea here, that no crimes were committed that day? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Maybe it's somewhere between these crazy extremes? It doesn't do much good to strawman the opposite extreme when Hochschild or Gold demonstrate that the initial extreme does not obtain. That's like saying, "Gold said not everyone (or every time) was violent, therefore she is claiming that no one (and no time) was violent!" This is a way of rhetorically propping up the thesis that is under fire.

It's not a strawman, everyone was pardoned. Nowhere in the article is there any indication that he does not think this is a good thing. Actually, he seems to heavily imply that if anything bad happened it was some sort of conspiracy, a "false flag."

There was a strange energy on the west side of the Capitol, but it was not a mood of revolution. A friend likened it to stepping onto a movie set with a troupe of paid actors. He witnessed activist “theater kids” dressed in black changing costume into Trump gear, and sensed a difference between the organic crowd at the rally and the melodrama of paid provocateurs. The scaffolding, flashbangs, colored smoke, and flags seemed staged for cinema, and my friend felt like an “unwilling extra” for a Hollywood production: Insurrection Day: A National Disgrace.

Actually, forget "imply,' he outright calls those engaged in violence "paid provocateurs" (obviously under deep, deep cover, since many had long histories of far-right activism, some with prior convictions for political violence).

Which is frankly, contradictory. This would imply that the people being pardoned, the ones caught on tape attacking law enforcement, were agent provocateurs... (so we shouldn't be happy about the pardons).

Or, if it wasn't a false flag (after all, he seems happy about everyone being pardoned) it was actually the police's fault for making people assault them and then baiting them into forcing their way in:

As one got nearer to the Capitol on the west side, one could see people climbing scaffolding and hear yelling. Even closer, and there was an acrid smell of teargas, which was enough to make most people keep their distance. Why did the teargas start? Was it a desperate attempt of an understaffed security to quell a riot?

The question here is, "Why was Gold charged with a 20-year evidence-tampering sentence?"

Now this is a strawman. Mentioning the statutory maximum and then pretending that prosecutors were charging for the maximum is bad faith argument. Vandalism can also be charged as a felony, and simple check or mail fraud also comes with multi-year maximums, but these are for serious versions of the crime. From what I understand she got a fine and 60 days in jail.

Only 15.7% of Americans make that much. 57% of Americans make that or less. — frank

The page you referred does not show what you claim here at all. That's just more misinformation.

102?

What I see on that page is the following:
"In 2023, just over 50 percent of Americans had an annual household income that was less than 75,000 U.S. dollars. The median household income was 80,610 U.S. dollars in 2023."

It then says:
"Preliminary estimates show that the average poverty threshold for a family of four people was 26,500 U.S. dollars in 2021, which is around 100 U.S. dollars less than the previous year. There were an estimated 37.9 million people in poverty across the United States in 2021, which was around 11.6 percent of the population."

There is simply nothing there to support your claim that the average American is struggling to make ends meet. It appears like you are trying to create that illusion with disinformation. Why would you be doing this? Having to budget one's finances is basic household economics, it is not struggling to make ends meet.

Giving everything on a platter to Putin! Kiev will be a Russian city should any peace deal involving Trump go through! If only we give the Ukrainians more money and weapons everything will be alright!

In effect, though, what the EU and NATO are doing is sacrificing their own economies and Ukrainian soldier’s lives on the altar of what amounts to political theater. We know none of this is about democracy, freedom, human rights and other verbal claptrap or else it would have raised a huff when the US ousted the democratically-elected leader of Ukraine, causing a civil war. Or it might denounce Germany’s abysmal freedom of speech. We know it isn't some principled stand against Russian expansionism or meddling because the EU has been trying to annex Ukraine for years, for the sole purpose of exploiting it for grain and fuel. We know it isn’t about sovereignty because the EU is supranationalist. So all this preening comes at the expense of the reality. Hell, only one country involved in that war attacked EU jurisdiction when it sabotaged those pipelines, and oddly enough it’s the same country the snivelling bureaucrats there wish to fund.

In effect, though, what the EU and NATO are doing is sacrificing their own economies and Ukrainian soldier’s lives on the altar of what amounts to political theater. — NOS4A2

Wrong. Ukrainians themselves decide how long they will fight. If they want to continue the fight for their independence, we can give them the weapons.

We know none of this is about democracy, freedom, human rights and other verbal claptrap — NOS4A2

Wrong, this is about those values and the independence of sovereign states and defense of the Russian reconquista Putin has started. And Putin would have started that with or without NATO. The collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest tragedy in history, remember?

or else it would have raised a huff when the US ousted the democratically-elected leader of Ukraine, causing a civil war. — NOS4A2

Wrong again. The Ukrainian revolution wasn't a US controlled ouster (like Operation Ajax), but a uprising that Ukraine has had many. That not even the Donbass rebels wanted this thug back tells how unpopular the leader was. (After all, wouldn't it had been credible for them to have Yanukovych as their leader?)

We know it isn't some principled stand against Russian expansionism or meddling — NOS4A2

It is a stand against Russian expansionism and meddling. So wrong again, NOS.

because the EU has been trying to annex Ukraine for years, for the sole purpose of exploiting it for grain and fuel. — NOS4A2

Lol. Going off the far end here? Nations can send in their applications if they want to join. And even in the negotiations, then can view it that it's not worth it. Just like, well, Norway did. Hilarious to see EU as an Great power, as everybody knows its a confederation of quite independent states.

We know it isn’t about sovereignty because the EU is supranationalist. — NOS4A2

Wrong again. For members like Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Sweden, Romania, it genuinely is about sovereignty. It starts from things that Russia demands to have a veto on what actions as sovereign states can European countries do. Like to join EU or to join NATO. That kind of sovereignty issues.

So all this preening comes at the expense of the reality. — NOS4A2

Your the one living in the Trump coocoo-echo chamber.

Hell, only one country involved in that war attacked EU jurisdiction when it sabotaged those pipelines, and oddly enough it’s the same country the snivelling bureaucrats there wish to fund. — NOS4A2

Russia is actively cutting cables in the Baltic (Gulf of Finland), just some kilometers off where I live, so...

As you live Canada, why don't you go to the local pub there wearing your MAGA hat and ask how eager they are to join the US as the 51st state.
.

‘Putin Is on the Inside’: Shock as U.S. Caves to Russia in Cybersecurity Fight

The White House is reportedly dropping Russia from its list of threats to cybersecurity and is instead honing in on China, part of the Trump administration’s apparent broader effort to curry favor with the Kremlin and push for a peace deal that would end the country’s ongoing war in Ukraine....
...According to The Guardian, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) has received a new list of directives that largely omit Russia as a threat to monitor. ...
...A source familiar with the matter who spoke to the outlet on the condition of anonymity said agency analysts were verbally told to not follow or report on Russian threats, adding that a “Russian-related” project was consequently “nixed.”

Wrong. Ukrainians themselves decide how long they will fight. If they want to continue the fight for their independence, we can give them the weapons.

Right, forced conscription. No elections. Opposition parties banned. Nationalized media. “Ukrainians themselves decide”.

Wrong, this is about those values and the independence of sovereign states and defense of the Russian reconquista Putin has started. And Putin would have started that with or without NATO. The collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest tragedy in history, remember?

All of that is deep-state dinner-theater. Russians have been saying for decades that they would intervene should Nato integration sharpen ethnic divisions and create civil war in Ukraine, which it did. They have been saying for decades that Ukraine’s NATO membership is threat to national security and they would have to take appropriate measures. Not a single one of them mentioned a return of the Russian empire. Americans in particular have known about this for decades and the cables prove that they knew about it, but did it anyways.

“Nyet means Nyet. Russia’s NATO enlargement Red Lines”.

https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html

Lol. Going off the far end here? Nations can send in their applications if they want to join. And even in the negotiations, then can view it that it's not worth it. Just like, well, Norway did. Hilarious to see EU as a Great power, as everybody knows its a confederation of quite independent states.

Wrong again. For members like Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Sweden, Romania, it genuinely is about sovereignty. It starts from things that Russia demands to have a veto on what actions as sovereign states can European countries do. Like to join EU or to join NATO. That kind of sovereignty issues.

Independent and sovereign states, eh? Which law has supremacy, Finnish law or EU law?

“Nyet means Nyet. Russia’s NATO enlargement Red Lines”. — NOS4A2

That is a recent "red line" of Putin's, that Trump uncritically accepts. Go back a few years, and Putin expressed indifference to former USSR states joining NATO, including Ukraine.

"In May 2002, when asked for his views on the future of Ukraine’s relations with NATO, Putin dispassionately replied, 'I am absolutely convinced that Ukraine will not shy away from the processes of expanding interaction with NATO and the Western allies as a whole. Ukraine has its own relations with NATO; there is the Ukraine-NATO Council. At the end of the day, the decision is to be taken by NATO and Ukraine. It is a matter for those two partners'" (source)

Putin raised no complaints when Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania joined NATO in 2004.

The article I cited above suggests that Putin's main driver is opposition to democratic reforms:

"Russian president Vladimir Putin wants you to believe that NATO is responsible for his February 24 invasion of Ukraine—that rounds of NATO enlargement made Russia insecure, forcing Putin to lash out. This argument has two key flaws. First, NATO has been a variable and not a constant source of tension between Russia and the West. Moscow has in the past acknowledged Ukraine’s right to join NATO; the Kremlin’s complaints about the alliance spike in a clear pattern after democratic breakthroughs in the post-Soviet space. This highlights a second flaw: Since Putin fears democracy and the threat that it poses to his regime, and not expanded NATO membership, taking the latter off the table will not quell his insecurity. His declared goal of the invasion, the “denazification” of Ukraine, is a code for his real aim: antidemocratic regime change."

Right, forced conscription. No elections. Opposition parties banned. Nationalized media. “Ukrainians themselves decide”. — NOS4A2

Well, I live in a country that has "forced conscription", where in my constitution it is written that "All Finnish citizens have a duty to defend their country". We, just like Sweden, have the idea of "Total defense". That's what you need to deter a bully next to you that will interfere in your matters and will try to dominate you. Worked against Stalin, will work against Putin. The doesn't have to have such, because you have oceans on both sides and Canada and Mexico.

And Ukraine's constitution declares that no elections under wartime. So you just go with meaningless Kremlin lines there of Zelenskyi being a dictator. Russia doesn't have free elections even during peacetime.

All of that is deep-state dinner-theater. — NOS4A2

For you, because you don't believe in your country. Or at least the country you moved away from (the US). If you believe that grifters like Elon Musk and Donald Trump will somehow save your country, when the don't give a rats ass to the values which America stood for, that's your problem. Luckily, as we have seen on this forum, not all Americans share your ideas. Yet when you think that your own government is the real enemy, then it's totally understandable that you believe the Kremlin lies. Unfortunately Putin isn't your friend.

Russians have been saying for decades that they would intervene should Nato integration sharpen ethnic divisions and create civil war in Ukraine, which it did. — NOS4A2

And they intervened also in Moldova, which by Constitution cannot join a military alliance. Sorry, but you cannot ignore the ugly truth that this is also an imperial enterprise, the reconquista of Novorossiya, because Ukraine is an artificial country. Russia would have done this and had bases in the Baltics already for a long time if there wouldn't have been a NATO.

Not a single one of them mentioned a return of the Russian empire. — NOS4A2

So you are totally clueless about this. Start with Putin's "On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians" speech. That's Putin's Mein Kampf where he spills out what is the right future for Ukraine. And then there's ample amount of Russian propaganda about this intended for the Russian people and how Russia will conquer back Novorossiya, New Russia, as it was called.

A picture of a woman holding the "Correct" map in 2015:

Independent and sovereign states, eh? Which law has supremacy, Finnish law or EU law? — NOS4A2

You understand the difference between a confederacy or an union. I've always said that the EU is a confederacy of independent states desperately trying to be an union. So in the end, it's Finnish law. Just as it is if the country is us or Hungary or Spain etc.

Trump is an agent of Putin

One of the reasons that the footage of US President Donald Trump’s clash with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was so compelling to Western audiences was the sheer unfamiliarity of such a scene.

Leaders routinely have arguments behind closed doors, but this one was very deliberately broadcast. The host not only inflamed US Vice President J.D. Vance’s provocations of the Ukrainian leader, but he made sure to keep the media in the room for the full 50-minute drama. As Trump said in the closing line: “This is going to be great television.”

But to Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, and anyone else familiar with Marxist-Leninist political management, it was instantly recognisable. This was a “struggle session”. That is, an orchestrated ritual humiliation of a political enemy, conducted in public, often with crowd participation. A common feature is that the target is denounced by people they thought were close to them.

The struggle session had its origins in the writings of Soviet leader Josef Stalin on the subject of criticism and self-criticism. It was later embraced by China’s Mao Zedong against suspected “class enemies”.

Mao’s youthful zealot Red Guards notoriously employed violence, torture and even murder in struggle sessions during the Cultural Revolution. The reformer Deng Xiaoping banned the struggle session.

But now Trump has introduced it to US foreign policy. Putin would have recognised and relished the performance in the Oval Office: the ritual, public humiliation of the man who has inspired millions in defying Putin and embarrassing his army. Conducted by Zelensky’s most important ally to date, the United States. But why would Trump do it? The world has long puzzled over his affinity for Putin, the former KGB colonel who seeks to neuter the US, dominate Europe and destroy the West. The attraction is inexplicable.

But the evidence now is incontrovertible: We should accept that Trump acts as an agent of Putin.... — Peter Hartcher, Sydney Morning Herald

The video of Trump berating Churchill is great. See If Trump was President in 1940

That would really be Trump in 1940. But the intelligence services of the Third Reich weren't so good as Soviet/Russian intelligence services have been.

First I've heard of the (alleged) Patrushev comment:

March 2, 2025 (Sunday)

On February 28, the same day that President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance took the side of Russian president Vladimir Putin against Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office, Martin Matishak of The Record, a cybersecurity news publication, broke the story that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered U.S. Cyber Command to stop all planning against Russia, including offensive digital actions.

Both the scope of the directive and its duration are unclear.

On Face the Nation this morning, Representative Mike Turner (R-OH), a strong supporter of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Ukraine, contradicted that information. “Considering what I know, what Russia is currently doing against the United States, that would I’m certain not be an accurate statement of the current status of the United States operations,” he said. Well respected on both sides of the aisle, Turner was in line to be the chair of the House Intelligence Committee in this Congress until House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) removed him from that slot and from the intelligence committee altogether.

And yet, as Stephanie Kirchgaessner of The Guardian notes, the Trump administration has made clear that it no longer sees Russia as a cybersecurity threat. Last week, at a United Nations working group on cybersecurity, representatives from the European Union and the United Kingdom highlighted threats from Russia, while Liesyl Franz, the State Department’s deputy assistant secretary for international cybersecurity, did not mention Russia, saying the U.S. was concerned about threats from China and Iran.

Kirchgaessner also noted that under Trump, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), which monitors cyberthreats against critical infrastructure, has set new priorities. Although Russian threats, especially those against U.S. election systems, were a top priority for the agency in the past, a source told Kirchgaessner that analysts were told not to follow or report on Russian threats.

“Russia and China are our biggest adversaries,” the source told Kirchgaessner. “With all the cuts being made to different agencies, a lot of cybersecurity personnel have been fired. Our systems are not going to be protected and our adversaries know this.” “People are saying Russia is winning,” the source said. “Putin is on the inside now.”

Another source noted that “There are dozens of discrete Russia state-sponsored hacker teams dedicated to either producing damage to US government, infrastructure and commercial interests or conducting information theft with a key goal of maintaining persistent access to computer systems.” “Russia is at least on par with China as the most significant cyber threat, the person added. Under those circumstances, the source said, ceasing to follow and report Russian threats is “truly shocking.”

Trump’s outburst in the Oval Office on Friday confirmed that Putin has been his partner in politics since at least 2016. “Putin went through a hell of a lot with me,” Trump said. “He went through a phony witch hunt where they used him and Russia… Russia, Russia, Russia—you ever hear of that deal?—that was a phony Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, scam. Hillary Clinton, shifty Adam Schiff, it was a Democrat scam. And he had to go through that. And he did go through it, and we didn’t end up in a war. And he went through it. He was accused of all that stuff. He had nothing to do with it. It came out of Hunter Biden’s bathroom.”

Putin went through a hell of a lot with Trump? It was an odd statement from a U.S. president, whose loyalty is supposed to be dedicated to the Constitution and the American people.

Trump has made dismissing as a hoax what he calls “Russia, Russia, Russia” central to his political narrative. But Russian operatives did, in fact, work to elect him in 2016. A 2020 report from the Republican-dominated Senate Intelligence Committee confirmed that Putin ordered hacks of Democratic computer networks, and at two crucial moments WikiLeaks, which the Senate committee concluded was allied with the Russians, dumped illegally obtained emails that were intended to hurt the candidacy of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. Trump openly called for Russia to hack Clinton’s emails.

Russian operatives also flooded social media with disinformation, not necessarily explicitly endorsing Trump, but spreading lies about Clinton to depress Democratic turnout, or to rile up those on the right by falsely claiming that Democrats intended to ban the Pledge of Allegiance, for example. The goal of the propaganda was not simply to elect Trump. It was to pit the far ends of the political spectrum against the middle, tearing the nation apart.

Fake accounts on Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, and Facebook drove wedges between Americans over issues of race, immigration, and gun rights. Craig Timberg and Tony Romm of the Washington Post reported in 2018 that Facebook officials told Congress that the Russian campaign reached 126 million people on Facebook and 20 million on Instagram.

That effort was not a one-shot deal: Russians worked to influence the 2020 presidential election, too. In 2021 the Office of the Director of National Intelligence concluded that Putin “authorized, and a range of Russian government organizations conducted, influence operations aimed at denigrating President [Joe] Biden’s candidacy and the Democratic Party, supporting former President Trump, undermining public confidence in the electoral process, and exacerbating sociopolitical division in the US.” But “(u)nlike in 2016,” the report said, “we did not see persistent Russian cyber efforts to gain access to election infrastructure.”

Moscow used “proxies linked to Russian intelligence to push influence narratives—including misleading or unsubstantiated allegations against President Biden—to US media organizations, US officials, and prominent US individuals, including some close to former President Trump and his administration,” the Office of the Director of National Intelligence concluded.

In October 2024, Matthew Olsen, head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division, warned in an interview with CBS News that Russia was bombarding voters with propaganda to divide Americans before that year’s election, as well. Operatives were not just posting fake stories and replying to posts, but were also using AI to manufacture fake videos and laundering Russian talking points through social media influencers. Just a month before, news had broken that Russia was funding Tenet Media, a company that hired right-wing personalities Tim Pool, Dave Rubin, Benny Johnson, Lauren Southern, Tayler Hansen, and Matt Christiansen, who repeated Russian talking points.

Now back in office, Trump and MAGA loyalists say that efforts to stop disinformation undermine their right to free speech. Project 2025, the extremist blueprint for the second Trump administration, denied that Russia had interfered in the 2016 election—calling it “a Clinton campaign dirty trick”—and called for ending government efforts to stop disinformation with “utmost urgency.” “The federal government cannot be the arbiter of truth,” it said.

On February 20, Steven Lee Myers, Julian E. Barnes, and Sheera Frenkel of the New York Times reported that the Trump administration is firing or reassigning officials at the FBI and CISA who had worked on protecting elections. That includes those trying to stop foreign propaganda and disinformation and those combating cyberattacks and attempts to disrupt voting systems.

Independent journalist Marisa Kabas broke the story that two members of the “Department of Government Efficiency” are now installed at CISA: Edward Coristine, a 19-year-old known as “Big Balls,” and Kyle Schutt, a 38-year-old software engineer. Kim Zetter of Wired reported that since 2018, CISA has “helped state and local election offices around the country assess vulnerabilities in their networks and help secure them.”

During the 2024 campaign, Trump said repeatedly that he would end the war in Ukraine. Shortly after the election, a newspaper reporter asked Nikolai Patrushev, who is close to Putin, if Trump’s election would mean “positive changes from Russia’s point of view.” Patrushev answered: “To achieve success in the elections, Donald Trump relied on certain forces to which he has corresponding obligations. And as a responsible person, he will be obliged to fulfill them.”

Today, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told a reporter: “The new administration is rapidly changing all foreign policy configurations. This largely aligns with our vision.” — Heather Cox Richardson

If true, then treason.

Thanks for this post. The bit about the struggle session was interesting. It was obviously a set-up, and stopping the aid so abruptly today was the obvious follow-up. Europe cannot make that good in a hurry. But I don't buy the idea that Trump is simply an agent of Putin.

If true, then treason. — jorndoe

Trump's relationships are transactional. What's he getting out of it? I think part of the answer is that he's clearing his desk in order to attend to China and another part is that he's trying to peel Russia away from China. Ideally, he would like Putin as an ally, but making him neutral would help too. It's quite likely that he sees Putin as a better ally than Europe.

But I don't buy the idea that Trump is simply an agent of Putin. — Ludwig V

I don’t think Putin or Russia did anything to cultivate Trump as an asset, but that nevertheless that is what he has become, much to Russia’s surprise and delight. It’s beyond their wildest dreams, something they could never have engineered.